In order tor a crime to take place there 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 a person accused of a crime is 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.
An 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.
"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 victim-less crimes.
"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:
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.
admiralty court jurisdiction............
Complicated......... but if you got the time check this video out............
secrets the cops don't want you to know...........
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.
* 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:
You are correct on all counts, except----the Constitution for The united States of America was shelved after the Civil War and replaced by the Constitution "of" the United states. This 'of' thing means it is possessory. This new constitution that was brought in is only advisory in nature. Those in power use it ONLY when it suits their needs. It is, therefore, not the law of the land and we cannot rely on it for any degree of protection from intrusion by govco or fairness and due process from their administrators--the courts.
As we have witnessed, the protections from government intervention in our lives is a hollow theme. Have you ever been in court when a subject claimed govco [court] was violating their constitutional rights? I've heard the judge tell a man that if he mentioned constitutional rights again in his court he would find him in contempt. Of course he would be in contempt because he is not in a court of constitutional cognizance.
He's in an administrative court that has been set up to fleece the unsuspecting of their wealth. The judge's duty as administrator is to administer the foreclosure in bankruptcy of govco's assets. Govco is bankrupt. They are squeezing the lifeblood out of the people through the straw man--the government's asset. They created it and they are the creditor over it as it is always the debtor.
The reason most people are in prison under this system is ignorance. If the public was aware that these courts are utilizing maritime law under admiralty jurisdiction and that all courts in America are under private commercial law conducted under the consent of the parties there might be a different result.
Check that out. Go to the law library at the courthouse and look in any of their code and statute books and the first thing you will see is that it is copy written. You cannot copy right that which is in the public domain. Only privately owned material can be copy written. The bankers own the laws.
While you are checking that out, also check out the term "allocution". The judge will ask if you have anything to say 'before I sentence you?'. This is your opportunity [allocution] to lessen the harshness of the sentence with any mitigating circumstances that you want to present. It usually does no good.
If a judge asked me that question I would say "I reserve my statement until after you pass sentence". After he announces the sentence I would then say "I'm sorry, Sir, but I cannot accept your offer". If you don't say anything you have silently acquiesced and can have no complaints. I have seen this work where the judge lessened the judgment and the defendant said the same thing again and the judge lessen the judgment again.
I was asked what to say if the judge said that his judgment was not open to negotiation. The response should be "are you trying to force me to contract with your against my will?". That would be a federal crime of inducement to slavery and peonage. I don't think any judge will tread there.
Most go into court not knowing who they are or what to do about so they pay the fine or go to prison or jail. This is where knowing who you are comes into play. Are you the registered agent for the straw man [LLC] on the charging instrument? I've got a certified copy from the Secretary of State of North Carolina that says there is no record of the all caps name as being registered with the State. How can there be a registered agent to serve upon if there is no registration of the LLC? Serving an instrument on a living man and presuming that he is the registered agent for the fiction is done by assumption. If you don't recognize the trickery then you pay the consequences.