I need words of wisdom

[spazoid86]

My opinion is that I think it is odd that you had to look at your record to find out that you had two misdemeanor convictions. I realize it was a quarter of your lifetime ago, but standing up in court while a judge looks at you and says "GUILTY" would tend to stick out in one's memory, I'd think.

I never plead guilty and the judge never said gulity. I didn't plea at all. Hints why it was COWF, and why it is just admission to sufficient facts. If your going to make smart remarks...at least know what you are talking about.

Direct from MASS.gov === Continued without a finding: not considered a conviction. The court allows the defendant to "save" his record and not have a guilty finding entered as long as he completes a period of probation without further criminal charges and complies with the terms of probation. Most often occurs where the defendant has admitted to sufficient facts.

For future notice, if someone is asking for help, or advice...its doesn't make you look any better being a wise a**.

 

[JJR512]

I never plead guilty and the judge never said gulity. I didn't plea at all. Hints why it was COWF, and why it is just admission to sufficient facts. If your going to make smart remarks...at least know what you are talking about.

Direct from MASS.gov === Continued without a finding: not considered a conviction. The court allows the defendant to "save" his record and not have a guilty finding entered as long as he completes a period of probation without further criminal charges and complies with the terms of probation. Most often occurs where the defendant has admitted to sufficient facts.

For future notice, if someone is asking for help, or advice...its doesn't make you look any better being a wise a**.

Whoa there boy, chill out. Nobody is being a smart ***, so hold your horses. I didn't know what "COWF" was. And by the way, it's CWOF, not COWF. They don't have that in Maryland. But now that you've explained it, it sounds somewhat similar to Probation Before Judgement, or PBJ, which is an option the judge has for a minor or first-time offense in simple cases. The judge says he or she finds sufficient cause to find the defendant guilty, but the guilty verdict (the judgement) isn't entered. Instead, the defendant is placed on probation; if the terms of the probation are completed satisfactorily, the case is dismissed, with no judgement ever entered on the record. So this sounds very similar to your state's CWOF.

I don't know how your CWOF works specifically, but here in Maryland, to get a PBJ, one does have to be a defendant in a trial, and one does go to court for that. So regardless of what you or the judge did or didn't say exactly, it's still an event I think you would remember. Being a defendant in court in front of a judge does tend to stick out in the recollections of most people.

One last thing...The last thing you asked for was an opinion. I gave one. Be careful what you wish for. And if you're going to ask for help or advice, you'd best be prepared to hear or read something that might not make you all warm and fuzzy inside, including comments that are only tangentially related to what you originally asked about.

I can't give you any great advice that hasn't already been stated by someone else. The only thing I can really offer you is an observation that your letter needs some work, both with proofreading (hint: "certainly" is a correctly-spelled word, so no spell checker will ever catch it, but when the word that should have been used was "certainty", it's still wrong) as well as general idea expression. I'd be happy to offer a revision, by email or PM, if you'd like.

 

[spazoid86]

.

Sorry to me it sounded like you were coming off as a smartass. Yes there may be some misspelled words as I am typing this all on my phone. As far as the law...in Mass you don't have to be in a trial, the judge basically decides for you. I got my community service. Any now back on the subject at hand. I was more or less asking the opinions of those that have been in my shoes before.

I did remember being in court for threatening, however I didn't remeber the disorderly conduct, so I was a littke suprised to find two of them. The only reason I looked at my CORI was because I thought this happened when I was 16 not 17, and it that would of made it part of my juvenile record which is sealed. Had I answered NO to that question, I would have been completely disqualified. So I am glad I checked.

 

[ffemt8978]

I never plead guilty and the judge never said gulity. I didn't plea at all. Hints why it was COWF, and why it is just admission to sufficient facts. If your going to make smart remarks...at least know what you are talking about

For future notice, if someone is asking for help, or advice...its doesn't make you look any better being a wise a**.

And before you come to an international forum asking advice you need to keep a couple of things in mind:

Most members don't know (much less care) about localized issues. The responses they provide are based upon their experience in their regions. However, it can serve as a basis for you to decide what action you should take as a responsible adult managing their own life.

You better be prepared to hear advice you don't like. Just because you dont like it doesn't mean the person is being a wiseass.

Some of those background checks ask abour convictions only, and some ask if you were ever arrested or charged with a crime. That means even when the case was dismiised, there is still a record of it.

 

[firetender]

I'm not all that sure you were CONVICTED of anything

Here's how I'd edit your letter as it stands:

In answer to “ Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the United States...?”

Yes. (State the actual conviction, date and the court specifically)

In May of 2004, when I was 17 ½ my parents remanded me to a group home. I was very angry at the time, and confused about my life. I got into a verbal argument with one of the staff members there. The staff member tried to escort me up to my room. I got mad when he touched me, and told him not to. I pulled away from him and he tried again to escort me back to my room, I got angry and threatened him, telling him not to touch me again. The police were called and I was arrested for Disorderly Conduct and Threatening. I appeared in court, and the case was COWF (PLEASE SPELL OUT) for one year.

I was asked to pay fines, but my social worker requested I do community service, I finished my community service one year later, and the case was closed.

[If the case is closed, there would be no (relevant) record of delayed payment. If it's done it's done!]

I dealt with my anger in an inappropriate manner and take full responsibility. I have since matured, learned from that mistake, and know what the consequences for my actions are today.

In the meantime, I have worked very hard to get to the place I am in my life today, and to further my passion for becoming a Paramedic. I ask that this mistake I made please not be held against me as I journey towards my final career of being a Paramedic, to make my life a more joyful and fulfilling experience (that benefits others).

 

[spazoid86]

Thanks for revisions. I understand that this is international. I just took it the wrong way. Sorry

 

[JJR512]

Sorry to me it sounded like you were coming off as a smartass. Yes there may be some misspelled words as I am typing this all on my phone. As far as the law...in Mass you don't have to be in a trial, the judge basically decides for you. I got my community service. Any how back on the subject at hand. I was more or less asking the opinions of those that have been in my shoes before.

It's interesting (in a "wow that seems strange" kind of way) that you don't have to actually go to court to get that. Just from my experience, that's all, I'm not judging your system or anything like that.

As for being in your shoes...I've been in similar.

Over ten years ago, I'd written a couple of checks to a store, and due to some bad bookkeeping on my part, they bounced. The store owner told me to bring him the cash by the end of the next day or he'd file charges. I didn't have any cash, so he filed charges. I forget the exact legal specification but there was a misdemeanor specifically related to bouncing checks due to non-sufficient funds. Anyway, as I said, I was charged with that. Before the trial date, I was able to come up with the money, which I gave to the store owner. When it came up for trial, the owner explained to the prosecutor ahead of time that I'd paid, so the prosecutor told the judge that they'd be happy with a PBJ. I accepted the offer. I was put on probation for 18 months.

Four years ago, I applied for membership to a volunteer company in Anne Arundel County, MD, and was accepted, and through them, took an EMT course. Midway through the course, though, I was informed that my background check had turned up this PBJ, and due to that, I would not be allowed to be a "riding member" as long as it was on my record. I could still be an associate member and complete the course and become an EMT, I could still come to the station and participate in activities there, I just couldn't ride out on the ambulance (or any apparatus).

I wound up talking to an assistant chief about this (who in the meantime has since become chief of the entire county department). He explained to me that the nature of the charge was a violation of public trust. He said that if some future hypothetical patient ever complained that money was missing from his pocket, and I was on that crew, and the police investigated and saw that on my record, then I would be a prime suspect. And the public would find out and it would make the department look bad, etc. I said but hey, it's only a PBJ, it's not a guilty verdict. (The application only asked about convictions, and since a PBJ is technically not a conviction, I had checked "No".) He said it didn't matter that it was only a PBJ, they still treated it like a guilty conviction. Then he went on to explain why they had the legal authority to treat a PBJ like a guilty conviction, which I'm not sure I really bought, but I wasn't really in any position to do anything about it other than bend over and take it, so that's what I did.

I eventually left that county and became a member in Howard County, where I made sure to explain this situation up front. Anne Arundel's problem wasn't that I didn't explain it up front, by the way; it wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, Howard County doesn't have a problem with this item on my background report at all.

Anyway, as I explained, and I'm sure you'd agree, a PBJ sounds pretty similar to a CWOF, even though you don't have to go to court, apparently, to get a CWOF. So I think you are right to explain about it up front, especially since your application uses specific terminology to get you to admit to one, unlike Anne Arundel County's application, which only asked for convictions. So explaining about it up front is definitely the smart thing to do.

I really don't know what advice or help is really applicable here, other than do explain it up front. After that, all you can really do is wait and see. Obviously the exact circumstances of your case is quite different from mine, but even with mine, you can see that it was unacceptable to one county yet another county didn't care about it at all. Now, your case involves a threat of violence, which I tend to think might be seen as a bit more severe than bouncing checks, but it was only a threat, not an actual act. And as you explain, you were young, and in a bad situation, etc.

I guess really the only thing I might suggest considering is seeing if anyone you know would be willing to write a brief statement on your behalf. Some kind of positive character testimonial. If possible, try to get a few of these written by people who are older than you and in some kind of respectable profession, especially if it's one that involves judging character. In other words, if you've got a best buddy that lives down the street from you, about your same age and he has a minimum-wage job and spends the rest of his time playing video games in his mother's basement, don't get a letter from him, but if another neighbor is a respectable professional and knows and likes you well enough, that'd be the kind of person to ask.

 

[JPINFV]

It doesn't really bear on the situation or topic at hand at all, but MrBrown was referring to this, from your original post:


I agree, MrBrown, it does seem to be an oddly-put inquiry.

I'd guess that it's probably to cover US territories such as Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc.

 

[JJR512]

I'd guess that it's probably to cover US territories such as Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, etc.

That's kind of what I was thinking, but I sort of dismissed that thought because, well, I guess I thought that even though they were US territories, they were still also sovereign states (nations). A quick look on Wikipedia tells me I'm apparently wrong about that. But since they are technically part of the USA, I wonder if they qualify as "foreign", though.

 

[spazoid86]

Sorry Maybe I should have specified. I was looking to get some insight from people that have had the same issue.
Like having something on their record (ie misdemeanor, felony), and having to write a letter to explain, but was still able to take the test.

Thanks

 

[Sandog]

Some of those background checks ask abour convictions only, and some ask if you were ever arrested or charged with a crime. That means even when the case was dismiised, there is still a record of it.

Just a comment about arrest. In many states (California for example) it is a law violation to inquire about arrest that did not result in a conviction.

PROHIBITED PRE-EMPLOYMENT INQUIRIES:
Any inquiry relating to arrests. Since, under our judicial system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty - i.e., convicted - records of arrests without conviction are not useful and may be prejudicial.

http://legal.uncc.edu/interviewguidelines.html#arrest

Just FYI

 

[spazoid86]

Just a comment about arrest. In many states (California for example) it is a law violation to inquire about arrest that did not result in a conviction.



http://legal.uncc.edu/interviewguidelines.html#arrest

Just FYI

Admission to sufficient facts....or cwof is not a conviction but they can ask

 

[Sandog]

Admission to sufficient facts....or cwof is not a conviction but they can ask

I am referring more to an arrest that was dismissed, this was in response to quoted comment above.
A CWOF is If you work out a deal to receive a CWOF, you are admitting that the prosecution does have enough evidence against you for a reasonable jury to find you guilty.

This is similar to a nolo contendere, or no contest plea.
http://www.masscriminaldefense.com/cwof.htm

It may be useful for you to discuss your concerns with an attorney ( I am not one). I know in Ca. certain records can be expunged after sufficient time has passed. Initial attorney consult fee's can be relatively low and may prove to be of benefit. Hope things work out for you.

 

[JJR512]

Sorry Maybe I should have specified. I was looking to get some insight from people that have had the same issue.
Like having something on their record (ie misdemeanor, felony), and having to write a letter to explain, but was still able to take the test.

Thanks

You know, you really seem to be trying pretty hard to exclude me here. My situation is pretty darned similar. I had a misdemeanor on my record. I didn't have to write a letter, true, but what does a letter do? It explains your situation. Well I had to explain my situation to somebody—in PERSON. And I was still able to take a test after that, although that was never in doubt. It's going to be hard to find many people in the EXACT same situation as you, so if someone has something similar, take it for what it's worth. Take a look at the first reply, from Amycus, that seems pretty close to your situation. What more do you want? What advice do you want? Other than answer "yes" to the question and provide your explanation, which you've already decided to do, there isn't anything any of us can tell you that's going to have any impact on the outcome. And I suspect that even a hundred people telling you not to worry about it isn't going to make you stop worrying about it.

 

[ffemt8978]

Just a comment about arrest. In many states (California for example) it is a law violation to inquire about arrest that did not result in a conviction.



http://legal.uncc.edu/interviewguidelines.html#arrest

Just FYI

So they can't ask about it, but the point I was making is that in certain circumstances, it will still show up as an arrest on a background check with a notation it was dismissed or closed. And in today's online society, even if the arrest is completely expunged from the criminal record, it doesn't disappear from online news sites that report such information. An employer would simply have to search an applicant's name and see what gets returned to find out about it.

When a person is arrested or charged, there can be several agencies that have a copy of that report. The arresting agency, the jail (if booked), the state (maintains state criminal history) and the FBI (maintains III files). In order to ensure that the record is completely expunged, the appropriate information must be sent to all agencies that have a file on the arrest. Most expungements are pretty good about getting the state and FBI records removed but they are pretty bad about removing the arresting agency and jail files.