Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

[TayandYou]

i wonder what's different about chris that his trial is so hidden?
other crazy people are considered sane enough to go to trial.
look at jeffrey dahmer, or charles manson, or ted bundy, or that one hispanic kid who shot people up.
chances are chris will plead out, but i want details dammit.

I'm sure Chris will tell us all about it if he ever gets out

 

[185405]

i wonder what's different about chris that his trial is so hidden?
other crazy people are considered sane enough to go to trial.
look at jeffrey dahmer, or charles manson, or ted bundy, or that one hispanic kid who shot people up.
chances are chris will plead out, but i want details dammit.

How many people has Chris killed?

 

[Your Favorite New Friend]

How many people has Chris killed?

He’d make the wars and genocides of the 20th century look like a joke if he had his way. His merge fantasy involves the death of billions—which in his mind is completely justified because he’s salty about trolls.

 

[AnOminous]

He’d make the wars and genocides of the 20th century look like a joke if he had his way. His merge fantasy involves the death of billions—which in his mind is completely justified because he’s salty about trolls.

What Saddam did in the Gulf War is potatoes compared to what this horrendous fiend would do if allowed outside of his cell on Plum Island.

 

[Ophelia]

I'm sure Chris will tell us all about it if he ever gets out

In his own special unreliable way.

 

[Shovel Mech Pilot]

Does he? Where do you get that idea from? He's not on the mortgage or the title. He doesn't have a lease from Barb.

In most states, you have a right as a tenant even if there's no written lease and even if you don't pay rent. You just have to live there for a certain amount of time as your primary residence for these rights to attach. Not sure what the case in Virginia specifically is, though.

 

[robobobo]

In most states, you have a right as a tenant even if there's no written lease and even if you don't pay rent. You just have to live there for a certain amount of time as your primary residence for these rights to attach. Not sure what the case in Virginia specifically is, though.

In Virginia you are assumed to be under a verbal contract in the case of no written lease. A tenant with a verbal contract is owed 30 days notice to GTFO, though in practice it's 2-3 times that because first you must have them served with the 30 day GTFO notice, at which point they can protest with the court, which then takes about another 30 days to actually have a hearing and have the judge agree that the person has to GTFO, at which point they have to schedule a deputy to come by and enforce the eviction if the person is still not leaving under their own power. The landlord themselves do not have the legal authority to grab a person and toss them out on the parking lot, doing so would be opening them to criminal and civil liabilities. You have to go through the legal hoops to get the cops to come and toss them for you. However, in the case of Chris there was actually a restraining order keeping him out, and that's completely different from a normal eviction. Unless he's freed from that, he's already barred from the property and I don't think there's any need to go through an eviction process.

 

[AnOminous]

In most states, you have a right as a tenant even if there's no written lease and even if you don't pay rent. You just have to live there for a certain amount of time as your primary residence for these rights to attach. Not sure what the case in Virginia specifically is, though.

He's effectively left the property and it can no longer be considered his domicile. I don't believe Barb has to do anything formal to make this a legal fact, just tell him he isn't welcome back.

Unless he's freed from that, he's already barred from the property and I don't think there's any need to go through an eviction process.

That has long since evaporated, although he is effectively barred from the property by being behind bars. If there's a plea deal it may very well contain a stay-away order from the property as well as Barb herself.

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

In most states, you have a right as a tenant even if there's no written lease and even if you don't pay rent. You just have to live there for a certain amount of time as your primary residence for these rights to attach. Not sure what the case in Virginia specifically is, though.

You're talking about squatter rights, which are shitty loopholes. Chris doesn't own the house, and he's been gone for almost a year. I hope Harriet burned or sold most of his shit.

That has long since evaporated, although he is effectively barred from the property by being behind bars. If there's a plea deal it may very well contain a stay-away order from the property as well as Barb herself.

I hope there's a no contact order but knowing Chris, he's getting zapped with the end of a police baton for trying to clam dig on Barb's dusty Beach.

 

[Shovel Mech Pilot]

In Virginia you are assumed to be under a verbal contract in the case of no written lease. A tenant with a verbal contract is owed 30 days notice to GTFO, though in practice it's 2-3 times that because first you must have them served with the 30 day GTFO notice, at which point they can protest with the court, which then takes about another 30 days to actually have a hearing and have the judge agree that the person has to GTFO, at which point they have to schedule a deputy to come by and enforce the eviction if the person is still not leaving under their own power. The landlord themselves do not have the legal authority to grab a person and toss them out on the parking lot, doing so would be opening them to criminal and civil liabilities. You have to go through the legal hoops to get the cops to come and toss them for you. However, in the case of Chris there was actually a restraining order keeping him out, and that's completely different from a normal eviction. Unless he's freed from that, he's already barred from the property and I don't think there's any need to go through an eviction process.

I only know the laws of my own state, but at least where I come from, the restraining order does not count as an eviction because (1) it was not issued by the only court with jurisdiction to issue such evictions, which in this case is the housing court, (2) criminal protective orders are temporary in nature (at least, until they become permanent later on - this is just for the pendency of the action, and (3) the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Permanently depriving the defendant of a right they would ordinarily have under housing law wouldn't be constitutional.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

That has long since evaporated, although he is effectively barred from the property by being behind bars. If there's a plea deal it may very well contain a stay-away order from the property as well as Barb herself.

Here's the problem, J&DR has no authority to enforce the terms of a plea deal if Chris has already served the maximum sentence it can levy. A plea deal serves two purposes, one is to secure a verdict. This begins and ends when the deal is finalized. The second is an agreement for future behavior, this is usually done with a deferred sentence or a deferred disposition.

If convicted in J&DR, there can be no deferred sentence as Chris will have already served the maximum. If there's deferred disposition, all Chris would gain is not having another misdemeanor on his record.

There could be a possibility that a deferred disposition could be used in lieu of a felony, but as Chris has not received a probable cause hearing for a felony, the statute of limitations to prosecute has not kicked in, and the possibility of prosecution still hangs over his head for eternity, effectively. Without a no-prosecution contract as part of the deal, deferred disposition for Chris would actually be worse than a conviction in J&DR.

So, if Chris takes a plea deal for time served and is convicted in J&DR court, the court has no way to actually enforce anything, unless Heilberg incredibly screws up the terms of the agreement.

 

[Ophelia]

Here's the problem, J&DR has no authority to enforce the terms of a plea deal if Chris has already served the maximum sentence it can levy. A plea deal serves two purposes, one is to secure a verdict. This begins and ends when the deal is finalized. The second is an agreement for future behavior, this is usually done with a deferred sentence or a deferred disposition.

This isn’t a slap on the wrist or scot-free, but it seems way too lenient.

 

[AnOminous]

So, if Chris takes a plea deal for time served and is convicted in J&DR court, the court has no way to actually enforce anything, unless Heilberg incredibly screws up the terms of the agreement.

The Chapter regulating the J&DR courts specifies that at the end of family abuse proceedings, a J&DR court can issue a permanent restraining order lasting up to two years and that this can be extended prior to its expiration.

The protective order may be issued for a specified period of time up to a maximum of two years. The protective order shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the last day specified or at 11:59 p.m. on the last day of the two-year period if no date is specified. Prior to the expiration of the protective order, a petitioner may file a written motion requesting a hearing to extend the order. Proceedings to extend a protective order shall be given precedence on the docket of the court. If the petitioner was a family or household member of the respondent at the time the initial protective order was issued, the court may extend the protective order for a period not longer than two years to protect the health and safety of the petitioner or persons who are family or household members of the petitioner at the time the request for an extension is made. The extension of the protective order shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the last day specified or at 11:59 p.m. on the last day of the two-year period if no date is specified. Nothing herein shall limit the number of extensions that may be requested or issued.

Va. Code § 16.1-279.1(B).

It also provides for enforcement of the order through contempt proceedings, implying the court can remain seized of a case to enforce its orders over a case that is over.

I don't think the current incest charge counts as that, although they could always cut a deal where he pleads to some minor domestic battery to let him avoid the motherfuckery charge.

In that event, he wouldn't be under the supervision of the probation department or in prison, but he would be subject to a permanent restraining order subject to renewal and potential criminal contempt charges if he violates it (and of course the federal gun rights revocation that entails).

 

[Pointless Sperg]

The Chapter regulating the J&DR courts specifies that at the end of family abuse proceedings, a J&DR court can issue a permanent restraining order lasting up to two years and that this can be extended prior to its expiration.

Va. Code § 16.1-279.1(B).

It also provides for enforcement of the order through contempt proceedings, implying the court can remain seized of a case to enforce its orders over a case that is over.

I don't think the current incest charge counts as that, although they could always cut a deal where he pleads to some minor domestic battery to let him avoid the motherfuckery charge.

In that event, he wouldn't be under the supervision of the probation department or in prison, but he would be subject to a permanent restraining order subject to renewal and potential criminal contempt charges if he violates it (and of course the federal gun rights revocation that entails).

Yes, but the key word in this statute is "petitioner". This isn't really any different than a regular restraining order, except that it is fast tracked as a result of the conviction. It still requires a victim (or their guardian) to petition for the conditions.

So yes, Barb could ban Chris from 14BC via a restraining order, but she already could. The statute just makes it faster/easier for her to do so.

There is no obvious way for the J&DR court to prevent Chris from going back to 14BC, unless Barb actively wants the ban. It could be done in a plea agreement, but only if the court had something to hold over Chris' head that was not dependent on Barb's wishes (like a suspended sentence).

 

[A-№1]

In most states, you have a right as a tenant even if there's no written lease and even if you don't pay rent. You just have to live there for a certain amount of time as your primary residence for these rights to attach. Not sure what the case in Virginia specifically is, though.

I suspect those rights go away if you're removed from the property for illegal sexual improprieties with the "landlord".

And Chris is well and beyond any term limits on squatter's rights etc.

There is no obvious way for the J&DR court to prevent Chris from going back to 14BC, unless Barb actively wants the ban. It could be done in a plea agreement, but only if the court had something to hold over Chris' head that was not dependent on Barb's wishes (like a suspended sentence).

Depending on what authority Tom and / or Harriet might obtain to manage Barb's affairs, they could (and probably would) also tell Chris to GTFO. Chris isn't exactly their favorite person at the moment.

 

[A-№1]

They were more worried about what had happened during the arrest with the Gunt.

Absolutely, but my point is that the Gunt is, well, a ween. The court would likely be treating this case a lot differently were it not for the three ween circus at Chris' arrest.

This may sound clannish, but it's my opinion things were a lot better when Chris was our personal plaything, not the whole internet's. Better for everyone concerned.

 

[Shovel Mech Pilot]

I suspect those rights go away if you're removed from the property for illegal sexual improprieties with the "landlord".

And Chris is well and beyond any term limits on squatter's rights etc.

Squatter's rights is a different concept that doesn't apply here. One key element to squatter's rights is that their possession is "adverse" for a long period of time; almost always a situation where someone is living in a residence for like, 15 years without the consent of the owner. The squatter has to also reasonably believe they are the true owner. Rules like this were implemented to cure defects in title, not to encourage squatters. Basically, if I sold you a house but something was screwed up in the process I can't come back in 20 years and say hey, you believed you were the owner this whole time and you were maintaining the property as if you were the owner but now I want it back due to some decades-old typos.

LL-Tenant law is different, and someone can still be a tenant without paying rent. Until the housing court evicts them or they willingly move out with the intention not to return, they have a claim to tenancy. A criminal protective order can't step on the jurisdiction of the housing court, especially because Chris is "innocent until proven guilty."

 

[AnOminous]

I suspect those rights go away if you're removed from the property for illegal sexual improprieties with the "landlord".

And Chris is well and beyond any term limits on squatter's rights etc.

The one thing they might have done wrong is throwing out Chris's shit, if they did that. Under Virginia law, you're only supposed to throw out an ex-tenant's property after notice and a period of 10 days. They'll probably get away with it though and I don't see Chris thinking of suing them over it.

 

[A-№1]

Squatter's rights

Or whatever "rights" Chris might try to claim to shoehorn himself back into 14BLC. The specific part of the law doesn't matter so much as the reality that it isn't going to work out for Chris.

The one thing they might have done wrong is throwing out Chris's shit, if they did that.

They could probably make the claim that they were only throwing out garbage.

They'll probably get away with it though and I don't see Chris thinking of suing them over it.

Even were Chris to sue, who would represent him? There's no way he'd be able to manage such a case himself, and I don't see Heilberg standing by him (even if it were his field of law) once the case concludes.

 

[anti SJW]

Even were Chris to sue, who would represent him? There's no way he'd be able to manage such a case himself, and I don't see Heilberg standing by him (even if it were his field of law) once the case concludes.

Chis does'nt need a criminal lawyer. Chris needs a criminal lawyer.