In my State, permits to carry concealed weapons are not available to private citizens. Only law enforcement officers are afforded that privilege. I am a D.A. and I have appointed several unpaid "public service" investigators which makes them sworn officers with full police powers. This is definitely NOT a Posse or Militia situation--just the opposite. In fact, I have vigorously prosecuted members of both groups. It is simply my notion that my community can be a safer place if very conscientious, highly stable people carry weapons if they are qualified and emotionally suited to do so. <br><br>That leads to my questions. <br>1. Is anyone aware of a good screening tool or tools that might be appropriate to require of participants? I have zero budget for this, so it would pretty much have to be something I could administer personally. <br>2. Has anyone taken or been made aware of a model 8-16 hour training/certification program that could be adminstered by competent volunteers? <br><br> I would greatly appreciate any ideas. Also, any opinions as to whether this type of program is a good or terrible idea would be welcomed.<br><br>I hope that no one sees this type of question as a misuse of this site. If so--please let me know. I have seen so much expertise and good common-sense advice come from these forums, I thought I would try to tap in on some of that expertise for free! <br><br><br>

Florida was the first of the Shall Issue states and requires a quantity of class work to get it, so they might be able to send you an outline of thier course. It's probably the first of the modern courses of it's type, and with the results of a decade of Shall Issue are pretty hard to dispute. <br><br>As for screeening, I'd say limit yourself to the basics. If you can't buy a handgun under CGA 1968 on the grounds of felony conviction, mental imbalance or drug addiction, then you can't carry it. Anything else starts getting dangerously close to prior restraint. I can't imagine you want someone fighting something with your name (and rep as a DA) attached to it on PR grounds.

Robb, I can tell you without reservation that there is NO appropriate screening instrument for your purpose. Part of my clinical practice is "threat assessment", and I often evaluate even certified law enforcement officers to determine if they should remain armed.<br><br>There are probably sources which will sell such screening instruments to you. I'll argue (I've testified to the fact) that while this may make you feel better, there is no scientific basis for the concept of simple screening in this context. On the other hand, even with the best.. most complex.. and professional psychological evaluation available, you better your odds minimally over a toss of a coin in most circumstances.<br><br>A complex question.

Naro and Cyber...thank you much for the very useful information. I have followed up on a request to a colleague in Orlando, Cyber , and they in fact have a freely available outline for their required course....I wish I had thought of that--grateful that you did. Now to find some free (or very cheap) instructors! lol<br><br>Naro--All of the competent experts I have used in the context of commitment or sentencing proceedings seem to agree that future dangerousness is impossible to predict by any means other than past conduct. I actually had one (very colorful ) psychologist put it as "The only way you know what a jackass is going to do in the future is determine who it has kicked in the past." I guess I was hoping that among the "general" population where you don't have a track record (hopefully anyway) there might be some quick, dirty and accurate scale. As cynical as it sounds, I am thinking it might be worth using a flawed tool simply to show the effort in the event of the unthinkable. (I may be talking myself out of this whole thing). I note you are a wilderness hunter. My best friend is also a psychiatrist and hunts annually in Alaska for Moose. Wonderful meat. I am wondering if this is a shrink thing? lol<br><br>If you are testifying about risk of future danger, I assume you are called for sentencing and/or commitment proceedings? And if you testify that there is no valid test, you must be on the side of truth and justice (the prosecution of course). D o you do any NGI work? I am preparing a trial where the defendant is alleging a dissociate disorder all the way to the extent of MPD--the first for me, where they are actually claiming MPD. I am fascinated but OVERWHELMED by the extent of the dispute that seems to be raging in the psychological community about the viability of the defense (and even the validity of the disease). There seem to be lot of professionals out there that think that Sybil must have been faking! Not sure I am ever going to get it sorted out.<br><br>At any rate...Thanks to you guys for the help....<br><br>Take good care....Robb<br><br> <br>

Robb, I don't do ANY criminal forensic work. I keep my criminal activities limited to my own time. As a clinician who has been in active practice for >25years... I think the MPD diagnosis and defense is BS. I think I'm in the majority, but there are some "experts" who make a great living on the defense side of that question.<br> Re: the idea that screening would be simpler in the general population of folks than in the "jackass" population... actually, the OPPOSITE is true. On the carry permit issue, for instance, the "base rate" in society for carry permit holders to actually use the weapon in a criminal endeavor is so low that "prediction statistics" fail. To oversimplify - the "target event" (criminal use of a handgun) has to occur with a high enough base frequency in the population being tested. <br><br>Enough of that academic stuff... just don't you pay your hard earned $$$$$ for any mope who says he can do that kind of evaluation for you with any accuracy!!

I passed a class in preparation for receiving a carry permit<br>in Florida.<br><br>Although my class might be the exception, it was quite through. It<br>was taught by a county deputy (a Sgt) who was a very good <br>instructor. In fact, prior to starting the class, he gathered all<br>the name/dob/ssn of the folks signed up and ran a FDLE/NCIC<br>check. He wanted to know who he was instructing.<br><br>If I remember correctly, FDLE is the one issuing the carry<br>permit. Not any local authority, so there is a much broader<br>interest in who gets the permit. <br><br>I wish all states had similar programs. If drivers license are<br>good across state lines, then why not carry-permits? But<br>I digress.... :)<br><br>Jeff

I can name one reason why full co-recognition off CC permits won't happen: Vemont. If you can legally buy it, you can legally carry it here, and the thought of 600,000 people who can just whip out any id that holds thier legal address bothers a lot of the politicians who stole police uniforms. Not as easy as it to get joint legal residency here, and/or copy our state ids. <br><br>BTW, we recognize every sentient being's right to keep and bare, including sea monsters, yeti/bigfeet and little green guys from Neptune.

Some states do recognize each others carry permits, so you might want to inquire before you take your next trip.

Rob you said this: "If you are testifying about risk of future danger, I assume you are called for sentencing and/or commitment proceedings? And if you testify that there is no valid test, you must be on the side of truth and justice (the prosecution of course"<br><br>being on the side of justice is not a trueism..... sorry thats just the way I feel... That side is rift with abuse, and untill that side is not abusive there will remain a certain distance between the authority and the common man.<br><br>As for any permiting it is a mere hoax, and rather meaningless. The only thing that might be good that can possibly come from permiting is it may keep out convicts, and menatly disturbed people with a previous record.<br><br>In 1977 I moved from Fla to Mass, and was issued a carry permit in 3 days, something that was unheard of at that time. Even the police were to be checked out for better than a 6 weeks delay.<br><br>The problem with the permit is that it is useless. How do I know that you might ask.... Well the chief of police that issued the permit to me soon thereafter blew out his brains with his side arm. I still have that permit to remind me, and would offer details in e-mail to prove it.<br><br>I once again moved to the state of New Hampshire where again I was issued permits to carry and still have one.<br><br>The chief from that town is now residing in prison due to the fact that he was convicted for extortion, and embezzelment recently.<br> In the same county recently the "DA" was also convited of 512 counts lumped in to 2 for sexually molesting children! For Christ sakes! I had dealing with this "DA" and it does my heart good to see him in dire straights I might add. He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, insult my wife openly, and anything else that might get him his beloved conviction. He failed in my case. But even 5 years later I am angered by abuse of the system. <br><br>Just so you know I am 50 years of age and am no kid...<br><br>Now I know you have nothing to do with this, but it should show that no permit is needed period! That any law abiding citizen should not even have to apply for said permit. That said permiting should be allowed as the state of Vermont does, and that it should be National. That is to say if I have a drivers lic. and I go to any state at any time that it is Lawful to carry for protection of self and property period.<br><br>To me anything less is a violation of the 2 nd Ammendment.<br><br>No one can see the future, unless of course you believe in Miss Cleo........ Mac

Mac, you have had more than your share of bad experiences with law enforcement and that is a tragedy. My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Certainly there are at least as many evil people in the ranks of prosecutors as in any other occupation or profession. I have had to prosecute other prosecutors, police officers and even a judge in my career. In each of those cases I argued for, and usually obtained, a stiffer penalty because of their profession and the inherent breach of trust involved.<br><br> The position of prosecutor, however, is unique in the legal system. A prosecutors only responsibility is to do justice. A defense attorney, on the other hand, must represent his/her client to the best of their ability, even if the upshot is to thwart justice. That is the source of my "truth and justice" remark. As you point out, this assumes an honest and fair prosecutor. I assume that someone must have prosecuted the DA you describe. Thast is the magic of the system isn't it? Ultimately no one is above the law.

Well, yes Rob "I assume that someone must have prosecuted the DA you describe. Thast is the magic of the system isn't it? Ultimately no one is above the law. " Yes that is the beauty of the system. It is to bad however that this DA probably cost others time and money in the process. For example I was arrested, and I paid bail, and even after I was found not guilty I still was not returned bail, and or paid for my time to defend myself which I did alone, nor the cost of materials and photos to prove it. At first it was going to be a felony if I had been convicted, but each step of the way I went the charges were reduced. I asked for a public defender, so the felony was dropped to a misdemenor, and again the charges were lowered. This DA called and said to just skip the arrainment, and I believe that was so a bench warrent could be issued. I went and was the last person there. The judge asked me who I was and why I was there. I told him and he said fair enough.<br>Later at the trial I made the judge swear in the DA. That seems to be accepted that the DA is considered to be sworn in automaticly. Since I "KNEW" for a fact the DA was a lying scumbag from what he said in front of me to my wife in the courtroom lobby! , and I noticed that he had not been sworn in, so I asked like I said above. This did not stop the DA from lying either..... I also "KNEW" that this DA would make a big deal of my apperance, because at the time I was arrested I had a beard. I do historical re-creation for a living, and make items to sell as well. So before the trial date finally became due I had to do a lecture on a Native American in 1758. I became in living breathing color that Native American, and had to shave the beard off. I brought a photo to expalin why I had no beard and the DA fell right into my hands on that one.<br><br>I gave the judge that photo...... I wonder where that is now? Would that be in the court records? I handed it over as a personal jesture to the judge to keep. I would hope the judge still had that photo...Oh, by the way I suppose you should know the nature of my crime.... someone hit and ran a parking area lamp post at the hospital where I took my wife for an eye exam during a snow storm. While I don't know who hit the lamp I did see it down, and moved it by hand. At that time I saw the base swept off and 4 wires standing straight up, looking like repair was emminent.<br><br>At each snow storm after I went to that hospital and took photos of damged trees, signs, guard rails, monuments, and curbings. I dated the photos accordingly, and at each subsequient storm more damage was found in multiples. Finally I was thrown off the property while photographing the hospital plow in use! I have a photo of the truck moving with no apparent driver, and the truck has no undented panell, but the roof! This truck was so bad that there was no way the inspection sticker was legal. After I was thrown out I went back anyway, and that was about 2 weeks later, and the truck had been replaced! But alas it was dented even though it had been brand new! And So.....<br><br>I see a double standard, not just with law officers, but all those in power. Today it is the judges for the Olympics!<br><br>Please explain why the common man is a lesser creature when those in power are corrupted so easily? This doulbe standard just ticks me off! Please understand you do not tick me off, not you personally!<br><br>If anything the fact that you chat here with me maybe I will change my very jaded views..<br><br>From where I sit I think that those who have power should have to "Prove" before the fact that they are not going to be abusive of power, and are going to see to the public interest that they have sworn to protect, and not the other way around. it is "We the People" that have the power, and not the public servant which has merely sworn to protect the interests there of. But this is not the way things work out in the long run.... The abuse seems to start with the secretaries at the town halls, and car registeries if you want my not so humble opinion.<br><br>I ain't sayinI am any angel either, but I try to call the shots and take my lumps fer it! Mac

"Please explain why the common man is a lesser creature when those in power are corrupted so easily?"<br><br>Sadly, Mac, I think you have answered your own question. When those in power are corrupt--we are all lesser creatures. It is Orwell's notion that "some are more equal than others" isn't it? I really don't believe that public officials are any more likely to be evil than anyone else, but, tragically, they aren't any less likely either. I think it seems more widespread because of the greater amount of evil they do because of the greater power they have. It really is a matter of perception. Look at the reputation of Police Officers--before 911 the perception was that they were all crooks because of what we saw in New Orleans, L.A., and too many other places. After 911 we have a much different (and I believe more accurate) opinion of the average cop on the street. The real life answer is probably somewhere in the middle.<br>Unfortunately your case is not as unusual as it should be. I have lectured about this problem at seminars. Usually it doesn't result from evil intent, but rather, ego involvement by the DA or ADA. (Although maybe evil was involved in your particular case). What happens is that on a police report a case looks solid and like one that should be prosecuted, but as the case progresses, the truth slowly emerges and it becomes evident that it should never have been charged in the first place. Then, instead of admitting the mistake, apologizing and moving on, the prosecutor's ego and fear of public embarassment or even a lawsuit causes him/her to forge ahead hoping that somehow it will " grow up." Of course it never does and tragedies like yours occur. Again, this isn't common, but it is too frequent and usually does not start out as an intentional thing. Of course that does not make it acceptable and I know none of this makes you feel any better about what happened to you--but may put a more human face on most prosecutors. <br><br>I am going to assume that your photos were accepted as evidence in your case. Were they marked as exhibits? If so, you should be entitled to withdraw them and have them returned to you if there are no appeals pending.<br><br>I have often wondered about the inherent unfairness of the truly innocent defendant who is put to the expense of proving it. There is no system in place to compensate them. It is a pretty hollow victory for someone to be aquitted and then owe 25,000.00 in fees and costs. The only saving grace is that the vast majority who are prosecuted are guilty (even the ones aquitted on technicalities). I can honestly say that in 14 years at this, I am pretty confident that I have never tried a truly innocent person. I have charged some, but dismissed before it ever got even close to trial (the above situation). Of course, if like you ,you are in the tiny percentage who was tried while being innocent, this is very little solace indeed. I hope you will not let it so embitter you that you give up on a system that, while flawed, is one we can be proud of and defend with honor. Take good care... Rob

First of all I would like to thank you for the reply.<br><br>What I think a part of the problem is, is the fact that there is ego involved with being in law enforcement from the get go....<br><br>ideas that have to do with helping humanity get confused with the ego as well in the begining.... I have had LE friends in the past. They are still friends just not in LE now. They to became jaded with the humanity the sought to help and protect.<br><br>my case was some 7 years past now... I remember it like yesterday because of 2 reasons. 1 my adoring best friend (my wife) was treated lesser than a common [censored] by the DA. Any other man in any other setting than a court room lobby would have suffered my hand, and willingly I would have paid the legal price. 2 I kept my own records written, photographic, and a weather report that was not sealed, and not allowed. All my photographs were allowed, as they were taken by me, but developed by the local grocery store...... (I had no way to alter them) but the DA did try.... he also lied about the color of my truck..... go figure? But I brought the very same truck to all hearings....<br><br>The single photo of which I speak only proved my need to shave...... I considered it a gift to the judge of no value...<br>I question where it might be, thats all..... Would it be illegal for the judge to take that 1 photo home? I was in the common dress of a warrior from the Ohio Valley in the year 1758 complete with paint.<br><br>truely this was a small matter, but it was a big deal to me. I might have been convicted! And if it had been a felony, that would have done in my life long love for guns.... I have had my own guns since I was 6 years old.<br><br>My feelings on that are what end up in double jepardy... in other words should I become a felon for unjust reasons, or become a criminal just because I own guns. I will forget about society complete, and continue to aquire guns, and use them, but be prehaps a bit more dangerous...if you get my meaning...<br><br>During a divorce I was broke monitarily for 10 years. I lived in a tee pee for 3 of them.... I saw more cheating lawyers then than you could shake a stick at.... the worst died after he was slapped on the wrist due to my turning him in to the proffesional conduct committee...... right after.....<br><br>I avoid police....... and I avoid problems as best I can.... I don't look for trouble.... But I have little trust these days... I wish it was different...... I find anytime police become involved things tend to happen more than I like... sort of a factor of 3.... must be Murphy's Law kicking in......... thxs again for the chat.... I await your reply...... if it is forth coming....... Mac

You would be amazed, Mac, at how often the fact that a felony brings a restriction on gun possession becomes THE central issue of a case. Well, maybe you wouldn't, but most people that don't hunt or own guns for other purposes would be. I have actually had people tell me they would rather go to prison for 10 years than lose their ability to hunt an d possess weapons. Of course there is no way to make that deal, but it seems incredible that someone would suggest it. The problem is compounded because now there is a Federal law that carries the same prohibition after any misdemeanor that is domestic abuse related. I had someone offer me a huge bribe if I would change a charge to one that did not involve domestic abuse. The great irony was , If he hadn't offered me the bribe, I would probably have lowered it to an ordinance violation or dismissed on a deferred prosecution agreement. I was stuck when he made the offer. <br><br> Of course the automatic restriction makes no sense for non-violent, non-gun related felonies, and it would certainly make my job easier without it. If someone uses a weapon to commit a crime, then it is clearly appropriate (as is mandatory prison), but for a guy with federal arithmetic problems or a kid who hotwires a car?<br><br>I have to think that your mistrust stems pretty much from a terrible experience with one really evil guy...right? Also, if I am reading well between the lines, from the fact that you represented yourself, and although successful, saw the system as unfair. I assume that you could not get the weather report into evidence because of the hearsay rule which disallows even public records unless they are certified. A layman would have no reason to know that, and it can look like an attorney is beating him up with the rules of evidence. The problem is that those "technicalities" are really there as a safeguard for the parties and you can't ignore the rules simply because one party is not aware of them. I HATE it when a defendant represents himself because it gives me two options: (1) ignore the rules of the system I am sworn to protect; or (2) prevent the defendant from effectively presenting his case. This is really not an attractive choice for me. <br><br>So, if you assumed away this one HUGE jerk of a prosecutor, the injustice that he threw at you and the awful insult to your spouse, and then looked at the system--does that change anything?<br><br>I know that this is kind of like saying "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?", but I really think that this might be a useful exercise. Police and prosecutors need the help of decent and honest citizens--not their avoidance. But be careful, if this exercise works at all, next I am going to ask you to ride with a cop for a shift to get a better look at that side. You would be amazed at how that can change a perspective!<br><br>Take care, and let me know what happens. Rob

I wish it was just a single incident, but it is more compounded than that.<br>The light pole was perhaps the worst for me because of the insulting my beloved wife. But the DA was willing to take the argument to extremes... And try to get me to break more laws just to get a conviction. I wanted a lawyer and was refused when the charges were made to a lesser degree. I felt just to prevent a lawyer. I was extremely poor then, living off less than $4,000.00 a year for 2 people, and with no other kind of welfare.<br>Previous to this I had been living in a tee pee for 3 years due to the fact that I had been hurt on the job,( 2 herniated disks and 1 shattered) and was also far behind with child support, which is now paid in full, and history. But then I had been fighting in court over 10 times, all with no lawyer.<br>My first wife wanted until a lawyer took her for the greedy woman she is, a simple divorce. But then the lawyer decided he could get more by raking me hard, and he did. He was also a Northern County Judge, but acting as a lawyer for her.<br>I caught him in lies and he was relieved from the case in time, but was replaced by another lawyer doing the same things, and again another lawyer which my son out grew, and after that my X still tried. She brought up more with out bothering to tell me, and her lawyer let her do it! I ended up in court with just a notice to do so with no idea why! I was given no warning, or shared information of any kind. In that hearing I was asked by the judge what I intended to do about the monies asked for, and I stood there rather stupid looking, and asked what this was all about HUH??? My kid is of age, she has been paid off 100%,.... money for what?? The judge went ballistic when my X's lawyer said I had not been informed of tuition requests before the hearing, and I was forevermore released! Finally!!!!!<br>The court never kept the rulings fair, and I was to have been able to "Have My only SON for the weekend every other weekend. I got to only see him 3 times in 10 years! I had a guardian adlitium appointed, and Once the guardian called and made no quirks and miffs... that if I wanted to see my son that up coming weekend to call my X. She told me that she just got off the phone with my X and that I was to call pronto post haste! I did so for 30 minutes getting a solid busy signal. I called the Guardian back to say so. I was answered with "Impossible", but 45 minutes later the guardian called to say "Oh I see what you mean." This was related at the next hearing and was ignored, and were all the other stipulations my X broke, which remained that way until I was finally released from the contracts that ended upon my son's age, and the courts decision to do so.<br>My son had returned him self to me now that he can't be disallowed..... He is doing well, and our relation has recovered, but not due to the courts.....<br>The court tolerated all kinds of mischeif from all 3 lawyers. I am proud that I with no lawyer was able to have the crooked judge lawyer barred from the case, but disappointed that since he was a big wig judge lawyer that he felt he had to cheat to win. Why is this cheating to win something a judge lawyer no less has to do to win?<br>Just like the weather report.... You are 100% correct! I ordered up a weather report, and had no I idea that it would be considered that I had some how altered it!!! I was lucky that my photos were counted, and allowed! I was questioned about who took them, and fortunately I had taken them all, and had a common developing done. had I developed them myself they would have been tossed out. I did not know that fact either....<br>I could not afford a lawyer I was barely eating, and I could not be appointed a lawyer in either of those cases.<br>Quasi Latin was used as much as possible, and I am hard of hearing..I can hear but not well, and my hearing aids did not work well at all in a court room with height ceilings and hard bare walls. About all I could hear was steam in the heating system, and stand there and wonder what the words were that I was hearing. I was under extreme pressure just to think.<br>I complained that I could not determine the words, so the hearing were moved closer to the boilers! That made things worse! I asked to be able to stand closer to the judge, but that idea went up in flames. My current wife was sometimes allowed to repeat the words so I could understand, but not always.<br>Fair system nope.... no way.... not to me... The DA, and all my X's lawyers were given time to think and to answer, but I was always cut off, and I have no way to know how to relate from mid points or in reverse, which I believe is a tactic to make one look like he does not understand what one is talking about!<br>Simply starting at the beginning was considered stupid, so the judges would interrupt until I was no longer at the right place to make any sense what ever! Then they would back up and ask questions that would have been understood had I been allowed to present my story from the beginning.<br>At times I just want to die because of it. It seemed to me that every one was nuts, and I was becoming nuts myself with the quasi Latin. After I would leave I would go to a library to try to figure out what was what, and more often than not was booted out when it was discovered that i was quitely reading law...... The fact that I was copying law made the library folks tell me that it was not my office..... Oh well.... It seemed the court did not like papers that had become wet, and dried, but living in a tee pee is not the best place to store papers..... I did the best I could, and the court was invited to come see the tee pee any time by surprise visits, but NO that would not due..... That was refused out right, the idea being that it was better to allude to me as a liar for saying that I did live full time in the woods in a tee pee.....<br>You see then my X just wanted me in JAIL..... she even tried to get restraining orders to keep me from her house, her place of work, and my sons school. She was very upset after the court refused because I had done nothing to deserve this restraint..<br>By now I suspect you think I am a nitwit, but i am not a lawyer. I found very hollow victory with win by stalemate, just by attempting the truth as i viewed it.<br>3 lawyers 1 DA all felt the need to lie, and cheat to win, against a just barely educated man. I have only some college which was for history and art DUH! lawyer I am not.<br>I think it a travesty that the common man is not allowed to properly defend himself, and that until the law allows such that the system is jaded towards the common man. It is no wonder with such a system that many take the laws into their own hands!<br>Even though I walked away a freeman for a lamp post I felt dirty some how. I was out time and money, my dignity was damaged, and I felt dirty. There was no "We are sorry to have we made this error" The was ok I see we have wronged you, and we will do........ for you to help you feel clean...... I still feel dirty, butt I gloat that the DA is doing time for 512 counts made in to 2 counts for an unrelated to me situation that he alone created. But even that still leaves me feeling dirty. Perhaps I am too sensitive.<br>Ok I have gone on long enough I bet for that topic, and it may be more than I wanted on the Internet too.....<br>As for riding with cops on the beat I have..... i had friends that were cops. I said before they are still friends, but not cops any more.<br>I worked professionally on the cars they used, and drove those cars alone. I can see what you mean. My Cop friend Denny was accosted by a biker that had a bigger gun, and that changed the chief's idea about guns for the Dept. I was offered one of those guns right through the Dept purchase and still have that Remington ton Rand today.... My Cop friend David just about had it when he arrested a Catholic Priest for OUI, and when the Priest was refused a drink of water in a holding cell my fired David caught the Priest drinking from the toilet bowl! (holy water?) Gezzee!<br>Maybe because I was a kid in the 60's and was bitten by a police dog at a war rally, arrested for it and got away I am dirty....... i dunno, but I wish I felt that the common stood a chance with the system, and that I felt clean....... Mac<br>

I am waiting for a jury to return to see if truth and justice prevail in one particular case! lol<br><br> I worry that these posts might be considered way off topic, but I suppose that dealing with the Court System is certainly an important Urban Survival issue?<br><br>Mac, unless someone else is writing your posts, I don’t think there is any way the Court officials thought you were stupid!<br><br>Clarence Darrow once said something like "anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client and a lawyer." Please don't get me wrong, you kicked some serious butt acting on your own behalf (or as the quasi latin guys would say "pro se" ), but if even Clarence Darrow needed a lawyer, you and I certainly would. Easily said huh? But if you have no money and they won't appoint one (which is why they lowered the charge to a misdemeanor, that takes away the automatic right to appointed counsel that comes with a felony) what do you do? For others who may be in the same situation they should call the bar association and check for a legal aid program or a list of lawyers who do pro-bono (quasi latin for free work but it will help to know the terminology). When I was in private practice we had a strict rule that we did at least 20% as free work for people stuck in your kind of nightmare or something similar. You would be surprised by how many lawyers do that, but you may have to be persistent to find one. It surprises me how many people go to court without a lawyer (and could clearly afford one, but want to save money). Even the most brilliant people can't teach themselves enough law in a short time, and more importantly, can't quickly teach themselves the additional technical and procedural rules that a trial lawyer needs to know. (You learned this the hard way). These people would not fly their own plane or fix their own brakes without training, but they will walk into a courtroom. I recognize that this was NOT your situation—you had no choice, but if you have a judge who will hold you to the same evidentiary requirements as a represented client (and most do) you are stuck. What is so frustrating is that you lose, even when, as in your case, you are clearly in the right.<br><br> It is not fair, but look at it this way. If you and I were each lost in the woods with no hope of rescue, you would have a much better chance of surviving than I (at least at this point, but I am working on it). It is not fair that I die and you live (at least from MY perspective), but the better trained and prepared win in any forum....right? <br><br>I have seen cases where someone ended up paying more than $30,000 in support payments that should have and would have been satisfied if they had known which motion to file in which court at the right time, or more importantly, as in your case, are wrongly denied time with their kids. If you had known how to properly file a "show cause" order, your ex would have had a simple choice, i.e. allow visitation or go to jail. I know I am sounding really preachy here, but it is frustrating that the system can be used by the unscrupulous to defeat justice.<br><br>I guess that even the most just and fair system can be misused if access by a lay person is limited by technical rules. The bottom line is that if you have to go to court on anything more serious than a traffic ticket do EVERYTHING in your power to get a competent lawyer to help you. I do NOT mean this as a self-serving commercial(especially since I am not in private practice), but I think your situation is a perfect example of the potential tragic consequences that may otherwise occur. <br><br>The bottom bottom line, Mac, is that it appears that there were some involved in your situation who should feel ashamed or dirty—but I can’t see how you are one of them in ANY way, shape or form.<br><br>Take good care….Rob<br>

LOL i wish sometimes i never bought this infernal machine! yeah its just Ol' Mac typin, and thinkin...<br>As for being off topic I am not sure.......... I suppose if you crash a plane, one just might be in the trial of his/her life. I can think of a few things that might happen if you live past the crash..... if the plane hit a house, or for that matter goes down in water... The EPA goes bonkers these days with a bit O' oil in the beloved water.... And Oh Dear God help us all if the plane were to kill a "Spotted Owl" ;-)<br>I will take my chances in the forest to survive any time compared to a courtroom.... Maybe no one would come check because then they would be on my terms "In the Forest".<br>About the things I did do in court... I did look up and use the "show cause" which brought the ever so sweet X into court, and the court said my visitation was to be renewed! But the sweetie X stonewalled and stonewalled more. She worked it like this: I drove the 45 miles after the phone call and she would say my son was grounded, went out unexpectedly, or some other BS excuse. This was after the court order to renew.... And then once to show good faith to the court she arranged to go off with her then lover to the Caribbean in Feb, and it was wicked cold Tee pee living and she knew it. Also my son had a pretty bad cold when I was notified to come get him. I should have known as she called a friend with a phone to tell me. That was about the only call I ever got... I discovered my son was ill standing at the door! I asked him if he was up to coming at all, and he seemed to want to get away from her to... During that visit he mentioned changing his name to mine as a Jr, since only the middle name is different from mine...<br>So I took him, like a fool and we had a great time for as sick as he was. I made him pine needle tea with honey, and kept him warm and occupied. The few days went fast, and I returned him home at the appointed time, but had to wait a few hours for her to return intoxicated in my opinion. (typical for a wanna be party girl, and I knew of the 3 year affair while I was still married)<br>But I was astounded to receive in the mail another HEARING, for what i had no idea once again until I got to the court.<br>This time it was because I had allowed my son to become ill !!!!<br>And I could not prove that I picked him up sick! She knew it, he knew it but was not allowed to testify! And I could not prove a [censored] thing. She was trying to use that to prevent future visits!<br>Anyway so much for that..... I am thinking of writing a book about the whole [censored] thing, and all this is just of the top of my head here, the whole thing in all of these threads, But I have this written as it happened in journals. I did not write those as i was too close and the pain was bad then, but my current wife wrote it as it happened, and so I can refresh anytime I want, and perhaps more accurately than here where I am bound to err.<br>I for one hope that the SHTF never happens, but if it does in a way I will rejoice, as I can take care of my self and my wife no problem even if I loose every single thing I laid by for a rainy day, but in a land with out LAW for even as short a time as 6 weeks there would be some very unhappy lawyers, as I would have free time being that I would not have to work to much to eat hot food, and make clothing and shelter...<br>Oh that brings to mind a rather funny to me remembrance.<br>You see I have been into the "Old Ways" now for better than 20 years, and I had taught my X when we were still married a few things like fire.... SO before I was as far to the bottom as I could ever hope to get (pre Lawyers and court dates), and was working out of state for a friend that was doing some construction, I got this phone call from my X. It seems she went off during a hurricane to meet the lover in Nantucket.<br>Now I will tell you I have no luck, and never did. Murphy has had a free ride in my hip pocket all my born days!<br>My X gets on the ferry in storm sea conditions and the ferry doesn't sink. Then she gets to Nantucket and meets the Bo', but the power goes out, and the whole island is in the dark. But wait they go swimming even thought the season is late, but the storm brought heavy surf and warm water. They both get caught in the undertow, and dragged out to sea for a bit, and even later I heard that there were sharks in that warmer water, but they both escaped with no fear (prolly intoxicated) And then after they return to the cottage, she makes a fire to cook soup, and neighbors, and locals show up to borrow the fire to cook on! She called to say thanks after she returned home. But there is more, the sea came up high and removed the lawn almost to the door, but did not take the cottage leaving it on a cliff.<br>So you see I have no luck! The ferry could have sunk, the cottage could have been washed into the sea, she could have burned down the cottage, she could have been eaten by sharks, she could have drowned, she could have fallen off the cliff! Man some times I just gotta wonder;-)<br>So that will end this topic so far as I am concerned.... <br>I do continue to wonder about what might happen if some day the Law says a mandatory turn in will happen at 2 cents on the dollar... You see even if there was a turn in at 100 dollars to the dollar I would prefer to keep my guns. In fact and I know this will never happen, but the day 40 agents kick down the door to get my guns I would give them to them, but say come back tomorrow for more ;-) with a wink... I can make guns from junk, and have