Amendment VI Nature and Cause

[mrg]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/arraignments.htm

Thanks for the info.

Very insightful!

In considering the piece these questions, concerns, observations occurred and were noted.

TYPICAL LANGUAGE IN AN INFORMATION

"It appearing to me that the offense under consideration has been committed as charged, I find that there is sufficient cause to believe that the within named John
E. Doe is guilty. I hereby order that the defendant be held to answer to the same,
and the case be bound over for trial. ______________________(signature) Judge

There is a clear presumption of guilt. Therefore the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is folk mythology at best.

In fact the term “defendant” clearly states that one is not "the accused," as per Amendment VI, but has been convicted and is being "held to answer" to the conviction of the judge, and is defending against the consequences of conviction without a trial, otherwise, one would be in a trial as “the accused” rather than already convicted and declared as “defendant.”

“Practically, the purpose of a prelim is to justify the "formal" part of criminal justice…”

Why would something that is on the up and up from the get go need to be justified as to form?

“The GRAND JURY REVIEW is a closed, secret proceeding…”

“The defendant and defense attorney are not allowed to attend.”

Where is the justice in secrecy?

How did I go from being "the accused" under Amendment VI to being a "defendant," which term appears nowhere in "this Constitution for the United States of America."

That secrecy business seems like a rather frightening state of affairs, more apropos of a commentary on some foreign dictatorial tyranny.

(Perhaps a better treatment of all of this can be found in Kafka's Der Prozeß)

“the assistance of counsel clause (to have the assistance of counsel for his defense)”

“Three questions will usually be asked: does the defendant want an attorney?

can the defendant not afford an attorney?

and does the prosecution intend to seek a sentence that includes incarceration?”

I do not want an attorney, I want the “Assistance of Counsel.”

Under what law are the questions phrased the way they appear here rather than as:

Does "the accused" want to have "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence?"

Can "the accused" afford to have "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence?

Why is the second question presented in the negative “can the defendant not afford…?”

“Constitutional requirements on pleas is that

they be made knowingly and voluntarily; that is,

that the defendant not admit to anything beyond the government's case and

that it not be the result of force,

threat,

or promises apart from a plea bargain.”

I will not voluntarily or knowingly "plead."

I might state, declare, assert, etc... but will not get on my hands and knees and knowingly or voluntarily perform as a beggar, or penitent.

To "plea" places one in the position of a penitent pleading for absolution from a confessed transgression.

To be forced into this position brings up Amendment V, both in light of Amendment VI, and of its own.

I will not voluntarily or knowingly "plead" to negativity of guilt.

If a "plea" of “not guilty” is then forced upon me how does this square with the Amendments?

In making a “plea,” if one admits to the use of the term “guilty” as applying to oneself, it is admitted that one accepts the presumption of guilt and will have to attempt to defend against self- incrimination, perhaps forced upon one by the court, by proving “not” as to the admission of “guilty.”

It would be absurd for "the accused" to even utter the word “guilty,” or knowingly or voluntarily allow it to be associated in any way with him.

If an assertion of innocence is not accepted, and the "plea" of "not guilty" is "the result of force," wherein the judge enters a "plea" not "made knowingly and voluntarily," how does this square with the "Constitutional requirements on pleas" as stated in the above quote?

The Right To Notification

“This right is generally considered a fundamental part of procedural due process in that persons accused of crimes are given fair notice of criminal charges and adequate opportunity to contest them.

Fairness is the guiding consideration, and justice as equity tends to prevail.

Equity means treating like cases alike and different cases differently.

For petty offenses, the right to notification may require no more than appearance before a magistrate in a summary hearing which allows some opportunity for the accused to vent a complaint or contest to the charge (although judicial tolerance varies).

This is the type of "assembly-line" or summary justice one sees in traffic and misdemeanor courts.

This state of affairs is accepted because people accused of petty offenses are not usually placed under arrest, are rarely in custody, and are most commonly issued a summons, for which a predetermined fine satisfies the charge.

Sometimes the fine is larger for those who complain or contest their minor case too much, and this is not considered unusual, vindictive, or grounds for appeal.”

WOW!!

“For more serious offenses (felonies and major misdemeanors), the right to notification involves the full spectrum of what is called criminal procedure, as that phrase is defined in federal and state constitutions,”

First, I have never seen nor heard of a “federal constitution.”

I have knowledge of “this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I have not seen the term “federal” anywhere in that document.

Second, I have not seen the phrase “criminal procedure” in “this Constitution for the United States of America,” in the first place, much less as having been “defined.”

Is this guy is spouting nonsense?

“Sufficiency of the government's case gets at how clear and understandable the written pretrial documents are.

An indictment or information is sufficient if it adequately informs the accused of the facts and elements of the charge so that they can prepare a defense or raise a claim of double jeopardy.”

(How about raising the fact of self-incrimination by "pleading," (admitting to being a penitent seeking absolution through confession of transgressions) or being forced to appear to have pleaded “guilty” with a qualification of “not?”)

“Defendants have a right to something called a bill of particulars which is a request for more specifics,

but such requests are only granted at the sole discretion of a judge or magistrate.”

OK, then, which is it—a RIGHT, or a REQUEST?

Oh, I see, its a RIGHT to REQUEST "granted at the sole discretion of a judge or magistrate.”

What a bargain; thank you sir, may I have another?!

“Prosecutorial vindictiveness gets at the heart of Sixth Amendment guarantees, and is what the founding fathers wanted to protect us from.

Constitutionally, there are two ways a prosecutor can violate someone's rights –

selective prosecution

and vindictive prosecution.

Selective prosecution occurs when they make an example out of someone, say, by prosecuting someone for a crime that similarly situated others do who go unprosecuted.

Vindictive prosecution can occur before, during, and after trial (U.S. v. Goodwin 1982),

and involves the prosecutor adding charges,

making the charges seem more severe,

or seeking harsher penalties

all because the defendant was exercising the full extent of their constitutional rights.”

This is all just SOP, from what I can tell.

It all looks good on paper, but when it comes down to brass tacks the reality is that it is only a “goddamn piece of paper.”

The person who said this is apparently exactly correct.

All it takes for selectivity and vindictiveness to go Poof, is another lawyer in a robe to say “not so!”

(Of course in the REAL WORLD this never occurs thanks to our RIGHTS, and it has never been documented, and any evidence to the contrary is evidence of some perp's whacko nutcase theory or legal stunt.)

“The most significant constitutional requirement on plea bargains is that they are contracts…”

And how is the whole thing other than presumption of contract?

“If a defendant's irrational behavior is known to either side or observed in judicial proceedings, this raises doubts as to competency and the related ability to assist his/her attorney.”

First, I still want to know how I went from being "the accused” according to Amendment VI, to a “defendant,” and where is the term “defendant” to be found in “this Constitution for the United States of America?”

I find "the accused,” but nowhere do I find “defendant.”

Defendant. The person defending or denying. (Black’s 6th Edition.)

Accordingly, if one is in denial, then one has already been convicted, especially if one is now referred to as “defendant,” rather than “the accused.”

If indeed one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, (which concept, apparently is a debunked whacko, nutcase, wingnut Paytriot legal theory) then there is nothing to defend, unless the presumption of innocence has been presumed into the presumption of “defendantness,” or presumption of “not guiltiness.”

Second, if a prosecutor’s or a judge’s “irrational behavior is known to either side or observed in judicial proceedings,” does this “raise doubts as to competency and the related ability to assist” in “The trial of all Crimes…by jury?”

If the second is “observed in judicial proceedings,” does the following equally apply to all parties (or if “judicial immunity” is invoked at least to the prosecutor, and perhaps witnesses)?

“In such cases, notification occurs, and a special competency hearing must be held with forensic psychologists testifying at these hearings.

Determination of competency normally takes place at a state mental hospital or psychiatric unit of a correctional facility.

Other times, private facilities are involved.

The inmate is interviewed for a period of days, sometimes weeks.

Psychometric and neurological testing will be done.

Mental retardation, amnesia, and mild forms of mental disorder are not considered proof of incompetency by the courts.

In general, the courts are more willing to take persons to trial that psychiatrists think are incompetent.

Notification of incompetency often involves civil commitment to undergo rehabilitation with drugs and/or therapy so that they can be restored to a point where they are able to stand trial.

Psychologists get paid for restoring someone to competency and notifying the court of progress.”

No double standards here right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?

"At the pretrial stage, the right to counsel is a necessity, not a luxury.

The Sixth Amendment even confers the right to EFFECTIVE counsel.

In Strickland v. Washington (1984), the Court established the Strickland test which requires that counsel's representation meet an objective standard of reasonableness, and that in order to show ineffective counsel, there must be a reasonable probability that the outcome would be different."

I want “Assistance of” EFFECTIVE “Counsel,” not some INEFFECTIVE young dumb full of come overworked underpaid, more than likely ignorant, compulsorily appointed “BAR" “licensed” “officer of the court” attorney/lawyer/plea bargaining machine.

[mrg]

Law Statute Code Procedure Truth Justice And The American Way.

[charlesa6]

Thanks for info. Good job.