Elements of Crime

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Okay, so you are inferring that attorneys ONLY JUST get threatened w/disbarment for frivolity, BUT IT IS ONLY A REMOTE POSSIBILITY should the attorney file documents which Expose the fraud w/in the establishment AT LAW & IN FACT which would invit disbarment.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that your argument that if it weren't for the threat of disbarment, lawyers would blow the fraudulent system wide open by filing papers in court.

If a lawyer wants to expose fraud in the court system, he or she can write a book, lobby the government, give lectures, whatever. The one thing he or she can't do is the one thing that is guaranteed not to expose or change anything, which is to make an argument in court that he knows the judge will not accept.

You still haven't explained how making a court filing that will inevitably be turned down will blow the system wide open. I'm not convinced.

[D.Dog]

Originally Posted by chapka

Because being a judge or prosecutor are sought-after jobs, despite paying much less than the equivalent private-sector jobs. Becoming a judge simply isn't about getting a "cut" of the fees.

Who brought up pay? How about POWER?
Even cops, and I know a few. Played poker with one not long ago. (Bad player too his anti social behavior gives him away every time) They are not in their profession for money either. It is the power over another. They have virtualy the same mind set... "you do what I tell you and I won't point a gun in your face and put you in cage". The same mind set of a wife beater. "do what I tell ya and you won't get hurt...unless i just don't like the way you look at me in which case right or wrong i will still use violence to get you to capitulate and for my general amusement" Similar to a doctor believing he is God or a God.


[/quote]So obviously they're not in it for the money, or they would have stayed in private practice, where many of them started. The idea that they're so desperate for a cut of your $500 frivolous filing penalty that they'll rule against you out of greed is ridiculous, not to mention insulting.[/quote]

Icing on the proverbial cake.

[/quote]
Only if you want to save time and money, obviously. Fact: an attorney can't make a deal without your approval. If you think your chances are better at trial, you can still go to trial. Or you can take the bird in the hand that your lawyer got for you. How are you harmed in this situation?[/quote]

True they allegedly can't make a deal, however from my own experience and observations of other cases I see the same thing. The D.A makes an offer and the Public Dicfender or your hired lawyer essentialy will reiterate the threats of violence making you believe you have no choice. By virtue of most big celebrity cases getting aquitals and the lay person wouldn't. You see the big bucks talk, the lawyer is gonna do whatever he can to get them off no matter who they piss off. Why?, it is now free advertising which means more big bucks.
The standard hired lawyer and the public defender still get paid aqquited or not.

Bet yas did'nt know that the lawyers have alot to do with U.S GDP
source: Augustines Law. by Norman Augustine former CEO of MARTIN MARIETTA.

He made an excellent case for the proposition that the more lawyers per capita that a counrty has, the bigger the drain on its econimic growth. He charted the annual productivity increases from 1960 to 1982 for ten indusrialized nations against the incidence of lawyers in those populations.

Whith 3 lawyers per thousand citizens( Iam sure considerably higher since then)
On that he was able to conclude that France (at the time) had 17000 lawyers. He was right on the money. And that was using only that countries productivity figures alone.

1989 Stepen P Magee This economist conluded that the optimum number of lawyers in our society was 60% fewer than those practicing.
He estimated that every additional Lawyer over that number reduced the GDP by about 2.5 million dollars.

And that was over a decade ago.

So now lawsuits are filed in our State court at the rate of one every few seconds. Now because of these lawsuits new legislation gets passed and it is wriiten by lawyers. This goes to show there is a FRAT and it lives and breathes.
The more they more opinions , laws and laws suits create an even harder understanding to the laymen and itis the lawyers agenda to do so.

Fact: A judge will tell you that ignorance of the law is no execuse when merely stating "I didn't know", and in another breath will tell you you are not competent to represent yourself. So which is it?!

Anyone that thinks that there is not a hidden agenda here is the real fool and who wants to be represented by someone that is decieving you before you even hire them? MMMMMM

[D.Dog]

I forgot I had this.

It reads simple but there is certainly more to it.

Basic Elements of a Crime:
The following information is a very basic outline of the elements of a crime.

1. There can be no crime without the power of a political state to enact and enforce laws. Institutions are formed to preside over passages of laws and then enforcement of laws. Individuals, groups may enforce rules informally, but that is quite different from enforcement of actual laws.

2. A crime cannot be committed unless a law specifically prohibits a person's conduct. Such laws must be enacted before a person's behavior can be considered illegal. In a democratic society, laws are not applied ex post facto (after the fact). Otherwise, constitutional issues arise concerning individual rights. The rule ex post facto only applies to criminal, not civil law. Civil laws, such as a new tax, can be applied after the fact to collect back taxes.

3. There mus be a specific penalty enacted prior to the act before a person can be lawfully punished. Attempts to punish an offender beyond what the law allows would be unconstitutional, or if a law was passed regarding punishment and it was being applied to past conduct, that also would be an example of ex post facto.

4. Behavior cannot be considered a crime unless society recognizes a social harm associated with the prohibited act. In some cases the degree of social harm can be questionable. For example, crimes such as murder, assault, theft, there is a clear harm associated with such acts. But, crimes involving gambling prostitution can cause some debate as to whether someone is harmed, other than personal morals.

5. There can be no crime unless a specific behavior occurs, which is either an act by commission or omission (actus reus). An act by commission is where you can see the individual commit a physical act, such as removing property from other's possession, or striking another person. An act of omission occurs where the individual has a lawful duty to act, but fails to act and can be prosecuted under a specific statute. In some cases, a child drowns in the care of another person. The individual has contracted with the parent or has agreed to care for the child, that falls in the pool, and the care provider does nothing to assist the child from drowning.

6. There can be no crime unless a person acted with the required culpable mental state (intentionally, knowing, reckless, negligence) when committing the illegal act. Our system of law requires that a person acts with free will, and the culpable mental state infers that someone acts with free will (mens rea). In some cases a person can be found guilty even if no culpable mental state is present. Traffic crimes, DWI are examples where the state does not have to prove any degree of a culpable mental state.

7. The individual's conduct must not be justified under the law (more on this when we note exceptions to criminal liability).

8. Laws must ne universally applied to everyone in society to formulate a high degree of consensus with respect to a need for the laws and justification to enforce certain laws.

9. Finally, the facts and circumstances presented as evidence must support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders is guilty of the alleged acts.

In most cases all or most of these elements are satisfied for a crime with a few exceptions to requiring all of the elements.

Exceptions to Criminal Liability:
The following information outlines exceptions that our legal system recognizes as a defense or negating criminal responsibility:

1. Age
That some in our society are exempted for criminal liability due to their age. Children are not prosecuted in the adult criminal system. Our laws since the time of common law has recognized that a child will not be labile for his actions, assuming that child does not have the ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions. We have a juvenile system that will intervene when a child is in need of supervision, committing acts that could be prosecuted if an adult committed similar acts, and in some cases a child is processed through the juvenile system for acts that would not be criminal if an adult committed a similar act. Children are taken into custody for running away, but adults at the age of seventeen are not capable of being investigated as a run away, but rather as a missing person.


2. Insanity
That a person is not prosecuted for a crime if he is judged to be insane, using a rule applied to offenders that may not understand the difference between right and wrong when committing an act. The McNaghten Rule is one example of an insanity rule adopted by most states that uses the basic rule noted above.

3. Duress
That a person is compelled to commit an act that is illegal but due to the actions of another, he has no other reasonable choices. For example, a person is threaten with the immediate harm to his family if he does not remove money for the bank. He gives the money to the offender who then has his family released.

4. Entrapment
That a person would not have committed a crime if not for the result of questionable police practices. The issue usually arises when the offender is continuously is asked to commit a crime by the police ands has no criminal record or predisposition to commit a crime.

5. Lack of Mens Rea
That the required culpable mental state was not proven by the prosecutor. For example, the offender was charged with intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another person. The facts show that the offender was negligent. Therefore, the original crime that he was charged with may be dismissed or he is charged with a lesser crime. In many cases this is an issue that arises in the trial. A local cases in Bexar County involved an attack of a child. The offender said he was not trying to kidnap the child or assault her, but only take a lewd photo of the child. The jury convicted him of the greater offense, his argument failed in that situation.

6. Intoxication
That a person who is voluntarily intoxicated cannot be granted a defense to prosecution. But if he becomes involuntarily intoxicated, then he may have a defense if the intoxication negates an element of the crime such as the culpable mental state required to convict an offender. For example, the driver of a car did not realize that an over the counter medication would make him intoxicated when taken with his prescribed medication, there was no warning by the doctor, druggist or the drug labels.

Necessity
That a defendant breaks the law when he tries to avoid a greater harm caused by a natural physical force, and usually the crime he commits is lesser than the evil he tried to avoid. For example, the operator of a boat is in a storm, is liable for the safety of others on the ship, he makes an emergency docking on another persons property, he could not be prosecuted for a crime, but may be civilly liable for other acts (in this case perhaps trespassing).
Self Defense
That the person is acting to protect himself, another or property crime a crime committed by another. The law will vary from state to state, but in most cases the issue is whether the person acted reasonable and had a reasonable belief that he had to use self defense to protect himself, another or retain his property.

[chapka]

Originally Posted by D.Dog

Who brought up pay?

You did, when you said that the fact that judges held an alleged financial interest in fines precluded a fair trial. Do you now retract this statement?

How about POWER?

How about it? What does it have to do with the right to a fair trial? Obviously, pissing off the judge is not a good idea; judges aren't superhuman. But whatever judicial system is in place, whether you consider it legitimate or not, will have to have judges, and those judges will be human.

True they allegedly can't make a deal, however from my own experience and observations of other cases I see the same thing. The D.A makes an offer and the Public Dicfender or your hired lawyer essentialy will reiterate the threats of violence making you believe you have no choice.

What makes you think this is an unrealistic scenario? A lot of people do go to jail. A lot of cases are open-and-shut. Should your lawyer lie and say that if you don't take the deal, the DA will fold and you'll go free? Or that they're going to pour as much money into your defense as a wealthy celebrity could?

So now lawsuits are filed in our State court at the rate of one every few seconds. Now because of these lawsuits new legislation gets passed and it is wriiten by lawyers. This goes to show there is a FRAT and it lives and breathes.

Would you want florists writing a hospital's medical policy? Of course not; you'd want doctors, medical ethicists, and otherm experts. Similarly, I don't understand why people think non-lawyers--that is, people who've never studied the law--would make better legislators than those who have.

Fact: A judge will tell you that ignorance of the law is no execuse when merely stating "I didn't know", and in another breath will tell you you are not competent to represent yourself. So which is it?!

I don't see a contradiction. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for an illegal act, but it is a good reason to get someone who knows the law to represent you. Part of the reason ignorance of the law is no excuse is that the law quite reasonably expects that when you start dealing with an area where the laws and rules are clearly complex, like forming a corporation, dealing in certain regulated industries like the nuclear power industry, or, yes, going to court, you'll educate yourself or get the help of someone who does know what they're doing.

Anyone that thinks that there is not a hidden agenda here is the real fool and who wants to be represented by someone that is decieving you before you even hire them? MMMMMM

What does "deceiving you before you even hire them" mean?

[citizensoldier]

Chapka,

I would expect someone who advocates "representation" by those who "know" the law to be aware of the federal Constitution's requirement that laws say what they mean and mean what they say - else, they are null and void. In case you need the above in short form, no one can be expected to adhere to a law if they cannot understand the law. Common sense should allow you to see the truth in what I've posted, but if you're one of the "licensed" legal professionals, then you've had "sense" removed during your first year of "education".

[dadmoonbunny]

Originally Posted by chapka

This doesn't make sense. Attorneys don't "set law precedents" by filing papers. Yes, lawyers can be disciplined for making frivolous arguments, but by definition a frivolous argument isn't going to set a precedent, because the judge isn't going to rely on that argument in making a decision.



I really wish you wouldn't. In addition to probably hurting a lot, I really don't see what it'd accomplish. If someone disagrees with you, and they're right, killing them doesn't make you any less wrong or them any less right. I'd think at this board, of all places, people would understand that.

Okay, I do not care who you are or how knowledgable you are about the information we post here on this site. I do not care if you cannot spell, so long as we can all get the drift and it is usable.

If you guys and gals want to argue and make threats (kidding or not), then please take yourselves to some other site where this is correct protocol, such as Quatloos.

There are a lot of people and sovereigns- in - training that are here for the knowledge base that very well may help same our posteriors, and this once great nation. The kind of postings that are illustrated by you (threatening physical damage) are one of the reasons that this site may not be taken as seriously as it should be.

Sic Gorgiamus Alus Subjuctatos Nunc

[chapka]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

I would expect someone who advocates "representation" by those who "know" the law to be aware of the federal Constitution's requirement that laws say what they mean and mean what they say - else, they are null and void.

I'm aware that laws can't be vague, but that's different from saying they can't be complicated.

The legislature can't require you to guess at what a law means. That doesn't mean they can't require you to do your homework. In other words, the Federal Rules of Evidence may not be vague, but if you haven't had a chance to read and study them, then, yes, I think you'd be better off with someone who has than you would on your own.

[D.Dog]

You made some points Chapka, however very flawed.

Here are some things I have found, some of them are even written by lawyers and some by Judges. All explaining how the system is corrupt.

Does it mean all lawyers and judges are? I say no, however, they are few and far between and some start out with all good intention and find themselves in some rather ugly situations and others give in and play the game and still many just don't know any better, after all they went to law school and many of those are not taught the real law, just what they want them to know or believe. Almost preached at them.

Add to that the likleyhood that you do find a honest to goodness lawyer who is not afraid, what do you think the chances are that the judge or persecutor in any given case are of like mind. FAT CHANCE!!!

you have stars on this forum the first being "JUST WAKING UP"
Is it possible you are still dreaming? Sleeping with the enemy?

You have defended the use of attorneys well, albeit misinformed. You have not in any sense I have seen, had the desire to admit that judicial tyranny exsists in the majority.

What are you afraid of?

This average Joe waking up and learning?
Would you have it better if forums like this did not exsist?
Do you prefer to lead the sheep to the slaughter rather than teaching them to speak and be heard?

This is not an arguement. Just asking questions.

See the next few replies chapka...I don't want to rip your lungs out, just slap some sense in to ya boy!

[D.Dog]

Holodeck Law -- Litigation Vortex
By Attorney Linda L. Kennedy


The "Holodeck Law" where nothing is as it appears, and where the plaintiff is never to be seen again -- with money.


When you voluntarily go into court you will find that many times, you will lose even though the law is clearly on your side. Then, after the loss, due to your sense of right and wrong, you begin filing lawsuits or complaints against judges, you appeal decisions, and spend time and other resources thinking of other legal strategies for seeking recourse, etc.


In essence, everyone is asking the judges to find themselves corrupt, and this logically just will not happen. Even worse, they become occupied for years on a coarse that costs them money and keeps them busy with very little to show for it, except perhaps high blood pressure. Most often, they become more broke than when they innocently started their path many years before. Simply stated, this is what I call the "Litigation Vortex" where nothing is as it appears and where the plaintiff is never to be seen again--with money.


I will tell you that I have actually found ways to win in court. It is not impossible, but unless you know the "real" rules of court, you will not be able to endure and succeed in it. This strategy takes a lot of understanding of the facts, the law, and the real strategies of the opposition. It requires a thorough understanding of the overall corruptness of the system, and an understanding of military strategies. It becomes very case specific and tailored and must be tweaked as the case progresses. I will tell you that this strategy is also a very dangerous one, especially for lawyers who use it, since by implementing it, you are showing the other side that you know their game and are not willing to play. An attorney or citizen may get to use this strategy between two to four times before he/she is exposed as the enemy of the state (not playing along with their game on their court or turf). This is when they will implement the "and two" part of the "Triangle and Two Defense," which I discuss elsewhere.


These submissions are vignettes which I hope will help you understand where you are in your litigation, what happened if you are already through your litigation nightmare, or will help you understand that this battle has to be fought off of the courts' turf.


This writing is fairly short and not all inclusive, but I think it will help us be more effective and help us not continue doing the same things our poor predecessor citizens have unsuccessfully tried because they did not understand the real rules or the real game. We must know what the opposition is doing, so that we know how to combat it in all legal, nonviolent ways available.

[D.Dog]

THE STORY OF THE LITIGATION VORTEX"


To summarize the "Litigation Vortex," whether you enter in willingly (suckered though naively -- don't feel bad, attorneys have done it too), or whether you get sucked into the vortex (like some alleged "criminals" and some attorneys on alleged "disciplinary" charges), you enter into the "legal holodeck" where nothing is as it appears.


You are a hard working man, hardly ever missed a day of work in your life. Unsuspectingly, you are in the legal system where your grade school teacher taught you justice would be served. You learn to research your case, and try to make everyone understand your facts and why justice should be served by finding in your favor. Initially, everyone seems to understand. The Judge, and sometimes even the opposing attorney appear to want to understand and get to justice . . . and the clerk was so pleasant. You know she saw that you were an honest man. And the "legal holodeck" stage is set.


Having no reason not to believe what you heard in grade school was absolutely true, you spend your money on filings, legal advise (even if an attorney will not take the case), or legal fees, if an attorney will take it. Sometimes you even "count yourself blessed" that you have found an attorney who is willing to help you -- so you think. You know your case is a slam-dunk win. And thus the curtain of the court-holodeck opens and the bait-and-switch begins . . .


Certainly the first couple of rulings must have been a misunderstanding you think. I have to do more legal research and write more clearly you may tell yourself. They will certainly see that I have been wronged. So you continue to spend your money, and your time. You even miss increasing amounts of work because you are in this thing to right a wrong just like your grade school teacher has taught you. You certainly can't turn around now--you've come too far, and you are just getting the hang of the legal research.


You may still cry when the National Anthem is sung--and you certainly put your hand over your heart like any good American would. Perhaps you even fought to defend our freedom like so many honorable men and women like you have. By now, they have you in the clutches of the "Double B." What is the "Double B" you ask? "Busy and Broke!" Due to the bait and switch maneuver, you are now on the defense even though you are listed as the plaintiff. Next comes the final preparations for the dog and pony show -- the final preparation for your day in court on the holodeck stage -- and the implementation of the "Triple C" is ripe and ready


As you get thoroughly busy and go more broke trying to answer the defense's frivolous motions, you continuously have to show that it is they that have lied, and not you, as they have accused you. You spend day and night trying to explain yourself to the court. You answer their accusations by repeatedly explaining, for example, that you did not claim your wife on your income tax form because she did not work; or that you injured your back 10 years ago in a LEGITIMATE workers' compensation injury, or that you and your wife went to a marriage counselor 15 years ago after your youngest son died.


Yes, the "Triple C" is being implemented against you just in its proper time. What is the "Triple C" you ask again? This is when good citizens, who's only crime is that they naively asked the courts to rule justly, are made into either (1) criminals (who will believe him, he is a criminal tax-evader), (2) con-man (who will believe him, he lied on his tax return, and was a malingerer from work), and/or (3) c(k)ooks (who would believe him, he went to a shrink and is a paranoid delusional--(get an I.M.E.--[Independent Medical Exam] quick and get this psycho diagnosed. "Call some doctor who needs our repeat business," yells the defense attorney back stage). The "Double B Triple C" is in full effect now.


You are not only exhausted, but now you have to worry about your reputation, the IRS audit that is bound to happen due to the allegations made, or an insurance company claiming you were fraudulent in that workers' compensation injury so long ago. As the labyrinth of the Litigation Vortex sucks you down further and further into its clutches, you can no longer see the path in which to exit. "What have I gotten myself into, and how did I get here," you think as your friends start expressing that maybe you are a little too obsessed about your case?


As soon as the dust settles, albeit for a moment, you finally begin to realize that maybe your grade school teacher missed something. By then you are thoroughly engulfed in the "Litigation Vortex" and the only way out is to ask your "mast-a" if it please the court, if you could be excused from the case. The Judge rules that you are dropping the case as he slams down his loaded gavel. You then learn that you are indeed a money maker --but for the other side as he rules that you must pay the other side's legal fees for filing such a frivolous law suit in the first place. (Usually known as displaying "vexatious conduct"), and in confusion and with a cold, tightly knotted anger in the pit of your stomach which will not go away, you quietly and sadly bend your knee and humbly go back to picking the "master's" cotton.


And so it goes with the Litigation Vortex on the stage of the holodeck court where nothing is as it appears, and where a plaintiff is never to be seen again--with money.


This description of course, is just the beginning of the Vortex, because now, you decide you are going to appeal, file a complaint against the judge, and continue asking the judges to find themselves corrupt. Although you now know that your grade school teacher was wrong, there is still something in you that cannot accept it. So you continue in the Vortex. I liken these subsequent filings to someone who is a compulsive gambler who only wants to win his money back. His biggest problem is that he has not realized that the odds are against him and that the deck has been stacked.


We must not be like that gambler who refuses to accept reality. We must know that in the "Holodeck Law" the odds are against us and the deck is stacked in the Litigation Vortex

In the "Triangle and Two Defense," which I have written, which may be particularly interesting for anyone who has ever played basketball I try to help you learn who your real enemy is. I describe who really has you turned upside down in the centrifuge of the court while you spin violently until every last dime is centrifugally spun from your pockets. Thanks and I hope you now understand the Story of the "Litigation Vortex."

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man (or woman), I put childish ways behind me. I Cor. 13: 11

Copywrite, 2001, Linda L. Kennedy, Esq.,