TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

HKUSP45C wrote:Last time I checked, public defenders are available to anyone who asks for them to take the case. Regardless of their financial status.

This is not true. This what the Supreme Court ruled [emphasis mine]:

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.

I stand corrected and acknowledge my ignorance. Thank you for clearing that up.

I found this:

criminal.lawyers.com/Public-Defenders.html wrote:Getting A Public Defender Appointed
If you can't afford to hire a lawyer from the private legal community, the court can appoint a government-paid lawyer called a "public defender"- to represent you.

In order to have a public defender, you'll have to convince the judge that you can't afford to hire an attorney on your own. The judge may ask you to fill out a form detailing your financial resources, assets, income and debts. You may also need to provide the court with documentation such as paystubs to prove your income level.

Standards for how much money you can make and still qualify for a public defender vary greatly from state to state, and sometimes from one court to another.

In rural areas and in courts with meager resources, there might not be public defenders on staff with the court to represent you. In that case, the court will usually appoint a private attorney at public expense, or assign a private attorney from a volunteer attorney list to represent you.

In some courts, judges allow for what's called "partial indigency" representation: you have the help of a public defender, but are expected to reimburse the court some of the cost of representation after the trial.

If you give inaccurate information to the court in an effort to get a public defender appointed, you may be charged with the crime of falsifying information.

If the court decides you make too much money to qualify for a public defender, you'll want to immediately start looking for a private attorney to defend you.

roberts wrote:

AEA wrote:My opinion is that until proven guilty the access to law/courts should be no cost to citizens. And I do not agree with any "Court Costs" either. It is all bull as far as I am concerned. Just another money grab.

It's disgusting that Bobby the Robber who never worked an honest day in his life and never paid taxes gets a free lawyer at taxpayer expense. But Joan the Plumber who works hard and pays her taxes has to hire a defense lawyer at her own expense when she shoots Bobby in her bedroom at 2am when he breaks in to rape her and steal her jewelry.

Last time I checked, public defenders are available to anyone who asks for them to take the case. Regardless of their financial status.

AEA wrote:

WildBill wrote:This is the direct quote from CHLPP. It says they will retain an attorney until there is a dismissal or no-bill. If the charges are not dismissed and/or you are indicted they don't cover your defense. Statements and/or promises posted on a website are not a legal contract. IANAL, but that is my non-legal opinion.

HKUSP45C wrote: Assuming we're not including the price of membership to the CHLPP, your assertion directly contradicts the information given on the CHLPP's website.
Do you have a cite or specific anecdotal circumstance that validates your claim? Or, were you just stating your opinion?

OK, I have nothing to cite.....it is my opinion.......now, that being said, let's say your attorney is in fact taken care of as stated above up to and including a no-bill. That does not cover expert testimony, research, paperwork, filings, and all the other stuff associated with a prosecution. Not to mention what it is gonna take if you are found at fault by the GJ and stand trial.

Those are my points.

It actually says "No, your legal expenses up to and through dismissal, acquittal, or conviction with the return of all your seized property will be covered by the CHL Protection Plan." Which I take to mean that you won't pay for any of the things you've listed. Of course I have no more info than you do (not being a member) other than taking them at their word.

If you're found at fault and stand trial in Texas something has gone horribly, horribly awry, assuming you were right in shooting in the first place. In a case where a GJ actually indicts on a clear case of self defense the problems of your legal bills are seemingly "small potatos." I would, at that point, be much more worried about the liklihood of the rest of my life being wasted in jail or the fact that the Texas legal system is no longer functioning correctly.

Heck Joe Horn walked out of a GJ trial with a no-bill and I know dozens of "self defense" advocates who though he should have swung. Incidently, I'm not one of them but, that's a whole different topic.

It just seems, to me, that many are painting the service with a brush that smacks of "too good to be true" with no evidence to back up the claim. I like to give companies, even lawyers, the benefit of the doubt in the absence of contrary evidence.

I'll add one last point ... this is an insurance plan that is amazingly profitable. Virtually none of us will ever actually need our weapons for self defense. The few of us that may end up using them will have a statistically insignificant number that actually pull the trigger. Of that minute group a smaller still sub-sret will actually kill their aggressor.

If they got 10 people to pay dues for four years they could offer free service to every other member for life and likely still turn a profit. It doesn't seem so far-fetched, to me, that they can actually (and do, actualy) do everything they advertise. Or, that's my thoughts on it, anyway.

ETA:
Curiousity got the better of me so I called them and asked. The CSR that answered said "If you are true-billed or have to go to full blown trial (in the case of a state lacking a GJ process) that they would continue to represent you BUT there would be additional expenses incuured by the member." (this is pretty close to verbatim.) Which, I suppose is only logical and a sound business practice since appeals and trials can last lifetimes.

WildBill wrote:

HKUSP45C wrote:

AEA wrote:Nope. And paying the retainer to CHLPP does not provide NO legal cost defense either!

Assuming we're not including the price of membership to the CHLPP, your assertion directly contradicts the information given on the CHLPP's website.
Do you have a cite or specific anecdotal circumstance that validates your claim? Or, were you just stating your opinion?

Directly from CHLPP Website wrote:CHLPP will retain an experienced qualified local criminal defense attorney where you were arrested. The attorney CHLPP retains will pursue the member's case until there is a dismissal, no-bill by a Grand Jury (in those states which have a Grand Jury system), and the return of all your seized firearm(s) and related property. With CHLPP there are NO deductibles, co-pays, or limits. CHLPP members pay nothing out of their own pockets.

This is the direct quote from CHLPP. It says they will retain an attorney until there is a dismissal or no-bill. If the charges are not dismissed and/or you are indicted they don't cover your defense. Statements and/or promises posted on a website are not a legal contract. IANAL, but that is my non-legal opinion.

I guess I just assumed none of us would murder anyone.

AEA wrote:Nope.

And paying the retainer to CHLPP does not provide NO legal cost defense either!

Assuming we're not including the price of membership to the CHLPP, your assertion directly contradicts the information given on the CHLPP's website.

Do you have a cite or specific anecdotal circumstance that validates your claim? Or, were you just stating your opinion?