Been busted for a victimless crime?

[MJPassion]

Learn how to protect yourself in court!

A lot of us have been down this road and a lot of us know that the US justice system has been overtaken by money hungry politicians that don't give a crap about our personal individual rights.

Here is a small bit of information to get you started down the road to telling police, judges and lawyers to shove it.

No corpus delicti no case.


Edited on Fri Nov-06-09 05:28 PM by Xicano
{Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am only posting this for discussion purposes}


---

Without a valid cause of action there's no corpus delicti. If there's no corpus delicti a case has no standing. There are numorus cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff has no standing.

In order to have a corpus delicti a case requires a valid "cause of action." A valid cause of action requires three elements. The three elements are: 1) a violation of a legal right, 2) damage or injury, 3) redress-ability by the court.

If the prosecutor fails to meet all three elements required to file a valid cause of action, then, the prosecutor has no standing, thus, the court has no jurisdiction.

After establishing no one's legal rights have been violated everything after that is besides the point.

For example:

Pretend you're in court as a defendant who was arrested for having a couple baggies of weed. Before anything else I'd ask the judge does corpus delicti apply in this case? They can only answer yes because corpus delicti literally is the essence of the supposed criminal act.

Then I'd ask the prosecutor "did you file a valid cause of action against me?" Of course the prosecutor will have to answer yes, because, if they answered no, then, they just said they don't have a valid case against you.

So after they answer yes, I'd ask them "how many elements are required to file a valid cause of action?" Any argument by the prosecutor as to why that is not germane to the case is flatly wrong because these elements are central to the case. So of course they're gonna have to answer that there's three required elements.

Then I'd ask the prosecutor what are these three elements. By answering, the prosecutor themselves are gonna be impeaching their own case because they will not be able to cite an injury or damage, or, a violation of a legal right to anybody.

They will not have any evidence of a complaining party, nor will they be able to cite an imagined aggregate known as a state as the injured party because the government itself through numerous cases has ruled the government isn't obligated to protect the public. This is as a result of protecting the government from lawsuits when they fail to protect, even in cases where there was a restraining order.

Basically what is going on here is the constitution lays out why we have a government, which is to protect and maintain "individual rights." Well, that then is also what the jurisdiction of the court and the police is gonna be limited to. Anything beyond that is acting in ultra vires.

So these become central questions as to what the court is doing. That's why all the cases on standing and corpus delicti deal on violation of a legal right.

So, say, if you were growing a backyard full of weed, have you violated anyone's legal rights? No. So does the court have jurisdiction, or, the plaintiff have standing? No and no.

These are points that the courts are not happy to get into because they don't like getting into their own rules when their own rules don't benefit them.

This kind of defending of your rights will likely prompt intervention and threats from the judge. If that were to happen I'd have a few questions for the judge. Of course all while maintaining a level of honor so as not to get into a condition of conflict to stave off a valid charge of contempt.

The questions I'd ask the judge if he or she was trying to intervene against my questions with regard to my rights. I'd first ask the judge if I had a right to a fair trial. After he answered that yes I do, then, I'd ask the judge if it were possible for me to get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest.

Of course he or she would have to answer that no I could not get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest because there'd be an inherent interest against me.

Then I'd ask the judge who is it that he or she represents? And then ask isn't it a conflict of interest to have a judge, who represents the state who is the pretended plaintiff against me, intervene with my asking the plaintiff questions regarding my rights?


YouTube link removed...


Peace,
Xicano

I hope this posting is OK per the EULA (i know that's not right but point made) or whatever that's called these days...

For more information you can visit:
http://www. democraticunderground. com/
(remove spaces)

 

[Bobbito Blaze]

The government is not obligated to protect the public? Isn't that the point of the D.A and if the state wants to they can pursue charges even if the prosecuting party want to drop it

 

[Seal-Clubber]

Just as the time of Nazi Germany. Good and intelligent people who oppose a dictatorship of governing laws are bound to suffer under the hands of those who cannot comprehend their own place in this world.

Remember, humans killed almost all of the greatest people who ever lived. It wont be long before you are thrown into anarchy with no ability to protect yourself.

 

[bentom187]

yeah thats not even the half of it,
http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/20121015.html

"A very interesting court case has become public, but underreported, whereby US judges are looking to see their payment contracts upheld.

Basically, they have a contract of automatic pay increases which in turn keep them from feeling any effects of an economic downturn or inflationary episode.

Congress tried to stymie this contract but the judges took them to court and won.

Now what?s most interesting about this case is that these ?dollars? which they are paid in, or a measure of what a dollar is truly, was marked as 371 1/4 grains of silver or 1 15th as many grains of gold.

When the contract was struck they deemed gold and silver to be the only measure worthy of holding the contract to.

Basically US judges just won a court case which says 100% definitively that gold and silver ARE money, and more than that, they are what all currencies must be measured against.

Now this is nothing new to myself or anyone who?s read any of my work but to the majority who have been brainwashed by the media and school systems alike this may come as a shock.

Actually, it most likely won?t as this story will not be widely talked about or publicized.

Now if only the general public could enact such a contract for measuring minimum wage. That would be one hornets? nest of a problem!
"



http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/...rs/10-5012.pdf

"This court en banc now turns its attention to two pre-liminary issues before addressing the merits of the ap-peal. First, judicial review of laws affecting judicial compensation is not done lightly as these cases implicate a conflict of interest. Will, 449 U.S. at 211?17. After all, judges should disqualify themselves when their impartial-ity might reasonably be questioned or when they have a potential financial stake in the outcome of a decision. See 28 U.S.C. ? 455(a). In Will, the Supreme Court applied"


18 USC ? 661 - Within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/661

18 USC ? 1201 - Kidnapping
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201



USC 28 1333.
this diversity of citizenship in law is created because one is a person of the states and one a citizen of the municipal corperationand arrises in district court where the corperation can make a claim of prize on land and the judge can prceed under maritime law. the DA is either acting on somones behalf or on behalf of the state wich cant happen because their is no victom,check out my local state general laws

"Section XX. District attorneys shall devote their full time during ordinary business hours to their duties, shall neither directly nor indirectly engage in the practice of law, and shall receive from the (n/a) a salary of $XXX,XXX annually.

and the judges....

Section XX. The chief justice shall receive a salary of $XXX,XXX and each associate justice shall receive a salary of $XXX,XXX and the chief justice and each associate justice shall annually receive from the (blan/a)upon the certificate of the chief justice the amount of expenses incurred by each of them in the discharge of his duties. Such justices shall devote their entire time during ordinary business hours to their respective duties and shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in the practice of law

.......law as opposed to what?........ministarial duties wich we have to contact for him to enforce


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm
§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.


you have to ask if they are acting in their article 1 capacity or article 3 capacity and if they pay taxes a no answer is incriminating reguarding taxes and, if its a yes , ask with what? (FRN's from the IMF), and ask if they signature endorse their checks each week as well as having a qualifying oath to the constitution deligated under proper authority (best to assertain before hand).then refer to the judiciary rules and the two title 18 sections.

(quoted from another forum)
" Governments are Trusts = State. Everything within the State is in the estate. And there are other foreign States that are without the State. For instance there is a State termed China and there is a State termed United States. One is foreign to the Other. A Trustee is the only party that can act for a Trust. Now it may be expedient for a Trustee to hire an Agent to act on the Trustees behalf and therefore the Agent acts on behalf of the State but the Agent can only act according to the power that is vested in said Agent by the Trustee. Therefore it is the Trustee with the Power and the Responsibility as Fiduciary.

And the Trustee should have deep confidence in the Agent as Agent can bind Principal in Agents actions. Agent is allowed to Act ONLY by Trustee. Therefore Agent acts For Trustee on behalf of the State.

Before you talk of Agents and Venue [domestic or foreign - within or without] one must first frame the reference by framing where one is. Who are you and where are you and are you acting in capacity for a persona. Those must be answered before one can use the term "foreign". Foreign to what construct/frame?"





it sounds like everything from the civil war and every law out of DC municipal corp, would be null and void.

Common Error is Never Law, Even When Repeated Many Times
http://douglassbartley.wordpress.co...r-is-never-law-even-when-repeated-many-times/

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

18 USC § 2381 - Treason
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

since the constitution is a trust,to whom the feoffers made us the people of the several states benificiaries/trustee's,and them by oath, agents acting for us.,there seems to be a huge role reversal.

my guess, its the 14th ammendment besides the use of FRN's,(wich are also contracts)the 14th is a contract with no consideration although it titles the ammendment as having privliges and immunities from the privliges and immunities we already enjoyed so theres no benifit.
if this is true i beleive this was specificly made because the slaves were from dutch or british colonies and were citizens of those countries or their home country,so we naturalized everyone into the corperation not the several states.

im pretty sure others can add to this but ill leave it there for now.please dont take this as a a insensitive self centered view, about the 14th ammendment.theres a huge problem. we are lied to and given a cartoonish version of history in school,i do think it may be a shock to the system that no one is free ,but its not my fault, im looking for answers,they usually accompany discussion ,im hoping this will produce discussion about obvious problems with centralized power.

 

[dracenstien]

ummmmmmmmmmm yea...... Let me know how that works out for you. I do believe the judge would point out that you broke the law and if you don't like the law he would advise you to contact the executive branch.

Lets take me speeding down a road at 2 in the morning going 20mph over the speed limit. No other cars on the road. Who am I harming................ No one. Somehow I feel I will still have to pay the ticket. You don't have to harm someone to be charged with a crime..... just have the potential to do harm.

How about this one.... I live in the middle of a major city. I go out in my backyard and shoot a shotgun into some sandbags..... Who am I harming???

 

[bentom187]

thank you for posting for your first time.


this is a primer video on the constitution,he has a 7hr video im sure you can find if you want.

it might help in clearing things up from what most people are accustomed to. mabey it should be at least considered in the name of being unbiased.

Michael Badnarik: Rattling the Sheriffs' Cages
[YOUTUBEIF]ncBCf5q86qw[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

the point of this post is almost all laws governing us are illegal... under the constitution and the court cases that the government themselfs win to protect themselfs from being sued. So in one case they say hey we are not liable to protect you and u got hurt on u... and in the other they say hey we have a duty to protect u so we will intrude no matter what...

its a double standard... almost everything the government does now is techinically under the constitution and law illegal... but they tend to ignore laws that dont agree with them or they some how write laws to supersede unsupersedeable laws... its all a fucking scam.

 

[bentom187]

yes there codes and statutes are illeagle from the standpoint of common law,theres the laws they follow by contract or oath to their (office not constitution,with under no authority) ,its like working for a shopping market and you have contracted to be regulated for commerce per article 1 section 8 and the 14th ammendment wich is a contract with no benifits(fraud/null and void to us).the shopping market is DC.the constitution regulates them as well as the codes and statutes passed by their congress under their corperate law.
DC is in reality a municipal corperation,it has offices and can sue and be sued.it couldnt have been created because the charter for a capital alrady existed,strange enough but by freemasons in NY(the only important part is its contents and who it benifits=us the benificiaries).you cant recreate a charter that already exits for a capital.
so the DC organic act 1871, is repealed now,strange to say the least(who are we voting for?).
the empty offices that are left by vacating congress and municipal office/rs are occupied by actors,meaning they operate for the corperation,because their pay comes from the IMF,not contstitutional money(gold and silver (beer v US),so no judge can act in a article 3 capacity without a oath under the constitution and act in good faith for your benifit,also they do it with pay from agents of foreign principal,in the video he claims their is a sovereign foreign immunities act, thats proof they are acting for another state foreign to us inder the common law under the saving to suitors clause in the first judiciary act http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1333 ,wich creates the diversity of citizenship.

in my previous post i stated that was kiddnapping but also according to these video's they are subject to the patriot act sice they took oaths to the corperation, so any violation would be considered domestic terrorisim,so in other words, if anything happens to you they face that.among the other charges such as treason.BTW this all usually happens in district courts.

Coram Nobis, Corpus Non Judice: The Ultimate Jurisdictional Challenge Pt 1 -
[YOUTUBEIF]wbXeNCoGNBo[/YOUTUBEIF]

follow the links for the accompanying 3 videos,the ammount of links i cant post are numbered on this forum,i appologize.this goes for the rest.

Dean Clifford - 1 (part 1 of 6) - You, Your Rights, The Trust, Courts, Law and More
[YOUTUBEIF]Shs4mIcEqp8[/YOUTUBEIF]


www.savingtosuitors.net
Public Money vs Private Credit.flv
[YOUTUBEIF]hkJTRtNOPjc[/YOUTUBEIF]


the guy in this vid,realizes the judge as agent and trustee wasnt compliant in good faith,but should have realized that courts in the united states,are courts of record and the clerk is the final say reguarding entering jugments.(doesnt realize he can become the court by being the compitent party and keeping records,(per title 28 1333).
CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust -- Appointing the Judge Trustee in New Hampshire
[YOUTUBEIF]gQ0Y_jjlCTQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

just dont stop studying we are free we are born that way,theres only deception by a bigger mafia with defacto force, that leads us to beleive otherwise.

 

[Banefoul]

anarchy is a good thing. it means with out rule or only i am wise enough to rule myself, i am not a slave to allow another to tell me how to live my life

 

[Snook]

ummmmmmmmmmm yea...... Let me know how that works out for you. I do believe the judge would point out that you broke the law and if you don't like the law he would advise you to contact the executive branch.

Lets take me speeding down a road at 2 in the morning going 20mph over the speed limit. No other cars on the road. Who am I harming................ No one. Somehow I feel I will still have to pay the ticket. You don't have to harm someone to be charged with a crime..... just have the potential to do harm.

How about this one.... I live in the middle of a major city. I go out in my backyard and shoot a shotgun into some sandbags..... Who am I harming???

So you registered here to tell everyone your the interpretation of the law?!! smells to me.

I do not dissagree with you, either.

 

[trichrider]

i'm still overwhelmed.

...and pathetic.

thank you Bentom187, for your devotion and persistence regarding the rights we have lost to our own ignorance and hubris.

country of convienient consumptions literally lost.

blesses

 

[GP73LPC]

let's not forget jury nullification. google it...

as a member of the jury you have to right to convince the others to nullify the whole fucking trial.

this is our right as jurors, but the judge isn't gonna tell you that.

educate yourself so we can defeat these fuckers in court.

 

[GP73LPC]

So you registered here to tell everyone your the interpretation of the law?!! smells to me.

I do not dissagree with you, either.

like bacon

 

[dracenstien]

Just think it is pretty funny................. In essence the poster is saying you can do anything you want as long as you don't harm anyone. According to a lot of you guys it should be okay to walk around with a suitcase nuke..... So long as you don't detonate it then you harmed no one. I know I know, an extreme example but nonetheless there is no "corpus delicti". My point being there are laws made in order to ensure public safety.

I believe strongly in the constitution and also believe strongly that one should be able to do as they please in their own home...... Do I think a person should be allowed to grow and consume pot in their own home - Yes... Do I think a person should be allowed to produce and consume liquor in their own home - Yes... Do I think a person should be allowed to shoot an M-60 into a bunch of sandbags in their own home - No.

Here's another great example. What's wrong with drinking and driving. So long as you don't crash then you have harmed no one.... A "victemless" crime right?

 

[dracenstien]

Whoops... "victimless"

 

[GP73LPC]

Whoops... "victimless"

you mean "oops"

 

[dracenstien]

Oops...." oops".... lol

 

[dracenstien]

Nvrmnd.... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoops

 

[bentom187]

Just think it is pretty funny................. In essence the poster is saying you can do anything you want as long as you don't harm anyone. According to a lot of you guys it should be okay to walk around with a suitcase nuke..... So long as you don't detonate it then you harmed no one. I know I know, an extreme example but nonetheless there is no "corpus delicti". My point being there are laws made in order to ensure public safety.

I believe strongly in the constitution and also believe strongly that one should be able to do as they please in their own home...... Do I think a person should be allowed to grow and consume pot in their own home - Yes... Do I think a person should be allowed to produce and consume liquor in their own home - Yes... Do I think a person should be allowed to shoot an M-60 into a bunch of sandbags in their own home - No.

Here's another great example. What's wrong with drinking and driving. So long as you don't crash then you have harmed no one.... A "victemless" crime right?

its a point of freedom vs slavery.

The (Expanded) Philosophy of Liberty
[YOUTUBEIF]Ei0ch-y7r5c[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[dracenstien]

We are a social animal. You can't have freedom without having laws. Someone posted something to the effect of anarchy being freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aftermath of hurricane Katrina was anarchy and you see what happened there.

Slavery??? Not sure what that comment even means. Are you saying that having to follow rules/laws makes one a slave?