I should have been more specific. I didn't mean THAT misdemeanor made you a prohibited person, but that A (certain) misdemeanor could, and that all misdemeanors weren't "basically a traffic ticket".
And you are right, a traffic ticket isn't even a misdemeanor, until you get too many and don't pay them...
(yes, I know that will be a separate charge..)
It simply didn't occur to me that it could be understood they way you did, but now, knowing that, I can, hopefully do better.
and I don't feel picked on, either. Just woefully inadequate and misunderstood!
(sarcasm intentional)
SO, what's to become of this woman and her apparent quest for vengeance??
Charges for perjury, I would hope, at the least.
I can see, if she steadfastly maintains that she was not intentionally lying and really, really, rilly does believe that her having a son who was shot and killed by someone gives them a "child in common", it could be used as a defense.
I don't think it would work, but they might try to use it. Don't think many people would accept her definition though.
If her idea holds, then I guess I have a "child in common" with my kids schoolbus driver, and everyone else they meet in their lives.
I'd like to say she's a wackjob, but until the court does, I'll hold off on that. Until then, I suppose she has the legal right to try and game the system to get what she wants, just like everyone else.
From here, it looks like she tried that, and failed.
am off to watch the playoffs...do your kids watch the playoffs? Maybe we have a "child in common" then???