before you “PLEA”

Before you plea-bargain or enter a plea of not guilty…think about this…

If you are truly not guilty what are you pleading for? If you honestly and truly not guilty than don’t “plea” not guilty….. Challenge the accusation that is being applied to you. If you “plead” your are asking for acceptance to not guilty rather then  STATING you are not guilty.

If you are not guilty say you’re not guilty and they have to prove otherwise. Don’t beg or “plead”  to the court that you’re not guilty tell them that you’re not guilty.

It’s like that saying “I’m not even to justify that with an answer”

If the charge or allegation is ridiculous you’re not going to justify it with an answer, because that would show you are defending it. If you’re not guilty challenge the allegation don’t defend an allegation that is not true. Don’t try to defend a position that doesn’t require a defense, reverse it and challenge the question is being applied.

In simple terms let me ask you this…….

If you are not guilty would you rather PLEAD not guilty, or SAY you’re not guilty?

If it ever comes up in the future would you rather say that you plead not guilty, or you told them that you were not guilty?

One last thing. If you are not guilty wouldn’t you want the court to a knowledge that you were not guilty rather then it “accepting” a not guilty plea?

PERSONALLY I WOULD WANT WHOEVER TO AKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WERE WRONG AND I WAS NOT GUILTY, RATHER THAN A QUESTIONABLE PLEA.

BUT, HEY,,,, WHAT DO I KNOW???? I DIDN’T GO TO LAW SCHOOL LOL

 

 

 

Advertisements

LADY JUSTICE IS BLINDFOLDED (QUOTE)

“I UNDERSTAND WHY LADY JUSTICE IS WEARING A BLINDFOLD…. SHE DOESN’T WANT TO WITNESS THIS LEGAL MADNESS.”

STEPHEN JAMES

JUSTICE IS BLIND (QUOTE)

“JUSTICE IS BLIND I’M ASSUMING IS A RESULT OF READING THE LAW AND WANTING TO STAB YOUR EYES OUT”

STEPHEN JAMES

Why is Latin still used in our legal system ?

Understanding the law and trying to explain it is difficult enough without the LATIN terminology still being used. WHY?

In general, why would you add/include any other language to the laws that apply when it is difficult enough to explain them already?

HERE IS ONE EXAMPLE OF DEFINITIONS TO SHOW HOW CRAZY THE LANGUAGE IS-

grievance (ˈɡriːvəns)
n
1. a real or imaginary wrong causing resentment and regarded as grounds for complaint
2. a feeling of resentment or injustice at having been unfairly treated
3. affliction or hardship

HOW CAN IT BE REAL AND IMAGINARY ?

IS THE LAWYER OR THE LAW SCHOOL RESPONSIBLE ?

THIS IS NOT REFERRING TO ANY SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTER

Attorneys have devoted a significant amount of time and money to obtain their law degree. Usually a Doctor of Jurisprudence or Juris Doctor. Whatever the degree/title or “State BAR” requirements are to “practice” law are, I have a question. ———-

WHEN A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE REJECTS THE LAW BECAUSE IT CHALLENGES THE “NORMAL SYSTEM OF CONSISTENT CONFORMITY”, IS THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM GUILTY AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY?

This is a complicated subject, but is one that is important. There is no doubt in my mind that there are great attorneys out there, and regardless of great resistance and being ostracized they still challenge certain issues that majority would/could not. The numbers show that it is “SYSTEMATIC” NOT TO GO TO COURT!!!!!

IF YOU ARE GUILTY, A PLEA IS A GOOD DEAL!…… IF YOU ARE INNOCENT, THE “SYSTEM” MAKES IT PUNISHABLE TO PROVE IT IN COURT.

WELL THIS IS INTERESTING 

In the fiscal year of 2010-2011 (July 2010 to June 2011), the trial courts (circuit and county) in Florida disposed of 2,774,302 civil cases (not including probate, family court, or civil traffic infraction cases). Of that, only 1,049 were disposed by a jury and only 4,348 were disposed through a non-jury or bench trial. So out of all the cases disposed during the 2010-2011 fiscal year, less than 0.2% made it to trial. As for settling prior to trial, just looking at Circuit Civil alone (not including probate, family court, or civil traffic infraction cases), 9.9% of cases settle prior to other disposition and 1.2% settle through mediation. So nearly 90% of all civil cases in the state circuit courts (not including probate, family court, or civil traffic infraction cases) fail to settle or make it to trial.

I’m not a attorney, I have no “formal” legal education. That being said, I find it unacceptable if I speak with an attorney or other legal official that do not know the legal statute/code/law/amendment/terminology….. ect…. BUT STILL CLAIM TO KNOW IT AND/OR APPLY IT WRONGFULLY -THEY SHOULD JUST ADMIT WHEN THEY NEED TO RESEARCH IT OR DOUBLE CHECK IT——–

THERE IS SO MUCH COMPLEXITY BEYOND THE JUST THE “BASIC” THAT I WOULD UNDERSTAND THEM NEEDING TO CHECK!!!!!!!

IT DOESN’T MAKE THEM INCOMPETENT WHEN THEY ARE NOT SURE ABOUT SOMETHING, BUT, NEGLIGENT IF THEY PROCEED REGARDLESS

LIKE MEDICAL DOCTORS 

WE TRUST THESE PROFESSIONALS WITH OUR LIFE!!!!!

ASK QUESTIONS, GET 2ND OPINIONS 

LAWS ARE PRECISE IN BEING INCONCLUSIVE LOL (RANT)

It’s about time I rant about this topic. Well, first off, how could I not pick on this topic when it is way to easy.  I’ll have to try and focus on one specific area at a time (something that laws have difficulty doing)!

What a field day I can have on this topic. **I’M NOT A LAW STUDENT, LAWYER, OR HAVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF LEGAL BACKROUND** SO DON’T PANIC! I WIL NOT BE USING THIER LEGAL LANGUAGE! WE, STILL HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE WORDS WE USE ON THE DAY THE DAY LOL                                                                                                                          LAUGH NOW BEFORE THIS GOES IN LEGAL LITERACY 101- CHAPTER 1 IS TITLED “THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING” (THEY EVEN INCLUDE PIG LATIN- I MEAN LATIN) JUST TO THROW YOU OFF LOL WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THAT?

DOES THE LATIN LANUAGE REMAIN DUE TO LAZINESS, OR FROM BEING PREOCCUPIED  (REVISING, CREATING,  AMENDING ALL THE OTHER LAWS)? OR, IS IT THERE JUST TO PISS PEOPLE OFF? MAYBE, ITS PART OF AN OVERALL DESIGN WHICH MAKES PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND ENTER INTO PROCEEDINGS, TRIALS, MOTIONS, APPEALS, PLEADINGS, JUSTICE, AND BE AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING IN WHICH YOU NEED TO SHARE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, LOL

EVEN IF LATIN WAS NOT INVOLVED THEY USE A LANGUAGE THAT CONSISTS OF WORDS WE GENERALLY WOULD NEVER USE. EVER! 

THEY HAD A GOOD RUN UNTIL THE INTERNET POPPED UP. IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR THE CLIENT TO RESEARCH INFORMATION WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT MUCH EFFORT.

THERE WAS WIDESPREAD LEGAL PANIC LASTING AT LEAST 2 OR 3 MINUTES UNTIL THEIR EDUCATED MIND SAID “THESE ARE PEOPLE, YOU COULD POST THE INFORMATION ON THEIR FRONT LAWN AND THEY WOULDN’T GIVE IT ANY ATTENTION, SO STOP PANICKING” !    LOL

We might as well start with general understandings and interpretation of law. Already, without going forward I can start ranting on my opening statement.  Interpretation and understanding of laws is so comedic and irrational that they have a “built in safety clause” This is to apply when I Law is considered to be vague, and not clearly understandable by any “reasonable person” lol

I can’t help but laugh as I’m writing this. How could you reasonably identify a reasonable person, from someone who is not reasonable? Especially when a reasonable (sensible) person would possibly have a more difficult time understanding the laws because already presented with conflict that an unreasonable person is one who would break the law by action made through a mind without reasoning capabilities. That would mean that an unreasonable person could not violated a law but not have understood the law, which would make them free from guilt..

A person who is reasonable that will challenge a law or possibly break a law with a logical and valid REASON will be guilty because they knowingly defied the law of record.

There is a lot more to this, you didn’t expect it to be simple, did you? Just writing what I just wrote I’m suffering a mental meltdown. I’ll stop here for now. Think the new defense will be not the glove doesn’t fit, it will be I don’t get it. Oh one last thing consider. There are a few laws that referred to the public morals. Naturally people have different morals, which would cause question to what would violate A person morals considering everybody has different ones. Just you know the law says that the public morals is decided by the government of what they consider to be moral and apply that to the public. Ha ha we won’t even get into that, but if you didn’t know what was considered to be the public morals, then you could legally violated because you didn’t know lol

I’m going to make this post without reviewing it. My brain hurts enough just from writing it. I’ll review it some other time

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE?

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.. OR NOT….BUT, JUST IN “CASE” HAHA

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF—-

WHAT THE POLICE POWER APPLIES TO- (DRIVING) – Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure,—- the state has committed a massive construction of fraud. When any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways, The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, and is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY , AND VOLUNTARILY. Few know that the STATE DRIVERS LICENSE is a contract WITHOUT WHICH THE POLICE ARE POWERLESS TO REGULATE  the people’s actions or activities!!!!!!!!

Few (IF ANY) licensees intentionally surrender THESE RIGHTS. They are told that they must have the license. This is CLEARLY not the case. WOULD ANYONE voluntarily surrender complete liberty and accept any set regulations if given the option? (OUR RIGHT) “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, (1784) Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions: “Is there threatened danger? Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? Is this regulation reasonable?” People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power” When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge. First, “is there a threatened danger”? SO, IS the individual using his automobile on the public highways or roads, in the ordinary course of life and business a threat? The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is properly being operated. The speed, and noise are easily controlled , under a competent operator, so it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of using the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. ACTUALLY, EVEN SAFER!! YOU CAN CONTROL A MACHINE WITH PRECISION, BUT, NOT A ANIMAL!(See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.) “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532 To deprive any persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and/or business, because one MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE, BECOME DANGEROUS, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right? This question has already been addressed and answered …… YES!!!!!! The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?” The answer is No! Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with state and police power they choose to enforce, that power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others). Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.) “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887 “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882 As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear: “No person shall be … deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.” As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law. Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.” The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of due process of law. This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

RECORDING PHONE CONVERSATIONS

RANDOM RANT

Depending on the State your phone # is in and the State in the other callers # is in, legally determines the lawful recording of the conversation.

Some States have a single party consent rule,others have a two party consent rule.(IF ONE PERSON HAS A # IN A 2 PARTY CONSENT STATE, THAN IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE OTHER # IS IN A 1 PARTY CONSENT STATE) 

If you are having a phone conversation from a phone in a single party consent State with another person with a phone that is also in a single party consent State than you are not required to inform them that you are recording.

Now , If you are in conversation with someone that is on a phone that has a # registered in a 2 party consent State, and your phone is registered in a single party consent State- You can not legally record the conversation (without their consent) because of the other # is in a 2 party consent state.

Blah——- lol

My opinion on this is that if the gov is permitted to listen in on cellular phone conversations without a Warrant from a judge —- than we (the people)  should also have the right to freely and legally record any conversation as well – without consent set  by a “STATE” position of allowance.

I KNOW THIS WAS RANDOM THOUGHT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO MOST OF US…..

JUST ONE OF MY RANDOM RANTS…

BUT…. IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION TO WANT AND RECORD A PHONE CONVERSATION- MAKE SURE YOU CHECK YOUR STATE RULES AS WELL AS THE STATE RULES OF THE OTHER CALLER

WHEN BEING CALLED BY CREDITORS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE (INFO)

Most of people have eliminated house phones and rely on their cell phones as primary contact and form of communication. If you are ever contacted by a credit agency- debt collector, that is looking for —– and they just have the wrong # and it’s not you that they are trying to contact——HERE IS SOME INFO THAT I WANT TO GET OUT …. because I have been through the routine of explaining that “I’m not so-and-so…or even know so-and-so” yet they would keep calling……. WELL NOT ANY MORE!!!

YOU CAN LOOK INTO MORE DETAILED INFO ON THIS UNDER FDCPA AS WELL AS US CODE 15 U.S.C. S 1692C(A) SO, If you chose to dive into the land of legal lingo lunacy language than you have to hold yourself personally liable for doing so lol….

There is so much more to this, but I’ll start with one specific

IF THE COLLECTOR IS CALLING THE WRONG #

ONCE YOU INFORM THEM THAT THEY HAVE THE WRONG # AND IS CALLING YOUR # IN ERROR- IF THEY CALL AGAIN THAN THEY VIOLATE FDCPA, AND ALSO CAN BE CONSTRUED AS INTENT TO VIOLATE THE FDCPA.

ALSO LOOK INTO TCPA – CELL PHONE PROTECTION FROM SOLICITATION CALL, SMS TEXT, PRE-RECORDED VOICE MESSAGES-AUTODIALING —- YOUR CELL!!!!!!! OH BOY……. SO MUCH MORE I COULD GO ON AND ON …. BUT, SMALLL STEPS LOL 

—– I probably need to MENTION THAT I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY AND NOTHING I SUBMIT IS LEGAL ADVICE OR SUGGESTION , AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONTACT A LICENSED ATTORNEY FOR ANY LEGAL ADVICE ——–LOL,

I’VE GOT MORE— PLENTY MORE !!!!! SO IF ANYONE WANTS INFO OR HAS INTEREST IN MORE PLEASE DON’T HESITATE TO ASK!

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IS CLEAR ON WHAT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE? LOL

I COULDN’T RESIST SHARING HOW ARTFUL, EXPLICIT, AND DIRECT THE LAW IS…. ACTUALLY TORTURE YOU ALSO LOL

A penal statute cannot be extended by implication or construction to cases within the mischief, if they are not at the same time within the terms of the act, fairly and reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory *205 Crimes, § 190e; Huffman’s Case [Huffman v. State], 29 Ala. 40; Young’s Case [Young v. State], 58 Ala. 358. In the case last cited this court said: `One who commits an act which does not come within the words of a penal statute, according to the general and popular understanding of them, when they are not used technically, is not to be punished thereby merely because the act contravenes the policy of the statute.’ Again, such statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words. People [ex rel. Johnson] v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172. `No person is to be made subject to them by implication, and all doubts concerning their interpretation are to predominate in favor of the accused. Only those transactions are covered by them which are within both their spirit and their letter, reasonably interpreted.’ Bishop on Statutory Crimes, § 194; Cearfoss’ Case [Cearfoss v. State], 42 Md. 403.” Scott v. State, 152 Ala. 63, 64, 44 So. 544.

EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON THIS NOW RIGHT ? LOL

NEW DEFENSE—- I DON’T GET IT-  LOL   <<< MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT BE FAR OFF == I’M NOT A LAWYER OR ANY LAW SCHOOL SO I DON’T ANY IDEA