WHOOPS! "A Rapid City man is dead after mountain bike incident"

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2013 9:23:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Sunday, April 28, 2013 9:04:17 PM UTC-7, wrote: I did. Truthfully. You just don't like hearing the truth -- something you really aren't used to, since your fellow mountain bikers are allergic to telling the truth. Tough! Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.

Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)!

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:09:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
If you are too lazy to do your homework, TOUGH! You just don't want to hear the truth, which is that my conviction was overturned and my record was expunged. Legally, I have never been convicted of a crime. That's good, since I was innocent from the start. I know you don't like to hear the truth, since you are used to your fellow mountain bikers. who are all incorrigible liars -- like you. Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-) Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent. And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny.

It was very easy to refute you, liar:

http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security

"Access to criminal history summary records maintained by the DOJ is restricted by law to legitimate law enforcement purposes and authorized applicant agencies. However, individuals have the right to request a copy of their own criminal history record from the Department to review for accuracy and completeness. Requests from third parties are not authorized and will not be processed."

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.

Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)!

I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.

Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?

It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up.

.... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing. Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said.. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)! I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet. Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you? It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up. ... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.


The fact of the matter is, Mr. Vandeman could very well have had his conviction expunged. The only way to verify it is for him to pay a fee to get a copy of the record and post it to everyone here, which it is no surprise that he would rather not do. I wouldn't pay money to prove something to people I disliked, either!

If he indeed had this conviction expunged, he is right that, in the eyes of the law, it ALMOST didn't even happen! He doesn't need to tell employers about it, unless he is applying for a government job. But, the record of the conviction still exists, and the expungement can be reversed if he does something like this again.

So, under the eyes of the law, it DID happen, he DID get convicted, and if he does it again, these facts CAN be used to show a pattern.

But it also means that currently, he is not guilty of this crime.

(Oh, and linguistically, "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things, so let's all use them correctly.)

In article ,
says...

He doesn't need to tell employers
about it, unless he is applying for a government job.

Do they still employ 70 year old's then??
SC

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:



Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing.



Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)!



I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.

Thanks for proving that you are incompetent and have ZERO interest in the truth-- in other words, you are a typical mountain biker! You shoot yourself in the foot, every time you open your mouth. Keep it up!

Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?



It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up.

I don't need to; the State does that for me.

... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:43:36 AM UTC-7, IronMandrus wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: Since you have no proof, you must be bluffing. Since you haven't bothered to research it yourself, you must not care about the truth, just as I said. Idiot. That's for demonstrating exactly what mountain bikers are like (I know -- you can't help yourself)! I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet. Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you? It just doesn't work that way. YOU make a claim; YOU back it up. ... Unless you're bluffing, which is clearly the case here.





The fact of the matter is, Mr. Vandeman could very well have had his conviction expunged. The only way to verify it is for him to pay a fee to get a copy of the record and post it to everyone here, which it is no surprise that he would rather not do. I wouldn't pay money to prove something to people I disliked, either!



If he indeed had this conviction expunged, he is right that, in the eyes of the law, it ALMOST didn't even happen! He doesn't need to tell employers about it, unless he is applying for a government job. But, the record of the conviction still exists, and the expungement can be reversed if he does something like this again.

BS. "Expungement" means just what it says. It no longer exists -- which is good, since I was never guilty in the first place.

So, under the eyes of the law, it DID happen, he DID get convicted, and if he does it again, these facts CAN be used to show a pattern.

BS. "Expungement" means just what it says. It no longer exists -- which is good, since I was never guilty in the first place.

By the way, you can't talk about "facts", without lying, since you weren't there to confirm them.

But it also means that currently, he is not guilty of this crime.



(Oh, and linguistically, "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things, so let's all use them correctly.)

Right. I'm neither.

On Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:09:12 PM UTC-7, Stilton Cheesewright wrote:
In article ,

says...



He doesn't need to tell employers

about it, unless he is applying for a government job.



Do they still employ 70 year old's then??

Of course they do.

SC

On Friday, May 3, 2013 6:52:50 AM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:25:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I don't have time to verify all the silly claims made by the innumerable jackasses (like you) posting gibberish on the Internet.

Thanks for proving that you are incompetent and have ZERO interest in the truth-- in other words, you are a typical mountain biker! You shoot yourself in the foot, every time you open your mouth. Keep it up!


Yet here I am, asking you for proof (which you can't provide) in this very thread. That's obviously more than "zero interest," liar.

Is this how you handled the literature review on your dissertation? Did you make silly assertions and then demand your committee look them up for you?

I don't need to; the State does that for me.


Interesting. "The State" doesn't seem to be here to help you.

Your clumsy attempt to dodge the subject and continue bluffing has become pretty funny.

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 7:09:04 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:09:59 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

If you are too lazy to do your homework, TOUGH! You just don't want to hear the truth, which is that my conviction was overturned and my record was expunged. Legally, I have never been convicted of a crime. That's good, since I was innocent from the start. I know you don't like to hear the truth, since you are used to your fellow mountain bikers. who are all incorrigible liars -- like you. Yes, Mike, keep telling yourself that ... and, at the same time, try and figure out why you still have a record in the California and FBI CRIMINAL database :-) Expunging the record, using an administrative protocol which I've described, does NOT make you innocent ... your arrest and conviction will follow you forever, as they should, but your employers won't have to know now that it's spent. And, on top of that, I thought you said that courts couldn't make decisions anyway ... you are so full of it it's funny.



It was very easy to refute you, liar:



http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security



"Access to criminal history summary records maintained by the DOJ is restricted by law to legitimate law enforcement purposes and authorized applicant agencies. However, individuals have the right to request a copy of their own criminal history record from the Department to review for accuracy and completeness. Requests from third parties are not authorized and will not be processed."


Thanks for confirming you are the ideal position to post proof that you don't have a criminal record. I look forward to the pdf appearing on your horribly-formatted Web page.