Judge: Constitution "not relevant" - 2/3

[akmrmike]

How about asking the Cop if he had proof you were making use of the license.

[bmc6053]

The Constitution issue raised as-so-far as being relevant to the questioning of the public servant isn't relevant to the officers credibility. I'd imagine, the correct way would be to ask to have everything squashed or dismissed with prejudice BECAUSE there was no due process. I mean, isn't this a common law court preceding? Seems they all are very uptight for such...

[JEHERETIC]

A statute is not LAW it is a "LEGISLATIVE RULE GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW" THE LAW IS THE CONSTITUTION!!!

[bradq]

read "invisible contracts" by George Mercier.

[bradq]

the reason the constitution is not relevant is because the constitution does not over ride contracts.

[TheProverbialHater]

@bradq

I thought I was the only person here with their thinking cap on. You proved me wrong.

[bradq]

@TheProverbialHater now there are two of us

[Samsonrye777]

Research Common Law Class on Youtube. I tried to paste the link and it would not let me.

[Samsonrye777]

You're right, it is Admirality Law. He should have established that 1st, by letting the judge know that he does not ave a "contract" with the court. And the Gold Tasle on the flag also indicates that. Also, he should ahve stated that he is a Natural Human, representing himself, and not his "fictious personality." The court is a corporation, and is He, as his name in all caps would indicate on the court docet. watch this:

[bigwig049]

THIS IS ADMIRALTY LAW NOT COMMON LAW OR EQUITY WHEN THE JUDGE SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES,NT APPLY HE IS RIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE UNDER THE LAW OF THE SEA ADMIRALTY LAW PEOPLE ..THIS IS TOTAL CORUPTION, AND BREAK DOWN OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.. YOU SEE EVEN IN THIS LEGAL MATTER (DUE PROCESS) STILL APPLYS ..THE JUDGE IS ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE POLICE OFFICER ALONG WITH THE PROSECUTER ..TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTREST....

[nonassumsit]

I CAN'T WAIT TILL THEY THROW ALL YOU FUCKERS IN JAIL

[zonsb]

The object of the defendant should be to get the judge to impeach the witness. Not try to get the judge to agree that you are smarter than the prosecutor, cop and judge. All three represent the plaintiff -- the State. That in itself is cause for the judge to recuse himself. See my below post...

[zonsb]

Defendant had good line regards valid cause of action and the elements of a valid cause of action.

He botched it by trying to play lawyer rather than getting the cop to make a legal conclusion that the ticket was a valid cause of action. Ask the cop: Was the ticket a valid cause of action? Cop: yes. Next question: What are the elements in a valid cause of action? The prosecutor will object saying it calls for a legal conclusion the witness is unqualified to testify. Judge will sustain.

[bigwig049]

Important Principles of the Court System

In every case, New Jersey's courts strive to achieve one thing: justice. To achieve justice, our courts must be independent, open and impartial this is new jersey mission statement. ( welcome to new jersey courts)

[rb30zk]

the judge is playing with this guy. he interrupts and gets the guy off track then tells him to continue questioning.

[cat5dookie1]

He's not dense he just doesnt go for the jugular. The valid "cause of action" should have been his first question and try to disqualify the cop.

[4624tone]

@cat5dookie1 hes not doin bad, i can tell its his first time, lets give him the props he deservers, right? CAt if you help me cause sounds like you know this law, please write me, thanks!@

[evange03]

jesus christ this kid is dense.

[mattbaldea]

@evange03 and you must be a pig or have a vested interest in bloating the states budget in hopes of stealing from the people there to give yourself a raise.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

Before I forget, it is also as easy as this, if the State can override by statute (which is obviously what "complementing" does) the Common Law, then by definition the Constitution does NOT apply, then by definition, I am not required (since the Constitution is a legally and lawfully binding contract on me) to uphold a "state of" that does NOT uphold the contract it agreed to.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

The "Judge" is LITERALLY saying, "this is NOT a Court of Record" and "this IS a Court of Equity" and "this is NOT a court at common law guaranteed by the constitution". I like that Judge! He would fit in just fine in Soviet Russia, where you don't break the law, the law breaks YOU.

[nealx]

this judge and prosecutor are being more than patient with this douche.

[swu880]

lol- Its ALL about the POWER & CONTROL. Tyrants dont like strong well armed & intelligent sheep. Tyrants love the dumb ones cuz they are easier to eat. Thus if someone starts asking questions & challenging their illegitimate "authority", then they get pissed & angry as seen here

Are these the actions of SERVANTS? or are those the actions of a slave driver?

[swu880]

Like i have said- its called collusion- collusion & corruption. Both the prosecutor & the so called 'police' & the 'judge' are in the SAME bed- they are all part of the state! and u saying they are indpendent of one another? You telling me u can get a fair trial in such a place? Tell me WHERE IS THE GUN AT THEIR BACK? they hold a gun at ours- so where is the gun at their backs? who keeps them any bit accountable?

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 "who keeps them any bit accountable"

Judges have a strict ethics code they must follow. It's far more strict than any ethics code for any other profession. You can likely find the judicial ethics code for your state with a simple google search. Prosecutors also have an ethics code. A prosecutor can be disbarred from the profession for attempting to prosecute individuals in cases that have no merit. Were you really asking? Or did you just assume there was no accountability for judges?

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny That is very interesting. To date, I have never heard countless times, over and over again, of "Judges" (Magistrates) and "Prosecutors" (Common Informers) EVER being dis-BARred for busting those "super-strict all-powerful ethics codes". Want to know a better ethics code? The Constitution.

[swu880]

Btw if the judges truly were objective, they would never have had the racial imprisonment & segregation of the 60s & stuff- all the jim crowe laws would have been thrown out immediately & the judge would write a personal apology to all the "alleged criminals" of the law(more like victims). But no, the state is too haughty, too arrogant & doesnt give a fuck about ur rights! never really did never does & unless its got some gun pointed at its back, probably never will.

[swu880]

A crime is a crime IF and ONLY IF it violates or infringes on another individual(s) rights!

[swu880]

If violating a law is all it took to make u a criminal, then they will make laws for which u are in violation of. But no law, no violation of any law can make u a criminal or an act a crime- NONE.

Just to illustrate, go look up marc emery & sunday shopping law.

I can make a million laws forbidding u to mow your lawn with your lawnmower on fridays. But is the act then of mowing your lawn with your lawnmower, whenever you please even on fridays- is that a crime? NO!

[swu880]

/watch?v=MIJdmePn4lY&feature=r­elated

A law aint constitutional just cuz a court, an officer, or a couple fancy suit govt officials say it is! A law is unconstitutional if it violates or infringes on my individual rights as a person. And things like hr6304 and the patriot act- those are direct violations of my rights- the result of govt collusion

[swu880]

Thus having the state both in the seat of a judge & the prosecutor & also the police, there really is no such thing as a fair trial unless u can strip the judge & tyrannical cop of his statist status. lol

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 As stated earlier, you've given no reason to show why a judge would not be impartial. They don't get payed by their number of convictions, and they are judged themselves according to how accurately they follow the law. There is no incentive for a judge to find people guilty, but there IS incentive for a judge to find people not guilty when they have not violated the law. So what is your basis for claiming judge's just want to squash our rights? Give us some facts.

[swu880]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny

uh wow... quite naive. hello- didn't u even watch this vid? the judge fuckin said, "the constitution is NOT relevent"

so... all these so called 'public servents' who supposedly swore to uphold, protect & defend the constitution, are now trashing it & saying its not relevant? uh- so do they give a fuck about the constitution? no! if u did, would u ever say 'the constitution is not relevent especially in court?"

[swu880]

@swu880

moreover, 'violating the law'- that is a statist falsehood which statists try to cling to. Its naive. why? cuz the fucking states WRITE the laws, not i nor u. And it is the state which protects the laws! not the citizens, not the people, and sure as hell not the constitution!

2 wolves and a lamb- so what are we having for lunch? the lamb or a chicken salad?

[swu880]

@swu880

lol just listen to the audio, its so apparent that the judge & the prosecutor are seriously biased- they are in bed with each other!

Remember- a judge is a fucking LAWYER who is in the same bed as OTHER lawyers of the state! not of the people!

you hear of corruption across all the agencies & every sector of govt from cops to senators to even the president. and u telling me that the judge is immune to all that? what is he? a god?

[swu880]

@swu880

States write the laws- special interest groups sponsor them(often times in the dark background). And many laws are very unconstitutional and infringe on rights across the board- the patriot act is one of them.

Have u heard of the "sunday shopping laws" which were passed up in canada a number of years ago? that was a direct violation of individual rights but statists like u used the most irrational arguments to try & cling to ur false notion of statism & justify the unjustifiable

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 "Remember- a judge is a fucking LAWYER who is in the same bed as OTHER lawyers of the state!"

That's right, the judge is a lawyer, and lawyers can be prosecutors, defenders, they can be public interests lawyers, or civil rights lawyers. There's even lawyers who specialize in defending human rights. So why do you assume the judge is going to be anxious to take away a person's rights when he may have spent his whole career as a lawyer defending civil rights? Your arguments make no sense.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny Amusing. The judge and every Prosecutor must, by legislative/statute law, be a BAR Associate. Licensed by, and contracted to. Though it is clear by the Constitution, no such thing is needed to use law. I am a MAN in the Republic, I don't care that a statutory BAR Associate defends "civil rights" and "civil privileges" of a "person" (legal definitions, all of them, look them up). By the way peeps, the "states" (definiton-corporations) write STATUTORY law. Not real law.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@TheCaptainSlappy "By the way peeps, the "states" (definiton-corporations) write STATUTORY law. Not real law."

I'm confused about what you mean by Real Law. There are two types of law. Common law and Statute. Statutes are written by legislators, and Common Law is written by Judges. Both are agents of the state, so it would appear the state has a hand in writing both. So what, then, do you think is REAL law?

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny The only law that matters is Common Law. Without it, not statute law exists. Statutes are written by democratic state legislatures that are democratically elected, expressly forbidden by Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. "All states REPUBLICAN". The "form" of is MY choice, not my legislatures. To whom I delegated such PARTIAL power to. Common Law is NOT written by judges (that is a falsity of NEW "legal" definitions). You are talking judge written CIVIL law.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@TheCaptainSlappy We need clarity, because you're not using common definitions. What do you think Common Law is?

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny LEGAL (statutory definition, fairly current, Black's 5th)- Common Law- As distinguished from law created by ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATURES (statute), the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action relating TO the government and SECURITY OF PERSONS (check def. of "Person", replace with "man", as common law does not recognize that def.) and property, which derive their authority SOLELY from......

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny "....juristic theory, positive law, and ancient custom". Continued, "...consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of person and property which DO NOT REST FOR THEIR AUTHORITY UPON ANY express and positive declaration of the will of the LEGISLATURE". I am using LEGAL definitions. They do to.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@TheCaptainSlappy That's common law alright. It's not created by statute, and develops in the courtrooms as a result of judicial opinions. If you want an example, you should research tort law, specifically negligence, which has it's roots in common law. It was developed almost entirely in the court room by judges. Sorry to burst your bubble, but common law gets created in the court room by judges. And by the way, the Constitution is NOT common law.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

Trust me, Black's 5th isn't much better, as it does the same as other since "abrogation" in '38 or '39 (whenever), which is slop it all together and screw up the base definitions. Hence me referring you to other ones (the definitions are MUCH clearer, with much less statutory soup in there).

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny You have to go back to Bouvier's for some ALMOST decent legal definitions, and in many cases, not even then. I personally wouldn't touch anything prior to say, Black's 4th was done (and even then, it isn't very good for real, common law definitions, and the real statutory definitions, since in 1938, it pretty much got slopped all together, and the definitions swapped around YET AGAIN.)

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 "Its naive. why? cuz the fucking states WRITE the laws, not i nor u."

I don't know which country you live in, but I actually get to vote on several proposed laws later this week. Guess what happens if the people in my state don't want one of the proposed laws to become law? It doesn't become a law. How's that for tyranny?

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny Nice to know you vote in a state statutory democracy that doesn't exist inside my Republic State, guaranteed by the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1. Case close, Your Honor.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 The judge is quite correct in this case. The constitution won't be relevant unless you're alleging violation of a constitutional right or exercising a constitutional right. In this case, the defendant was doing neither. He was challenging jurisdiction, which is entirely a state matter and has nothing to do with the federal government or the constitution. So when the judge said the constitution was not relevant, he was correct. There was no constitutional issue raised here.

[dchamberss]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny He IS alleging a 5th Amendment violation - deprivation of property without due process. Did you hear the audio?

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny Incorrect. Common Law and the Constitution OVERRIDE all cases in equity, contract and corporate. Statute is by DEFINITION of LAW inferior to Common Law, and is AUTOMATICALLY overridden by the Constitution. Otherwise, logic would dictate no Constitution is needed...after all, by YOUR explanation, STATUTE can override the Constitution AT WILL. Doesn't sound like a Republic to me, then.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@TheCaptainSlappy "Incorrect. Common Law and the Constitution OVERRIDE all cases in equity"

The Constitution says the exact opposite. Any statutes enacted by Congress become the Supreme Law of the Land according to the Supremacy Clause. That means any statute enacted by congress will override whatever common law may exist for that particular issue. Maybe you have the two mixed up. It sounds like you think the laws enacted under the constitution are common law. They're actually statutes.

[TheCaptainSlappy]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny Incorrect again. It is only Supreme Law of the land IF my state is a Republic, AND it absolutely conforms to not only Common Law, but also the Republic states. Statute cannot, and will not override Common Law that created the Constitution, that created the ABILITY of ANY state or fed to then create...statutes.

[swu880]

damn u can hear the judge & prosecutor wiggling in their seats- those tyrannts are squirming eager to squash our rights.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 Judges render many decisions that solidify and protect out rights. What do you think they have to gain by stripping people of their rights? I guess I'm not really sure what the basis is for this statement. Why would a judge be eager to take away individual liberties?

[swu880]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny

lol ok wow that is just being very naive & ignorant. Ben Franklin said it best, "Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is the well armed lamb contesting the vote"

"judges" are NOT FUCKING gods! there are NO gods NO kings NO priests NO supermen in govt!

[swu880]

@swu880

Judges are Lawyers in fancy suits. You see IF the judges truly were accountable. If they were any bit objective. If they cared about ur fucking rights at all & the constitution, we would not have like any such thing as "traffic courts"!

Traffic courts, and things like social security, marriage licenses, etc- those are methods by which the courts & govt infringe on people's rights, rape them & steal their money- think about it

u literally got 2 wolves and a lamb in those courts-

[swu880]

@swu880

The Judges are lawyers for the so called "State", the so called "prosecutors" are also lawyers & police men with guns working not for u but for the "state". So who the fuck is left defending you? Who the fuck is left guaranteeing ur rights? who the fuck is left ensuring that the judge & the prosecutor dont violate ur rights? no one!

Traffic violations are a victimless crime- just as RIDICULOUS as the "sunday shopping laws". And so any rational person would just throw out such cases

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 State Judges are required to follow the laws of the people, as long as they don't conflict with the constitution of their state. If the people in a particular state decide they don't want to be hit by a car traveling at 90mph, there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't create that right for themselves. As such, the judge, as a rational person, must follow the law as it is written. To do otherwise would be to strip away the rights of the people.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 "u literally got 2 wolves and a lamb in those courts"

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the quote. You're also making the mistake of believing Judges have the authority to create courts and laws. This is false. Judges can only follow the law, not create it. The funny thing is the exact opposite of your statement is true. If judges stopped following the laws created by the citizens, then they would be showing they have no concern for our rights or the constitution.

[ThisIsTheRealSkinny]

@swu880 "Ben Franklin said it best, 'Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is the well armed lamb contesting the vote'"

Franklin was talking about factions, the idea that the majority might strip the minority of their rights. This was a great concern for the founding fathers, and one of the reasons they adopted the bill of rights and chose representative government. It does not support your earlier statement that judges want to squash our rights.

[swu880]

@ThisIsTheRealSkinny

/watch?v=qWzSCEwa0h4

Judicial supremacy is a lunacy which statists unsuccessfully try to cling to

[mymacika]

Why go to court in the first place, why not preempt summons with accepted for value and consideration upon proof of claim, validated by clark of courts (72hrs). Its all hearsay not admissable, case dismissed. Just a thought.

[Luigi84289]

@mymacika To get the audio out. This dude is brave. We need more people like him. I do not know if I could have gone into that court room and done that. We must restore the Constitution.

[AircooledJohn]

the brainwashing is so complete that even those in the Court against you do not realize the reasons you are contesting them.

[lawharrison]

if you don't like the constitution leave or get shot cause your in the wrong country.

[NoGuff]

There's no way to contest speed limits. In Florida, where the state gets it's revenue from sales taxes (because of tourism) they have stiff fines for speeding and other auto offenses. So like going 10mph over the limit means (last time I was there) $55 for speeding, plus $5 per mph over the limit. I'm sure it's much higher today.

And in Florida a road that's safe at 40mph is given a speed limit of 25mph just to get speeders.

[earthicastar]

Nice clean up job on this. Here in Califoceya courts, the bailiffs have the entire group of defendants raise their hand and waive Constitutional rights before they see the judge.. we have that in recording.. will try to get it up on youtube sooner or later.

[thegreatfish]

@earthicastar

I'm sure you will. I would LOVE to see that.

[nnonix]

Another example of someone who has read too much law but fails to understand it. There is no legal conclusion form the police officer. The officer simply writes a summons and you go to court to get a "legal conclusion". In this case, no legal conclusion has happened yet. That will be handed down by the judge in his decision. The officer answered incorrectly when he stated that his tickets represented a legal conclusions, the State or the Judge should have clarified that to him.

[Macedon51]

His writing tickets is giving testimony is a legal conclusion. The conclusion happened when the cop judged the statute was violated.

In addition, standing is key in any case including traffic "violations". The "judge" is ignoring it because they don;t have a case. It is all a scam....

WATCH MARK STEVENS:

youtube . com/watch?v=ZL70LQPHiQA

[nnonix]

@Macedon51 The ticket is testimony but it is NOT a legal conclusion, merely only an accusation (this is why a defendant is sometimes called the "accused"). Again, any legal conclusion is provided by the Judge.

Stevens' conclusions are all wrong. He mixes Federal vs State/County and Criminal judicial conclusions to arrive at his position when some or most of them do not apply to a civil court case. Why no video/audio of HIM beating a traffic ticket?

[Z0mgZ0mbies]

This is why I'm moving from NJ!!!! This judge is disgusting...

[thegreatfish]

His interpretation of the case he cites is incorrect. First of all, it deals with a claim of racial discrimination. Second, the citation he reads is about the causation element of offenses that require a harm element. Quite simply, if a law requires there to be harm before it is violated, the harm that occurs must be the result of the violation of law. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this guys case. His heart is in the right place, but all his arguments are misinterpretations of the law.

[thegreatfish]

It's not required that someone is harmed for a crime to be committed. For example, attempted murder is a crime, even though no murder has actually taken place. He's operating under a mistaken belief. I don't know why everyone is baffled by how angry everyone is getting at this guy. He has such a hard time getting to the point. I've watched over half of this proceeding and I still don't know what point he's trying to make. To any logical person, it looks like he's leading the court in circles.

[xchronox187]

@thegreatfish

"Proof of the corpus delecti is required in all criminal cases...There are three basic elements in the proof of a crime: (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury and (3) the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. However, it is firmly established in this State that the term corpus delecti embraces only the first two of these elements-loss or injury and criminal causation." State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725, 728.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

I read the case. I know what corpus delicti is. It's basically just proof that the crime has occurred. The first element they give is a generalization. If it were taken too literally, it would negate inchoate crimes, like attempted murder or attempted rape. It is not within the judge's power to repeal such statutes, yours being included. There's also the problem that the quote they cite which gives the three elements is specifically referring to Arson.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

It's also of importance to note that it is usually only an issue when an offender gives a confession, but no one is sure if the crime has happened. It's not really applicable to your case.

[xchronox187]

@thegreatfish

"It's not really applicable to your case."

I would say "quasi" criminal cases fall under the purview of ALL criminal cases.

Also, what evidence do you put forth to claim that the first element is a "generalization" ? ... Sounds more like your legal opinion than a substantiated claim. And if someone had an attempt on their life, I would say they likely sustained some form of damage or injury.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

Part 1:

First I'll explain the problem of using this case as support for your own case, and then I'll explain why your own argument would invalidate it's usage.

Using this case is problematic because the issues under judgment are not the same. The Judge may make reaching statements without considering their affect on every specific issue. This is why people can't pull random statements from cases that don't deal with their specific issue and use it as support for their argument.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

Part 2:

Case in point, the Judge in this case is referring to a murder trial where damage/loss is required for corpus delicti, and he takes his rule from a case where the same is true. If he had intended this to apply to all criminal cases in its literal form, it would invalidate inchoate offenses like attempted murder, conspiracy, or solicitation. This was clearly not the Judge's intention. That means we can look at this either one of two ways:

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

Part 3:

Either he intended the damage or loss element to only apply to crimes that already had a damage or loss element, or he meant it more generally, where damage/loss could refer to a potential injury, or a moral or societal injury. Just from the context, where he is discussing Corpus Delicti, or evidence that the crime has occurred, it would appear he means the first interpretation, but even the second would be valid since it is assumed all crimes carry a potential for loss.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

Part 4:

Now if we look at your own argument for why inchoate crimes would still be valid, even if the Judge meant it literally, your argument defeats your own case. In an attempted murder, what is the damage/loss? Can you show it to me? What if the victim doesn't ever find out there was an attempt on their life? We might not even know who the intended victim was. There would be no literal damage or loss to any person, but we would consider the potential injury a damage on society.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

Part 5:

Let's look at your own case. What was the crime? Speeding? Driving without insurance? Is there a potential to harm someone from these crimes? Yes. How is that different from Attempted Murder, where there's merely the potential for loss, but the police stop the perpetrator before the loss can occur? Do you see how your own argument for why inchoate offense would still be crimes under your interpretation makes your own violations valid offenses?

[xchronox187]

@thegreatfish

There are corpus delecti citations in just about every single state in the union. It's a doctrine. To prove the occurrence of a "crime", in ALL criminal cases as stated below, certain elements must be met. (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury

Without those elements, there is no crime. It's that simple. This is why victimless crimes are not only immoral but also legally invalid according to this universally accepted doctrine.

[thegreatfish]

@xchronox187

You're avoiding the argument. What about crimes where there is no loss, like attempted murder? How do you justify conviction under these crimes under corpus delecti? Once you figure out your answer, see if it can be applied to your own circumstances.

[ornelas3830]

@thegreatfish Harm or loss is not required for inchoate crimes but "mens rea" is, meaning guilty of intent. Speeding is not a crime unless the party has the "intention" or "mens rea" of depriving another person of life or liberty, or the person is speeding so recklessly that his or her actions pose an imminent threat to public safety, constituting gross negligence. The courts don't uphold the law, but their own private arbitrary statutes.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830 First, Mens Rea is not intent to cause harm, but rather, intent to do the action. In this case, the action would be speeding. Second, some crimes do not require a mens rea. These are called strict liability crimes, and traffic crimes fall into the strict liability category. This means it doesn't matter if you intended to speed or not. If you committed the action (speeding), you're guilty. This is a simplified explanation of mens rea. It's an interesting topic,but not applicable here

[ornelas3830]

@thegreatfish Wrong. A literal translation of mens rea is "guilty mind," which includes the element of intent with malice. The "intent to do action," as you state, lacks a malice aforethought which does NOT constitue mens rea. Strict liablity crimes, as you state, are NOT crimes, because they lack the element of mens rea. Strict liability are applicable to torts.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830 I said it was a simplified explanation. Mens Rea has 4 distinct "mental states" that may be required in any crime. They are Purpose, Knowledge, Recklessness, and Negligence. Each one is a different level of culpability. For instance, for a crime that requires purpose, the defendant must have had the purpose to commit the crime to be guilty.However, for a crime that requires only negligence, the actor only needs to be negligent, they don't need to have the purpose to commit the crime

[ornelas3830]

@thegreatfish Not entirely accurate. You stated the degress of culpability, which NOT all qualify for mens rea. The lowest degree of culpability that would qualify for mens rea is "criminal liability," a lower degree of culpability than recklessness. Specifically, negligence alone does not constitue mens rea, but would fall under tort. Negligence is a lower degree of culpability than "criminal negligence."

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830 As I said earlier, there is a smaller category of crimes that require no mens rea. These are called strict liability crimes. Generally they are regulatory in nature, but there are some exceptions, like Statutory Rape. In a statutory rape case, the defendant does not need to have known the victim was under legal age to be found guilty. The other classic example is a traffic violation. Your typical traffic violation, like speeding, is strict liability, and requires no mens rea.

[ornelas3830]

@thegreatfish As I said earlier, too, a criminal liablity must have "mens rea" and "actus reus." The phrase strict liability crimes is a misnomer. In the California penal code section 20 it states, "In every crime and public offense, there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence." The code defines "mens rea" with intent or criminal negligence, being the highest and lowest degrees of culpibility that qualify mens rea.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830 If you perform a bit of research on strict liability, you will find that it not only applies to crimes, as well as torts, but traffic laws are the most common example of a strict liability crime. A brief google search should reveal this information. If you have difficulty, let me know and I can find some cases for you.

[ornelas3830]

@thegreatfish If infractions are a crime, then according to the California legal code, "mens rea" must be present to qualify a crime. If law is logical, then we can safely conclude that strict liability does not apply here because the nature of the charge - criminal. I believe that is a checkmate.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830 The degrees I gave come straight from the Model Penal Code. Each state's penal code may define them slightly differently, but for the most part it should be accurate in every state. Also, you said "criminal liability" is the lowest degree, but then you said in California, negligence is the lowest degree, which is exactly what I said. It also appears you did not research strict liability crimes, so I'll find some cases for you and post them later.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830

Part 1: I dug up the cites for you. This should resolve it. I'll start with the U.S. Supreme Court, then move to the California Supreme Court.

One of the first major cases to deal with the subject of strict liability in criminal statutes was the case of Shelvin-Carpenter Co. 218 U.S. 57. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled the common law tradition of requiring mens rea for all crimes was no longer the rule for U.S. law. The relevant pages are 68, 69, and 70.

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830

Part 2: This decision was solidified when the Supreme Court again relied on the decision in U.S. v. Balint 258 U.S. 250. The court determined that legislatures were free to make crimes that did not require mens rea, stating "in the prohibition or punishment of particular acts, the state may in the maintenance of a public policy provide ‘that he who shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense good faith or ignorance."

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830

Part 3: This has been the rule in CA as well. In a case from 2000, In Re Jorge M. 23 Cal.4th 866, 4 P.3d 297, the court stated "Under many statutes enacted for the protection of the public health and safety, e.g., traffic and food and drug regulations, criminal sanctions are relied upon even if there is no wrongful intent."

[thegreatfish]

@ornelas3830

Part 4: The rule that some crimes do not require a mens rea is also stated in the Western State Law Review article 28 WSULR 207, where the author states "public welfare offenses, such as matters relating to public health, traffic, and food and drug regulations, do not require proof of scienter or mental state"

and "public welfare offenses are the exception to the general rule requiring a mental state element as part of a crime." If you need more, just let me know.

[JohnnieNaked]

He should have said: "so you not understanding what a valid cause of action is, do you still consider yourself a liable enforcement officer?"

[wachman]

wake up people. the corporate government has been regulating any potential for danger for decades.

[pokeweedpathos]

Speeders kill more living things.

[bronxer78]

Chrono does a pretty good job as a pro se'er, but he still has a long way to go. <:|

[FreedomCanada2010]

hard to believe these people under me exist. I would call you pigs but even pigs realize when they are being led to slaughter and they fight back.

you guys haven't got the sense of a common pig. you are willingly walking up the plank to the slaughter wagon.

you think being sheared like sheep is ok. well, you just wait till they say, fuck the wool .. lets eat mutton! you will be the first little lamb chop crying about his rights

since you don't even know your rights .. you don't have any!

[unclesamsbastardson]

Our constitution is LAW. Not anarchy don't let these propaganda wizards fool you into being an anarchist.

This FSM is all about selling votes and making money,

BAAAAAABAAAAAA you're the sheep.

[pokeweedpathos]

unclesamsbastardson says:

"Our constitution is LAW."

Funny. I always thought of the Constitution as a fluffy muppet.

[unclesamsbastardson]

Nothing is perfect. Maybe you would like to live under a communist government. Have you applied for a citizenship elsewhere?

[SSILENTNATION]

Blah Blah Blah....another sad song that makes me weep so. But yeah...amazing isn't it? People who actually don't give a shit about this idiot's speeding ticket trial or you and your Canadian Freedom. Go take a bath.

[unclesamsbastardson]

This guy can stick his "smuggled recording device" up his lib-tard ass.

Maybe then he can record his ass crying in prison someday.

[senses2000]

part 3: watch?v=iGbzRwCz4w0

[alpicaso]

Great stuff keep fighting the power, but where is part 3????

[Jeff000000000000000]

posted to dailypaul (dot) com

[FreedomCanada2010]

that is why i don't follow their unlawful orders .. i dont rise to my feet when they enter the court. i don't answer a single question of anyone's unless compelled by force or threat of force.

people like silent nation will be the first ones loaded onto the bus headed for the internment camps. They have no clue and if the food stops getting delivered to the grocery store .. he will be the first one to starve to death, or beg on his knees for a handout

FREEDOM!

[FreedomCanada2010]

Keep up the good fight brother. Anyone that laughs about fighting the traffic tickets is uneducated as to what is really at stake.

Silent Nation likes to get tickets for minor infractions. everyone just forward them to him. He is a perfect government worker. Eat chips, Watches TV and jerks off to porn. The life of Silent Nation .. sedentary, he would probably shit his pants if a judge raised his voice at him

you are right about one thing. the judges and cops are not any different from you or i

[SSILENTNATION]

I'll gladly accept tickets for a violation I committed - that is called being honest and responsible.  Additionally - I hardly think eating chips, watching TV or jerking off to porn is limited to just govt. workers. Have you not seen ridleyreport 4:20 events and the ilk of those who are in them? LOL. I suppose you think people who sit around all day unemployed smoking dope and watching youtube vids is somehow more noble.

[youandmeandocsupra]

its obvbious the judge and the police are in bed togethor...if the cop is in trouble he gets help from the bench...I think this is a well used defense (the two elements) for those who go to court...

[SSILENTNATION]

When you post part 1 through 12,000 over the span of a lifetime, a story starts to lose its flavor....in other words - this epic traffic court hearing is old news. However, I love the fresh hot air responses though - all over a stupid traffic ticket, which, as usual, someone can't simply take responsibility for.

[popination]

Too fucking funny. Sounds like the judge and the cop are the same brown nose teachers pets that I've witnessed in grade school. If these are the types that think they run our lives, they are sadly mistaking.

[SSILENTNATION]

If they didn't run your life, you wouldn't be on youtube worrying/wondering/concerned about it.

[popination]

LOL, must have hit a nerve!! It's ok sunshine there are many windows left to lick.

[wachman]

looks like new jersey is the next stop for the FSP. this shit has GOT to change. the problem with this is the defendant is playing their game by their rules and he's just dancing around the issues pretty much getting nowhere.

[SSILENTNATION]

No one in the FSP has the balls to pull their shenanigans in Jersey or New York.

[Mackingster]

I love the intros to your videos!

[greenback001]

Police are supposed to respond to emergencies, not issue summons.

[SSILENTNATION]

Right - because everyone in the citizenry can be trusted to always be safe and do the right thing.

[jonerton15]

so its he governments right to come in and tell us whats for our own good basically? Just cause you can't govern yourself and need Big Government to step in and "help" you, dont make us all follow your path

[SSILENTNATION]

The government is not some collection of rogue robots - judges and cops and legislators all put their pants on the same way as you or I. Simple basic traffic laws are created by a need - that need being voiced by the citizenry; I for one like them. If there were no consequences for traffic violations, do you really think people would start using hand signals out of courtesy? Puhleeeez - LOL.....

[unclesamsbastardson]

Yeah but isn't it funny how these guys complain that the government is too incompetent to run all these day to day operations then they turn around and accuse it of being able to cover up alien landings, 9-11, chem-trails...etc...

I agree about the incompetence because I see first hand how unorganized our government is run... but gosh it's necessary. These lib-tards will never get it.

[SSILENTNATION]

LOL - yes good point.....government is to inept to try a speeding ticket but are able to pull off the biggest houdini the world has ever known. However, i agree as well - there is certainly room for improvement on some govt efficiency of course - but if those who run the FSP think they do any better, then I am just going to assume it is the Mary J talking.

[FreedomCanada2010]

@unclesamsbastardson

I agree. for most of you morons who are incapable of taking care of yourselves, a huge government that controls every aspect of your life is needed.

Just stay calm keep shopping, buy whatever you see on television. The government will take care of you at all times. In case of earthquake or other disaster please call 911 then lie down and die because NO ONE WILL BE THERE TO HELP YOU. your money is already gone and your system is balancing on a razor. you are helpless

[flowerbudz32]

wow just so true keep talking loud voice i love strong words like this. Great to see strong Canadian citizen.(freeman)

[FreedomCanada2010]

@flowerbudz32

never a citizen, look up the legal meaning of the word citizen. you won't want to be referred to as a person or a citizen.

[flowerbudz32]

@FreedomCanada2010

Yes that right we are just human beings.I am in all this now, very interesting to see how those WORD could be dangerous

[FreedomCanada2010]

@flowerbudz32

not even a human being. human is another derogatory word

Flesh and Blood Living Soul made by my creator in his own image

[UnoRaza]

That was a repeat?

[UnoRaza]

The judge acted as the attorney for the cop?

[highwaysong007]

@UnoRaza did sound that way didnt it.

[twentyvision7]

CAN U SAY...."MARTIAL LAW".....

[SSILENTNATION]

Yeah right...martial law all over a stupid traffic ticket.

[happosai27]

constitution not relevant? how can they get away with this? strange

[wwe107]

Use West Law or Lexis Nexis to check and see if that Supreme Court case is valid to use. It's the gravy on his mashed potatoes.

[SunSunSuperFun]

No, it really isn't. The reason his question made no sense was that the case isn't discussing the "elements of a cause of action." The case addresses requirements for federal standing FOR CIVIL CASES - and it has three elements not two. Either way, there is an "injury" in the sense that violations of the law are seen as per se injurious against the state.

[TheSandLine]

How is this criminals still on the bench? He should be arrested immediately and every case he has tried and overturned.