STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – JOHN ANDERSON LEGALLY CLEARED

updated: 9.24.19 – 10:17 PM


JOHN ANDERSON LEGALLY CLEARED –

Due to Statutes of Limitation of 1 year after “Discovery”  is up to charge John Anderson with any crimes, he is legally cleared from any wrongdoing. Supposed Victims are located in the United States – John Anderson is protected under the U.S Constitution and its Laws. Canadian Laws and the U.S Laws were mixed and matched – oops!!!

Simple fact there was no evidence, to begin with, this was clear from the start, Mark Mumma admitted  – stalking, threats and harassments and Defamatory statements were allegations, that were yet to be proven because the evidence was being collected after the fact. – Opps!!!

Evidence from (stolen.news) has been collected



LACK OF EVIDENCE: INITIAL APPEARANCE 


Lack of – Tangible or “Direct Evidence” was presented at the initial appearance in front of the Judge. John Anderson was released from custody and put on a “Pre-Trial” Probation – again John Anderson Plead “Not Guilty” and still not Charged with Natoriuos Cyber-Crimes he had never Committed.  In Order to be put on Probation, the defendant/suspect has to be charged with a crime. This foiled the Prosecutors plans when John Anderson plead “Not Guilty” – John Anderson being released from Police custody and put on “Pre-Trial Probation” – proves he is not an (alleged) Serial Cyberstalker’s that committed a decade-long, international cyberstalking and criminal harassment spree.


(update) VIDEO NOT PROBABLE CAUSE

A video alone is not “Probable Cause” for an Arrest – Proving John Anderson was placed under false arrest –



PURE GENIUS FAKE JOURNALIST -MEKO HAZE


Failed-  Meko Haze believed he could broadcast a Telephone conversation between himself and John Anderson and broadcast the Conversation on Facebook Live – would violate John Andersons “Pre-Trial” Probation Terms and Agreements – then started talking tough to John Anderson –
John Anderson’s reply in  Mob Accent:   “Hey Buddy show some respect here” – shit was too funny  – It was a Telphone Conversation idiot – Whoever paid off Meko Haze to pull this stunt is most likely pissed – LOL –

 


PRE-TRIAL PROBATION: UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROBATION LAW – 


Pretrial Probation is a “United States” Federal Probation Law that doesn’t exist in Canada. However, if  Pre-Trial Probation Law does exist in Canada the same terms, Conditions, and Laws would apply. Pre-Trial Probation is 6 months to a Year – Recently John Anderson was told he was no longer on pre-trial Probation. There wouldn’t be a hearing or a trial, John Anderson surpassed pre-trial Probation by several months (8 months ) without Violating any Terms or Conditions of the Probation. Most of the time there is never a hearing because the defendant is not contacted or kept aware that they had past the pre-trial probation period. – Fact


What is Pretrial Probation?

Pretrial Probation  “Revised Law” 

Again John Anderson was not Charged with any Crimes …..

Pretrial probation can be a fast and favorable resolution of a case for a defendant who is charged with a crime.  Pretrial probation is not a conviction, nor does it require the defendant to admit guilt. It does allow a judge in Massachusetts Superior Court, District Court, or Juvenile Court to dismiss charges against a defendant if and when the defendant fulfills certain probationary requirements.

Pretrial probation can take lots of different forms, depending on the individual circumstances of a case.  For example, the probation requirements could include meeting with probation officers for a specified time period, paying restitution, being subject to drug testing, taking part in rehabilitative programs, or any other number of options. Compliance with the probation requirements will be enforced by the probation department of the court.

Judges have the ultimate discretion to determine whether pretrial probation is appropriate in a given case. Attorneys can make arguments for pretrial probation to a judge, and the prosecutor must also agree to the pretrial probation. Prosecutors and Judges will often look at factors such as the seriousness of the charge, the defendant’s past criminal record, and the defendant’s personal circumstances when determining the appropriateness of pretrial probation.

There are many benefits for defendants who are granted pretrial probation. First, if the conditions of the probationary term are satisfied it will always lead to a dismissal of the case and does not involve a finding of guilty, or an admission by the defendant. This can be especially important for noncitizens (U.S Federal Law)  that could face potential immigration consequences from a guilty plea or admission. Second, once the probationary requirements are fulfilled, the case is dismissed, and the prosecutor cannot bring charges for the same alleged offense again. This is an advantage over other kinds of dismissals which do not necessarily prevent the re-filing of charges. Third, a pretrial resolution will save a substantial amount of time and expense that would otherwise be incurred through continued litigation of a case. Finally, the conditions of probation themselves can be tailored to a person’s unique situation, allowing for much more flexibility than other dispositions.

It should be noted that pretrial probation will not remove the charge from a person’s criminal record. The person’s record will indicate, however, that the charge was dismissed. The only way for a charge to be taken out of a person’s record entirely is for the person’s record to be sealed, which involves a wholly separate procedure.


John Anderson also protected by the “SPEEDY TRIAL CLAUSE” – Opps!!!


SPEEDY TRIAL CLAUSE: REVISED 

The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial”[1] The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.

SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTES: REVISED

In addition to the constitutional guarantee, various state and federal statutes confer a more specific right to a speedy trial.[3] In New York, the prosecution must be “ready for trial” within six months on all felonies except murder, or the charges are dismissed by the action of law without regard to the merits of the case. This is also known as a “ready rule”.[4] In California courts, defendants have a right to a trial within 100 days to a year.

The federal law detailing this right is the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. All U.S. states have either statutes or constitutional provisions detailing this right.[5] In 1979 the Act was amended to ensure that the defendant had time to provide a suitable defense. This amendment made it so the trial could not start within less than 30 days after the defendant first appeared in the court.[6]


ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL ARREST OF JOHN ANDERSONS – OOOPS!!! – THERE IS  NO EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT 


Any and all Evidence Collected after the fact,  after Johns Andersons  Arrest is not Relevant to the initial arrest and not submittable in Court this is  “False Evidence” – John Anderson’s personal possessions as electronic equipment, cellphones PC’s Laptops Etc … were illegally seized – John Anderson’s evidence cant be used against him –  again falls into “FALSE EVIDENCE” – LOL


EVIDENCE NOT RELEVANT  TO JOHN ANDERSONS INITIAL ARREST


Audio
Pictures
Screenshots
Statements

(or other evidence that may have been collected) oops!!!


WHY???


WHY? because the following evidence ( Audio, Pictures, Screenshots or Statements ) wasn’t collected then presented to the Judge for the RCMP to obtain  “Fraudulent Warrant” for the Initial arrest of John Anderson.  RCMP had no Tangible Evidence to obtain a signed  Warrant – this is an illegal issue of a Warrant declaring the Warrant “Null and Void” again Mark Mumma makes this known on (stolen.news) he and other were still collecting evidence after the fact, after John Andersons Arrest  -Opps!!!


Everyone direct yourself to (stolen.news) you will find within pages of the site statements by Mark Mumma, Francesca Amato and other was false fabricated – also adding allegations, alleged claims – the evidence was being collected after the fact. 


 

 

Please follow and like us:
error

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply