On 07/10/2011 03:22 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:41 am, wrote:
On 07/06/2011 03:38 PM, VtSkier wrote:



On 07/04/2011 09:47 PM, VtSkier wrote:
On 07/03/2011 09:55 AM, VtSkier wrote:
On 07/03/2011 02:34 AM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:09 pm, Mike wrote:

No, but you guys are in denial about the fact that I was innocent of
all the charges. An "inconvenient truth", as Al Gore said.

If you were "innocent of all the charges", why were you given
probation?

Because it's required by law. But we all know that juries frequently
convict the innocent. Just look at the Innocence Project.

WHAAATTTTT???
Probation is part of sentence which you only get
if you are GUILTY of something.

It is NOT required by law that someone gets
probation if they are "innocent of all charges".
That's just plain bull****!

Mr. Vandeman, please reply to my question and
comment above and below:

If you are "innocent of all charges" why was
"probation" imposed? Your answer above makes
no sense whatever.

I was convicted of something I didn't do. It happens all the time.
Never heard of the "Innocence Project"? Mountain bikers are AMAZINGLY
ignorant and dishonest.

Thank you. In other words "innocent of all charges"
are ONLY your words. The jury and/or judge didn't
believe you.

Why should we?

Was the judge a mountain biker and therefore
"AMAZINGLY ignorant and dishonest"?