frankie_the_yankee wrote:txinvestigator wrote:frankie_the_yankee wrote:txinvestigator wrote:You guys realize that state law gave him two appeals, one of which a Justice Court Judge agreed with DPS' ruling, the other appeal he did not make in the time allocated by law.
He ain't getting a CHL in Texas, regardless of how much money he spends on an attorney.
Tell that to OJ Simpson.
OJ was aquitted by a jury of a criminal violation based on reasonable doubt. How is THIS the same?
There was no reasonable doubt as to OJ's guilt. He was aquitted mainly because Mark Fuhrman had used some bad language at some time in the past and lied about it on the witness stand. Also, the fact that OJ's attorneys were even allowed to pursue such an irrelevant line of questioning speaks to the massive incompetence of the prosecution team and Judge Ito as well.
OJ's aquittal was one of the most notorious cases of jury nullification in modern history.
Your opinion, not fact.
As to how Kungfu's case is related, it's simple.
1) At the time OJ was aquitted he was the guiltiest man in America.
so what? lots of "guilty" people get aquitted.
2) He had a ton of money and he spent it on lawyers.
Again, so what? You are talking about a CRIMINAL case where a jury of peers decides based on reasonable doubt, stacked on the side of the defendant.
3) If not for #2 above, he would probably have gotten the death penalty.
The relevance to a non-criminal administrative case is......?
4) You spend enough money on good lawyers, and you can move mountains.
and if the other side spends enough money on good lawyers.......?
Now in Kungfu's case, we have a guy who actually does qualify for a TX CHL,
I disagree. he does NOT qualify. he was convicted of Possession with intent to distribute.
but who spoiled things for himself by giving the wrong answer when he filled out his application. He gave that wrong answer because he did not avail himself of proper legal advice first.
No, he was honest, as he should have been. If a person is convicted of a crime that is called a misdemeanor in their state, but Texas calls it a Felony, it is a felony for CHL purposes. Accordingly, if a person receives a legal benefit called Expunction in their state, but Texas has a DIFFERENT definition, the Texas definition stands. Just like DPS and a court decided in this case.
It's clear that DPS and the JP were wrong in the way they decided this case.
It is clear that DPS and the judge were RIGHT.
