So, where were we on Collin Finnerty?

[Amianthus]

Mikey claimed that he viciously beat a supposed gay man, and the Judge, after soberly considering all the valid evidence, convicted him. And Finnerty was so convinced of his own guilt that he did not even appeal the decision.

Here's a few facts.

Some of the valid evidence considered by this judge in the case was a posting on Wonkette - a liberal, non-fact-checked blog (they just post rumors and celebrity sightings).

After the sentence, Finnerty's lawyer did indeed appeal the decision.

While the appeal process was going on, the charges in NC were dropped. After this, Judge Bayly set aside the conviction in DC and expunged Finnerty's record.

But of course, this is all still proof positive in Mikey's eyes that he's a slimeball. They just haven't been able to pin him down yet....

[sirs]

D'OH

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey claimed that he viciously beat a supposed gay man . . . >>

Bullshit.  That's lie no. 1.  I claimed he viciously assaulted the man, not that he viciously beat him.  He threatened him with violence for thirty minutes for no reason at all.

<<But of course, this is all still proof positive in Mikey's eyes that he's a slimeball. They just haven't been able to pin him down yet....>>

Sure he's a slimeball.  The facts that came out at the trial don't become non-facts because the judge lets him off on a technicality.  His plea of guilty, which contains an acknowledgement that the facts as read out by the prosecutor are true, doesn't vanish into thin air.  That his main defence witness lied his ass off on the stand doesn't suddenly - - with the technical setting aside of the conviction - - mean that what the guy originally testified to suddenly became gospel truth.

The guy is a piece of shit.  He was pretty lucky and he had a good lawyer.   Maybe Bayly committed reversible error.  That guilty plea in and of itself is a pretty good indication of what went down.  He wasn't exactly facing capital punishment if convicted.  For some reason, you want to defend this scumbag piece of shit.  Was it the violence that attracted you, or that it was focused against gay men?

[Amianthus]

That his main defence witness lied his ass off on the stand doesn't suddenly - - with the technical setting aside of the conviction - - mean that what the guy originally testified to suddenly became gospel truth.

Well, the defense brought 4 witnesses who all corroborated each other's stories. And the 4 witnesses did not all know each other.

The prosecution had one witness who contradicted the 4 defense witnesses.

And, as I said, I have pled guilty - via my lawyer - for a traffic offense I did not commit in exchange for a plea deal. So, pleading guilty to a lesser charge does not make the original charge automatically valid.

And if the judge just thought that he was just letting him off on a technicality, why did the judge go to the lengths of expunging his record?

So, he's a slimeball because a couple of people make that charge (even though there is evidence that the people making the charges are lying) and a liberal blogger said so?

Justice in Mikey land - be very scared.

[Amianthus]

Bullshit.  That's lie no. 1.  I claimed he viciously assaulted the man, not that he viciously beat him.  He threatened him with violence for thirty minutes for no reason at all.

Did you not compare his actions with a Nazi stormtrooper "beating the shit" out of Jews?

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, the defense brought 4 witnesses who all corroborated each other's stories. And the 4 witnesses did not all know each other.>>

Money finds witnesses.  Some of whom aren't very smart, either.  At least one of whom told a different story in court to the one he told in the witness stand.  Which the judge was not too pleased about.

<<And, as I said, I have pled guilty - via my lawyer - for a traffic offense I did not commit in exchange for a plea deal. So, pleading guilty to a lesser charge does not make the original charge automatically valid.>>

So when the charges against you were read out in open court and the judge asked you if the facts as read were substantially true, you lied to the court and said yes?

<<And if the judge just thought that he was just letting him off on a technicality, why did the judge go to the lengths of expunging his record?>>

What would he have a record for if there was no conviction to back it up?  It would be the height of idiocy to leave the guy with a criminal record when in fact he had never been properly convicted of any crime.
<<So, he's a slimeball because a couple of people make that charge (even though there is evidence that the people making the charges are lying) and a liberal blogger said so?>>

Not really.  He's a slimeball because he himself admitted to doing what he was accused of doing, witnesses backed that up AND one of his own witnesses either lied in court or lied to investigating police officers.  It all adds up.  That a smart lawyer got him off on a technicality is not all that impressive after an original guilty plea.

<<Did you not compare his actions with a Nazi stormtrooper "beating the shit" out of Jews?>>

Sure - - on a totally different issue, whether the object of a hate crime had been mistakenly identified or not and how that would affect culpability.  An issue where the characterization of the action itself was completely immaterial to the argument; I could have used murder as the crime in the example, or wrongfully firing a good worker - - the point would have been exactly the same - - that a mistake as to the victim's identity does not make the crime itself any more or less heinous.

[Amianthus]

So when the charges against you were read out in open court and the judge asked you if the facts as read were substantially true, you lied to the court and said yes?

As I said, my lawyer stipulated that the charges were true. I was never sworn in, nor did the judge ask me any questions directly.

Actually, it went kinda like this:

Charges were read (including the big one, driving without insurance). I had brought my proof of insurance (which pre-dated the charge) with me, just in case the judge did not accept the plea.

The prosecutor said "The defense and I have arrived at a plea deal. Defense will stipulate to a charge of driving over the limit, agree to pay a fine of $100 and court costs, and 6 months PBJ." (PBJ is shorthand in Maryland for "probation before judgement" - if you are not charged with any offenses during your probationary period, the record of the arrest and conviction are expunged and your driver's license is left with no points.)

The judge asked my lawyer "Is this correct to your understanding?"

My lawyer: "Yes, your honor."

Judge: "Done."

The judge then had his clerk enter it into the computer system.

I later found out what the problem was. The state's DMV had the wrong VIN listed for my vehicle, so when the insurance company reported it with the correct VIN, it never got onto my DMV record. When the cop called in my plate, the DMV computer had it listed as no insurance on record. In addition to the charge above, plus lawyer's fees, it also cost me a second registration fee, a towing and storage charge, plus a crap load of time getting it all straightened out. I was stopped for having a tail light out, which is the only thing I was guilty of, the cop piled a load of other charges on top when he found out I had "no insurance".

[Amianthus]

At least one of whom told a different story in court to the one he told in the witness stand.  Which the judge was not too pleased about.

Where are the witness stands in Canada? In the US, they're in the courtroom.

What would he have a record for if there was no conviction to back it up?  It would be the height of idiocy to leave the guy with a criminal record when in fact he had never been properly convicted of any crime.

In the US, being arrested - even if the charges against you are cleared - results in an entry on your police record. The judge removed even the arrest from his record.

Not really.  He's a slimeball because he himself admitted to doing what he was accused of doing, witnesses backed that up AND one of his own witnesses either lied in court or lied to investigating police officers.  It all adds up.  That a smart lawyer got him off on a technicality is not all that impressive after an original guilty plea.

The Judge (Bayly) said that he was expunging the record after "learning more about [Finnerty's] fine character." So, the judge in the case - who presumably knows more about what happened than you do - thinks he has a "fine character." I guess Finnerty's middle class father was able to scrape up the money to buy the judge, too, huh?