VolusiaExposed.Com is preparing a follow up article to our October 3, 2016 article regarding the on-going criminal prosecution of Richard Thripp.
http://www.volusiaexposed.com/vcso/richardthripp92016.html

Today (Jan. 9, 2017) Richard Thripp filed a motion with the Court that alleged that the State had filed - within their informational - the incorrect statute citation against him. Further - the incorrect statute was also cited within the Volusia Sheriff Department's (VCSO) charging affidavit.

In preparation for our follow-up article - we have researched - and uncovered - supportive evidence that other individuals have been similarly mis-charged by the VCSO and the State Attorney.

We (VolusiaExposed.Com) have suspected for sometime now - that the TRUE rationale for Mr. Thripp's criminal charge had it's foundation within the YOUTUBE videos Mr. Thripp posted on-line detailing his interactions with VCSO deputies during the early morning hours of December 26, 2014. (videos are linked within our above 10-3-2016 article)

We suspect that Mr. Thripp angered and embarrassed the deputies that late December morning in 2014 - by accomplishing what is known as a WACO (We Ain’t Coming Out) – by exercising his U.S. Constitutional right to refuse to exit his home – absent the police having the lawful authority to demand his compliance (warrants).

At today's Court hearing - Judge Belle Schumann memorialized for the record - her opinion – that Mr. Thripp has once again embarrassed the State - by pointing out their error of filing the wrong statutory citation. (see minute 3:44 of below listed YouTube video)
https://youtu.be/xqam59clObc

Judge Schumann went on to memorialize her opinion - that Mr. Thripp will be unsuccessful in his attempt to have a jury find him not guilty - because he is "difficult to like". Judge Schumann highly recommended that Mr. Thripp hire an attorney due to his inability to be "liked".

And here we (VolusiaExposed.Com) thought - that trials were based on facts and evidence - and not on who the jury likes the most. Imagine our surprise to find out that apparently it's Mr. Thripp's burden to be "liked" more than the assistant state attorneys that are prosecuting him. We (VolusiaExposed.Com) have been told for years - that the burden of proving a defendant guilty rested on the State - in their ability to produce the evidence that supports the defendant's guilt. (in this case Mr. Thripp).

Our point is this - if Judge Schumann believes that the jury must “like” Thripp for him to be found not guilty - is it really inappropriate for us to suggest that this WHOLE criminal prosecution of Thripp has it's foundation in the fact that he is not liked very much by the VCSO, the State Attorney's office – and maybe now – even by Judge Schumann?

This letter has been sent to you - in the hopes that you can bring some clarity to our concerns.

We invite our readers to form their own conclusions.

Regards;

VolusiaExposed.Com


bcc - several