Do You UNDERSTAND the Charges Against You Today? How do You Plead?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 12:36 PM by nwodeath

reply to post by defcon5

None of those cases have any validity to what i'm doing or saying.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 04:44 PM by whatukno

What would happen is they would stop the trial to have you tested to see if your mentally competent to stand trial.

If you are found competent, you would get the maximum penalty if found guilty for wasting the courts time.

If your found incompetent to stand trial, it's one flew over the cuckoo's nest time.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 05:28 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by whatukno

You would definately not want to do this my friend.

I on the other hand love to do such things. The Original Poster is 100% correct.

The entire Justice System is designed to provide a source of cheaply paid labor housed at the Tax Payer's expense for the profit of private and corporately owned Prison Industries at the Tax Payer's expense.

Laws are purposefully designed to warehouse entire segments of the population who are deemed to be more productive laboring in captivity.

The reality is most of the laws are not Constitutionally Legal Laws and the Corporate Government gets around that by getting the citizen to cede jurisdiction over them to the Corporate Court in Unconstitutional Proceedings to sign legally binding valid contracts consigning them to prison labor.

If you did not kill anyone in a premediated or cold blooded fashion. If you did not steal anything from anyone else. If you did not commit Treason...

You have not broken any Constitutional Law. The other 600,000 codes on the book are simply wishful thinking of a Dictatorial Military/Corporate Dictatorship looking to profit off the backs of the decieved citizens.

Some people are more easily deceived than others!

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 06:27 PM by nwodeath

Originally posted by whatukno
What would happen is they would stop the trial to have you tested to see if your mentally competent to stand trial.

If you are found competent, you would get the maximum penalty if found guilty for wasting the courts time.

If your found incompetent to stand trial, it's one flew over the cuckoo's nest time.

If you read what I posted, it all pertains to what you say before even pleading, which you never do. If you never plead, and you don't get your questions answered, it does not matter what happens at trial, it's all reversible error on appeal.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 07:05 PM by whatukno

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

If you did not kill anyone in a premediated or cold blooded fashion. If you did not steal anything from anyone else. If you did not commit Treason...

You have not broken any Constitutional Law. The other 600,000 codes on the book are simply wishful thinking of a Dictatorial Military/Corporate Dictatorship looking to profit off the backs of the decieved citizens.

Uh, have you actually ever read the constitution? You do know that Congress does have the constitutional right to make laws in this country, whether you like it or not.

And yes police are charged with enforcing those very laws.

And really if any of you try and pull what the OP is suggesting, you would end up in jail for a long time, or worse a loony bin for much longer. Take my advice and get a lawyer. Don't try what the OP is suggesting because it won't work.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 07:50 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by whatukno

Oops too late friend. Take my advice don't get a lawyer and learn some Latin and the law!

They will not put you in the loony bin, they instead shake your hand and respectfully wish you well as you head out the door.

The United States Congress legally disbanded in 1861 friend and was never legally called back into session per it's own Constitutional Rules since.

Nothing passed into law since 1861 has any Constitutional validity.

It's all a De Facto War Time Government and Corporate Contract Law.

Congress has no right to pass any law that impinges on your individual sovereignty or right to self determination with 600,000 laws on the books and counting they all impinge on your individual sovereignty and right to self determination.

You only live this life once my friend. You get points for living it large and thinking big, not for living it small and thinking small.

Break out of that box you are in! The air is fine out here.

[edit on 1/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:01 PM by whatukno

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

If that was true, then there is no possible way that Obama isn't POTUS as the whole US government is a fraud. If the Whole government is a fraud, than Obama did not violate anything if he was born in Kenya.

So your theory has some holes in it. If this is an illegal government, Obama cannot violate the constitution if no constitution exists.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:12 PM by rnaa

Originally posted by autowrench
"Are we on the record?"

"Yes, your Honor, I am the beneficiary of the Trust.

As the beneficiary, I now appoint you, Judge XXX as Trustee of my Trust."

As Trustee of my Trust, I hereby instruct you, Judge XXX, to expunge the record of this court of any and all documentation concerning me, and that my name be stricken from these records."

Further, Judge XXX, I instruct you, as Trustee of my Trust, to pay me, from the court fund, X amount, for my time and effort in appearing in this venue."

The obvious problem with this is that a Trustee must accept that trust. And must not violate the law in carrying out the duties of the Trusteeship.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:21 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by whatukno

Hey you are making progress. You guys miss me on the other thread admit it. It's just no fun with out me. I know, you try your best to carry on but it's not the same.

Legally because it fell out of use the Constitution is an unenforcable doctrine.

However the whole illusion of the Corporate Government and the Military Dictatorship running the country since 1861 is to convince people they are free and the Constitution applies.

When you step inside of a Court Room certain rules and procedures bind both parties.

Of course the whole preceding is basically about questioning the legitimacy and lawfulness of the defendant so it's easy in most cases for the Court to keep the preceding off of questioning the legitimacy and the lawfulness of the Court and where it derives it's power from and to whom it's obligated.

Attorney are Officers of the court and their primary obligation is to the court so they will never question this. When you accept an attorney and let him enter his appearance you are binding yourself without question to the courts rules and juridstiction friend.

In fact other Officers of the Court are loath to have to talk to non-officers of the Court in any part of the official or behinds the scenes precedings.

When you begin to ask questions on the record that you actually have a right to about the Court and where it derives it's power from and how it is interpeting the law and why, then it puts the court in a very risky area.

Common law requires someone be able to prove damages.

So you better understand how important this is, many people who can't pay their mortgages and the banks have foreclosed against them can't be legally kicked out of the homes because when the bank shows up to court they don't have the actual title to the property in their possession.

Only the original title constitutes ownership. If you can't prove ownership you can't prove damages.

The Judge can't actually rule in the banks favor because while they state ownership they can't prove ownership. If they can't prove they own it and the only way they can is by displaying the title (the real original one ahem) they can't prove they are the owners or that they have been injured.

This is common law. Most people in criminal precedings are tricked into giving up common law where someone has to prove damages and to instead use Code Law, but the Code's are unconstitutional and when you start questioning the Oaths of Office the Court Officials have taken and where the laws come from and how they are being applied then it puts things on the record that ultimately will lead to the case being overturned on appeal as soon as someone approaches it with common law, as long as the defendant does not agree to the contract.

Sign one piece of paper, that's all she wrote. Now the court has a contract, you gave it permission. Hang tough and politely refuse and question them and once they make a few runs at you they will give up. They try to wear you out when they see that they can't they fold. I have done with the IRS and Federal Judges.

Don't understimate the validity of what some of these people are saying on ATS, don't assume you know something that actually might be used to your own detriment some day.

The reality is we have more people in prison than Red China and most of them are poor minorities whose crimes resulted in no common law damage.

Prison Industries like UNICORE are privately held companies that make a fortune of products they make with cheaply paid prison labor all sold to the State, Local and Federal Governments at huge profit to the stock holders.

The Prison/Inudstrial Complex has been a long growing monster and it's through people not knowing the law, and being tricked by the Court and it's officers into giving up their rights and signing contracts to allow it juristiction outside of common law that enables that to happen.

The truth is friend that the United States of Ameirca is a State in the Roman Empire. Ask a Judge if he or she is obligated to Rome and see what happens. Start speaking Latin and see what happens.

You simply have no idea friend, very few people do.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:26 PM by whatukno

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

That, or your being completely delusional as per typical PT.

The law is the law. You violate it, and you get a lawyer to defend you. If he is good enough, you get off. If he sucks well. Jail time.

We have the best legal system money can buy in this country, just ask O.J.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:31 PM by BugByte

reply to post by whatukno

You have no clue. Law is the Constitution everything else is a Statute which needs your consent. The OP is right, Stop Consenting to statutes!

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:35 PM by whatukno

reply to post by BugByte

As I said, get a lawyer. I don't recommend anyone go into a courtroom and do what the OP says. Why? Cause you will end up in jail for a very long time.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:41 PM by BugByte

I don't need a lawyer to enter me into consenting. thanks anyways.

Do you know the legal definition of "Driver" means? Do you have a Drivers License and do you Drive?

Blacks Law Dictionary, which is a legal dictionary describes that a Driver is someone employed to go from point A to point B.

Are you sure you Drive legally or are you just freely Traveling?

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:43 PM by iamoverrated

Hey,
Might be a little off topic, but the last 3 speeding tickets I've gotten, I've never had to pay a dime. I would just wait until the court date, show up, and simply ask:
1.) If the officer used a "speed detecting device".
2.) If yes, was the officer certified to use said device?
3.) If yes, can I see any documentation proving that he was?
4.) Usually they can't provide it or they'll say it was part of his "basic" training.
5.) To which I'll reply when was the device last calibrated?
6.) Can you provide documentation showing when it was calibrated?
7.) Usually its a no, but if its a yes they'll postpone to a later date, and in my county if the officer fails to appear at that "later date" the case is dismissed OR if he fails to provide adequate documentation the case is dismissed.

I'm not saying it'll work for you, I make no promises or guarantees, but it's worked for me for over 3 years now.

Thanks and sorry if this straying away from the main topic.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:45 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by whatukno

You can't prove that! Because you have never done it. You have never seen anyone do it!

All you are advocating is ceding your own sovereignty and right to self determination.

Only a rigidly trained and highly indoctrinated slave would do that.

[edit on 1/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 08:48 PM by BugByte

reply to post by iamoverrated

you can try and be a pain in the but like that but if you lose you end up getting it worst. Your best bet is to KNOW that your Free and that they are just corporations who have no power over you unless you consent.

Know Your Rights! He who does not, Has Not!

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 09:05 PM by nwodeath

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by whatukno

Oops too late friend. Take my advice don't get a lawyer and learn some Latin and the law!

They will not put you in the loony bin, they instead shake your hand and respectfully wish you well as you head out the door.

The United States Congress legally disbanded in 1861 friend and was never legally called back into session per it's own Constitutional Rules since.

Nothing passed into law since 1861 has any Constitutional validity.

It's all a De Facto War Time Government and Corporate Contract Law.

Congress has no right to pass any law that impinges on your individual sovereignty or right to self determination with 600,000 laws on the books and counting they all impinge on your individual sovereignty and right to self determination.

You only live this life once my friend. You get points for living it large and thinking big, not for living it small and thinking small.

Break out of that box you are in! The air is fine out here.

[edit on 1/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

That's exactly the truth. Amen!

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 09:21 PM by jimmyx

Originally posted by nwodeath

Originally posted by finnegan

Originally posted by nwodeath
Do the terms and words used in law have different meaning than those in English language?

Judge: Well, yes they do. [That is the only answer he can give]
[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]

I'm not very educated with laws most everything I know is from someone's interpretation of the law unless I have to look up some city code.

I was wondering if in this scenario the judge would say "no, the meanings are the same"

Now at this point you can't argue with a judge or he could hold you in contempt I think. So then the case would have to play out and then an appeal filed, but then the appeal could just get thrown out without being looked at or the next judge may say the first was correct.

He cannot say the meanings are the same. If he does, that's a "reversible error" on appeal. Its procedural misconduct, and it's completely reversible, provided that you do not sit on your rights.

a judge is the law in his courtroom, and i think you have had some very, very patient judges. he does not need a reason to put you in contempt of court and throw you in jail...and you won't find an appeal court that will goes against that lower court judge using those tactics...if you have...show us where these cases are...they are all public record, and we can easily pull them up online.

reply posted on 1-11-2009 @ 09:56 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

reply to post by jimmyx

A Judges primary responsibility is to find a remedy. Ultimately the Judge would like both plaintiff and defendant to accept their findings as a remedy.

Judges can act in an autocratic way but that does not mean it won't be overturned on appeal.

It's not about being rude, or belligerent. It's really about showing the State the Judge does not need to provide a remedy in your regard. That you are self aware, knowledgeable, and able to conduct yourself to those standards that you represent no harm to the state or any citizen and your actions didn’t cause any harm to a specific citizen or the state.

This is not going to work in real crimes such as murder or theft of treason.

In victimless crimes it is going to work when in fact there is no one who can prove your actions have personally damaged them.

That's common law and not corporate law and Judges are bound by common law by those who demand that common law apply.

Ultimately you are going to have to convince the judge you know common law, and you know what the words mean, especially the Latin Words mean.

A lot of people present these things as get out of jail free cards, they aren't.

You have to actually be able to display you understand the meaning of the words, the principles behind them and to be able to verbalize them in a very high stress public situation.

You have to be mannered and respectful doing that and you actually have to be able to point to the meanings of the words, their roots in the law, and sometimes even cite the cases where they have been successfully used and applied.

You have to be able to display you know the game they are playing, but in a sporting way, and that you too are capable of playing the game in a mannered and genteel way.

The reality is that most judges find this highly intriguing, refreshing and entertaining.

So too will bailiffs, probation officers and prosecutors. The least happy person in the bunch will be your own benched lawyer forced to sit there watching you do for yourself what they wouldn't do for you as an officer of the court.

They end up the most humiliated person in the process.

A cursory knowledge of these things will in fact not help you well. An absolute knowledge and unshakable conviction in them will help you tremendously.

No respectable Judge in the nation is going to take offense for you standing up for your own rights. Don't fool yourself about that.

Most Judges are highly empathetic people looking to provide a remedy to all parties.

They aren't prosecutors, they are most often arbiters.

They can only though use the tools that the prosecution and the defense and the jury give them within the confines of the law.

In reality what you are in essence doing is giving them additional tools and permission to use them.

Instead of sitting on the shelf because no one has requested they be brought into play, you are requesting that they be brought in to play.

If you know what those tools are and can describe them this in fact excites many Judges who don't often get to use these tools.

Judges are not adversaries, or advocates, the prosecution is an adversarial advocate not the Judge.

It’s important to understand each role each person plays and to understand that your own fate hangs in the balance and ultimately the person who does have the most leeway and authority in regards to that in the Courtroom is you.
If you don’t exercise those rights you will loose them in the process, that’s why it’s vital to exercise them without fear or prejudice.

[edit on 1/11/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply posted on 25-10-2010 @ 11:03 PM by Ranko Kohime

reply to post by defcon5

Yes, because the ADL is an unimpeachable source of information.