Results 31 to 40 of 51
-
10-19-2019, 06:45 PM #31UnregisteredGuest
-
10-19-2019, 08:56 PM #32UnregisteredGuest
Wrong piece of paper cowboy! We knew it would be too difficult to understand for the Village Idiot 😂
-
10-26-2019, 11:50 PM #33UnregisteredGuest
He and others can’t even differentiate between Probable Cause and Conviction 🧐
Back to school for some people 😂😂😂😂
-
10-28-2019, 05:51 PM #34UnregisteredGuest
Well next meeting they should have some time 😂 to figure it out
-
10-28-2019, 06:03 PM #35UnregisteredGuest
Actually the term you are looking for is arguable probable cause. You couldn't even get that. LOL
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...eout-Memo.html
-
10-28-2019, 07:02 PM #36UnregisteredGuest
No. You are wrong Cowboy 🤠
I know that’s hard to comprehend but WRONG
Next!
-
11-03-2019, 08:55 AM #37UnregisteredGuest
-
11-03-2019, 01:24 PM #38UnregisteredGuest
Black and white , documents? Evidence?
There is NONE. Ask SAO, ask FDLE, ask FBI ask DOJ ask Ethics Commission.
Then come back with their response 🤔
Go back into your “safe space” and 😢
Porter Roth Fletcher and current council will be running the City of Homestead in great fashion as done before and proven
HPD Chief Rolle Colonel Kennedy will be continuing to run a fine Police Dept
-
11-03-2019, 02:03 PM #39UnregisteredGuest
Since you appear to have a problem reading or opening documents, here it is for your consumption. Please point out where you think the SAO saw probable cause.
Filling Decision:
Upon reviewing the case and conducting the Pre-Trial conference, it became instantly apparent that there was no evidence of Tampering. Officer Monaco was apparently a back-up officer on the open misdemeanor case. However, nothing in the post be the defendant indicate that the defendant would do some action if the Officer proceeded with the misdemeanor case.
After discussing the case with Division Chief Jonathan Borst and ASA Stewart Hendrick, we all concluded that the defendant’s behavior and the evidence provided did not amount to stalking. The defendant voiced his dissatisfaction with Officer Monaco on a public forum and never made any threat to the officers.
I also looked in to 843.17 Unlawfully publishing Name & Address of Police Officer, however not only does the defendants actions not fit this statute but this statute was found to be unconstitutional in Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee 709 F.Supp.2d 1244.
-
11-03-2019, 06:09 PM #40UnregisteredGuest
Probable cause exists many times. If SAO does not want to prosecute that is their decision 🤷🏻*♂️ Funny how some people use the SAO decision to stand behind ad their evidence and facts. But when the SAO does not investigate or prosecute another the condemn and spit hatred at them
Like said before twisted contorted facts, BS propaganda gossip and rhetoric
Next!
Bookmarks