In today's news...

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

A shame you think that way.

It is the rank and file sheep that allowed things to become as they are. Why does someone trample over your inalienable rights? You allow them to.

The next time you get yourself a ticket and realize that a lawyer is nothing more than an officer of the court no different than the judge or prosecutor. You might want to rethink your approach.

Why would a defense attorney not question things like jurisdiction? They are legally bound to protect their cash cow, they would be disbarred if they endangered the cash cow and actually looked at how the law interprets to the accusation of the crime you are alleged to have committed.

You could spend all your life looking into getting a law degree and I would still destroy you in court if you were the prosecutor. It would not even matter if you were the judge, as you would more easily be exposed for the thief that all of the municipal court judges are.

What would happen if I threatened you with force to make you give me money? I would be arrested and put in jail, right? Why is it any different for a municipal court judge that does the very same thing?

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

A shame you think that way.

It is the rank and file sheep that allowed things to become as they are. Why does someone trample over your inalienable rights? You allow them to.

The next time you get yourself a ticket and realize that a lawyer is nothing more than an officer of the court no different than the judge or prosecutor. You might want to rethink your approach.

Why would a defense attorney not question things like jurisdiction? They are legally bound to protect their cash cow, they would be disbarred if they endangered the cash cow and actually looked at how the law interprets to the accusation of the crime you are alleged to have committed.

You could spend all your life looking into getting a law degree and I would still destroy you in court if you were the prosecutor. It would not even matter if you were the judge, as you would more easily be exposed for the thief that all of the municipal court judges are.

What would happen if I threatened you with force to make you give me money? I would be arrested and put in jail, right? Why is it any different for a municipal court judge that does the very same thing?

If you "spend all your life looking into a law degree," you're doing it wrong.

As for our "inalienable rights," I carry a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (including Amendments) with me at work, all day. It's a little Cato Institute pocket edition. I go through it when I get bored, because I'm sworn to uphold one document, which is the legal framework used to achieve the other.

I don't remember seeing any section about the inalienable right to knock down part of your mom's interior wall. Which section of the Constitution or its Amendments should I consult?

 

[handofdoz]

Re: In today's news...

A shame you think that way.
-snip
The next time you get yourself a ticket and realize that a lawyer is nothing more than an officer of the court no different than the judge or prosecutor. You might want to rethink your approach.

Why would a defense attorney not question things like jurisdiction? They are legally bound to protect their cash cow, they would be disbarred if they endangered the cash cow and actually looked at how the law interprets to the accusation of the crime you are alleged to have committed.
-snip

you hired or got a lawer for a traffic ticket?

 

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

Why would I waste my time playing by their corrupt rules? Instead I make them play by the rules that they want you to think they are using.

I win when I go to the arraignment. I could go to a trial just to expose everyone as the liars and thieves they are, but it is not worth wasting my time to do that. I would rather make the judge admit to me that there is no jurisdiction and no evidence they can apply. The judge will dismiss the ticket right then and there.

Why would I trust a defense attorney that will charge a fee to obtain a less undesirable result for me? I think the last time someone went through the red lights on my school bus the lawyer charged $500 to represent the defendant. After 7 trips to the court, he plead to careless driving which was a $133 dollar fine. He spent $133 dollars to save 3 points on his license. In all fairness if they would have just come to me like a man and said they will not do it again, I would have asked the prosecutor to downgrade it to careless driving with the provision that they go through a defensive driving course.

Both the prosecutor and I were openly mocking the defense attorney when he cried over the fact that he only charged $500 to defend this jackass. Aside from waste his client's time, what did he accomplish? Nothing.

I watch defense attorneys every day I go to municipal court facilitate deals instead of actually contest the charges. They are just as complicit to justify their existence within the system of harassment and fines as the prosecutor and judge are. Why question evidence or the body of the crime the defendant is accused of when they can through no effort of their own collect the same fee by simply brokering a deal with the prosecutor.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

I win when I go to the arraignment. I could go to a trial just to expose everyone as the liars and thieves they are, but it is not worth wasting my time to do that. I would rather make the judge admit to me that there is no jurisdiction and no evidence they can apply. The judge will dismiss the ticket right then and there.

...

I watch defense attorneys every day I go to municipal court facilitate deals instead of actually contest the charges. They are just as complicit to justify their existence within the system of harassment and fines as the prosecutor and judge are. Why question evidence or the body of the crime the defendant is accused of when they can through no effort of their own collect the same fee by simply brokering a deal with the prosecutor.

If someone like you (can't make a convincing argument and can't figure out basic punctuation) is working daily within a municipal court, then I have to agree that the US Justice System is well-and-truly FUBAR. Just let me know what state you're working in so I can avoid it at all costs.

 

[handofdoz]

Re: In today's news...

Why question evidence or the body of the crime the defendant is accused of when they can through no effort of their own collect the same fee by simply brokering a deal with the prosecutor.

well you said he ran a red light, and was guilty. or is this a different person?

 

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

See, that is what is wrong. You think that I am possibly not serious about this?

How about this. The next time you get pulled over for some jerkoff ticket like speeding or forgetting your registration and find yourself in municipal court. Ask questions and start to peel back the supposed morality that these courts try to con people into thinking they have.

You can defeat any ticket in arraignment that is not an actual crime. I will leave it up to you to figure out what a crime actually is.

Hint: Corpus Delicti

How about a little game? You can be the judge, prosecutor, and cop and accuse me of a "crime" that would commonly be heard in municipal court. The caveat is that I say "crime" not actual crime. There is certainly a difference between something like speeding which is a "crime" only in that they say so and careless driving with causing a collision which is a legitimate crime.

Though I doubt you would want to play a game that going in you cannot actualy win, the offer is there. Accuse me of a "crime" like failing to register my vehicle and then I will destroy the very foundation of what you believe to be the "honorable" courts.

Also of note is that I never once mentioned that the flags in municipal court have the yellow frills to them. Ever question why that is?

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

If someone like you (can't make a convincing argument and can't figure out basic punctuation) is working daily within a municipal court, then I have to agree that the US Justice System is well-and-truly FUBAR. Just let me know what state you're working in so I can avoid it at all costs.

I'd say mentally impaired, but that's just too easy...

Also, please oh god please take freeko up on his offer, but do it in a new thread so we can sticky it! Ooooooh, and add a poll: Who's winning this argument. So nobody can just bury their head in the sand and say "NOPE I'M WINNING HURRR HURRR".

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

See, that is what is wrong. You think that I am possibly not serious about this?

I'm terrified that you might be serious and have a job in our legal system.

How about a little game? You can be the judge, prosecutor, and cop and accuse me of a "crime" that would commonly be heard in municipal court. The caveat is that I say "crime" not actual crime. There is certainly a difference between something like speeding which is a "crime" only in that they say so and careless driving with causing a collision which is a legitimate crime.

Though I doubt you would want to play a game that going in you cannot actualy win, the offer is there. Accuse me of a "crime" like failing to register my vehicle and then I will destroy the very foundation of what you believe to be the "honorable" courts.

I don't really go to court. I had a moving violation about eight years ago. I sat through an hour of traffic school and paid a fine, because I was guilty. I'm a law-abiding citizen who pays his taxes, drives safely, and doesn't take a sledgehammer to his interior walls without consulting a professional. When a cop pulls me over, I don't pull out a camera phone. I call the cop, "Sir" or "Ma'am," because they keep me safe, and they deserve the respect, even if they have a few bad apples in their ranks.

I also seriously doubt that there are regulations that distinguish between "crime" and actual crime. If so, I think you should provide these documents before we hold some farcical trial where I try to convict you of the "crime" complete with quotation marks. Just show me ANY legal document where you are accused of "crime."

Have you ever seen a judge use air quotes to denote "crime?"

Also of note is that I never once mentioned that the flags in municipal court have the yellow frills to them. Ever question why that is?

No idea and don't really care--but I'm sure you're about to tell me.

Look, I'm sure you're very unhappy with our legal system. How dare the government collect taxes and try to enforce regulations, etc etc. I'm sure you're all steamed-up when someone does something to damage the establishment, and I'm guessing you crank the stereo up because screw the neighbors, you have your rights.

Just bear in mind that the fact that you can browse the internet is proof that you enjoy the benefits of that system. You enjoy the protection of military servicemembers while avoiding the taxes that permit them to provide for their families and future.

If you hate the US so much... we have very, very loose emigration laws. Just remember to turn the lights off before you leave.

 

[Changer]

Re: In today's news...

I can't imagine going in for a traffic ticket to argue it can be all that frequent a thing. I have this odd feeling Freeko may have gone in to argue about the ticket and caught the judge in exactly the right mood that he was just like "I don't have the patience to sit through all this bullshit, just go." and that has convinced Freeko that his argument must have legal merit.

I am, of course, entirely guessing. So, I could be wrong.

 

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

I am, of course, entirely guessing. So, I could be wrong.

You are quite wrong.

Just show me ANY legal document where you are accused of "crime."

Ever get a speeding ticket? How about a headlight being out? Every ticket that a cop writes that does not cause an injury, harm or loss of some kind is not by word of the law itself a crime.

Something tells me that you are not one to question why things are why they are but happlily complain about them all the same. Since you are so complicit to the system, I understand why it is such a shock for you to realize that you are functionally a sheep that does as they are told to. Why bother questioning any of it right?

What if your commanding officer gave you an order that was morally wrong? Would you follow it?

Why is it any different that the politicians and police can get away with this harassment and fining when they should be protecting and serving.

Why do you not question these very basic things? Is it because someone said so? What if they had no actual evidence to back up what they "said so" was true?

I pay taxes because the IRS says so? I have yet in 11 attempts by them to have any factual evidence brought forth by their agency during any of the trials. Certainly if they had something to go on aside of the threat of force then they would have produced it.

The IRS cannot answer this question truthfully:

What evidence do you have that the code of law applies to me?

The answer is that they do not have a code in the laws for private citizens to pay taxes. There certainly is an amendment of the constitution for corporations to pay taxes, but nothing for the average person. So the IRS has to resort to the syandard bullying and hatassment to get their way while using curcular logic to make up for any lack of real evidence.

The same applies in municipal court. Unless you caused a loss, harm or injury the action against you is invalid. A prosecutor would rather impeach his own witness (the cop) than have them answer the question of "what is a valid cause of action?". Why would they do that? To protect the cash cow of course. If the cop answers the question truthfully he is committing perjury if you previously asked him of he filed a valid cause of action (the ticket).

 

[Byzantine2014]

Re: In today's news...

...Could this go in a separate thread, like super_slicer suggested? It would be quite interesting with the poll too.

For news:

You must be registered to see the links

Apparently while a hotel was on fire, with debris raining down, fireworks were still being set off across the plaza. No one confirmed deceased, fortunately.

On a side note, for a traffic ticket (in Canada at least) you win the case if you contest it and the officer doesn't show up, which happens a good deal of time. They do have better things to do than going to court for a $40-100 ticket.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

I pay taxes because the IRS says so? I have yet in 11 attempts by them to have any factual evidence brought forth by their agency during any of the trials. Certainly if they had something to go on aside of the threat of force then they would have produced it.

One doesn't pay taxes just "because the IRS says so." One pays taxes to enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of the state. Evidently you're upset with the world about something, and you think that the US should provide you with roads, protection, and the internet (three things that we BOTH know you enjoy) for the price of "on the house."

If what you claim is true (and I think you're full of shit), then you're a dead-weight freeloader. You demand things from the government, and you demand that they come for free. Just another sad baby in his mid-30s, suckling on the teat of Uncle Sam and pouting because the milk seems to have gone sour.

It's also obvious that I'm not going to change your mind, and you sure as hell don't seem to be recruiting much of a following over there. Best of luck to you in your future mooching.

 

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

Oh feel free to enlighten me as to the law i am not following by not paying income taxes. The roads you mention are funded through gasoline taxes so I don't think my non payment is going to affect that very much.

You must be registered to see the links

Can you make sense of that? That is how the military is funded. That might be the only one of the three you mention that uses funds from income taxes.

The internet i pay $12.99 a month for and they charge a bunch of stupid things on top of that.

You should do some research. You might be shocked when you learn that what you are indoctrinated to do is simply not what the code of laws say you are supposed to do.

If I am a freeloader, explain to me what law I am breaking. The IRS itself has failed 11 years running to answer that question.

 

[handofdoz]

Re: In today's news...

Oh feel free to enlighten me as to the law i am not following by not paying income taxes. The roads you mention are funded through gasoline taxes so I don't think my non payment is going to affect that very much.

You must be registered to see the links

Can you make sense of that? That is how the military is funded. That might be the only one of the three you mention that uses funds from income taxes.

The internet i pay $12.99 a month for and they charge a bunch of stupid things on top of that.

You should do some research. You might be shocked when you learn that what you are indoctrinated to do is simply not what the code of laws say you are supposed to do.

If I am a freeloader, explain to me what law I am breaking. The IRS itself has failed 11 years running to answer that question.

you keep asking what law your breaking, but nobody is saying you broke any law. well not anyone here at least. also id argue that you are indoctrinated to believe that freeloading, as you put it, is good. also the link you sent does not really have anything other then the process of which the government decides how much money goes where in the dod. that doesn't prove your point either. you seem angry for some reason, please tell us why.

 

[Changer]

Re: In today's news...

The 16th amendment literally gives the government the authority to levy taxes in very plain, easy to understand terms. There is no denying that without claiming some bullshit like that the government isn't allowed to amend the constitution or that the constitution isn't constitutional. Neither of which are claims that would ever hold up in court.

If the IRS has truly not taken action against you, the only possible reason would be that they are waiting for you to fall far enough behind on your taxes that taking legal action against you would be worth the trouble.

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

My uncle used to let all his speeding and traffic tickets go to court, and then he personally settled them, often for less than the full amount

This stopped when a judge asked him why he got all his tickets to go to court and contested them all
And he responded
"You guys give me a discount"

He had to pay that one in full

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Taxes are a county's "club membership fees" basically. You pay the fee you're entitled to, in theory, the defense of the state. If that doesn't happen in practice that's not the point. If you don't pay the fee, however, you most definitely are not entitled to the defense of the state is the point. People can do what they want, as long as they accept the consequences. The consequences of not being part of a big and powerful club can be quite dire, however... If you're not going to participate in the system, why should the system protect you? Nobody follows the laws because they want to follow the laws. They follow the laws because they don't want to deal with the consequences. Such is social order.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

The 16th amendment literally gives the government the authority to levy taxes in very plain, easy to understand terms. There is no denying that without claiming some bullshit like that the government isn't allowed to amend the constitution or that the constitution isn't constitutional. Neither of which are claims that would ever hold up in court.

If the IRS has truly not taken action against you, the only possible reason would be that they are waiting for you to fall far enough behind on your taxes that taking legal action against you would be worth the trouble.

Thank god someone finally brought this up. The sad part is, that by being a mooch, the punishment is likely to be that he gets to mooch from prison. (It would probably have been wage garnishment but we all know if freeko goes to federal court he's going to jackass his way into prison time)

 

[freeko]

Re: In today's news...

Interesting then is it not that in 11 tries, no IRS agent could explain why the 16th amendment of a corporate charter actually applied to a private citizen?

Oh, these are all federal cases. They all have juries. Every time I can see the jury members faces when the IRS agent gets on the stand and then gets destroyed.

So feel free to answer the question that no IRS agent can, even when under oath.

What factual evidence do you have that the code applies to me?