Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Trial tomorrow

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    Bear, I cleaned up this message as good as able. It was reduced at least 50%. I would like others to jump in support of either position. Please accept.
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 2006

      Bear,  I cleaned up this message as good as able.  It was reduced at least 50%. I would like others to jump in support of either position. Please accept.

      Froggy’s  reply was:

      If you knew the judge's appointment was flawed, the right way to deal
      with it was a disqualification for cause, before anything else.

      This was a kind of feel as you go situation. I did not think of disqualification until after the trial (sic). I did challenge the DA to produce a license but the Judge (?) said he was licensed and to move on.  Guess I should have refused to move on until he produced a license.

      Both of those requests mean you accept the judge, or you wouldn't be
      asking him FOR ANYTHING. And the reasons for dismissal and a new trial
      are entirely different, so I think this was bad to ask for either one. Hind sight says we all should force the judge to prove the constitutional validity of his appointment pursuant to Ryder vs the United States.  Therein a hearing on the merits is required.  That should estop any trial or arraignment but they will counter and prevail.

      > He said are
      > you able to pay the fine? I replied no I have no money. Then he went
      > into the old questioning of well how do you survive and what do you
      > pay your groceries with.

      "I pass counterfeit in an act of fraud to obtain loot of an edible
      nature."

      > My answer was PRIVATE money equivalents.

      Bad! Fluctuating elastic mind-concepts cannot be "equivalent" to any
      real thing.

      Grant it that your response may be better, I still believe that they cannot EXACT PRIVATE money equivalents pursuant to Hagar vs Land Reclamation District 108. By admitting I had private money is by no means admission that I could be forced to tender it or in default thereof go to jail. I have never paid a fine in 30 years using this argument.

      > Then he said pay the fine with the same kind of money and we'll all go
      > home.

      You mean like all the others?!

      > I replied that a state could not demand payment period...

      Oh, where do you get that?

      > nor
      > could it demand payment in PRIVATE money.

      No, but it COULD "accept" it. The real point is, nobody is stopping you
      from paying in gold or silver coin if that is what you want to do. I
      don't think you want to do that, do you? Now I must disagree with you. They can only DEMAND payment with gold or silver coins IF they are obtainable at par value with PRIVATE money.  Then those gold/silver coins must be coins that are circulated and regulated by Congress. Medallions and bullion are not coin.  Every Judge I have presented this premise to backed off the issue.

      > So he emphatically said: do
      > you have any money at all. I replied none whatsoever and you cannot
      > put me in jail for inability to pay. He insisted he could and I
      > showed him Tate vs. Short and Williams vs Illinois where it states no
      > counsel no time.

      What does counsel have to do with money? By not having counsel at all critical phases of the prosecution he was barred from putting me in jail. Once that was established that left him with me having to PAY….which I could not and because I could not he was constrained from EXACTING anything.Acts of congress making the notes of the United States legal tender do not apply to EXACTION made under color of state law.



      Okay, but your HJR 192 argument is flawed, as it was repealed a long
      time ago. I am not sure about this and they certainly are not aware. You can pay only gold and silver COIN pays any debt. FRNs only DISCHARGE an OBLIGATION.  There is a vast difference between payment and dischargement.with anything you and your contractor may agree a fine is not an agreement it is an EXACTION. It is not what they will accept but what they can demand.
      Why didn't you offer 25 pounds of
      pinto beans? Because this was an EXACTION.  The court never mentioned FRNs, you did it first, FRNs were never mentioned.  PRIVATE MONEY EQUIVALENTS were my reply.  I see nothing wrong with that assertion.  and you
      are sadly mistaken about the availability of constitutional dollars in
      circulation. I trade in them almost weekly and many other forms of
      wealth. You can trade them if you choose but the state must EXACT them at par value. It may look like you are trying to have the benefits of a man
      who uses the money issue because of Art. 1, section 10, yet who goes on
      to make all the false presuppositions about FRNs that "everyone" seems
      to do,  There is no way to plug a state judicial order or judgment into a paper money system nor can you be forced to pay with penneys.  Pennies are coin (sic) but they are not gold or silver, I'll post
      it if Bear will print it. That way I'm not just talking to one person
      for such a long time.

      > Then he said Mr. K..... what do
      > you do for a living? My reply was I survive by my wits. He said like
      > what give me an example. I buy and sell, repair and teach. I could have said none of your business but he was very hostile.

      Buy and sell by definition involves money, yes Pesos, Gilders, Euros…..but a state court is barred from EXACTING these types of money yet you say you have none. And I can back this statement up under oath. I have no public money.  Trading does not. By admitting you deal with money, you open yourself
      to forced testimony and examination under oath about it, and you'd have
      a hard time claiming the fifth because buying and selling for money is
      not a crime. I want to be placed under oath and testify that I have no PUBLIC MONEY because the court can only demand public money.  This was an exaction.. And again, here you seem to be the first to raise the
      issue of FRNs, nobody but you is
      presuming FRNs are involved or need to be involved. I prefer to make my
      adversary present that position so I can shoot it down. Again my presumption was that the fine was for dollars of public money of which there is none.

      > Teach
      > what? I said law and the room went silent. The dumb ass DA stood up
      > and said Your Honor he has just admitted to practicing law without a
      > license. To which I countered I'll show you my license if you show me
      > yours.  .I was convicted of unauthorized practice of law and got a reversal.  No big deal and nothing to be scared of. My case is now a presedent.

      Oh, that was great! But if you knew he doesn't have one, why have you
      let him speak all this time already? I prefer to clear the court of
      riff-raff, and do not let non-parties speak without having filed formal
      papers seeking the right to intervene as a party, and having been
      granted that right AFTER my opportunity to oppose it! Anyone
      representing a party must have proper credentials before being allowed
      to speak in MY court!  Great!  I would prefer this but I challenged his inability to produce a license at motions and trial.  I should have refused to move forward as you say but the judge was itching to hold me in contempt and I had an important reason not to go to jail. My 20/20 was unplugged.
       I then
      > filed the attached document Challenging the validity of his
      > appointment and others and left.

      This should have been ahead of anything else, and ahead of discussing
      counsel or money. In fact, money is usually the last thing discussed. You are correct but such a challenge goes to a properly set court and jurisdiction and can be challenged at any time….even 100 years!


      Okay friends, it's easy to beat them if you decide to do it in advance,
      but don't be so ready to try out your favorite defense that you waste it
      in front of knaves and fools. This was only a 24 hours in jail case and it was worth a try at anything. Why permit an arraignment by those who are not qualified?
      Without arraignment complete, trial cannot take place. Granted I should have refused to go to trial but I was trying Marc Steven’s method of trying to enter a guilty plea and force them to explain the nature and cause of the accusation against me, which they will not do.

      Why permit a trial where an unqualified lawyer is trying to make a buck
      on you? Why permit your adversary ANY ADVANTAGE?? Without a
      "mouthpiece" a corporate entity is less effective than one of Art Bell's
      Shadow People or Ghosts. How can the judge "understand" the charges
      against you when the entity bringing them cannot speak? Ohhh, you think
      they might be one and the same? Nope. So, if the judge claims there
      are charges against you, and nobody with power of attorney has really
      filed them, it is PROOF that he is prejudiced against you and has to be
      removed for that cause. I probably would never have gotten so far, spent
      as much time typing paper, or giving my adversaries so many chances to
      do mischief. I would have raised all these issues in chambers early so
      they could kick me out and avoid lots of wasted time and trouble for
      everyone. Again you are most probably correct but time is not important to me.  I am 73 and have time but the DA’s time is a burden to him. I’m not finished yet. In fact I will fill post convictions form for the next 10 years.  It is my recreation.



      If you really knew this, why'd you move forward? My error to avoid sanctions. And that is "Hamlin
      Sherriff". But this is the wrong time to raise this issue. This is
      part of the counsel argument stage before any official stage like
      arraignment or motion hearings or trial. And it is AFTER getting rid of
      profit seeking impersonators and riff-raff. Do you see the logic there? I planned to use it on appeal and get a little more court room pleasure.


      >
      > If the conviction is vitiated automatically then the Judge had no
      > right to impose any sentence. This is my beliefs also. 

      Usually, this is
      an argument for an appeal, since trial, conviction and sentencing
      proceeded without objections that would have prevented all of them. I did file an appeal and was only afforded a writ.   The writ application was returned because it did not contain minutes.  The records were not forwarded and the clerk would not send the minutes.  I had no judicial review. I plan on going on what is called Post Conviction Relief….as that is all that is available.

       > The order only says to show

      > up. They don't want anymore to do with me as the paperwork is chocking
      > them. P.S. I had 2000 Federal Reserve Notes in my pocket but we
      > did not go there.

      Ooohhh...Bad! BAD! Bad! Oh well....I figured I’d go to jail and they would tell the judge I had MONEY on me.  Then the judge would have to prove it was money and the type of money he could EXACT.This happened once before.  They tried to get me on perjury but I proved that FRNs are not PUBLIC money.

      How far they will allow you????? YOU PUSH AS HARD AND AS FAR AS YOU
      CAN, OR DON'T PUSH AT ALL! In fact, why do you care what unqualified
      people think of your defense efforts? Why not wait until you have the
      names of some people who matter? In a real power vacuum, are you so
      anxious to argue that you'll argue with anyone at all, even if they are
      unqualified??You are correct and it is of value to this forum to apply what you are saying but I goofed. 

      > There is no way that they will identify what state is "this
      > state". Shalom I, and others have been very successful at presenting for the court to identifyitself…..it is jurisdictional and they simply won’t do it.  Two cases were taken under advisement and never rulled upon.

       

      Regards,

      FF

      Froggy is good and he should make a script and outline for all to follow. The Handyman


       

       
      "I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones". Einstein
       
      The Handyman
      FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
    • Frog Farmer
      The Handyman and I have been on several lists together and I ve generally agreed with him on most issues. I forgot he was in his 70 s. He has more spare time
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 2, 2006
        The Handyman and I have been on several lists together and I've
        generally agreed with him on most issues. I forgot he was in his 70's.
        He has more spare time than I do right now, which is why his cases may
        not be cut as short as possible for brevity, but extended for his own
        entertainment and education. I commend that approach since I myself had
        that approach for years. Then I got tired and bored from the local
        yokels (nobody really cares about fixing anything) and we virtually
        called a truce - in the name of Peace, really. Still, there are always
        new uninformed employee troughfeeders coming online all the time
        (there's a big turnover; lots of troughfeeders have drinking and family
        problems etc.)

        The Handyman said:
        > Froggy's reply was:
        >
        > If you knew the judge's appointment was flawed, the right way to deal
        > with it was a disqualification for cause, before anything else.
        >
        > This was a kind of feel as you go situation. I did not think of
        > disqualification until after the trial (sic).

        Okay, so tell everyone that the fact that I sound like a Johnny-One-Note
        on the disqualification as Step One, and have been doing so for years,
        has not been enough! Just think if 1% of all cases had to go through
        that!

        > I did challenge the DA
        > to produce a license but the Judge (?) said he was licensed and to
        > move on. Guess I should have refused to move on until he produced a
        > license.

        I don't think so - you accepted the judge without disqualifying him, so
        whatever he says goes in his court! The way to get that license was to
        subpoena (duces tecum) it for ALL people wishing to speak or participate
        officially at the hearing. As they come in, you have the bailiff
        qualify them before they take a seat. This requires that you speak
        beforehand to the bailiff. Don't disqualify him even though you can,
        because you need somebody there with a gun to protect you.

        > Hind sight says we all should force the judge to prove the
        > constitutional validity of his appointment pursuant to Ryder vs the
        > United States. Therein a hearing on the merits is required.

        I'm not familiar with Ryder, but I find local California law adequate to
        provide the same protections.

        > That should estop any trial or arraignment but they will counter and
        > prevail.

        That is just negative thinking! If it should be stopped, it should be
        stopped, and I'd have to see whether or not they could counter or
        prevail, but I will not assume it outright! When I'm in court, I
        imagine legions of angels ready to do battle with the slimy devils
        trying to manipulate their puppets in the courtroom. When I'm
        addressing a hostile judge, I'm in an age-old battle with the Devil
        himself. Actually, more like some Tibetan Demon from the Tibetan Book
        of the Dead - a figment of imagination, which is what all impersonators
        are. DO NOT SAY, "... but they will counter and prevail"!!! In MY
        experience, it is simply NOT TRUE. Arraignment prevention is my
        soundest cure for unwanted convictions that require expense and time to
        overturn.

        > "I pass counterfeit in an act of fraud to obtain loot of an edible
        > nature."...
        > Grant it that your response may be better

        I got that straight from Merrill Jenkins. It was his own testimony.

        > I still believe that they
        > cannot EXACT PRIVATE money equivalents pursuant to Hagar vs Land
        > Reclamation District 108. By admitting I had private money is by no
        > means admission that I could be forced to tender it or in default
        > thereof go to jail. I have never paid a fine in 30 years using this
        > argument.

        I like Hagar for my own purposes too, but I do not agree that today's
        FRNs are "private money", (they may be private, but they are not
        "money") nor do I believe that they establish any benchmark against
        which to measure "equivalency" to any THING. And I do not agree that
        public money has to be equivalent to private money. I get away from a
        lot of this by trading substance for substance and avoiding money except
        for gold and silver U.S. coins. I use the clad coin also, because today
        each one is worth more in metal than face value on world markets.

        > Now I must disagree with you.
        > They can only DEMAND payment with gold or silver coins IF they are
        > obtainable at par value with PRIVATE money.

        Where do you get this idea? Who are you turning to for your standard of
        "private money"? We on this list could create our own private money.
        Are you saying that the government has to maintain par with our unit of
        account, even though we can change it at will at our next board
        meeting?? Come on!? Again, you seem to look at the Federal Reserve as
        your only alternative, when it is NOT!

        > Then those gold/silver
        > coins must be coins that are circulated and regulated by Congress.

        So? Are you saying you don't know where any of those are? How come you
        don't have any?

        > Medallions and bullion are not coin.

        That's right, and I never said they were. There's plenty of the coin
        you're talking about out there for anyone who wants to use it. It's
        just that Americans do not want to use it, and are content with just
        about anything else sold to them as a substitute for those "heavy,
        cumbersome, inconvenient, subject-to-theft" metal coins.

        > Every Judge I have presented
        > this premise to backed off the issue.

        I'll bet. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. I don't really object
        to most of your points, I just think they are introduced prematurely and
        in improper order (for MY purposes). If you are happy with your
        results, don't worry about what I say because I am just one other man
        with entirely different needs and experiences etc. When freedom exists,
        myriad lifeforms prevail.

        > What does counsel have to do with money? By not having counsel at all
        > critical phases of the prosecution he was barred from putting me in
        > jail.

        Right. That's the "Counsel Issue" which should be argued BEFORE
        arraignment, and without which due process is denied. Only a WAIVER of
        RIGHTS would permit it to go unchallenged.

        > Once that was established that left him with me having to
        > PAY.

        Actually, what was established was that you waived your right. This
        encourages your opponents into thinking that you might waive even more!
        In an appeal, only those issues which were noted in the record as being
        objected to are considered. You need to make it plain in the record
        that you were FIGHTING for your RIGHT to UNFETTERED ASSISTANCE OF
        COMPETENT COUNSEL. Then, if they steamroll over you, the record is
        crystal clear and you have an appealable issue. But to waive the
        argument at the time it is crucial, and then try to appeal it to the
        same judge you earlier accepted, after sentencing, I think would place
        ME in more jeopardy of not having a nice day than I'd want to
        unnecessarily risk.

        > which I could not and because I could not he was constrained from
        > EXACTING anything. Acts of congress making the notes of the United
        > States legal tender do not apply to EXACTION made under color of state
        > law.

        Okay, you earlier said you never mentioned FRNs first, as I accused you
        of doing, just "private money equivalents". So, to clarify my tire-iron
        scrambled brain, why are you saying the above? Did he ask you for legal
        tender or notes of the United States? Did he actually use the words,
        "Federal Reserve Notes"?

        But here you're raising the issue of FRNs again, and not the same ones
        that your cases referred to, but new ones of an entirely different
        nature. Your cases refer to "notes" in their legal, lawful sense, not in
        a trademark sense. Today's "Federal Reserve Notes"(tm) are not Hagar's
        or Juilliard's "federal reserve notes", are not really "notes" and are
        not "of the United States". So, "Acts of congress making the notes of
        the United States legal tender do not apply to EXACTION made under color
        of state law" is just a little off point here.

        > Okay, but your HJR 192 argument is flawed, as it was repealed a long
        > time ago.

        > I am not sure about this and they certainly are not aware.

        I'll buy that. Trust me, I saw it myself in the Statutes at Large years
        ago, and my photocopy was stolen along with some other papers of mine,
        but when I last raised this issue online, another list member provided
        the proper citation for it, I think on this very list, so it might be in
        the archives. I think it was in 1978 or around then. But I remember
        reading it myself in the library when I first discovered it accidentally
        while doing other research. HJR 192 was repealed in its entirety. We
        can all pay our debts now, in any way we can agree upon. Most people
        opt not to pay, but to discharge and pass on their debts instead. But
        they are not forced to do so anymore by law. Now it is a matter of
        personal choice.

        > You can pay only gold and silver COIN pays any debt. FRNs only
        > DISCHARGE an OBLIGATION. There is a vast difference between payment
        > and dischargement.with anything you and your contractor may agree

        True. Except that today my contractor and I can agree that I will PAY
        with whatever we agree upon, not just gold or silver coin. I personally
        avoid the issue by not permitting debts to be created - I "pay"
        simultaneously with receiving the thing I'm paying for, and no debt is
        created. Once a debt is created, a person can legally choose to
        discharge it with FRNs, as unfair as that may be. We are always warned
        not to be lenders, and this is the risk lenders take. They may never be
        paid.

        > fine is not an agreement it is an EXACTION. It is not what they will
        > accept but what they can demand.

        I do agree there. I had a case over that issue, and they dismissed
        rather than address it.

        > PRIVATE MONEY
        > EQUIVALENTS were my reply. I see nothing wrong with that assertion.

        I do. Equivalent to what? Up above you claimed that public money had
        to be available at par with your "private money", so tell me what your
        FRN today is "equivalent to". I say it is equivalent to NOTHING.

        > You can trade them if you choose but the state must EXACT them
        > at par value.

        Oh, they would! A twenty dollar gold piece would pay a $20 fine!
        Again, I don't think this is what you really want to happen!

        > There is no way to plug a state judicial order or judgment
        > into a paper money system nor can you be forced to pay with penneys.

        That is so true. In fact, they'd most likely fight you over your tender
        of pennies, and they'd use some statute to do it. That's when I'd
        pounce on their choice of words in their statute, whatever it might be,
        and tie it in with the Catch-22 situation THEY have allowed to exist.

        > Pennies are coin (sic) but they are not gold or silver

        That's right, they are token coinage, but they DO lawfully "PAY" when
        used in amounts up to but not exceeding 25 cents per use. Again I thank
        Merrill Jenkins for enlightening me to another obscure fact.

        > I want to be placed under oath and testify that I have no
        > PUBLIC MONEY because the court can only demand public money. This was
        > an exaction..

        The problem is your local syndicate members will not engage on these
        kinds of issues - they will rule against you and make you appeal all the
        way to the Supreme Court. And appeals courts will look to see how hard
        you fought over each issue.

        > Again my
        > presumption was that the fine was for dollars of public money of which
        > there is none.

        Oh, there's some, but it's in the hands of the people and you say you
        aren't one of those who have any. There have always been indigents,
        ever since 1776 and before that. So even though there is certainly
        public money now in private hands, to get some you'll have to do
        something for it, and once you see what that is, you'll probably want to
        be like all the others and discharge government charges with scrip
        instead of your rare and valuable public money.

        > Granted I
        > should have refused to go to trial but I was trying Marc Steven's
        > method of trying to enter a guilty plea and force them to explain the
        > nature and cause of the accusation against me, which they will not do.

        I do not know Marc Stevens or "his" method, but I do know enough to
        NEVER plead "guilty" unless I want to go to jail or pay a fine. To have
        to plead BEFORE you know the nature and cause of the accusation MAKES NO
        SENSE AT ALL TO ME, nor would it have to Howard Freeman who seemed to
        know how to use the issue of "nature and cause" without PLEADING GUILTY!

        Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty!
        PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one
        waive so many rights, which waivers would have to be later overcome, I
        cannot understand why anyone would do that.

        > Again you are most probably correct but time is not
        > important to me. I am 73 and have time but the DA's time is a burden
        > to him. I'm not finished yet. In fact I will fill post convictions
        > form for the next 10 years. It is my recreation.

        I really commend you for that, tying up the machinery, being a diamond
        between the gristmill stones and all that. More people should do it.
        But I did my time and only quit when I saw I could not really effect
        change myself. I really only wanted to be left alone, and have achieved
        that.

        >I planned to use it on appeal and get a little more court room
        > pleasure.

        Okay. I think the appeals court may say you needed to address these
        issues more forcefully using the procedures and methods established.

        > > If the conviction is vitiated automatically then the Judge had no
        > > right to impose any sentence. This is my beliefs also.

        I believe you are right. Who will inform the goons for you?

        > Usually, this is
        > an argument for an appeal, since trial, conviction and sentencing
        > proceeded without objections that would have prevented all of them. I
        > did file an appeal and was only afforded a writ.

        I don't see the connection...or the "either-or" scenario. And what kind
        of writ? For what? An appeal requires a proposed settled statement and
        other documents to be produced. Did you do those? I forgot where you
        are. I don't know your local procedures or rights. It just doesn't
        make sense to me. Which doesn't mean anything either - I know only what
        I know and don't know the rest.

        > The writ
        > application was returned because it did not contain minutes. The
        > records were not forwarded and the clerk would not send the minutes.
        > I had no judicial review. I plan on going on what is called Post
        > Conviction Relief..as that is all that is available.

        This sounds very fishy to me. You mean where you are, they can avoid
        all appeals the same way they avoided yours? How convenient!

        > I figured I'd go to jail and they
        > would tell the judge I had MONEY on me. Then the judge would have to
        > prove it was money and the type of money he could EXACT.This happened
        > once before. They tried to get me on perjury but I proved that FRNs
        > are not PUBLIC money.

        Here, they'd most likely steal the 2000 FRNs and make you sue to get
        them back. That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Did you record the
        serial numbers of the bills? I look at FRNs the same way I look at
        poison oak or poison ivy.

        > In a real power vacuum, are you so
        > anxious to argue that you'll argue with anyone at all, even if they
        > are unqualified??
        >
        > You are correct and it is of value to this forum to apply
        > what you are saying but I goofed.

        I don't think you goofed, because you had a goal to try something to see
        how it worked. You had the time and the willingness to risk. But I see
        so many complaints from people who sign tickets because they don't have
        the time to go the long way. I see people who panic over the very
        thought of going to court, much less anticipating battle over as many
        issues as they can think of. If one goes into court, one must
        anticipate either a trip to Washington D.C. or a loss, unless one has a
        plan ahead of time to win on an issue they know and can articulate
        better than their adversaries.

        > > There is no way that they will identify what state is "this
        > > state". Shalom I, and others have been very successful at presenting
        > for the court to identifyitself...it is jurisdictional and they simply
        > won't do it. Two cases were taken under advisement and never rulled
        > upon.

        There are so many issues...it is really hard to get them all in the
        right order when you want to try them. I still think they ought to be
        held in abeyance until it is necessary or proper to raise them, and I
        still advise against rushing forward and waiving rights just to get to
        the stage where your latest test defense comes into play. I think a
        good new defense issue should be used only if you get that far after
        going through all others you know about, putting each argument into it's
        logical proper order. In other words, if you know you aren't going to
        eat any fruit, you never get to discussing the varieties of apples.
        First things first. This will prevent waste of your time and resources
        and do the most good for all of us as a group. Pro pers who buy "kits"
        and think that the kit "works" do us all a disservice, even though it is
        good that they decide to fight back at all.

        > Froggy is good and he should make a script and outline for all to
        > follow. The Handyman

        Thanks but no, thanks. Why should I take the time to write a script
        nobody will probably use? Thousands of scripts are possible, for
        thousands of cases. Why not just get people to acknowledge that they
        are capable of writing their own scripts and not taking the ones offered
        to them by their adversaries? As for an outline, we should all do that
        here on this list. We could make a case flowchart. Somebody (Bear?)
        could act as coordinator and incorporate the pieces we all send in,
        arranging them in a proper order. We should all contribute our favorite
        defenses for each stage, and see if we can get them in a proper order so
        as to be able to try out the most in any one case. I'll bet we could
        come up with a potential case scenario where we could identify over 100
        stages to fight over and win or lose (maybe over 150). Can you imagine
        if each jurisdiction in this country had to deal with one or two such
        defendants each month? They'd be overwhelmed.

        Regards,

        FF
      • The Handyman
        Froggy wrote: Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty! PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one waive so
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 3, 2006

          Froggy wrote:

           

          Wow! I can hardly believe somebody is advocating pleading guilty!
          PLEASE explain the wisdom of doing this to me. It requires that one
          waive so many rights, which waivers would have to be later overcome, I
          cannot understand why anyone would do that.

           

          Response to all:

           

          Ok Froggy!  I served 7 years in prison to learn this one.  Read Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 or better yet sit in a traffic court and watch how the judge poses certain questions to an accused that wants to enter a guilty plea.  Notice first that the accused must have standby counsel to enter a guilty plea.  Then the judge must explain all the rights he is waiving but most importantly he must explain the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.  So we can take advantage of this weakness by requesting to enter a plea of guilty.  Then they will try to appoint an indigent defender.  I interview the defender for 5 minutes and present a contract that no lawyer will ever sign.  So it is always back into court and I tell the judge that the defender is insufficient counsel of my choice because he is not licensed and  he won’t sign my contract.  If the judge is upset he will then Bokinize you without any counsel and that is a big reversible error mistake. Read Boykin.  If the judge refuses to accept your guilty plea….and he must accept only after he meets the Boykin conditions he will most of the time enter a plea of not guilty on your behalf which you must object to.  Usually the Judge and counsel must sign the guilty plea form.  Trial without a proper arraignment will win every time on appeal. For general information Boykin  contends the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition for relief because there is no record that he was advised of certain constitutional rights as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). In Boykin, the United States Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the trial judge to accept petitioner’s guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary. Id. at 242. More particularly, Boykin requires that the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that the defendant was informed of, and waived, three specific federal constitutional rights: the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one’s accusers. Id. at 243. The Court made clear, “[w]e cannot presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record.” Id.  It is not dangerous to try to enter a guilty plea.  In fact it is beneficial as on appeal it raises an issue they don’t want to  address. If you are willing to enter a guilty plea without counsel the judge must identify the jurisdiction as part of the nature and cause.  That is where the fun begins.  How can he justify a traffic cause a criminal without an injured party, property damage or an international contract in dispute?  Shalom 
           
          -------Original Message-------
           
          Date: 12/2/2006 11:44:27 PM
          Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Trial tomorrow
           
          .

           
          FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.