Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gary Okupant
Misdemeanor case: Willfull misconduct, trespass, interfering with lawful meeting. Public event, college. Meeting continued after I left. What I said; caused group to riot. No bad language; group just didn't like it. Trespass because the university said your persona non grata, never come back.
I had three appointed defense lawyers(one aclu). Stated. I'm wrong. I have no defense. I mentioned that a police statement was a lied. Lawyer said;
'you deny it, they deny it".
I made to the court a filing; pleading; asking for a jurisdictional ruling. That universities; administrative rules were violations of state and fed. constitutional rights to speach, freedom of movement, upon a public university, at a public event; in which the org. allowed me to speak; then didn't like what I had to say; and had ME arrested. I stated estoppel against plaintiffs.
Def. Lawyer: Everything I said is Civil not criminal. Jurisdiction is civil not criminal(only in felonies). I plead to court; that I withdrew my plea's(no lawyer present), in the pleadings. and then stated the case is violation of my
1st, 5th, 14th, and 9th Ammendments of the Constituion; as well as Ohio Constitution; under the false ability of the legislature and congress; to pass Constitutional rights to administrative organizations.
I then said I appeared as a special person, in that in lieu of jurisdictional rulings, to do so otherwise would bring me into the system and acceptance is a denial of rights; not spoken; and I have spoken.
Now I'm not trying to be difficult; really; I'm trying very very hard to go by the system, being very careful not to accidentally subjecting myself to the system by accident. But at every turn; I'm called conspiratorial, stop reading the internet; and I'm confusing Criminal with Civil law. I asked for access to online legal resources to represent myself; and was told no. That if my next appointed lawyer quit; I would be held in contempt.
Sooooo!, okay; I guess I'm brow beat. What is the point of reading and reading and trying like hell to do the things I read only to be ignored? Told I have no clue of what I'm doing. I only want to appear special; and I'm trying to be Constitutional; but I'm basically being ignored?
I am reading 12 hours aday; taking notes; reading case law; citations and using what I read in concepts etc. Still no avail.
I NOW question; why I have to know Latin; in America; to defend myself; if the Constitution; the Law; is what I'm using. My true feelings to date: I'm not a lawyer; so I'm going to jail; as when a complaint against me is taken; I have to prove positive law; "I" was right; and there is no such thing as me asking for or charging vagueness or overbreadth of law.
Okay! wait; I'll turn around; now beat me; and tell me I have NO concept of what I'm doing? Hire a lawyer!
|
Welcome to the Forum.
Firstly, your post is a little difficult to read because you use periods in a non-standard manner.
Secondly, The thought structure you present is (respectfully) all over the place.
despite that I'm going to try to answer the above:
if the above occured in a lower court, first level "court of general jurisdiction" or Magistrate's
then the next step would be to appeal to the first level general-jurisdiction court for ``trial de novo'' which just means "a new trial"; only the fact that a hearing was held before a magistrate matters; not what was said. hence, `new trial' one court level up from the magistrate.
So, with a new trial, before a hopefully more educated "judge" you get to start all over again
WITHOUT assigned public defender!!! this is a most important point.
Fire them all, they only prevent the truth from leaving your mouth and being heard by the court.
and study here and ask questions and be sure to look at the downloadable-file section.
As for Latin, it is the language they know, but you use english and have the latin-maxim phrase
available.
Finally, no act of legislature or Congress applies to a private citizen acting in his own Birth-right; in other words, not in commerce.
the University opened its "doors" to the general public for a public meeting, to which you were
apparently invited to speak. They cannot then reneg, revoke or cancel an invitation given you.
"persona no grata" is the wrong phrase to use. you are a free man, born on the land,
and not created by an act of legislature.
I'd say (Forum correct me pls) that the uni's complaint is based on their need
to find a scape-goat to sacrifice and you were available.