Click on his beard for more quotes

In order tor a crime to take place they must first create a victim. The individual accused of a crime must violate the life, liberty or property of another individual. One of the rights mandated in our Bill of Rights is that a person accused of a crime has the right to cross examine the witnesses against him. In other words, the defendant has a right to confront the injured party.

If there is no injured party, and hence, no one to cross examine, the individual accused of the crime cannot defend himself in a court of law.

A government is a legal fiction and has no rights and cannot be an injured party. Only human beings have rights. Individuals can testify against an accused person but a legal fiction cannot. When an unjust law is enforced, the accused individual becomes a victim.

Amendment VI

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Ninety-eight percent of the people in prison were denied their right to a trial by a jury. In order to avoid the possibility of being convicted of a more serious crime the accused pleads guilty to a lesser crime. In many cases they have committed no crime at all. This practice is an enemy of justice and a great way to raise money for corrupt lawyer and judges.

In the land of the free, we have more of our people in prison than any other country in the world. The biggest crime today is that we incarcerate people for committing victimless crimes.

A crime has been committed only when the life, liberty or property of one human being is violated by another human being. In order for a crime to take place there must be both a victim and a person responsible.

We have a God given right enumerated in the Fifth Amendment that guarantees those suspected of a crime will have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against them. When there is no victim there is no one to testify against the accused.

Only individuals have rights and artificial persons such as corporations can not testify in a court of law. 

When people violate a rule, regulation, code, ordinance or statute they have not violated the law and have not committed a crime. 

Views: 9786

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"The person accused of a crime must violate the life, liberty or property of another individual."

I have heard this many times before, but where is it written?



Thomas Jefferson stated that it was a self evident truth that all men were created equal and that we all have unalienable rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit on happiness. It logically follows that it is wrong to deny a person of their God given rights. The function of government is protect and defend the rights of their people.

When someone violates the rights of another it is the responsibility of the government to hold the guilty party accountable.

What do you think is the proper role of government?

The main purpose and only purpose and no other , is the goverment is to protect life and limb, and property, and the Constitution.

That's the whole purpose of any delegated powers, and if they are not , they are committing a violation against the whole purpose of the powers given to them............

the State of Washington's Constitution says it best from the very beginning:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

JUST TO SECURE  OUR RIGHTS!  As given by a far superior power - OUR CREATOR!

Is Keith saying that someone, like Martha Stewart should not have gone to prison for being less than honest during FBI questioning, because the FBI agent is representing a legal fiction and cannot be cross examined, by the accused? She accepted a plea bargain, rather than take a chance of being found guilty of proclaiming her innocence, on a charge of "Insider Trading". The threat was real... no fiction, there!

The IRS is quite another story! Anyone, that has had their bank account, or other property seized and threatened with "other" drastic measures... knows what futility is involved. Due Process is offered in a Special Tax Court, run by... The IRSI... Cross Examine, That!

Some  courts are  illegal, the common court is legal.  the first thing is to claim that your the beneficiary of the compact contract and no other. 

what's the difference /  it is  admiralty, commerce ,commercial, military, and statutes, and codes, and regulations courts, that was illegally combined and have no jurisdiction,  versus  the common law court under jurisdiction of territory under contract ,enumerated, delegated powers, called  common law.  that is bound under the supremacy clause, article 6 paragraph 2. 

Simple, then you can request under the due process clause, 5,6, 7 ,  to have your victim to come forward , and question them as how did they get harmed for you not buckling your seat belt, or any statutes or codes or regulations, how did you get hurt from statute code ,or regulation. or how did the invisible victim get hurt ? 

When there is a violation of the common law or the Constitution that is common law, and no victim can come forward then you did not harm anyone or break any actual common law. 

If there is no victim to bring forward during due process then there is no crime under the actual law.  elements of a crime, the scrutiny test is , a crime has elements.  

The fact of a matter is the states and lower goverment has for a long time created fundamental necessities of life into a crime to capitalize and rob the branches purse and the individual who is infringed and encroached. 

The fat of the matter is no state can turn a basic God given inalienable right in to a crime. This would be a crime its self. 

Duane Eugene Kirkland's scrutiny test.  .....................



Commercial distinctive difference , between private.

Military Court..............

admiralty court jurisdiction............

Complicated.........  but if you got the time check this video out............ 

secrets the cops don't want you to know...........

I am advising all of you, that, yes, that is true. Lying to our servants is not a crime.

Look, if she committed a crime, that is different and going to jail is fitting. For our servants to tell their masters that if we lie to them, we go to jail, that is, by no means, lawful. In fact, that makes them criminals


Hi, Keith:
During the eight century B.C. a biblical prophet known as Hosea said that the people he ministered to were destroyed for lack of knowledge. During the sixth century B.C. an enlightened man known as the Buddha said that the greatest evil on this Earth was ignorance (lack of knowledge). Just over 2000 years ago, the most enlightened man ever was dying on a cross and he said, "Father, forgive them for they KNOW NOT what the do."(lack of knowledge again).

I contend that we are still ignorant because we are in the infancy of our earthly evolution. We are still pagans and barbarians. If we were not, we would realize that we are all ONE with our Creator. Mankind is at the greedy and hoarding stage. We take and hoard instead of sharing through equal re-giving, thus violating the second most important law of Nature and Nature's God. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction," or better said, "What you sow is what you reap."

I can go on and on, but you get my drift.


Poppycock Jaques,
Americans are the most giving and generous people on the planet. As a whole, we give more than all others. Period. In THIS country we are learning to be God's people.

 * Corpus delicti
    - A Latin term meaning the "body of [the] crime" that refers to the idea that the requisite elements of a crime must be proven before an individual can be tried for the crime.

 * Corpus delicti. (Blacks 4th) The body of a crime. The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed. People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 281; White v. State, 49 Ala. 347; Goldman v, Com., 100 Va. 865, 42 S.E. 923; State v. Schyhart, Mo. Sup., 199 S.W. 205, 211; State v. Brown, 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21, 22, L.R.A.1916D, 1295; State v. Johnson, 95 Utah 572, 83 P.2d 1010, 1014. When applied to any particular offense, the actual commission by some one of particular offense charged. Gorum v. State, 60 Okl.Cr. 248, 63 P.2d 765, 766.
     * Corpus Delicti Rule - The common law corpus delicti rule prohibits the admission of an extrajudicial confession into evidence in a criminal case unless the prosecution introduces some evidence independent of the confession that the crime described in the confession actually occurred.
    - 64.3.moran_ In Defense of the Corpus Delicti Rule.pdf
 * There are two elements of corpus delicti in any offense:
    - A certain consequence, or injury, has occurred.
    - The consequence, or injury, is a result of a person's intentional, unlawful act.
 * Corpus Delicti - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

I think Mark Hamilton has it in this document also:

Law of the case- EXHIBIT "A".pdf


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service