Jump to content

Cache maggot arrested.


Recommended Posts

My point is that the issue is that a whole lot of cachers, even respected cachers, are guilty of taking coins from caches. Once you begin discussing the taking of geocoins as being illegal, well, you automatically finger quite a few geocachers as guilty as well.

 

:laughing:

 

Keeping in mind that a geocacher who forgets they have a coin and finds it months later at the bottom of their caching bag is WAY different than a geocacher knowingly keeping another person's coin...this comment literally makes my heart sink.

 

Maybe I am naive here but I thought "respected geocachers" would know better and have more regard for their fellow cachers than to steal from them. :laughing:

Link to comment

Ok, Ok! Sorrrry! I wasn't accusing you of anything either alright! Those are all really good points! we all have different belifs and this is exactly why politics get out of hand too! the belif of the probability that the theif was stealing it because of geocoins is different than yours! I respect that. All I'm saying right now is my honest opinions and thoughts about this thread.

 

This isn't a personal post either! this goes to all people who have opinions.

 

Back to the point that this muggler could have been stealing for one of those reasons, or maybe all of them. What if he had a collection, was angry, wanted to cause trouble, ect, ect, all of the above? it could go on forever.

Link to comment

So, anyway, way back on a previous page I wondered if someone could just simply follow this story for us out-of-towners.

 

Is there someone local who will keep us clued in?

 

Way back on a previous page Kayleo, the person who reported Repak, said she would be updating us.

 

His court date is set for today so we should hear something later today.

 

Yes, but unless this thread stays open, where will we find out?

We have gone for 15 pages without any news other than "Tuesday". By the time it's all said and judged, we'll be sifting through 50 pages of babble just to find out what happened.

 

Make that 17. My bad.

Edited by Chumpo
Link to comment

This turn of events reminds me of an old folk song (more or less) --

 

Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride, Uh-huh,

Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride, Uh-huh,

Maggot went a-courtin', and he did ride.

With a cache he carried by his side, Uh-huh, Uh-huh, Uh-huh.

 

(my apologies to Froggie :laughing: for the temporary displacement)

Link to comment
I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.
There is no way that Bittsen would have let the judge get away with that. I don't believe you. :laughing:

 

He said something about taking care of it old school. That's the last I heard. I'm sure Kayleo will give us another update soon.

Link to comment

Not surprising. The law works at its own speed and I did not expect any resolution today. But I hope that we will be updated about the reason given for the continuance. A hearing on April Fool's Day seems like it is filled with possibilities -- perhaps the Hamsters from last year will be called as witnesses.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment
Not surprising. The law works at its own speed and I did not expect any resolution today. But I hope that we will be updated about the reason given for the continuance. A hearing on April Fool's Day seems like it is filled with possibilities -- perhaps the Hamsters from last year will be called as witnesses.
You didn't actually believe GeoBain's post, did you?
Link to comment
Not surprising. The law works at its own speed and I did not expect any resolution today. But I hope that we will be updated about the reason given for the continuance. A hearing on April Fool's Day seems like it is filled with possibilities -- perhaps the Hamsters from last year will be called as witnesses.
You didn't actually believe GeoBain's post, did you?

:laughing:

Link to comment
Not surprising. The law works at its own speed and I did not expect any resolution today. But I hope that we will be updated about the reason given for the continuance. A hearing on April Fool's Day seems like it is filled with possibilities -- perhaps the Hamsters from last year will be called as witnesses.
You didn't actually believe GeoBain's post, did you?

:laughing:

 

l was going with it until I thought about the Bittsen reference and April Fools Day. Then I decided that it needed to be edited to refer to the Hamsters. Sometimes its hard to switch from work to forum and back. At least that is my story.

Edited by Erickson
Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.

 

LOL You are so close but you got the date wrong! Try April 7th and its going to be a conference (not sure what they mean by conference) so maybe someone who is a lawyer (not you wanna be's lawyers) could tell me what a conference is?

 

There were 3 of us local cachers there in the court room, Jofra, KayLeo and myself. Others would have came but with it being such short notice they had others appointments.

 

The DA was not in today so they moved the hearing to April 7th. :laughing:

 

Right across the street from the Rome City Courts is a park. Great place for a possible Geo Event... :laughing:

Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.

 

LOL You are so close but you got the date wrong! Try April 7th and its going to be a conference (not sure what they mean by conference) so maybe someone who is a lawyer (not you wanna be's lawyers) could tell me what a conference is?

 

There were 3 of us local cachers there in the court room, Jofra, KayLeo and myself. Others would have came but with it being such short notice they had others appointments.

 

The DA was not in today so they moved the hearing to April 7th. :laughing:

 

Right across the street from the Rome City Courts is a park. Great place for a possible Geo Event... :laughing:

 

Not being a lawyer but have been to "conference" before.

 

A conference is where you come up with ways to "make it go away". Usually a lesser charge/plea bargain.

 

Of course in New York they could have something different they call a conference.

Link to comment

Right across the street from the Rome City Courts is a park.

Thanks for the update, dnnsgps!

 

As for the park... check out Google's street view of it. Looks like the bomb squad may already be on the way!

f53a25bc-3e92-446c-9512-e8bf99c9a531.jpg

 

WOW that Google picture is old!! Right now there is about a foot of snow on a the ground!

Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.

 

LOL You are so close but you got the date wrong! Try April 7th and its going to be a conference (not sure what they mean by conference) so maybe someone who is a lawyer (not you wanna be's lawyers) could tell me what a conference is?

 

There were 3 of us local cachers there in the court room, Jofra, KayLeo and myself. Others would have came but with it being such short notice they had others appointments.

 

The DA was not in today so they moved the hearing to April 7th. :laughing:

 

Right across the street from the Rome City Courts is a park. Great place for a possible Geo Event... :laughing:

 

Not being a lawyer but have been to "conference" before.

 

A conference is where you come up with ways to "make it go away". Usually a lesser charge/plea bargain.

 

Of course in New York they could have something different they call a conference.

 

Bittsen was to Conference before? Do tell!

:laughing:

 

What was the initial charge, Aggravated Loitering?

Link to comment

Not being a lawyer but have been to "conference" before.

A conference is where you come up with ways to "make it go away". Usually a lesser charge/plea bargain.

 

I assume conference works the same anywhere. Its a loose term. The parties meet about the status of the case and could indicate that they need more time to reach a settlement. The court could suggest ways to expedite the case or try to settle it. Briefing schedules could be set (for instance, the defendant could inform the court that he or she intends to file a demurrer to challenge the validity of the charges). The parties could agree to an ACD. They could agree to a plea. They could set another date in the future to meet again.

 

The only thing for certain is that since the date is April 7th, the Hamsters definitely will not be called as witnesses.

Link to comment

I don't know how it works in criminal court, but in civil court it is apparently a way for the Judge to clear his docket by scaring both parties into a settlement.

 

At least that's how it worked in my case. Over a period of four years my lawyer and the lawyers for the company I sued could not get close enough to a settlement to suit me, and I felt that my case was winnable at trial.

 

After years of back-and-forth we finally arrived at a court date.

 

My case gets called, the lawyers confer with the judge for a few minutes, and he tells them to go to a conference room and resolve this thing, then come back.

 

We go to an empty conference room and the defending attorney asks what we'll accept. I tell my attorney that I want to stick to the $750K as I have faith in my case and his ability to present it. They come off of the number that they have been stuck on for some time and offer $630K.

 

I told them no thanks, let's go see the Judge and tell him that they won't get real, let's set a trial date.

 

They bump it to $680 and all the sudden my attorney switches sides... after years of insisting that he's ready for trial and advising me to hold out it's like he suddenly gets cold feet, pulls me out in the hallway and tells me that we better take this, tells me that trials are totally unpredictable, that the Judge is going to be seriously pissed if we don't settle this thing and force a trial.

 

It's like he's a totally different guy than the one who's been telling me for years that he's ready to eat their lunch at trial.

 

His act truly scared me... if the Judge's suggestion that we settle this thing upset him that badly then of course it scared me too, so we settled.

 

Went back to Chambers and told the Judge that we had reached an agreement and he's all smiles and sugar.

 

I guess that's how Judges get time to go golfing instead of adjudicating trials!

Link to comment

I don't know how it works in criminal court, but in civil court it is apparently a way for the Judge to clear his docket by scaring both parties into a settlement.

 

At least that's how it worked in my case. Over a period of four years my lawyer and the lawyers for the company I sued could not get close enough to a settlement to suit me, and I felt that my case was winnable at trial.

 

After years of back-and-forth we finally arrived at a court date.

 

My case gets called, the lawyers confer with the judge for a few minutes, and he tells them to go to a conference room and resolve this thing, then come back.

 

We go to an empty conference room and the defending attorney asks what we'll accept. I tell my attorney that I want to stick to the $750K as I have faith in my case and his ability to present it. They come off of the number that they have been stuck on for some time and offer $630K.

 

I told them no thanks, let's go see the Judge and tell him that they won't get real, let's set a trial date.

 

They bump it to $680 and all the sudden my attorney switches sides... after years of insisting that he's ready for trial and advising me to hold out it's like he suddenly gets cold feet, pulls me out in the hallway and tells me that we better take this, tells me that trials are totally unpredictable, that the Judge is going to be seriously pissed if we don't settle this thing and force a trial.

 

It's like he's a totally different guy than the one who's been telling me for years that he's ready to eat their lunch at trial.

 

His act truly scared me... if the Judge's suggestion that we settle this thing upset him that badly then of course it scared me too, so we settled.

 

Went back to Chambers and told the Judge that we had reached an agreement and he's all smiles and sugar.

 

I guess that's how Judges get time to go golfing instead of adjudicating trials!

That and the lawyer knows that his percentage of 680 is much greater than his percentage of Zero (or much less than 680.

 

I had a lawyer like that. I had invested too much in him to get rid of him. It was just that simple.

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

I don't know how it works in criminal court, but in civil court it is apparently a way for the Judge to clear his docket by scaring both parties into a settlement.

 

At least that's how it worked in my case. Over a period of four years my lawyer and the lawyers for the company I sued could not get close enough to a settlement to suit me, and I felt that my case was winnable at trial.

 

After years of back-and-forth we finally arrived at a court date.

 

My case gets called, the lawyers confer with the judge for a few minutes, and he tells them to go to a conference room and resolve this thing, then come back.

 

We go to an empty conference room and the defending attorney asks what we'll accept. I tell my attorney that I want to stick to the $750K as I have faith in my case and his ability to present it. They come off of the number that they have been stuck on for some time and offer $630K.

 

I told them no thanks, let's go see the Judge and tell him that they won't get real, let's set a trial date.

 

They bump it to $680 and all the sudden my attorney switches sides... after years of insisting that he's ready for trial and advising me to hold out it's like he suddenly gets cold feet, pulls me out in the hallway and tells me that we better take this, tells me that trials are totally unpredictable, that the Judge is going to be seriously pissed if we don't settle this thing and force a trial.

 

It's like he's a totally different guy than the one who's been telling me for years that he's ready to eat their lunch at trial.

 

His act truly scared me... if the Judge's suggestion that we settle this thing upset him that badly then of course it scared me too, so we settled.

 

Went back to Chambers and told the Judge that we had reached an agreement and he's all smiles and sugar.

 

I guess that's how Judges get time to go golfing instead of adjudicating trials!

That and the lawyer knows that his percentage of 680 is much greater than his percentage of Zero (or much less than 680.

 

I had a lawyer like that. I had invested too much in him to get rid of him. It was just that simple.

 

More like, as happened with a co-worker, the attorney knows a final offer when he sees it. Settling also means the lawyer gets a larger % than going to trial does. Check the fine print of your agreement with your attorney. My co-worker got 30% of the final award, rather than the 70% she would have got going through trial. That just smelled rotten, but there it was, fine print, lawyer gets double fee for 'negotiating a settlement'.

Link to comment

More like, as happened with a co-worker, the attorney knows a final offer when he sees it. Settling also means the lawyer gets a larger % than going to trial does. Check the fine print of your agreement with your attorney. My co-worker got 30% of the final award, rather than the 70% she would have got going through trial. That just smelled rotten, but there it was, fine print, lawyer gets double fee for 'negotiating a settlement'.

WOW, that attorney should have been disbarred.

 

Most attorneys take 30-40%. That's why it's almost impossible to get an attorney for small cases.

My agreement was also variable. 33 for settlement 39 for trial.

Link to comment

More like, as happened with a co-worker, the attorney knows a final offer when he sees it. Settling also means the lawyer gets a larger % than going to trial does. Check the fine print of your agreement with your attorney. My co-worker got 30% of the final award, rather than the 70% she would have got going through trial. That just smelled rotten, but there it was, fine print, lawyer gets double fee for 'negotiating a settlement'.

WOW, that attorney should have been disbarred.

 

Most attorneys take 30-40%. That's why it's almost impossible to get an attorney for small cases.

My agreement was also variable. 33 for settlement 39 for trial.

 

And that arrangement looks more reasonable, as the attorney has to work for the extra cut where 'negotiating' usually is knocked out pretty fast. Remember most of these people already are familiar with each other and know the ropes, which is a rude surprise to the ordinary person when they see how reality works, as opposed to the idealised world portrayed on TV.

Link to comment

The case was adjurned until April 7th to give time for a conference. If the DA had been in today they would have had the conference during a recess and would have come back in with either a deal or they would set a trail date. Mr Repak has the option of a jury trial or a trail by judge. Rome holds court at 9AM and 2PM....more than likely it is the 9AM time on the 7th, but we will call and make sure of the time later. If a deal is made in conference the time in front of the judge will be minimal, they will call him up and set the terms (if any)and it will be done in minutes. If a deal is not made, the state has 60 days to bring Mr. Repak to trial.

Link to comment

The case was adjurned until April 7th to give time for a conference. If the DA had been in today they would have had the conference during a recess and would have come back in with either a deal or they would set a trail date. Mr Repak has the option of a jury trial or a trail by judge. Rome holds court at 9AM and 2PM....more than likely it is the 9AM time on the 7th, but we will call and make sure of the time later. If a deal is made in conference the time in front of the judge will be minimal, they will call him up and set the terms (if any)and it will be done in minutes. If a deal is not made, the state has 60 days to bring Mr. Repak to trial.

Thanks for updating us.

 

I have a question. Did Mr. Repak notice that there were 3 geocachers in the courtroom? If so, this could influence the conference a little.

Link to comment
The case was adjurned until April 7th to give time for a conference. If the DA had been in today they would have had the conference during a recess and would have come back in with either a deal or they would set a trail date. Mr Repak has the option of a jury trial or a trail by judge. Rome holds court at 9AM and 2PM....more than likely it is the 9AM time on the 7th, but we will call and make sure of the time later. If a deal is made in conference the time in front of the judge will be minimal, they will call him up and set the terms (if any)and it will be done in minutes. If a deal is not made, the state has 60 days to bring Mr. Repak to trial.
I also want to thank you for the update, and for the respectful manner in which you presented it. None of us are thrilled by what transpired, but at least I like to see us behaving more maturely than the accused.
Link to comment
I have a question. Did Mr. Repak notice that there were 3 geocachers in the courtroom? If so, this could influence the conference a little.

How so?

 

Perhaps with artful application of the ancient Roma "devil orb" curse...?*

 

 

 

*IE, the stink eye.

I just can't imagine how giving the defendant the stink eye would effect his lawyer's performance in conference.

Link to comment
I have a question. Did Mr. Repak notice that there were 3 geocachers in the courtroom? If so, this could influence the conference a little.

How so?

 

Perhaps with artful application of the ancient Roma "devil orb" curse...?*

 

 

 

*IE, the stink eye.

I just can't imagine how giving the defendant the stink eye would effect his lawyer's performance in conference.

 

It can't just be any old stink eye. You have to really work up a good one. (Neither do I. I was guessing.)

Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.

The DA was not in today so they moved the hearing to April 7th. :)

It occurs to me the delay gives everyone a grand opportunity to explain their feelings to the DA. Perhaps a letter commenting that someone spent time and money to create something for others to enjoy at no expense and the disappointment both the hider and finder must feel when they find out the cache is gone. I might then express your inability to understand why someone would go through such trouble to take someone else's property just to ruin other people's fun.

Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Bittsen over at the courthouse. The hearing has been postponed until April 1.

The DA was not in today so they moved the hearing to April 7th. :laughing:

It occurs to me the delay gives everyone a grand opportunity to explain their feelings to the DA. Perhaps a letter commenting that someone spent time and money to create something for others to enjoy at no expense and the disappointment both the hider and finder must feel when they find out the cache is gone. I might then express your inability to understand why someone would go through such trouble to take someone else's property just to ruin other people's fun.

 

Yeah, in case he missed the gravity of the situation in this case. People's fun was disrupted. Perhaps the national guard could be called out? :)

Link to comment

Yeah, in case he missed the gravity of the situation in this case. People's fun was disrupted. Perhaps the national guard could be called out? :)

Isn't life, liberty, and the persuit of fun one of the certain unalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Yeah, perhaps this case will go all the way to the supreme court! This is clearly a civil rights case. We can't allow tens of people's fun to be disrupted. Let's march on Washington! :laughing:

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

The case was adjurned until April 7th to give time for a conference. If the DA had been in today they would have had the conference during a recess and would have come back in with either a deal or they would set a trail date. Mr Repak has the option of a jury trial or a trail by judge. Rome holds court at 9AM and 2PM....more than likely it is the 9AM time on the 7th, but we will call and make sure of the time later. If a deal is made in conference the time in front of the judge will be minimal, they will call him up and set the terms (if any)and it will be done in minutes. If a deal is not made, the state has 60 days to bring Mr. Repak to trial.

Thanks for updating us.

 

I have a question. Did Mr. Repak notice that there were 3 geocachers in the courtroom? If so, this could influence the conference a little.

 

Well, When I got there I had on my geocaching name button. I was going to put the gps around my neck but I left it in my purse. Next time it will be out! Had no problems getting past security with it. Mr. Repak was sitting and I walked over to the window waiting for the court room to open. At this point I did not know it was him sitting there. I did see that he looked up at me and got up and was walking back and forth. Must have been the nerves working agaist him. Or he recognized the cache name on the button to know who I was as he did steal quite a few of my caches as well.

 

Court doors were opened and we were allowed in. I sat in the back, he was up front. 10 minutes later Johfra & Kayleo showed up and pointed out that was indeed Mr. Repak in the business suit up front. When he was done with the judge he walked out and was waiting for his lawyer to come back out to talk with him. While he was waiting we (Johfra, Kayleo and I ) walked out of the court room and I think by then he recognized Kayleo and Johfra as the ones who caught him in the act. :(

Link to comment

The case was adjurned until April 7th to give time for a conference. If the DA had been in today they would have had the conference during a recess and would have come back in with either a deal or they would set a trail date. Mr Repak has the option of a jury trial or a trail by judge. Rome holds court at 9AM and 2PM....more than likely it is the 9AM time on the 7th, but we will call and make sure of the time later. If a deal is made in conference the time in front of the judge will be minimal, they will call him up and set the terms (if any)and it will be done in minutes. If a deal is not made, the state has 60 days to bring Mr. Repak to trial.

Thanks for updating us.

 

I have a question. Did Mr. Repak notice that there were 3 geocachers in the courtroom? If so, this could influence the conference a little.

 

Well, When I got there I had on my geocaching name button. I was going to put the gps around my neck but I left it in my purse. Next time it will be out! Had no problems getting past security with it. Mr. Repak was sitting and I walked over to the window waiting for the court room to open. At this point I did not know it was him sitting there. I did see that he looked up at me and got up and was walking back and forth. Must have been the nerves working agaist him. Or he recognized the cache name on the button to know who I was as he did steal quite a few of my caches as well.

 

Court doors were opened and we were allowed in. I sat in the back, he was up front. 10 minutes later Johfra & Kayleo showed up and pointed out that was indeed Mr. Repak in the business suit up front. When he was done with the judge he walked out and was waiting for his lawyer to come back out to talk with him. While he was waiting we (Johfra, Kayleo and I ) walked out of the court room and I think by then he recognized Kayleo and Johfra as the ones who caught him in the act. :(

 

Thanks for answering.

 

The reason I asked and stated a possible influence is because of a situation I was in once.

I happened to see a smash and grab burglary. When the case went to court I was asked (OK subpoena) to appear, which I did. I sat in the courtroom waiting to be called but never was. At one point the DA was whispering to the culprits attorney who then looked back at me. Two minutes later the DA walked over to me and asked me to step into the hallway. He explained that because I had showed up the thief was willing to take a deal. His attorney assumed I wouldn't show up to testify since most people don't (which shocked me). He said if I hadn't shown up the guy would have gotten off.

 

The main reason I asked is because if no geocachers showed up at the hearing, Repak and his attorney would have made an assumption that the people who called it in weren't interested in taking steps to follow through. With witnesses there, Repak, and his attorney, know that it's not going to be a walk-away case

 

My own ininformed opinion.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...