See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Marc Stevens on corpus delecti
Source:
No State Project
URL Source: http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/57/27/
Published: Mar 13, 2007
Author: Marc Stevens
Post Date: 2007-03-13 00:58:15 by Simmering Frog
Keywords: Law
Views: 82
Comments: 4
Attorneys and Bureaucrats - Always Non-responsive Print E-mail Written by Marc Stevens Wednesday, 28 February 2007 Attorneys, especially the one's acting as government, are always non-responsive; and with good reason, they usually have no case. In traffic court, they never do because it's all a scam. One reason they get away with it is because the mainstream media will not report on it. They are not interested and don't care. That's why you get non-responsive pleadings from attorneys as presented in this article. Not that you'll get attorneys or other statists to agree the linked pleading is non-responsive though; attorneys and bureaucrats will deny the pleading is non-responsive. Check the evidence out for yourself and consider this: Whether the black robed attorney grants the motion or denies it, it proves traffic courts are a scam. A friend of mine received a traffic ticket in California recently and filed a motion to dismiss/strike for a lack of standing and no corpus delecti. He used current "precedent" from the California supreme court, some from my Standing Cross-Reference: "In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause." People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. "As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury." People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. Read on page one where the entire defense is the issues ("arguments") of standing, corpus delecti and jurisdiction are "inapplicable" to the case. Amazing isn't it? Standing, corpus delecti and jurisdiction are "inapplicable" to a traffic court. If you're worried you don't have a case and your complaint may get thrown out, then breathe easier; just file your complaint into a traffic court where such rules are "inapplicable". You'll notice a corpus delecti ("the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury") is required "In every criminal trial". If you look at page two of the pleading, you'll see the attorneys cite the very same case. Did they fail to read the part of the ruling where the supreme court wrote: "In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury" or did they conveniently leave that part out? Why would these juris doctorates "sworn" to administer justice leave that part out? Attorneys and their accomplices, would have you believe, "the body of the crime itself" is "not applicable" or necessary to prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. To attorneys and bureaucrats, we're all so stupid we'll believe them when they say a crime is not necessary for there to be a crime. This applies to some in the mainstream media as I have been told this information is not reported because "it is way over the head of the average reader." Silly me, I thought a crime was necessary to prove a crime was committed. I guess it's necessary to go to an accredited law school to find out why a crime does not require a crime. And never forget hallucinations are part of being an attorney, bureaucrat and politician: "For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened..." Section 165-55 GST. You'll love the first part of the attorney's opposition where in "response" to the legal requirements of standing and corpus delecti, these three attorneys insist the police have the "authority" to enforce the traffic laws. Yes, and the police have nice cars and shiny badges, but what does that have to do with the requirements of standing and corpus delecti? Of course none of the cases cited "relate" to the "authority" to enforce the traffic laws and they don't need to, it's not an issue. By raising the "authority" argument, these three attorneys are using a standard political trick called a red herring. Red herrings are an essential part of being an attorney, bureaucrat or politician; the "art" of politics is diverting attention from what's really happening. What separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior public relations. Standing and corpus delecti require an injury, the so-called "authority" of the plaintiff is irrelevant. Think about it, how do you successfully prosecute a traffic case if you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury" when there is no injury? Of course you cannot - it's all a scam. I'm sure all those attorneys who profit from the traffic court scam are very happy the editorial policy of the major media does not favor this information. You're not going to see Larry King asking a city or state attorney to explain why a crime is not necessary to prove a crime or why corpus delecti, required in "In every criminal trial", is "inapplicable" to traffic cases. That's why three attorneys have to respond to a pleading alleged to be "inapplicable" when a paralegal could have drafted a one page motion to strike. If you check the rules of court, when a pleading with no merit is filed, it requires no legal response, only a motion to strike. Three attorneys, including the supervising city attorney, should not be required to respond to a motion filed by a non-attorney, especially when everything presented was "inapplicable". I wonder how many attorneys would be required to respond if the issues raised were applicable. I thought maybe I just don't understand, after all, while I'm literate, I'm not an attorney. Maybe the word "every" in "In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti" does not mean "every" in the common usage of the word, maybe it means only "some" or "in a select few at the discretion of a bureaucrat." Here are some "legal" definitions though: "every. All of a collection or aggregate number..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 423. "EVERY. Each one of all..." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., page 655. The Cambridge online dictionary also defines "every" as "all". I think that settles it, honest people will agree "every" means "all". Just for fun though, go ask your attorney friends to explain why "In every criminal trial" does not mean "In every criminal trial". Read the case above, are these three attorneys correct? Do you believe standing, corpus delecti and jurisdiction are legal requirements that are somehow "inapplicable" in traffic cases? When the supreme court ruled the corpus delecti was required "In every criminal trial" are traffic courts somehow excluded? What about drug cases? Welcome to legal land, the fantasy world attorneys, bureaucrats and politicians live in. In legal land, such principals and legal requirements do not apply when they get in the way of a bureaucrat stealing your time, money and energy. It's all public relations so men and women incapable of offering their services on a voluntary basis (government) can continue killing and stealing under the guise of "protecting" their victims. Either way a judge rules on the motion to dismiss proves traffic court is a scam. By granting the motion, the judge is affirming an injury is required, something missing in virtually every traffic case. By denying it, the judge is affirming that well-established legal rules and precedent (the very reason the American system of "justice" is the "best in the world") doesn't apply to traffic cases. After you verify this information is true, then consider this: traffic fines and penalties run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, stolen from people every year. You'd think a hundred million dollar scam would be front page news. The question is: Why isn't it front page news? Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 March 2007 )
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Simmering Frog (#0)
When "application" is made for a license from the State to operate a motor vehicle one is required to agree to "all" Motor vehicle Laws, so even though the prosecution "appears" to be criminal it's actually contract law that is being enforced. Most have registered the vehicle with the State, have contracted for insurance, have an SSN and all of these adhesion contracts afford the State standing to enforce the agreements.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Where does it say that on the contract? A contract requires a meeting of the minds. There are no 'super-duper, double-secret probation contract' terms. That's just "patriot" nonsense conjured up because they have an almost fanatical need to rationalize state violence. You want to know why the state does what it does to you? It sure as hell isn't because of some legalistic mumbo-jumbo about fantasy contracts, Amiralty law, and fringed flags. They do is because they can. They do it because they have more men under arms than their opposition. Do you think Pol Pot terrorized his country's villagers because of some magical, invisible contract? Do you think Cambodians sat around all day trying to create a mythology to explain why the atrocities were occuring? No they didn't, so why does the "patriot" movement try to explain away Uncle Sam's abuses? It's like watching a battered wife try to make excuses for her husband. Most have registered the vehicle with the State, have contracted for insurance, have an SSN and all of these adhesion contracts afford the State standing to enforce the agreements. I don't think you even know what an adhesion contract is. It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with SSN cards.
By making the above statement you have proven to be a self-proclaimed moron. All insurance operates in "admiralty" ... [SS is also Insurance]. (Some of us can even remember when the SS Card stated plainly on its face that it wasn't to be used for identification purposes). Do you think Pol Pot terrorized his country's villagers because of some magical, invisible contract? No, I don't. However, the dictatorship in Cambodia was operated blatantly, here it's more sophisticated and covert. They do it because they have more men under arms than their opposition. Maybe in Cambodia, but not in the U.S. ... Most of us have witnessed the change in requirements for such things as Driver Licenses. The SSN being one of those recent developments. They also ask every applicant (standard procedure) if they agree to keep all the Vehicle Laws just before they have you sign the form at the DMV.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Way to back it up. With all your evidence and persuasiveness, I must admit I'm now swayed to believe you. All insurance operates in "admiralty"... No it doesn't and I'll bet you can't find a statute or court opinion in force that says otherwise. I can assure you judges don't dig out their Admiralty Law books to adjudicate cases of a collision between a Lincoln Continental and a GMC truck (unless it happens on a pier maybe). No, I don't. However, the dictatorship in Cambodia was operated blatantly, here it's more sophisticated and covert. It's quite overt here. In fact we get to see it on the news every night. It's just less severe and mostly pointed at foreigners. Maybe in Cambodia, but not in the U.S. ... You must have missed where I said "their opposition". Most people aren't really opposed to the things you hold as grievances. They're happy to have their SS checks come in the mail. Many would foresake their first born before they'd give up their card. They love the state licensing this and permitting that and groping them at the airport. It makes them feel safe. Most of us have witnessed the change in requirements for such things as Driver Licenses. The SSN being one of those recent developments. They also ask every applicant (standard procedure) if they agree to keep all the Vehicle Laws just before they have you sign the form at the DMV. Not here they don't. I have never been asked that question. In fact I haven't ever signed an agreement at the Secretary of State. I showed them a birth certificate when I was 16 and that was that. And you say you noticed these changes. How ever did they enforce the law before all these surreptitious contracts? Oh, that's right, the same way they do now - men with guns.
#2. To: noone222 (#1)
When "application" is made for a license from the State to operate a motor vehicle one is required to agree to "all" Motor vehicle Laws, so even though the prosecution "appears" to be criminal it's actually contract law that is being enforced.
#3. To: SmokinOPs (#2)
I don't think you even know what an adhesion contract is. It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with SSN cards.
#4. To: noone222 (#3)
By making the above statement you have proven to be a self-proclaimed moron.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest