Okay I understand the "with Counsel". Ohio Constitutional law, provides "ACCUSED", of confrontation
to accusers, etc, with counsel.
So I'm pulled over; and I represent myself. It seems
your questions to establish Constitutional law, still valid
here, but if I represent myself(own person), what do I say? Or; is it; I may say, I request right to counsel (with the law), This then makes it necessary when or
if the police to take me into the courthouse; to provide me with access to the LAW, written, internet etc. before I may speak.
May I also then ask for an interpreter as I don't read Latin? (Real question here).
I'm fighting a criminal misdemeanor; in which I have been appointed counsel. All three appointed counselors have quit; and judge allowed it.
So when I go to court again, I will point out; that "I", the client, not counsel, decide how to defend and as such I have counsel appointed! If counsel does not like what I
ask; and its NOT illegal; then failure to assist me is ineffective counsel, violationof ABA oath of lawyer, and violation of Contract.
Judge appointed lawyer, if the Judge lets lawyer go; then a violation of contract by Judge and Lawyer; in that constitutionally I have a right to Counsel(law or person here may be the question). At this point the municipality
has no subject matter jurisdiction in the case; as it is now a Constitutional question; not the sighted crime.
Now; since "We the People", provided in the Constitution a means to establish the Judiciary; then "We the People", pay the established experts (Judiciary - Agency), to set up the process. AND since the process is in Latin, and 'WE the People", fund it; in the case of Criminal procedures, the Judiciary bears all burdens of
establishing counsel to the defendent; as the defendent
"We the people", in explanation and definition.
Now; "We the people", fund the agency; "We the People", allowed to be set up under the Constitution; therefore, my payment of the Attr. General, Judges etc.
(taxes set upon), may not be used in combination with others taxes; to make slavery by peonage, of my per violation of rule of agency or rule of people.
Simply; the Courts must review the laws, must review the laws positive to the accused(prosecutor must divulge law affirmative to the accused). If after review the court then has grounds to continue prosecution; then the court must state so: and that the law is not in violation of the Constitution; as it is the Constitution; that is inviolate; as established in the purpose of the Judiciary; as it (Judiciary), nor legislature; may enact law, violating the Constitution.
This is all done without me being present. So you see; lawyers; may not make money in determining the correct law to use; as it is a function of the Judiciary to do so before positive law is foiested upon us.
Does this make any sense; as its what I'm using in Court tuesday!.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by leatherlips
Be ignorant of your Constitutional rights, and no counsel
While a defendant has a statutory right to contact counsel, where he never requested an opportunity to contact counsel and there was nothing in the record to show that the police affirmatively interfered with any attempt by defendant to obtain counsel, he was not denied right to counsel. Svedlund v. Municipality of Anchorage, 671 P.2d 378 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983)
It is only where the totality of the arrestee's words constitute a request, express or implied, for an opportunity to contact counsel for the purpose of discussing a breathalyzer examination that an opportunity to consult counsel must be provided prior to administration of the breathalyzer. Once the breathalyzer examination is completed or fefused and videotaping finished, the suspect is entitled to the full use of the rights guaranteed by AS 12.25.150(b) and Criminal Rule 5(b). Van Wormer v. State, 699 P.2d 895 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985)
Now, hopefully with these examples, you will be able to discern that there exists two realities, one the common law in the Republic and the other one in the Roman Civil Law, i.e. the the Administrative State with some idea how to get out of the Administrative State.
In the common law, under Crime, there are basically two types of crime. I have included two pages from Bouviers Law Dictionary of 1914 three volume set on crime
You will find the following:
1 Malum in se - an act which shocks the moral sense as being grossly immoral and injurious. Black's 4th A wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral and public law.
2 Mala in se - Wrongs in themselves; acts morally wrong; offenses against conscience (Black's 4th) See also Boubiers.
3 Malum prohibitum - The criminality of the act or omission consists not in the simple perpetration of the act, or the neglect to perform it, but in its being a violation of a positive law. (Notice the neglect to perform some duty is for public officers- not the people!)
So, what is my point?
Well, the point is that there is no crime compelling me to do some act. Under the common law, the inability to pay a tax was not a Crime. Yes, a lien might be attached to my property, but the Homestead exemption would save my house, tools, chickens, etc.
So again in the Administrative State, I am being COMPELLED to do certain acts, which did not exist under the common law. I am compelled to have insurance, compelled to pay any individual income tax that I have a LEGAL DUTY to pay, and compelled to have a DL just to move about from one point to another.
|