what if fiance believes he was not guilty

[shannon65 2]

I am going to ask my lawyer this question

Just want to seek an opinion here

My fiance has to write a statement for the waiver application, stating his crime and how he feels about it now.

He rented a car and the agency owner wanted only cash (by his description, she said it was "because of tax"). He wanted to use a credit card, but she said no, take the car and you can pay later with cash. But after he had been using it a while, she reclaimed it without any notice, saying she needed it urgently, and wanted the cash. He did not have the cash then and could not pay her. She still would not take the credit card (I thought car rental agencies WANTED credit cards). So she accused him and he was convicted of fraud (they said he had no money and no intention of paying) for which he paid a fine of 500.

In Korea, in small cases like these, people tend not to hire lawyers or fight the charge, just accept a conviction and a fine. But fraud conviction is CIMT so it matters a lot now.

But in writing his statement, he must sound repentant. He made the statement as above but he believes he was not really guilty. Is it OK to say that in the statement or should he just take the position that he was wrong.

Korean pastor at my church says the agency owner was trying to avoid paying taxes by getting the customers to pay cash. But I'm sure there is no way to prove that.

[Bobbie 1]

I am going to ask my lawyer this question

Just want to seek an opinion here

My fiance has to write a statement for the waiver application, stating his crime and how he feels about it now.

He rented a car and the agency owner wanted only cash (by his description, she said it was "because of tax"). He wanted to use a credit card, but she said no, take the car and you can pay later with cash. But after he had been using it a while, she reclaimed it without any notice, saying she needed it urgently, and wanted the cash. He did not have the cash then and could not pay her. She still would not take the credit card (I thought car rental agencies WANTED credit cards). So she accused him and he was convicted of fraud (they said he had no money and no intention of paying) for which he paid a fine of 500.

In Korea, in small cases like these, people tend not to hire lawyers or fight the charge, just accept a conviction and a fine. But fraud conviction is CIMT so it matters a lot now.

But in writing his statement, he must sound repentant. He made the statement as above but he believes he was not really guilty. Is it OK to say that in the statement or should he just take the position that he was wrong.

Korean pastor at my church says the agency owner was trying to avoid paying taxes by getting the customers to pay cash. But I'm sure there is no way to prove that.

Actually, I think you want to do a search on here for Laurel Scott's memo. I have read that if you do not believe you are guilty you should not say, I am guilty .....I think basically you state the facts and say this is what happened, but not, oh now i am so much better.....do some more research through the forums.

Good Luck

[shannon65 2]

I am going to ask my lawyer this question

Just want to seek an opinion here

My fiance has to write a statement for the waiver application, stating his crime and how he feels about it now.

He rented a car and the agency owner wanted only cash (by his description, she said it was "because of tax"). He wanted to use a credit card, but she said no, take the car and you can pay later with cash. But after he had been using it a while, she reclaimed it without any notice, saying she needed it urgently, and wanted the cash. He did not have the cash then and could not pay her. She still would not take the credit card (I thought car rental agencies WANTED credit cards). So she accused him and he was convicted of fraud (they said he had no money and no intention of paying) for which he paid a fine of 500.

In Korea, in small cases like these, people tend not to hire lawyers or fight the charge, just accept a conviction and a fine. But fraud conviction is CIMT so it matters a lot now.

But in writing his statement, he must sound repentant. He made the statement as above but he believes he was not really guilty. Is it OK to say that in the statement or should he just take the position that he was wrong.

Korean pastor at my church says the agency owner was trying to avoid paying taxes by getting the customers to pay cash. But I'm sure there is no way to prove that.

Actually, I think you want to do a search on here for Laurel Scott's memo. I have read that if you do not believe you are guilty you should not say, I am guilty .....I think basically you state the facts and say this is what happened, but not, oh now i am so much better.....do some more research through the forums.

Good Luck

yes I did look at that, thanks. It does say something like you should not apologize or it's an admission of guilt.

[dwar49 0]

There is no question about his guilt in the eyes of the law. No matter the circumstances he was convicted and payed a fine. Ergo he falls under the CIMT.

No he probably should not go into lengthy explanations, and he definitly should not in any way say that he does not think he was quilty. Simple state the facts and ensure that your fiancee says he deeply regrets the incident, and by using statements from people that have known him before and after the incident, prove that he is a honest person.

Remember first you must prove extreme hardship, then you must prove that he is rehabilited and of good moral character.

Disputing the conviction is definitly the wrong course of action.

[shannon65 2]

There is no question about his guilt in the eyes of the law. No matter the circumstances he was convicted and payed a fine. Ergo he falls under the CIMT.

No he probably should not go into lengthy explanations, and he definitly should not in any way say that he does not think he was quilty. Simple state the facts and ensure that your fiancee says he deeply regrets the incident, and by using statements from people that have known him before and after the incident, prove that he is a honest person.

Remember first you must prove extreme hardship, then you must prove that he is rehabilited and of good moral character.

Disputing the conviction is definitly the wrong course of action.

that sounds sensible to me. Certainly, I am gathering the evidence for extreme hardship. I am just worried about how his statement should go.