One step closer to proving that infractions are not crimes

[1775novten]

So where do infractions fall? Civil or Criminal, or some other grey area? I've heard this debate numerous times in court and judges can never clearly define it - why not? Why don't they just go ahead and clarify this issue and make it black and white? Or are they intentionally keeping it grey so that they can get away with assigning penalties under the radar?

[scabbybuttcrack]

I would like to give a big FUCK YOU to YouTube for not allowing longer comments and not allowing URLs in comments.

[scabbybuttcrack]

Along the same lines, here's a great analysis:

Marc Stevens: Adventures in Legal Land

tinyurl(dot)com/7r4wdmr

Infractions are not crimes.

If "probable cause" requires suspicion that a "crime" is being committed, then no moving violation, and certainly no non-moving violation like a registration issue, is grounds for probable cause. Therefore, all traffic stops for regular passenger vehicles (i.e. non-commercial in nature) are illegal and unconstitutional.

[scabbybuttcrack]

California Penal Code 15 defines a "crime":

A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments: 1. Death; 2. Imprisonment; 3. Fine; 4. Removal from office; or, 5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this State.

law.onecle.com/california/pena­l/15.html

(continued)

[scabbybuttcrack]

"Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained. Otherwise, a principal incentive now existing

for the procurement of arrest warrants would be destroyed." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 479-480

(continued)

[scabbybuttcrack]

The current standard for "probable cause":

Beck v. Ohio, 379 US 89 - Supreme Court 1964

"Whether that arrest was constitutionally valid depends in turn upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it--whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the

petitioner had committed or was committing an offense."

[JEHERETIC]

Quasi Crimes lol!!!!

[joedubovik]

shes having a hard time reading the cliff notes

[justaman6972]

THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : uscode dott house dott gov. There ya have it menidcant.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 So, let me get this straight, you and genius here are going to use the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation over a traffic offense? An infraction? In 2011? Good luck with that. As always, I invite the post-case video, with full documents, to be posted by tackticalfailure and I anticipate he will quietly lose and claim he's gonna vanquish them next time, or on appeal, or on the moon, or something.

[MmmmYeahSure]

Any day now, Tactikallemming1 will get "one step closer to proving he who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client and a jackass for a lawyer.

[justaman6972]

could mean? ORGANIC LAW. The fundamental law, or constitution,of a state or nation, written or unwritten;that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government. St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 46S.W. 976, 42 L.R.A. 686, 68 Am.St.Rep. 575. Black's Law 4th p.1251 Can't get any more clear can it idiot? Your comment was non responsive,which is to be expected of those who operate from ignorance.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 "organic law" isn't even a concept that is spoken of in law school, really. And can't you do better than an undated (robably greater than a hundred years old) cite from a Missouri appellate court for your concept? And even then, the cite doesn't define organic law but rather "fundamental law." so yes it can get more clear, you just aren't capable of it. Touche

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure The United States has four official sources of organic law as defined

in the first section of every version of the United States Code. You are using up valuable air that some intelligent being could be using ,so stop. Weak, lame an lazy,as I said. Your ITT Tech law school did you a real service.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Great, then quote me something saying that. You idiots make up your own shit endlessly. What exactly do YOU mean by organic law? Common law? Constitutional law? Both? You fake law types don't usually like statutory law, but what about you? And let me get this straight - you are arguing that you have a superior legal education? That shows the strength of your skills. Fail.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure you have yet to offer a single citation about anything,merely contradiction and senselessness. As for passing a BAR exam also having zero credibility when considering it is a private club ill informed parrots. I would bet a live organ you've never seen the inside of any law school much less a BAR exam. SO put up your responsive cited memorandum of law ,or STFU. You are full of shit and we all know it. There's your fail.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure Organic law is the same as fundamental law, but then a law school BAR exam passing individual would know there is no distinction between the two. They are the same. Statutory law is not law. It is colorable legislative enactments given the force of law by the CONSENT of the goverened, and are for citizens, persons Ens Legis corporate fictions and have no effect upon the Sovereign People as they are the authors and source of law. Yick Wo v Hopkins US 118.356,370 UR full O shite!

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 I do know that statutory law is indeed law. It is an internet myth among fake nonlawyer idiots like yourself that it is not. Representative government in a republic happens when you elect a representative, and by doing so, consent to be governed. They pass laws. Statutes, codes, etc. Like it or not. There is no court case or holding that has ever said that such a thing as a sovereign citizen exists. Fail.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 -you were saying? Man you're a liar and we knw it and I have smoked you at every turn so deal with it man, this endeth the lesson. I have wasted enough time on UR stupid az

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 bahahahahahahaha

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Ok. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[ "was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." It doesn't say that citizens are sovereign, and if you were 14th amendment savvy, you;d know it probably comes close to saying the opposite. Fail.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure I'm familiar with the case fundamentals.So what horse do you have in this race, or are you the hero out trying to save people from themselves? Either way we both know you're full of crap. Yawn and boring...

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 the case fundamentals...oooh...yet, your lack of understanding of what a republic is, coupled with poor reading comprehension and no legal education, cause you to misinterpret what those fundamentals are and what the case means. And, I'm not full of crap. Go try to argue your absurdities in court and then get your ass handed to you.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 yeah, I'm the hero combatting bullshit. What horse do you have in this race? Time to kill in mommy's basement, a life of no acheivement, and here on youtube, you get to play pretend lawyer? Sort of narcisism for failures?

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure I have a YT channel that contains many areas of verifiable law citations and vids with links. Where's your channel? Clearly the acts of a coward and a spineless jellyfish. Had you any factual evidence you'd be proud to debate and rationally offer counter arguements to the claims being posted here, alas you cannot and will not, as it requires two items which are lacking for you, a brain, and a spine. Now back under that rock of yours and shut your cakehole.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 I have a law office and represent real life clients in real courts over matters of much more consequence than this dumbass stuff. I don't need or want a youtube channel for that. I do rationally offer counterarguments but you;re too brainwashed into thinking that you understand the law, when you don't, to get it.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure post citations then as rebuttal clown, and who the hell would give their personal info for you to see concerning their legal cases? Law office ha, So full of shit.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 You live in a world of fake laws that don't exist. Go to Quatloos.com, check out the sovereign citizen scam forum. There is a lot of good info there, cites to court cases where these people fail, are held in contempt, etc. Do you own research. Dicking around on you tube and website espousing sovereign citizen crap, arrived at by uneducated fucks misinterpreting a few old opinions, isn't legal research.

[MmmmYeahSure]

Here is what you do: 1. go to the fortune teller and pay her money 2. buy or make a tin foil crash helmet. 3. dust off your bedside stained copy of the magna carta, in archaic latin, 4. translate it 5. Smoke lots of wacky tobacky 6. lick a few frogs, preferably poisonous ones 7. sit down and do your best work on a new legal instrument called an "affadavit of complete and utter nonsense and bullshit I learned on youtube" and file that. Good luck!

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure your problem is that you are weak ,lame and lazy as well as ordinary and ignorant. Additionally you're unable to offer any factual evidence supporting anything,rather only using ad homenim personal attacks.Typical ignorant troglodyte from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 This is unintentionally hilarious and ironic. Instead of responding to any issue, you say I am lazy. But I am not. I put the time in to actually learn the law and pass a bar exam. You couldn't pass a urine exam (and I'm not even referring to one that screens for drugs, but you probably couldn't pass that either). So, really, I'm not any of those things, though I do spend far too much time online arguing with idiots.

[justaman6972]

MmmmYeahSure is a distracting troll tempting to engage you into an endless and meaningless series of mere contradictions. Ignore his posts and continue working toward your remedy at law.

Pax aut bellum.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 For it to be a "remedy at law" there would have to be a remedy which the law prescribes in response to his nonsense. It is instead a "remedy at bullshit"

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Nah, not really, just pointing out the endless error of the ways of takticalfailures1

[MmmmYeahSure]

So, you're all bent because you aren't getting a jry trial on a traffic ticket. Waah. All that would do is cause you to waste much more money and effort and make more lame ass videos that mislead annoying shut ins who pine to practice law from their mommies' basements.

[Tactikalguy1]

@MmmmYeahSure .....it has nothing to do with getting a jury trial. Are you as clueless in real life as you pretend to be on youtube? You ignore what I say and bring up something else from a different conversation. Nice try troll. Keep practicing law. I dont need to practice. I got it right after a couple of times. From my mommies basement if it makes you feel better.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@Tactikalguy1 The last time I called you out on all your claims of victories you weren't able to provide me proof that you had ever prevailed on anything, not even a single motion, by the methods and quackery you advertise in your illegal law practice videos.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@MmmmYeahSure As i said in my other comment "you aren't making it clear what you are babbling about." So, make it clear then. One thing is clear - you are "babbling." It is known to anyone with a cursory understanding that infractions are not crimes. So why are you trying and striving so hard to prove the obvious and undisputed?

[MmmmYeahSure]

Duh. Of course infractions are not crimes, no one claims they are. Not even the govt. Are you going to next prove taht water is wet?

[Tactikalguy1]

@MmmmYeahSure ....Your friend midnightwins2 thinks so. Seems like you guys are out of touch. LOL. However, if I can prove that water is wet it wil not give me a free ticket to federal court. I will have standing in federal court if I can prove that infractions are not crimes and the officer violated my 4th amendment right. Duh!

[MmmmYeahSure]

@Tactikalguy1 You aren't making it clear what you are babbling about. But whether or not an officer violated your fourth amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure has not much to do with whether you violated a criminal law or an infraction. Either way, same standards for police search and seizure. Hey, there is law on this stuff, but you don't know where to find it, since you aren't a lawyer and are just blindly hacking your way through the jungle.

[MidnightWins2]

Infractions fall under criminal law and are enforced in the same way. Some officials - like this one - hesitate to label them "crimes" to avoid lumping people who commit these minor offenses with those who commit serious crimes, but in the strict context of law, yes, they are crimes. A judge is not going to take a trivial issue like the words cops use to describe infractions into serious consideration in court. This is just a pedantic plea.

[Tactikalguy1]

@MidnightWins2 .... If what you say is true then people would have a right to a trial by jury and counsel. However, they are not crimes. Which is why people do not have the right to either jury or counsel.

[MidnightWins2]

@Tactikalguy1 No, because the Supreme Court ruled in Baldwin v. New York that the right to a trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed for an offense that carries a punishment of less than six months, and the right to legal counsel is only constitutionally guaranteed for felonies, as per Gideon v. Wainwright.

[Tactikalguy1]

@MidnightWins2 .........Article 1 Section 16 of the California Constitution which states in part: Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant's counsel Guess it goes against the Constitution which makes it null and void. See how easy that was?

[justaman6972]

@Tactikalguy1 there are 2 California constitutions which are you speaking of? I recommend 1849 of the De jure Republic not the latest one.Just because it is re-written in no way does it erase the original.It does allow for the choice of being a citizen of the republic or an employee/slave of a corporation of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA locate it on the corporation lists on Dunn& Brad Street as a DBA (doing business as) Please research the Buck Act of 47' too U must sever the nexus of being a slave

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 So, you seriously think that the older version is binding and not the newer one?

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure Although California’s constitution has

undergone wholesale revision and amendment

since its inception in 1849, the work of the

original framers remains imprinted in the

organic law of the state. (The California Constitution Revision Commission) So the older version is still in effect.How's that crow taste son? Now fuck off!

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Well, go then and make an argument based on outdated text from the old Constitution, that isn't in the new one, and see how that works. You haven't cited any law which says the old one is still in effect, I should perhaps remind you at this point. The "organic law of the state" could mean the case law or "common law" that has developed over time. Still fail.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure California and its constitution have weathered

many changes in 146 years. Throughout,

reformers and revisionists have seen fit to retain

the basic organization of state government provided for in the 1849 organic law. (California Constitution Revision Commission) This means the original is still in effect. Fuckstick.

[paranoidpatriot]

@Tactikalguy1 I love how easy it is to shut down people who insist on defending the actions of the black robed bandits. You are one of my very few hero's. Keep exposing the fraud that most people call the justice system.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@paranoidpatriot You need a better hero detector!

[MmmmYeahSure]

@Tactikalguy1 Didn't you just say you were not arguing that you were entitled to a jury trial, in response to one of my comments? Which is it? Hmm...

[justaman6972]

@MidnightWins2 that ruling is unconstitutional on its face sir as it voids due process which are protected unaleinable rights.Look its all about granting consent ok? I have been at this for several yrs now.They need your permission to act,now they use word art to get you to enter joinder and since there are 3 englishes used in the US you cannot discern which is being used unless U kno what time it is in court. Please please go watch all of Bill Foust's vid on YT and Mark Hafner PM me with Q's

[MmmmYeahSure]

@Tactikalguy1 You have a right to jury in criminal matters. Get it?

[justaman6972]

@MidnightWins2 this is a fraud the constitution allows the courts to proceed in one of two jurisdictions, civil/criminal common law, or maritime admiralty/military tribunal. Common law requires a sworn affidavit attesting some alleged harm,physically trespass upon the unaleinable right of another to establish the requirement of STANDING,which is necessary to proceed in either civil or criminal.Civil and maritime requires a vaild contract containing all 4 elements of contract. For an action. Pax

[MidnightWins2]

@justaman6972 Don't even start with the sovereign/freeman bullshit. It's just as much nonsense now as it was thirty years ago when it was first invented by con artists and white supremacists.

[justaman6972]

@MidnightWins2 Where is your evidence to back your dismissive claim,or did you simply discard sovereignty due to laziness lacking the fortitude to research facts and shepardized cases and SCOTUS rulings?Being dismissive lends zero credence to your claim.I have used Affidavit of truth to eliminate the presumption in law claiming I am an ENS LEGIS "person" The burden lies upon the one maing the claim to prove up the claim. Its called law.Rather than discounting you should investigate it 4 yoseff

[MidnightWins2]

@justaman6972 I've researched it for years, probably longer than you have. Every time a sovereign goes before a judge, the judge rolls their eyes and finds them guilty.

[justaman6972]

@MidnightWins2 yeah I doubt that ad I have won 3 times in court after severing the nexus of being a citizen.

So your comment suggesting that every sovereign being found guilty is a fallacy in logic.I invite any citations in law you have to back your position. Simply contradicting is not evidence.

[MidnightWins2]

@justaman6972 adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

[justaman6972]

@MidnightWins2 go read what justice Matthews said in Yick Wo v Hopkins US 118.356,370 concerning individual sovereignty and the source of all law and for who law is to benefit,then enjoy the crow as this case has never been set aside,or over turned.You may enjoy reading the Magna Carta of 1215 as well. Maximums of law used for 100's of years under Stare Decisis, nisi prius etc.So back up you claims with citations from the SCOTUS who decides constitutionality/supreme law of the land,do it c'mon.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 You need to go to law school, starting at day one. Pretty much everything you say here is false.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure Ad homenims,and red herring contradictions. You must have been a star in forensics debate class. lol. if you claim what I say to be false then post the citations that are Article lll courts of record.like the Supremem Court,or a United States Distirct court,the USC, or CFR perhaps.I know you won't because, first you don't know how to research Sheppardized cases and there are none to counter my posts. If there are post it man, I'll be your huckle berry.ur contradictions R invalid.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Well, you are the one making the claim, so the burden is on you. You wrote a paragraph of nonsense, none of which is law. As an attorney I know that and know how to refute it, but no, I am not going to spend 5-10 hours of my weekend proving that water is wet to an idiot. You're still an idiot, and you haven't cited to anything for your many legal assertions. Fail. Have a nice day.

[Tactikalguy1]

@MmmmYeahSure ... I made the claim and you have not rebutted it. So, likewise. Have a good one. Fail.

[MmmmYeahSure]

@Tactikalguy1 Really, then where is a citation that says the magna carta or the initial, now revised, version of the cal constitution are still binding? You demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of what representative government is. You used an affadavit of truth (is there an affadavit of falsity?) that you are a "person"? No, you're a nutjob who doesn't understand the law, and fantasizes his own legal theories.

[justaman6972]

@MmmmYeahSure An infraction, sometimes called a petty offense, is the violation of an administrative regulation, an ordinance, a municipal code, and, in some jurisdictions, a state or local traffic rule carrying no incarcerration penalty. see AZ ST § 13-602). One example for your stupid ass. Now fuck off!

[MmmmYeahSure]

@justaman6972 Well, everyone seems to be in agreement that an infraction is just that. I haven't said it isn't. WTF is your point? Basically, you proved your own incompetence by citing to something that doesn't support anything in your gibberish ranting arguments.

[peri525]

@MidnightWins2 thats sooo nice of them;)

[LoonyVision]

@MidnightWins2 And let's not forget PC sec 689, which states that "NO person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty." (see also PC 683 and; CCP 24, 31, 32)

[LoonyVision]

Tacticalguy, you should have named your video "An Admission That Traffic Infractions Aren't Crimes" Because it doesn't have to be "proven." All one need do is look to sec. 16, of Art. I, of the Calif. Const. (as you've shown) to see that.

[TheFloydReport]

They're all private agencies with DUNNS numbers. Not public servents. Why are you people still fooled into voting for these fraud assholes? Clog up the courts with counter suits. Shut these fuckers down.

[bugsz1]

Answer the fucking question servant!

[videocommenter67]

Yup you are right. Look up "infraction" in Blacks Law Dictionary. Eye opener.

[vegaswolf]

In Las Vegas Nevada it is a misdemeanor which is a "lesser" crime, therefore criminal. "11.06.010 - Conformance required. Unless otherwise provided, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this Title." Hope that helps some people.

[redwormcharlie]

This is insane, I would love to know the details of the case.

[FLhomesteader]

amazing proof... infractions... what a crock of shite.

[gwizzle1]

what is the case about? 

[PostToastie]

SHE'S QUICK TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, ISN'T SHE?

[MmmmYeahSure]

@PostToastie She doesn't need to educate the parties. He chose to represent himself, mistake number one, and play wannabe lawyer. It is up to him to understand whether it is a crime or infraction and why that matters. The judge isn't there to hold his hand and help him in our system.

[blockme73]

im all about showing the world that there is no law ,just common law