Risky Business

[Jumper]

Ronnie-
i'll certainly let maxx tell his story.
( i think he is in another thread actually)



but it's not the  first time i've heard of a husband being found guilty of DV without any real evidence, that's for sure.

To place DV charges ,and convictions,
into the "fair play" you feel exists in *normal* criminal or felony court charges
like robbery battery, etc
is odd, as the dynamics of the courtroom,
, due process ,and the laws themselves are not the same ballgame.

a simple battery charge of two men in a bar fight,..
is handled as you indicate, and the conviction ,if entered,  is based on actual
physical evidence or first hand eyewitness.

in the cases of a husband accused of pushing and shoving,
or DV in any form, it does not appear to be that way..


You're right, every prisoner is innocent if you ask him
despite due process.

but in the case of DV situations like Maxx's
,my opinion is that *due process*
 has been tossed out the window ,,
like the baby with the bath water.

[Ronnie]

That's why my first question was "who" found him guilty.  Criminal court...civil?  A USCIS officer?   There is a different standard for each and the term "guilty" only is properly used in the criminal conviction.

[BC]

but in the case of DV situations like Maxx's
,my opinion is that *due process*
 has been tossed out the window ,,
like the baby with the bath water.Ronnie-
i'll certainly let maxx tell his story.
( i think he is in another thread actually)

Agree AJ..  The atmosphere of 'no tolerance' is overwhelming.

I remember when I was 14 or so.. one of the neighbors was throwing clothes out the window, yelling, screaming etc..  The German cops came, ascertained that no bodilly harm was done and that was that.. they left and no charges of any kind levied..  I'm quite sure today it would be handled in a similar manner.

The problem is that LE guys/gals and Judges are no longer able to make solid decisions based on what they see..  The ability to really 'judge' has been drastically degraded in the US in favor of a manual.

A machine can do that..



 

[Maxx2]

Maxx,
Forgive me for not taking the time to read your full story as it may appear in another thread.  I am curious about your statement that you were found guilty of "pushing and shoving."

Who found you guilty?

What evidence was presented against you to justify such a decision?
In criminal court, he said - she said, with no credible witness or physical evidence is not sufficient for a conviction.

I'm only curious and, please don't take offence, but nearly 98% of convicts in prison continue to proclaim their innocence.  What can you offer that will put to rest the doubts in my mind that naturally spring up about a claim of innocence when one has been convicted by an official tribunal of some kind?

Never before shown trial transcript

It was a civil trial for a restraining order. The Judge who made the decision used to
sit on the board of directors of the women's shelter that represented her. Currently
he is listed as one of their charitable contributers.   

Ronnie, if there was any real evidence against me it would not be a "very close case"
or a "very, very close call". It was her story against mine and in the judge's opinion
her version on one allegation was "slightly" more convincing that my explanation. So
I was found guilty of domestic abuse. She used this conviction as proof of being abused
and filed a I-360 spousal abuse petition against me.

What was interesting during the trial was the judges demeanor during the trial. He did
his best to appear neutral but he did let his emotions of anger show... at her. The judge
was clearly upset not in his words but the way he glowered at her. She shrunk down in
her chair as he read his verdict. The one women from the shelter sitting next to her put
her arm around her and said "Elvira, you won!". Elvira didn't seem convinced. All she
must have felt was the judge being irritated and looking at her. Besides this I think
she wanted was a conviction for "significant abuse" to file in her abuse petition as for
what the USCIS calls for in their website. What she did not know, I believe, was that proof
of "significant abuse" is not needed to get a I-360 self petition approved even though the
USCIS calls for it. I could go into why I believe she believed she needed more than a
conviction of "pushing and shoving" but that goes with my story.

I was told by my woman attorney that "pushing and shoving" conviction was so that a
restraining order could be issued and to prevent a lawsuit by the "abused" against the
"guilty". That "pushing and shoving" conviction is mutual guilt and prevents
a lawsuit. I was told the the judge was being kind to me.



Maxx

[Ronnie]

Okay then Maxx.  Your ex prevailed in a civil matter for a restraining order. 

I will suggest that you stop using the term, "found guilty" (you were not) and "convicted" of abuse (you were not).  You're over dramatizing the facts and a lot of people may be erroneously carrying over your exaggerations and taking a false impression of the judicial system.  The system has enough flaws, you don't need to manufacture one for our benefit.

[Maxx2]

Okay then Maxx.  Your ex prevailed in a civil matter for a restraining order. 

I will suggest that you stop using the term, "found guilty" (you were not) and "convicted" of abuse (you were not).  You're over dramatizing the facts and a lot of people may be erroneously carrying over your exaggerations and taking a false impression of the judicial system.  The system has enough flaws, you don't need to manufacture one for our benefit.

Sure I was found guilty Ronnie. You are being harsh. I was made guilty enough by this trial and by her to be put into the National Airport computer system and reminded of my conviction by woman TSA officer a year and a half later during a connecting flight.  I talked with another fellow in Phoenix a retired cop who was convicted of the same thing by his Russian wife. He to was stopped at airport security by a woman TSA officer and she has some sharp words for him. Ronnie, I am not trying to slam dunk you here with my post on the proceeding page. I am just using your statement to introduce the evidence to help remove any doubts about me for you and others and to do a little education. I didn't "over dramatize the facts". I just told it like it was. 

  


Maxx     

[Ronnie]

No Maxx,

Convicted and guilty are legal terms you are misusing.  OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" in his criminal trial (which is not the same as innocent). The civil trial found him "liable" for the wrongful death of Nicole.  OJ killed his wife in fact.. Everyone knows that, but he is not guilty nor was he convicted.

Being put in the TSA computer?  That one begs more explanation.

[Maxx2]

No Maxx,

Convicted and guilty are legal terms you are misusing.  OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" in his criminal trial (which is not the same as innocent). The civil trial found him "liable" for the wrongful death of Nicole.  OJ killed his wife in fact.. Everyone knows that, but he is not guilty nor was he convicted.

Being put in the TSA computer?  That one begs more explanation.

Well I am glad I wasn't found "liable" for the wrongful death of Elvira... Geeezz

"Being put in the TSA computer?  That one begs more explanation."

The restraining order was mentioned and if I was aware of it. I was at least 400 miles away at the time from her and heading in another direction on my next flight.

Ronnie, over the years I have had a number of people on these boards who have wanted to find me guilty of something or another. Some sort of sport for them I think. I hope you are not going to be one of them. Remember your first RW fiancee and her children? The same thing could have happened to you with them if you hadn't caught on about your being possibly set up by them. This is Risky Business indeed! 

Peace,

Maxx

[Ronnie]

No about why your ex prevailed in a case where the judge clearly was suspicious of the wife, what did she present that tipped the scales her way?  What did you present or how did you counter her claims (which it seems the judge was reluctant to believe). 

Sitting on the board of a shelter or donating money is completely irrelevant to his decision.  Even I can see that from 2,000 miles away.

[Maxx2]

Sitting on the board of a shelter or donating money is completely irrelevant to his decision.  Even I can see that from 2,000 miles away.

You are naive about the bias that is in the justice system against men being accused by women of anything.

"No about why your ex prevailed in a case where the judge clearly was suspicious of the wife, what did she present that tipped the scales her way?  What did you present or how did you counter her claims (which it seems the judge was reluctant to believe)." 

Oh man <shaking my head> She could have said anything and she would have won. It was a "very very close call" and maybe (I am guessing here) the judge was like you Ronnie and figured that something must have happened, a hunch or he wanted to find me guilty/liable to cover his as$ just in case (BillyB can fill you in there about that. He knows quite a bit about this subject). IMO if a judge finds another guilty or liable then it should not be on a borderline "very very close call" case.



Maxx

[BC]

Ronnie,

I find Maxx's comments that TSA 'reminded' him of the restraining order much more interesting than the specifics of his case.  I'd be raising hell with TSA..

A restraining order is probably issued at the slightest 'whiff' of possible trouble.. the judge surely doesn't want to throw it out and later find out that something happened..

[BC]

Ronnie, Maxx,

The part of the document that you seem to be concentrating on is just judge bla bla.. sort of a conclusion to appease both parties.

lines 6 to 10 is where the meat is..

[Maxx2]

What did you present or how did you counter her claims (which it seems the judge was reluctant to believe). 

This where you have misread the trial transcript. He DID believe my testimony that this case was about immigration fraud on her part and her needing a conviction against me to support her abuse petition. Essentially that she was a GCG. But according to what he said that this immigration matter belongs to the USCIS (BCIS then) to deal with and not his court. In court for a DV charge the accused has to prove his innocence. Her testimony is given the benefit of any doubt over the man's.      



Maxx  

[Ronnie]

Ronnie,

I find Maxx's comments that TSA 'reminded' him of the restraining order much more interesting than the specifics of his case.  I'd be raising hell with TSA..

A restraining order is probably issued at the slightest 'whiff' of possible trouble.. the judge surely doesn't want to throw it out and later find out that something happened..

Correct.  The TSA thing is very suspicious...I'd like to know more about that because I don't see a connection between a restraining order in a family law matter and an airport security threat.  If there is, I'd raise He!! as a citizen as I think if the watch list gets bogged down with TROs then a real threat can slip through in the crowd.

Maxx, I'm not naive about Judicial bias.  I have filed a complaint with the judicial review board against the judge who refused to follow property settlement law and awarded most or all our community assets to my ex.  He also manipulated the the rules to where I could not file an appeal.  It was a very technical ploy.

And, no, Maxx the judge was not like me in figuring something must have happened.  First, I was wondering what the evidence was that tipped the judge AGAINST his apparent bias in YOUR FAVOR? 
I was also suspecting something must have happened only in the context of your statement that your were "convicted" and "found guilty."  Those words imply a criminal prosecution where the standard for conviction is very high (beyond a reasonable doubt).  That's why to cast a cloud over yourself by using those words is not a wise thing to do on your part.

One thing you're right about and that is the awarding of the TRO is don't just in case the lady is telling the truth, even if his gut tells him she's lying.  Therefore the TRO is no conviction of you..it doesn't make you guilty of anything!  I ask you to stop using those words because you give a false impression of the legal system and you paint yourself in a bad light.

It's the aftermath of the ruling that baffles me.  There should be no further negative consequences on you than you have to stay away from her.  Period.  That's got nothing to do with TSA, your record or your K-1 future.

[Maxx2]

Ronnie, Maxx,

The part of the document that you seem to be concentrating on is just judge bla bla.. sort of a conclusion to appease both parties.

lines 6 to 10 is where the meat is..

I agree and that is why I had made a close up of that part a few years ago when I was going to post my story.



When my lawyer and I heard him say this we were convinced we had won. A minute latter I sat there stunned.



Maxx


 

[Maxx2]

Ronnie,

I find Maxx's comments that TSA 'reminded' him of the restraining order much more interesting than the specifics of his case.  I'd be raising hell with TSA..

I am not alone

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html

WASHINGTON, DC - The nation's terrorist watch list has hit one million names, according to a tally maintained by the American Civil Liberties Union based upon the government's own reported numbers for the size of the list.

"Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters,' with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Congress needs to fix it, the Terrorist Screening Center needs to fix it, or the next president needs to fix it, but it has to be done soon."

Fredrickson and Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, spoke today along with two victims of the watch list: Jim Robinson, former assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division who flies frequently and is often delayed for hours despite possessing a governmental security clearance and Akif Rahman, an American citizen who has been detained and interrogated extensively at the U.S.-Canada border when traveling for business.

"America's new million record watch list is a perfect symbol for what's wrong with this administration's approach to security: it's unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of travelers in this country," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program. "It must be fixed without delay."

It is all about control.



Maxx

[Ronnie]

This where you have misread the trial transcript. He DID believe my testimony that this case was about immigration fraud on her part and her needing a conviction against me to support her abuse petition. Essentially that she was a GCG. But according to what he said that this immigration matter belongs to the USCIS (BCIS then) to deal with and not his court. In court for a DV charge the accused has to prove his innocence. Her testimony is given the benefit of any doubt over the man's.      
Maxx  

Maxx, this is the last time I'm going to say this.  You're smart enough to understand but apparently too stubborn or too invested in your story to modify your language.

First, your ex cannot "get a conviction" for anything.  Only the people of your state can do that through the criminal courts.  Second, Domestic violence is a crime which which you were apparently not charged.

Just like the Obama speech (and remember I'm no supporter) you have misprepresented and changed facts to create a dramatic story.  If you keep doing it, in light of the fact that you now know the proper meaning of the words you're using, then you are doing so insincerely and only to mislead others... and, that's not appreciated.

[Maxx2]

"Pushing and shoving" is domestic abuse and that is what the judge said I did. The woman prosecutor out in the hallway before the trial wanted me to plead guilty to spousal rape* in exchange for dropped charges. This is a felony and I would have been a "class ?? sex offender" and a convicted felon if I had taken her offer. Ronnie, for crying out loud don't down play my case with semitics arguments. It was a very serious case that could have lead to all sorts of hell for me. I hope I am not being too dramatic for you saying this...



Maxx

* the judge said, "I see no evidence of this happening" or words to that affect. 

[BillyB]

Ronnie, "conviction" and "guilty" are only words. Maxx does have a record since he's in Homeland security's system as being a wife beater. Now every TSA agent looking at a monitor with Maxx's info will give him the evil eye besides the nasty comments. As far as they are concerned, Maxx is guilty, mentally unstable around women, and potentially dangerous.

Family court judges are allowed lots of discretion when making their rulings. They of course do not want their name in the paper for making a ruling that pisses off women rights advocates who will take note and action. Nobody fights for the white guy so it's okay to put him down. Ruling against a woman's word might hurt a judge's future political ambitions. Prenupts can also help prevent judges and their bias discretion from trying to get around state guidelines. An ex could easily get more assets than her husband when it's all said and done. Judges also would rather give a woman, especially an immigrant, more in divorce than her husband instead of making her eligible for taxpayer funded social programs. When a man makes a mistake, it will get expensive. It's one reason I'll tell guys on the forum not to put up with any insincerity or BS from a woman or make an excuse for her behavior. Good women wouldn't do that to their men period. Get to know your woman before proposing.

[Ronnie]

Jeez Billy..."conviction" and "guilty" are only words?  What the he!! does that mean?

Do you know Maxx is in the DHS system as a wife beater?  Do you know that?   If I was in that system because some ex got a TRO against me I'd be making sure that problem got fixed, not harping about the system.  The system ain't perfect but I must say, it's not as bad as those of us who have been screwed by individual judges want to portray.

I'm just asking Maxx to stop using words that carry a clear and serious legal meaning inappropriately.  Why's that so hard?  If he's been put in the TSA computer, I want to know who did that?  How did it happen and why has Maxx not sued DHS to have it removed?

Are these not fair questions?

[Maxx2]

Maxx,
 What can you offer that will put to rest the doubts in my mind that naturally spring up about a claim of innocence when one has been convicted by an official tribunal of some kind?

It started with this.

I answered Ronnie kindly and provided evidence that I was not guilty of charges that the prosecutor was pressing against me.

Ronnie passes over this and goes after what words I use to describe what happened to me and accuses me of exaggeration.

I then tell him that the charges ranged from spousal rape to pushing and shoving and this was no little tempest in a teapot.

Ronnie ignores this and now I am being accused of not standing up for myself by not suing the Department of Homeland Security. 
Why does "Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters,'" not do this? Because it's like "taking on
City Hall". Remember that old expression?


Maxx

 

[ScottinCrimea]

I'm not a legal expert and maybe I'm way off in my thinking, but it is my understanding that we are talking about two types of courts here - family court and criminal court.  A decision made in a family court is not necessarily transferred to a criminal court.  For example, the family court may decide that there is sufficient evidence of domestic violence to grant certain judgements against someone related to a divorce, but this wouldn't translate into a criminal judgement unless the person was formally charged by the government.  It would be a "The State of XXX vs. John Doe rather than Mrs. John Doe vs. Mr. John Doe.

Maxx, were you ever charged for a crime of domestic abuse or was this related to a family court matter?

[edited to change "civil" court to "criminal court".  Still may be incorrect but perhaps more descriptive of what I was trying to convey.]

[Ronnie]

It started with this.

I answered Ronnie kindly and provided evidence that I was not guilty of charges that the prosecutor was pressing against me.

Ronnie passes over this and goes after what words I use to describe what happened to me and accuses me of exaggeration.

I then tell him that the charges ranged from spousal rape to pushing and shoving and this was no little tempest in a teapot.

Ronnie ignores this and now I am being accused of not standing up for myself by not suing the Department of Homeland Security. 
Why does "Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other 'suspicious characters,'" not do this? Because it's like "taking on
City Hall". Remember that old expression?


Maxx

Dang Maxx!  What prosecutor?  Were you charged in criminal court or not?  The evidence you present is one page of the transcript from your ex's successful attempt at getting a restraining order in civil court.  Where's the prosecutor pressing charges against you?  Your ex's attorney is not a prosecutor and the transcript you offered is not from a criminal court.

This discussion is bizarre!

[BC]

This discussion is bizarre!

Not really.. could have gone something like this..

Wife gets referred to the court.. alleges DV
The prosecutor will look at the case and say.. well first things first.. lets get you a restraining order..

..at the hearing for the restraining order, (in the hallway) the prosecutor might have approached Maxx's lawyer pushing for some kind of deal as long as the hearing outcome was not known.

When the decision was made, the prosecutor either dropped charges, and/or the judge formulates his decision in the manner described by Maxx, preventing further attempts at prosecuting him.

I suspect something along these lines..

In any case, see no point in trying to pin Maxx down for sharing his experience..  he's obviously not a troll and is not writing from a jail cell.

[ScottinCrimea]

So per ronnie's posts, Maxx was not found guilty and was not "convicted' of anything, although whether it happens in family court or in criminal court, it certainly feels the same.