Free From contract, Project for You

[Little Brother 192]

First off can you find out when the State of Nevada first started using the terms "public offense"?

Then look at Nevada's Code and how it starts to define crime:

NRS 193.120 Classification of crimes.

1. A crime is an act or omission forbidden by law and punishable upon conviction by death, imprisonment, fine or other penal discipline.

2. Every crime which may be punished by death or by imprisonment in the state prison is a felony.

3. Every crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, is a misdemeanor.

4. Every other crime is a gross misdemeanor.

[1911 C&P § 1; RL § 6266; NCL § 9950]—(NRS A 1981, 651)

NRS 194.010 Persons capable of committing crimes.

All persons are liable to punishment except those belonging to the following classes:

1. Children under the age of 8 years.

2. Children between the ages of 8 years and 14 years, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them they knew its wrongfulness.

3. Persons who committed the act charged or made the omission charged in a state of insanity.

4. Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent, where a specific intent is required to constitute the offense.

5. Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof.

6. Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged, through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no evil design, intention or culpable negligence.

7. Persons, unless the crime is punishable with death, who committed the act or made the omission charged under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, their lives would be endangered if they refused, or that they would suffer great bodily harm.

[1911 C&P § 3; RL § 6268; NCL § 9952]—(NRS A 1979, 145; 1981, 1660; 1995, 2467; 2001 Special Session, 136; 2003, 1480)

NRS 194.020 Persons liable to punishment. The following persons, except as provided in NRS 194.010, are liable to punishment:

1. A person who commits in the State any crime, in whole or in part.

2. A person who commits out of the State any act which, if committed within it, would be larceny, and is afterward found in the State with any of the stolen property.

3. A person who, being out of the State, counsels, causes, procures, aids or abets another to commit a crime in this State.

4. A person who, being out of the State, abducts or kidnaps, by force or fraud, any person, contrary to the laws of the place where the act is committed, and brings, sends or conveys such person into this State.

5. A person who commits an act without the State which affects persons or property within the State, or the public health, morals or decency of the State, which, if committed within the State, would be a crime.

[1911 C&P § 2; RL § 6267; NCL § 9951]

And here is the jurisdiction for Public Offenses:

NRS 194.040 Jurisdiction of State over public offenses committed by or against Indians in areas of Indian country. In accordance with the provisions of NRS 41.430, jurisdiction over public offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country in Nevada is assumed by the State of Nevada.

[Part 1:198:1955] + [Part 2:198:1955] + [Part 3:198:1955]

NRS 193.050 Conduct constituting crime; prohibited or unlawful acts; common law.

1. No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by some statute of this State or by some ordinance or like enactment of a political subdivision of this State.

2. An act which is declared to be unlawful by any statute, ordinance or like enactment is prohibited within the meaning of this section and of NRS 193.170.

3. The provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so prohibited but is not defined, or which is so prohibited but is incompletely defined.

4. This section does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or a civil judgment or decree.

[1911 C&P § 35; RL § 6300; NCL § 9984]—(NRS A 1967, 458)

[Jerry Pitts]

The earliest I have been able to find is the year 1862, but due to the fact that it was already enacted, it must of certainty have an earlier date. See here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7z4...lic+offense%22

Jerry Carlos

[Little Brother 192]

removed...

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Little Brother 192

First off can you find out when the State of Nevada first started using the terms "public offense"?

Then look at Nevada's Code and how it starts to define crime:

Sure thing...I'll update as soon as I can locate the information.

[freebeme]

What I think might have happened in Nevada is that the "Territory" had made "public offense" out of of nearly everything. Then the statute changed so that persons liable to punishment was to no longer include "Public offense" some time after the state was adopted into the union. The statutes I think used to read that a public offense was required for a prosecution (Under federal territory law) however now it reads that a "crime" is required.

Nevada has the same statute as California that states that "Punishment" is only for crimes. That is in the statute I posted above.

Nevada has a definition of "offense" which includes everything "remotely" criminal and criminal. This definition is accurate. However you will no find a definition for crime. and surely not a definition for "crime" that is read to encompass all "offenses."

It seems that there is a road to a clear ruling that infraction fines are not meant to correct or punish. I got that ruling in California. I would love to see it in Nevada as well. That was the key starting point into my inquiry of administrative law and the defense of victim-less crimes.

I hope you engage in this research with me. I have chosen Nevada as my next state because of your tremendous ability to provide novel, new, refreshing research and almost all of it is provided in a credible manner. I very much would like your help in this.

Cody.

[netwrkranger]

Are freebeme and Little Brother 192 the same person?

1) Both have Cody in their posts.
2) Both reference the site nojurisdiction.com.

- netwrkranger

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Are freebeme and Little Brother 192 the same person?

1) Both have Cody in their posts.
2) Both reference the site nojurisdiction.com.

- netwrkranger

I think it's a split personality, with a higher probability of having a conversation with himself if no one responds to his post.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger
Are freebeme and Little Brother 192 the same person?

1) Both have Cody in their posts.
2) Both reference the site nojurisdiction.com.

- netwrkranger

Originally Posted by moishanb

I think it's a split personality, with a higher probability of having a conversation with himself if no one responds to his post.

Multiple personalities.

There are likely more than just the two of "him" lurking around.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Are freebeme and Little Brother 192 the same person?

1) Both have Cody in their posts.
2) Both reference the site nojurisdiction.com.

- netwrkranger

They're the same person, and he doesn't hide it.

[Little Brother 192]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Are freebeme and Little Brother 192 the same person?

1) Both have Cody in their posts.
2) Both reference the site nojurisdiction.com.

- netwrkranger

Most people would have been able to guess by taking a glance at my signature line. You get the top detective award for the day.

Please do not post anymore in this thread. This thread is to help FreeFromContract establish a map of the administrative functions Vs. Criminal prosecutions of the state that he lives in. Your posts do not aid the research by providing more information nor do they rebut anything that this thread is about.