I certainly know enough to assert it. The arrest wasn't for a crime against anyone per se, so it's victimless. It's a bit of semantics though.
I repeat. This is not a matter of record at this time. If you have other credible sources that it was, in your view, an "innocent" offense, by all means, enlighten us now, if you have sources you can reveal. However, let me tell you now that no judge and no attorney considers "failure to appear" to be a de minimis offense. It basically usually removes any chance at future leniency and shows an attitude of contempt towards the law and courts. I also do not consider his traffic offense to be "victimless." For one thing, his mother will have a difficult time ever renting another car, unless she can carry off the lie again. After all, she insured him in the rental agreement to her last bottom dollar, and then violated it, which may say something her attitude toward the law also. In addition, an extremely high percentage of serious injuries and fatalities are caused by - wait for it - unlicensed and suspended license drivers. I'm sure their victims wouldn't agree with your characterizations. Now, if you have confidential information you'd like to convey to me via PM, beyond the bald assertions you've made, do so, and we'll discuss it. Until then, I'm telling you're out of this discussion. You should listen...