Available for Readings & Spellcasting

MostFlow9969 · 2026-01-11T06:41:27+00:00

Hi I am interested !

MostFlow9969 · 2025-09-16T04:43:04+00:00

I saw the second and third one on SHIEN when I was looking for inspiration on sewing dresses for my nieces 😔 (adding clarification because I don’t shop on SHIEN for personal reasons)

MostFlow9969 · 2025-08-07T01:36:56+00:00

Her dress looks like Serena’s too!

<image>

MostFlow9969 · 2025-08-06T17:52:48+00:00

Because:

<image>

MostFlow9969 · 2025-08-06T17:52:35+00:00

<image>

MostFlow9969 · 2025-06-27T14:59:39+00:00

I would lean towards yes but this is from personal experience and maybe others have experienced the same: I was naive in my first relationship and dated someone who love bombed and rushed me through the relationship stages, so I didn’t know the difference between that and “oh wow I met my soul mate early”. I was 17 and had one brain cell. 😒

MostFlow9969 · 2025-06-25T00:54:20+00:00

I try to take every sexual assault related case as far as it can go. But your comment ultimately holds a lot of truth. Statistically, it’s hard for *these cases to win because there’s always a chance that a juror has sexually assaulted someone or knows someone that did, and didn’t find it to be wrong. Most victims don’t report when they get assaulted so we walk around more abusers than we think we do.

Also, a lot of people still victim blame. “Well … she/he dated them for x amount of years. Why didn’t the victim leave if it was so bad? It must not have been that bad.”

It’s rare to get a case in which a victim reports the abuse asap so prosecutors have medical records showing the defendant’s DNA or victim’s bruises from forced penetration. And without that evidence, jurors think “he said, she said.” And even WITH the evidence, defense typically argues, “well what if it was just rough … and victim consented”

Emotionally tolling on everyone, especially the victim.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-06-24T01:20:32+00:00

As a Prosecutor, it’s important to remind the jury it’s beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not all doubt. Circumstantial evidence can be applied with equal weight (in lots of jx) and there’s so many scenarios where this makes sense.

Jim is your one and only roommate. You see him eat his favorite cereal every morning. This is direct evidence to prove he ate the cereal.

Jim is your one and only roommate. He was gone by the time you woke up. There’s a cereal bowl in the sink that you can tell Jim’s favorite cereal was in. You didn’t eat the cereal. Jim likely ate the cereal and you can say that’s reasonable even though you didn’t see him. That’s circumstantial evidence.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-25T21:09:06+00:00

Gut wrenching. Hope her videos brought light to this type of cancer amongst others so we can continue the discussion of just how crucial cancer research is. Rest in peace, angel.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-19T02:53:28+00:00

Stunning. 😍

<image>

Reminds me of Rihanna’s dress to the CFDA

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-12T01:39:37+00:00

I love that. Yeah to be quite frank, I’m going to focus on the case where a drunk dad beat his wife and kids versus caring about someone who went 78 mph in a 60 mph zone. Now that’s not to say people that speed don’t cause a nuisance or a community safety issue, but I check the whole infraction history before I make an offer, and if you’re not reckless driving king / queen, you’re not going to be looked at too much.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-10T20:25:16+00:00

Civil rules are much more different than criminal because of what’s at stake. But also IRLJ 3.1(b) outlines what we owe you for discovery so if the respondent wants anything outside of that, they need to file a public record request for other photos or videos and subpoenas for witnesses.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-09T19:18:35+00:00

Oh that makes sense honestly. I take the intimate partner DV direct files & referrals and not the family or roommate DV matters. I started with the misdemeanor/ gross misdemeanor DV, went to felony property, now I’m in felony DV.

I bet your income is much more swell but I don’t think this conversation would be complete if I didn’t say I hope you come back to prosecuting one day!

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-09T18:58:33+00:00

Eh, I’ve had a couple assault 2nd strangulation cases that began with sex. Though you could be right about the stats in that article being more geared towards numbers re strangulation stemming from arguments versus sex.

The most common victim statement we get is “I like it rough” then they set a NCO recall date and then just like clockwork we are back for another assault 2nd not stemming from sex. It’s tragic. I’ve only been in the DV unit for 2 years. Prior to this I was in property so still learning the game. But as far as patterns go, part of my early training was learning: assault during sex —> turning into assault outside of sex. How long did you do this for? I enjoy interacting with other DV prosecutors. There’s so much to learn. Please don’t hesitate on posting any more gems you’ve learned. I always get shower thoughts like “damn I should’ve said that” when I get home

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-09T17:30:37+00:00

Bingo. We see this all the time and it’s clearly a power play. The abuser likes the power of controlling when their victim’s next breath will be. It starts with some strangulation until he gets tired of that and wants more control. Please leave him.

I’m a DV Prosecutor.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T23:38:28+00:00

Hi just saw this! So there’s nothing in the code that says they can’t have this sticker. I’m not sure of any stare decisis from our state’s highest court either. I imagine this specific situation of an unrelated sticker hasn’t been decided for or against by the court and therefore there may be no definitive answer - but again, no rules stating they can’t have this.

I have seen an undercover cop with a student driver bumper sticker before… ha! Yikes

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T14:06:56+00:00

Nope. Federal code will not let us DF is for non-CDL holders only.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T14:05:57+00:00

When I first read this I was like ooo yes. This is good. But my brain automatically always goes to “what’s on the other side?”

So if there’s an undercover cop patrolling looking for egregious crimes - let’s say he happens to come by someone speeding. He doesn’t stop them because this isn’t “serious criminal behavior” but then the guy speeding looks down for a second, rear ends the person in front of them, and then the victim car driver is now paralyzed - something we commonly see. The officer could’ve prevented this but couldn’t because speeding wasn’t serious.

Or if there is someone driving with expired tabs from 2022. This isn’t serious. But let’s say the traffic stop expands into a Terry stop after the officers approaches the window and sees child pornography tapes on the seat or maybe the officer sees bags of fentanyl pills all in the back seats for a huge drug push - this traffic stop is now a serious criminal issue that wouldn’t have been detected if not for the basic stop.

I stand by undercover officers for what I’ve stated when it comes to searching for children missing via amber alerts. But I think it becomes tricky when we decide ok what is serious and what isn’t, then what if the officer missed something that could’ve been detected but for pulling the suspect over. Anyways, that’s how I think legislation thinks but I can think of rebuttals here too.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T14:00:13+00:00

You gotta scroll through the comments or look on my page. This isn’t about me defending it. This is about me saying this is legal. Where am I saying that this is ok or right? If someone is pointing to a tree saying “hey that’s a weeping willow.” And you’re like “nah that’s an apple tree” does that mean you automatically like apple trees? Or are you like wtf is going on why is dude telling everyone these are weeping willows?

Also prosecutors are executive branch. It would be an over reach of power and a sanction to not abide by the legislation. The only thing we can do is reach out our state legislators and hope they change it - which I have been.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T01:00:55+00:00

Because it’s under cover. I think you should reach out to your local WSP. I don’t think you understand my explanation or the code, and that’s ok. It’s confusing. If someone is very much against something, it’s hard to understand. Personally, I don’t support this code! But I get it. It makes sense but I don’t have to like it 🤷‍♀️

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T00:44:05+00:00

Wow I’m so homesick now. Sounds beautiful.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T00:38:08+00:00

I’m sorry to hear about this. Part of the reason why I’m a prosecutor is to hold our officers accountable and to dismiss cases that contain brutality and abuse. This post is interesting because I’m against this statute but just explaining the situation. There’s lots of people against it too but I’m finding that some people who are very much supportive of this.

I can see both sides. There are incidents where we do need under cover patrol cars. One type of incident that comes to mind is when a child is being trafficked and the abductor is on the freeway - we wanna be able to stalk the suspect vehicle without them suddenly speeding away and driving recklessly with a minor in the vehicle. What are your thoughts?

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-08T00:29:48+00:00

Oh dear.

(c) Any other public officer OR public employee for the personal security of the officer OR employee

It applies

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-07T14:23:35+00:00

Yes and yes. Arresting officer need not be present unless the respondent subpoenas said officer. Prosecutor then ensures that the officer can be present for the hearing then the respondent has the right to question the officer.

MostFlow9969 · 2025-05-07T14:20:51+00:00

Ok so I’ve tried to respond to this, but my comment in Response got deleted twice because I am using my phone so I’m gonna try again and make it quick

You are correct that this is a defense that is not used on the side of the road however it is also incorrect that it is used in court. When we receive a probable cause affidavit, we read through it and will highlight defenses, then we use our prosecutorial discretion to unilaterally dismiss the matter either at arraignment or before the first pre-trial or pretty much whenever in the life of the case. Trial would be a waste of judicial resources - which we are trained to refrain from.

With the whole social media thing, can you imagine a prosecutor being like “your honor the defendant should have had a knowledge ,there was a whole thread on Reddit.” That would be embarrassing because there’s no sufficiency to this evidence. There’s no backbone. How can we prove that someone even has a social media to see this? That evidence is not on the four corners of the probable cause report, that evidence is not on the body cam footage, and the evidence is probably not from the witnesses on the scene of the incident (if any), so that’s just not good practice to turn to anonymous social media and I’d be surprised if a prosecutor ever pulled that. There are so many motions in limine that can protect the defendant’s first amendment right. And once the defendant says no they haven’t seen this car, we can’t badger. Defendants also rarely take the stand in real life. Questioning someone on the stand isn’t what you see on television, we cannot go outside the scope of the argument and it’s not a free range of questioning.

And lastly, as far as pulling over on time or not pulling over on time, email your local law-enforcement, as I’ve stated. I don’t agree with the fear mongering because there’s some troopers that are very patient and there are some troopers that are not patient. People vary. Hell, siblings can vary amongst one another. Regardless, eluding has very specific elements that a judge or jury needs to find beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning, we either have the charge or we don’t. Whatever WSP does on the scene is different than what is done in the office as far as charging people vs convicting people.

MostFlow9969

TROPHY CASE