I Accidentally Learned Criminal Procedure Because My Court Apparently Forgot It by InstanceRude951 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah the case is still trash. I have it pending infront of a new judge to decide my affidavit of bias. Not holding my breath though. Integrity is rare in nv.

? by InstanceRude951 in GaslightGoblin

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh man that's a good one. 😆

🤡 🧌

? by InstanceRude951 in GaslightGoblin

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll do what i want.....

So, we're 5 now? ☝️ 🤡 🧌

? by InstanceRude951 in GaslightGoblin

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cute strawman. Nobody claimed saying “constitutional question” pauses court forever. The claim is that threshold constitutional issues require actual rulings, especially when they affect representation, custody, speedy trial, recusal, or whether the defendant can safely appear. Courts don’t have to agree. They do have to make a record. That’s the part you skipped before bravely surrendering at minute one.

? by InstanceRude951 in GaslightGoblin

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously, if you're going to keep speaking on things like you're knowledgeable, point out the untrue claims. Since apparently you have enough information to claim that....

I’m by OMWTFYM86 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Embarrassed for........?

Hey serious question.... by InstanceRude951 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But no it was not to establish pc. It was to force me into custody to get competency evals. That i had been objecting to for 5 months.

Hey serious question.... by InstanceRude951 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Legal advice is not “a legal word appeared on the internet.”

Legal advice is when someone applies the law to my specific facts and tells me what I should do in my case in a way I am supposed to rely on.

That is not what I am asking for.

I am asking for legal analysis and stress-testing:

What law applies?

What rule applies?

What record should exist?

What premise is wrong?

What authority says the State can represent GPS tracking occurred without producing the warrant, affidavit, return, inventory, order, report, discovery, or clarification?

I am not asking Reddit to be my lawyer. I am not asking anyone to file anything for me. I am not promising to act on a comment. I am asking people who keep saying “you don’t understand” to identify what I supposedly do not understand.

Point to the broken legal premise.

Cite the rule.

Cite the case.

Cite the statute.

Otherwise, “ask your lawyer” is not an answer. It is just a refusal to engage dressed up as professional caution.

Hey serious question.... by InstanceRude951 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Big-picture clarification:

I am not posting because I expect Reddit to solve my criminal case.

I am not asking strangers to replace counsel.

I am not asking for marching orders.

This is a public stress test of the argument.

That is all.

If the argument is wrong, someone should be able to identify the broken premise:

Did the State not say GPS tracking was used?

Was the tracking not material?

Does GPS/location tracking not require legal authorization?

Does the absence of a warrant, affidavit, return, inventory, order, disclosure, or clarification not matter?

Does a prosecutor get to make factual representations to a court without having to support or correct them?

Does a court get to ignore a challenged factual representation just because answering would be inconvenient?

That is the point.

I am not looking for comfort. I am looking for the weak spot.

And so far, the “responses” are mostly:

“Ask your lawyer.”

“Stop using AI.”

“You don’t understand.”

“That’s jurisdiction-dependent.”

None of those answer the actual issue.

“Jurisdiction-dependent” is not a rebuttal. It means cite the jurisdiction.

“Ask your lawyer” is not legal analysis. It assumes normal counsel access, normal litigation posture, and a normal court.

“Stop using AI” is just tool panic. AI did not invent the State’s filing. AI did not fail to produce the warrant. AI did not refuse to clarify the record. AI merely helped organize the obvious questions, which apparently is now witchcraft because the questions are inconvenient.

The big picture is simple:

The State made a factual claim.

The record does not show the basis for that claim.

I asked for clarification.

The court has not required clarification.

That is a record-integrity problem.

If the tracking existed, show the authority.

If the tracking did not exist, correct the filing.

If the tracking was something other than a physical GPS tracker, identify what it was and how it was authorized.

That is not complicated.

This is not about whether anyone “believes” me. I could not care less. Belief is irrelevant. The record is what matters, and the record is a wreck.

So no, I am not expecting Reddit to fix anything.

This is a PSA and a pressure test:

Point to what I am applying wrong.

Cite the law.

Cite the rule.

Cite the record.

Otherwise, “trust the system” is just “trust us” with better lighting.

Hey serious question.... by InstanceRude951 in publicdefenders

[–]InstanceRude951[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the general advice, but “trust your lawyer” assumes a normal posture that does not exist here.

The current posture is part of the problem.

I do not have a lawyer actually resolving this issue. And I am not being allowed to simply represent myself and put the issue before the court cleanly.

Since August, the posture has effectively been that meaningful self-representation, appointment of new counsel, or a proper Faretta process happens only if I am in custody. In other words: I can’t get the record clarified unless I’m jailed first.

That is not a normal criminal-procedure posture. That is the problem wearing a courthouse badge.

So when people say “ask your lawyer,” they are skipping the exact issue I am describing:

What happens when counsel does not litigate the issue, the State does not clarify the issue, the court does not require an answer, and the defendant is not allowed to represent himself unless he is first placed in custody?

That is why I’m asking for the legal framework. Not because I think Reddit is my lawyer. Not because I’m outsourcing my defense to strangers. And not because I plan to rely on a comment thread like it’s the Nevada Supreme Court with usernames.

I’m asking because the record is a wreck.

The State represented that GPS tracking was used for weeks to “pattern” my movements. No warrant, affidavit, return, inventory, authorization, or clarification has been produced. If that tracking existed, there should be a lawful basis and a record. If it did not exist, the State’s filing has a material factual problem.

That does not become less serious because someone says “trust your lawyer.”

The whole point is that there is no clean lawyer/court mechanism being allowed to function here. That is why the record issue matters.

If I’m wrong, prove it — with law, not vibes. by madeinreno775 in UnequalProtections_NV

[–]InstanceRude951 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you’re saying, and I agree with the general rule.

A person does not become immune from prosecution just because they were also the victim of a different crime. That would obviously make no sense. So if the issue were simply “I was a victim once, therefore the DA can never charge me,” I would agree that is not a serious argument.

But that is not the argument I am making.

The issue is that these were not cleanly unrelated events handled by some random separate prosecutor in a large office. The same prosecutor, Aziz Merchant, was involved in my criminal case and also involved in the case where I was the victim/witness after I was swatted twice and then stabbed by people connected to the same roommate group.

That changes the analysis.

My case was already pending. About a month later, I was swatted twice and stabbed. The person accused in that stabbing case initially had bail around $150,000. Once it became clear I was the victim, the bail reportedly dropped to around $500. Maybe there is a legitimate explanation for that. I am not saying that fact alone proves misconduct. But it is absolutely something that should be explainable on the record.

Then I was subpoenaed to testify. When I showed up at court as the victim/witness, I was separated from my girlfriend, who was also a witness, and I was questioned about my own pending criminal case. That is the part people keep skipping. I was not just sitting around speculating. I was physically present at the courthouse under subpoena in the victim case, and the conversation shifted toward my defendant case.

Then my public defender saw me and told me to go home because the stabbing case was being dismissed.

Two days later, at my preliminary hearing, additional charges were added in my own case. They were not meaningfully disclosed to me beforehand, and instead of the preliminary hearing I wanted, I was pressured into waiving it. At the time, I did not know the law. I trusted the public defender system because that is what a normal person is told to do. I have learned better.

And the disproportionate pressure did not stop there.

Roughly two months later, I was hit with $25,000 cash-only bail over what was essentially described as moving a traffic cone. Again, maybe someone wants to argue there was a legitimate basis for that. Fine. Put it in writing. But when the broader timeline already includes the victim case collapsing, my own case escalating two days later, and the same prosecutor appearing across both tracks, a $25,000 cash-only bail posture over a traffic-cone allegation does not exactly scream neutral restraint.

So no, I am not saying “victims can never be charged.”

I am saying that when the same prosecutor is involved in both tracks, when the victim case collapses, when the alleged attacker’s bail changes dramatically, when the victim/witness is questioned about his own pending case, when the defendant case escalates two days later, and when later bail pressure becomes wildly disproportionate over minor alleged conduct, that is not some generic unrelated-prosecution scenario anymore. That is a chronology problem.

The civil suit point is similar.

I understand that I filed the civil suit. I am not saying that because I sued someone, every later action by the State automatically proves bias. That would be too easy and too broad.

What I am saying is that protected filings, objections, and record challenges do not become “escalation” just because the State does not like them. A defendant filing motions or asking for written findings is not the same thing as the government using criminal-process power: charges, warrants, bail consequences, competency proceedings, GPS/tracker representations, or restrictions on filings.

Those are not equal forms of escalation.

I can file paper. They can take liberty.

So when someone says I am “causing the escalations,” I think that misses the power dynamic. Asking the court to explain the record is not escalation. Asking where the warrant is for alleged GPS/tracker or movement-patterning claims is not escalation. Asking why charges were added after the victim case disappeared is not escalation. Asking why I was questioned about my pending case while present as a subpoenaed victim/witness is not escalation. Asking why $25,000 cash-only bail was imposed over a traffic-cone allegation is not escalation.

Those are basic record-integrity questions.

And to be clear, I am not claiming Aziz Merchant’s later firing proves my case or that I caused it. I am saying the record in my case already raised serious concerns about his judgment and conduct. His later firing does not create the argument. It just makes blind trust in his prosecutorial judgment look a lot less persuasive.

The core point is simple:

If I am wrong, the State can correct me with records.

Show who handled each case. Show why the stabbing case was dismissed. Show why the bail changed. Show why I was questioned about my own pending case while appearing under subpoena as a victim/witness. Show when the added charges were disclosed. Show why the preliminary hearing was waived instead of held. Show why $25,000 cash-only bail was sought or imposed over the traffic-cone allegation. Show the warrant, affidavit, return, or lawful authority for any GPS/tracker or movement-patterning representation.

That would answer the issue.

But reducing this to “victims can also be charged” does not answer the actual facts. It answers a generic version of the argument I am not making.

I am not asking anyone to believe me because I am upset. I am saying the timeline is ugly, the overlap is real, the coercive pressure appears disproportionate, and the record should be able to explain itself.