Jump to content

*TheMidwestsBest*V2


MitchThe$nitch

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
thought this was a good piece of information. found in msk thread.

 

in addition, even if someone does snitch it isn't always documented in any paperwork,

it depends on what type of level people are snitching on. so there may be no paperwork to show.

 

a common misconception for many graffiti writters, just because there is no paperwork it doesn't mean someone didnt snitch.

 

during preliminary phases of investigations, if information given in certain ways (even verbally during a brush with the law) it is not always documented, even if it is, most of the time you won't ever see these documents at the discovery phase of your court proceedings when you receive your dockets.

 

Example:

 

detective work is like algebra, exspecially when dealing with graffiti. Detective's know that 2+x=7.

they know that 7 is their suspect and sometimes already know their identity. (exspecially in certain graffiti cases)

 

they also know that 2 is some evidence as in a "painted spot". logically x=5 however sometimes they need someone to clue them into "X" something said to re-assure their thought and feelings(connect a dot or 2), in turn they will with this magical "x" peice of the equation put togather a few loose ends in their head but because they are stupid and dont know little details or even if they did, they needed someone to tell them that in fact "x=5" and in fact that individual added to their case, they jsut needed someone to tell them the answer they already knew. further more, the retarded cops sometimes will insist they figured out 5 on their own because 2+x=7 and 5=x is so obvious. thus no paperwork.

 

Then of course you have the full blown trial case of testifying in front of a judge (which you may not even present for unlike the movies or law and order. if it is for a warrent or an inditement.), which is in fact on paper, *these documents are often supressed out of protection of the informant/case and are used to gain warrents and or evidence to obtain convictions which you as a defendant will never see nor your lawyer, unless you got some lawyer blowing the city clerk after hours (which lets be honest how many jewish lawyers are gonna suck off some fat ass dude behind a desk).

 

However your lawyer may know that multiple warrents and or subppoenas were issued or gained during your arraignment(s) or discovery, and if some are suppressed it is out of protection for a person or out of protection of a "on going" investigation, and such evidence against you would be imparative to such an investigation, therefore again you will never see the affidavits. but you will know that there are protective acts, depending though on the nature of the case there can always be slip ups on the District Attorneys behalf, and you might luckily find out a thing or two about your snitch, because of wording in other affidavits that you might receive that are not protected. 95% of the time there will be atleast some warrent or subpoena that is not protected, hopefully there is something there that indicates some thing of interest.

 

 

this is how the police and the english court system (much like the american justice system) works.

 

here you go abstract saw you posted this here, figured you would enjoy my 3rd verse;

 

in response to allot of private message's i will answer one of the main questions here.

 

people asked why cant you or can you challenge the "protective orders" so on and so forth.

 

in the court of laws of course you can challenge these protective orders. this is called a motion and it

requires your expensive lawyer which you are paying god knows how much an hour to draft essentially

a essay (aka real expensive). where your lawyer is basically trying to gain information that the court's

judge deemed to be protected, for various reasons to see if it is accountable, to find out the direction

your case might take so on and so forth..

 

so in a nut shell you are telling a judge which issued these protective orders (which may be the same

judge for your proceedings) that he in fact made the wrong decision to "PROTECT" these documents

because you wish to see this evidence because you would like to decide if there are grounds to dismiss

this evidence. Which normally is not going to go over to well. Because this is real life and not a fucking

movie.

 

since we now agreed that this wont happen because you are telling the court(s) and judge(s) that they

were wrong for even allowing any of this evidence to be involved with the case/or effect the courts

proceedings. Which usually by nature's of these cases are some of the best elements of the DA's

argument. SO there is a 95% chance (or higher) you will not see these affidavits/statements/subpoenas

and other such documents.

 

At a certain point you will sit down with your lawyer and you will probably ask him the question who did

snitch on me? or how you can find out who snitched? and he is basically going to tell you his professional

opinion from dealing with cases like this before and from citing certain paperworks and taking into account

the nature of what type of information is involved with your case. and he is basically going to tell if there

even is a snitch involved, if so, who they would probably be (if even known), or what they might have known,

as in who are the only people that would know "X" and from there; the work is on your very own behalf.

and just be thankful you got a "professional opinion". review your paperwork buddies.

 

This is often the case with most cases in general that you plea out to. most people don't take their cases

to trail. if you go to trail there is a small possibility of finding out who your snitch is depending on their

involvement with your case they "may" be asked to testify, but at this point for a small chance of this you

are paying lots of money and looking at harsher sentences.

 

most people at the same time are so quick to call people snitches because they don't or can't fathom they

were stupid enough to get caught in the first place. so if your going to make that accusation have something

to back it up.

 

enjoy the internet babble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...