” Cruden v. Neale 2 Nc. 338(1796) 2 S.E. 70 That “every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow men without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale 2 Nc. 338(1796) 2 S.E. 70 The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ......and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471; Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Although the observation of the defendant in the act of driving is not an indispensable prerequisite for a conviction, the act must be established by other credible and substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial. (People v. Toler (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 793, 336 N.E.2d 270.) The corpus delicti of a charged offense, however, cannot be proved by the defendants admission alone. There must be some independent evidence which tends to corroborate the admission of the offense. (City of Marquette Heights v. Clarkson (1978), 64 Ill.App.3d 162, 380 N.E.2d 1213.) If there is evidence of corroborating circumstances, then both the circumstances and the defendants admission may be considered in determining whether the corpus delicti is sufficiently proved. People v. Willingham (1982), 89 Ill.2d 352, 432 N.E.2d 861. In the instant case, no independent evidence was offered by the State to establish that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Sixth Amendments guarantee of a defendants right to be confronted with the witnesses against him is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 3-4 [16 L.Ed.2d 314, 316-317, 86 S.Ct. 1245]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 [13 L.Ed.2d 923, 925, 85 S.Ct. 1065]; Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418 [13 L.Ed.2d 934, 937, 85 S.Ct. 1074].) A defendant also has a statutory right to confrontation. (Pen. Code, § 686.) People v. Foster , 67 Cal.2d 604 An appearance ticket/order is not a charging instrument PEOPLE v. FOSTER [64 N.Y.2d 1146] The argument has surface appeal but exalts form over substance. The qualifications of citizenship, age, residence, mental and physical ability, intelligence, character and ability to read and write English and speak English understandably go to the substance of a jurors function, to listen, understand and deliberate, whereas the disqualifications — for service in the Armed Forces, as an elected or appointed government official, Federal or State Judge or as a juror within two years past — relate not to competence or ability to serve as a juror but to governmental policy: with respect to prior service, as Justice Lazer noted, to discourage professional jurors and render jury service more attractive by minimizing its burdens. Thus, despite the wording of CPL 270.20 (1), defendants should have, as did Jerry Foster, challenged the juror for cause because of his prior service. Whether they would have preserved the error, despite that failure, had they joined in Jerry Fosters peremptory challenge to the juror and thereafter exhausted their peremptory challenges, we need not decide, for by refusing to join in that challenge they waived any objection based on the jurors prior service (People v Cosmo, 205 N.Y. 91, 100-101; State v Strodes, 48 Ohio St.2d 113, 357 N.E.2d 375). Hoke v Henderson 15, N.C. 15,25 AM DEC 677.” That statute which would deprive a person of person or property without a regular trial according to the use and custom of common law would not be the law of the land.” There is a common law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there must first be a victim, corpus delecti. In the absence of a victim there can be no crime. The state cannot be the victim. In order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by deliberating under Natural Law, principled under Justice, Honor and Mercy for a perpetual administration of trust on behalf of the people, acknowledging the foundation upon which all Law weighs. The attorneys first duty is to the courts...not to the client. U.S.v Franks D.C.N.J. 53F.2d 128. Clients are also called wards of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.Spilker v. Hankin, 158 F.2d 35, 58U.S.App.D.C. 206. Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind. Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190. Did you get that? An Attorneys first duty is not to you and when you have an Attorney you are either considered insane or an infant. State V Waters ( If defendant enters plea of not guilty and is in court on day of trial, The court has jurisdiction over his person. “ Due to the plea.”) During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of the trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. State v. Mills(1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, 582 N.E.2d 972;State v. Hopfer(1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 521, 548, 679 N.E.2d 321. As a result, an appellate court must accept the trial courts findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592, 594, 621N.E.2d 726 Muhammand V State Municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to render final judgments on felony charges. People V Gabbay Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its fillings does not confer jurisdiction over dependant. People V Giusti Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court. State V Rodriguez Trial court acts without jurisdiction when it acts without inherent common law authority. Fontenol V State Where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority other than to dismiss the case. Davis V State Criminal law magistrates have no power of their own and are unable to enforce any ruling. Bouvier’s Law dictionary (1856 edition) Tells us Justice is synonymous with virtue it is confined to things simply good or evil . Luke 6-19 tells us virtue emanates from God. History records the struggle in the courts between the mind of God & the mind of man, civil law –v- common law. In Luke 11:56 The Lord Said Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge. (God is that key.) US. SUPREME COURT DECISION - For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of one’s unalienable rights. - [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.]
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 06:20:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015