wooooooo!

"How do you like Photo Radar NOW, Detective (DICK) Anderson??"

 Pretty lame job you got there, diggin up bones and all. What a lame dick! You should hock that badge and pick up a CameraFRAUD sign, you silly little man!

As for the infamous one known as four four zero nine, "UP THE IRONS, BITCHES!!" You schooled that whole courtroom on the L.A.W. and ran circles around prosecutor 'ol hunch-back woman with a beef-stick' on how it's done! Way to close a trial dude! I STILL have goosebumps on that one! Perry Mason don't have shit on you!

 4409 for Dog Catcher, I say!! GREAT JOB!!

M.W.I.M.B. 9-9-9

Tune in to "Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock" Monday for all of the details with Shelton (aka 4409) in studio :)

Very cool - nice job! I wish I could have been there to see it but I've got some transportation issues at the moment. 

 Hold on a minute.  Did Shelton or did Shelton not get the guy's money.  I don't care what the court says.  If Shelton received the money and did not deliver the goods he's guilty of stealing from an ethical perspective.  End of story.  How hypocritical is that for libertarians to cheer someone renegging on a private contract to which libertarians believe there should be no government third party thereto.

I guess you didn't read the story any more than you read the box for your name.  Shelton always recognized a contract existed and the vehicle was always available (per the evidence presented) of being picked up for transport.  In the end I suspect it came down to the lack of effort on the part of the buyer to get his purchase.
 

While I am certainly dismayed that Shelton did not make more of an effort to recontact this guy and ask him when he was going to get his vehicle out of his parking space, it cannot be ignored that Mr. Santos was equally guilty of this lack of communication with a guy that had $12,300 of his money!

The only truly damning point is that the car that belonged to Mr. Santos was painted by someone at some point from black to yellow. 

It looks like Shelton was guilty of really bad customer service.

Now that the facts are open, I'm glad to see that the jury acquitted him.

It has also reminded me to (aggressively) keep the lines of communication open with my customers, and to keep a paper trail.  Customers will lie.  It's a shame that Detective Anderson did so little actal detective work before pursuing an indictment.

Beautiful article Powell. 

Congratulations Shelton.

Peace,

Jet

The Ernie Hancock - Shelton interview brings all of the pieces into the light. Critical thinking and sweet analysis of a complex case of those abusing the badge and those that stand up to the abuse and fight / win freedom after a HUGE "WE" -vs- State V-I-C-T-O-R-Y!!

Can't WAIT to hear that courtroom tape of you schooling the jury and pwned the prosecution and her lap-dog assistant pet-Det. Anderson!

Amazing!

I was a juror on this case, I was interested to hear what others are saying about it. The fact is that Jason came very close to being found guilty, at one point the jury was 6-2 guilty. The reason we had to find him not guilty is because of the wording of the indictment, not because we didn't think he did anything wrong, or because he "schooled" us or the prosecutor in the law. I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't have the indictment in front of me, but it said something along these lines: On or about 11/18/07, Jason acquired property (money) of Max through material misrepresentation and with the intent to deprive Max of his property. Obviously that's a simplification, but that's the basic charge. The reason we found him not guilty is because there was no evidence that he intended to keep Max's cash at the time that he got the cash. The indictment specifically said that he obtained the cash *with the intent* to keep it, but there was no evidence that he intended to keep the cash and the car on 11/19. Intent to keep the car was proven when he repainted the vehicle (he would not spend his own money to repaint a car he considered someone else's), but according to the wording of the indictment the judge sounded like he was telling us to consider the time period around ("on or about") the initial transaction, not several months later when the car was repainted. If the indictment had been worded such that intent was to be established at a later date (such as when the vehicle was impounded on 8/28/08), he would have been found guilty. As such, we agreed that both Jason and Max shared the blame for the deal falling apart, but that it did not constitute theft because it could not be shown that Jason intended to keep the cash when Max sent it. I believe it's possible for people to email me through the site if there are other questions.

Well, I am a firm believer in freedom. And, I just moved here to Phoenix from Seattle. Here is the general issue at hand as I can see it. I believe myself to be an excellent judge of right and wrong. Simply put the facts as outlined are as follows. Jason held an ebay auction for a car. What I did not understand clearly is, was there a winner of that auction and who was it? That auction IS a legal and binding contract. If there was another, who was the winner, that person may have a claim. I understand Santos sent the money and Shelton received it. I also understand Santos left instructions that he would come pick it up in 2 1/2 weeks. He didn't. He says he didn't have the address. I don't believe it. When your ready to pick up, you call. If you can not get ahold of the person nor get the address, that is when you call the police. Not several months later. The question is simply this, how much time goes by until the property is considered abandoned. SInce he never took delivery of the vehicle, Santos never owned it. The cash is the question. When is that abandoned? If it were an check uncashed it would be 6 months. But then again how long was Shelton expected to store the vehicle and at what price? Legally, Shelton did nothing wrong. Morally he took advantage of the situation and kept the cash. What he should have done was simply turn in his report of sale and then filed for an abandoned title after 45 days.  Morally he should have made a reasonable attempt to contact Santos. That is the sad truth. Shelton took a risk, he waited it out and took advantage of what I think was a very busy business man who simply forgot or procrastinated. If I was to decide the fair solution, I would have offered the car to Santos for a sum total of regular storage fees beginning from the time he agreed to pick it up until the time he actually tried to pick it up

Just because this guy conned a jury of mostly women into believing him (I've been conned by him- by feeling sorry for this professional VICTIM... having put the 'roadway camera thinktank together' as a lobby recruit in 1998 while divorcing the crime family behind global recketeering phenomenon we tie to Israel today and the Mormon church...) I certainly do not believe that he is 'innocent'...  He is a con-man and a fraud.  And I am not afraid to put it in writing.  I believe that he is in bed with the 'enemies' that he tries to supposedly 'expose' as while we dated for 3 months, he drove my 4Runner for that 3 months and never even put gas in it... and subverted all information that I have about the CAMERAS BEING ABOUT BIOMETRIC IMPLANTATION FOR BANKSTERS TO SOCIALLY CONTROL US.  I believed his lies.  Well, I've seen a little more after experiencing gang-stalking tactics from his partner 'Renee' Houlihan and others who attend these so-called activist groups and what I have learned after a friend offered to have them investigated who was declared a national hero for his Los Alamos investigations is that Renee Houlihan goes by 9 aliases (a bible-whipping phony who changes the verse for her own ends), and uses two addresses for which numbers are nowhere near valid... her most humorous name used is "Myrtly Valdez" of age '33' of all numbers... so don't always believe that you aren't reading about faked 'street theater' to manipulate your minds out of pity, they are social predators count on it! 

XOXO  Kim  

Much of this malarcky is corporate and or military sponsored, if not the illicit drugtrade moneylaundering racket (one in the same), also supported by our military as evidenced by CIA activity expose's and the Iran Contras scandles of the 80s.  This loser is no doubt in bed with my exhusband.  Maybe even literally.  He is a lying manipulator and con-artist.  He just pilfered $28,000 from Scottsdale PD when you can't sue city hall... with his alleged JEW-WISH lawyer... I call RICO, bigtime (research the Khazarian Empire and Jack Otto for the TRUTH)!  He even told me that he wouldn't 'mind' if I was in the CIA when we were dating.  Not about to join the crime family, even though I was married to it once... unknowingly that is... a man who wanted to join the Mormon church (a Cohen) because it would be good for the multibazillion dollar 'business'... a Masonic corporation, why they Mormons wear a masonic square and compass on their nipples of their magic holy underwear...  This expose is done in the name of FREE PRESS.  Eventhough my comments are heavily sensored on this scam of a site.