I Was Outraged!!!

My wife and I were indicted for 2 counts of assult on a police officer, resisting arrest, and obstruction of justice. But we were the ones assaulted by ten officers and thrown in jail accused of the above. This was outrageous but what was most outrageous was that my wife and I went for the arraignment and the judge said that we don't have the right to represent ourselves. That it is upto him to determin if we can competently represent ourselves and he rescheduled us to determin that. I informed him that he was violating our rights. I want to take this judge to federal court but will need help in what violations he has committed. All the help we can get would be appreciated.

[weishaupt1776]

Don't claim any violation of rights under any Constitution ESPECIALLY the Federal Constitution form ANY YEAR.

You want to come in under your State's constitution PRE-14th Amendment (1868)

But don't claim your rights under it

Claim your rights under the common law

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=4077

Read this first.

Henry Franklin

[PANICPASS]

I have a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE & DEMAND TO RIGHT OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Here is part of it:

Alleged Accused has not only the Right to speak for himself, but also to speak through whom he pleases. This is inherent in the First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. It is also self-evident as a part of the Natural Rights Doctrine. Those, Rights, which are called inherent and unalienable, are outlined in the Declaration of Independence, which antedates all government. They are natural or God-given, rather than government-given, rights. Alleged Accused points out that he does not claim any "attorney-given" rights, but demands that his God-given, Natural Rights not be infringed upon.



If you want it, send me your email via a private message.

It sounds like you and your wife are going to be railroaded. The first thing I would do is challenge jurisdiciton, and it sounds like you are going to need some professional help with that.

Guys,
Thanks for all your response. Weis how would I claim my rights under the common law? This judge is was arrogant and behaves as if as long as he is that courtroom he owns the whole world. I was practically helling at him in court because of his arrogance. But please inform me on how we can claim our rights under the common law. Thanks and God bless you all.

[PANICPASS]

Here is some info on jurisdiction

http://www.freedomsite.net/juris.htm

[squirrel]

Dont forget to bring a couple of witnesses with you with pad and pencil, I dont think the crossdresser in the sissy suit will pull that stuff then.

[PANICPASS]

MOTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL

Comes now, Named Person, by and through her Constitutional Counsel, TJ Henderson, Herein after, Plaintiff. Plaintiff, waives no rights known or unknown, stated or unstated. Plaintiff herein, submits this answer in support of Plaintiff=s 7th Amendment Rights and that Plaintiff can show reason why this court should grant an order dismissing any and all Motions filed by Defendant and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (This may change from time to time. Change to the case that best fits your case)

Judicial notice of Constitution and laws. Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the Constitution, common law, civil law, and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. (emph. added)


(a) I, the Plaintiff or Defendant, of Heaven, as such endowed by God with unalienable Rights, confirmed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the united States of America and claimed herein. We, Plaintiff or Defendant and Council hereby notice this court that under any law of Illinois which would perceive to be the Aunauthorized practice of law@ would be administrative in nature, therefore this court is on notice that under such law and notice, the Judge is nothing more than an administrative hearings officer. As such, the Judge only has qualified immunity, which means, violate our right to contract and Plaintiff=s or Defendant’s right to council of choice as enumerated by our forefathers in the 1st, 6th, 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America, the Plaintiff and Council will take lawful action.

(b) Plaintiff or Defendant and Council are enforcing all Plaintiff=s or Defendant’s rights; among which is my right to counsel; counsel being my choice of a party to assist and counsel me in my defense, and to speak freely on my behalf, under my direction, and to act as my agent for the purposes of this action; appearing with me and speaking for me at my discretion, as a matter of my rights secured and protected by the Constitution for the united States of America. This counsel will be Timothy James, Henderson, who will speak for me in all matters.

GUARANTEED RIGHT

(c) This right to counsel of choice is protected by the Constitution for the united States of America; specifically the First Article of the Bill of Rights, in the matter of freedom of speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the Government for redress of grievance; also the Fifth Article of the Bill of Rights concerning due process of law; the Sixth Article of the Bill of Rights, and also the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights, concerning the vast area of rights held by the people as the ultimate sovereigns;

(d) The meaning of the above words, is that no man shall be deprived of his property (rights) without being heard in his own defense. Kinney v. Beverly 2 Hen. & M (VA) 318, 336.

I, Elizabeth Ann, Grady, in my exercise of the above freedoms and rights, will not waive my right to have counsel of choice, as a matter of due process.

(e) The right to defend and to be heard in my own defense shall not be limited in its exercise by statutes or by rules of the court; this by order of the supreme law of the land: The Constitution for the united States of America. AWhere rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.@ Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436.

(f) AA state can not, by envoking the power to regulate the professional conduct of attorneys, infringe in any way the right of individuals and the public to be fairly represented in lawsuits authorized by Congress to effectuate a basic public interest. Laymen cannot be expected to know how to protect their rights when dealing with practiced and carefully adversaries@, cf. Gideon v. Wainright, 372 US 335, Aand for them to associate together to help one another to preserve and enforce rights granted them under federal laws cannot be condemned as a threat to legal ethics.@ Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 US 1, 7.

(g) I, the Plaintiff or Defendant, claim my right to be heard under the law of the land, and by the modes and procedures of the common law, as a matter of due process. AThat statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the Law of the Land.@ Hoke v. Henderson 15 N.C. 15, 25 Am. Dec. 677.

I demand that the court not uphold any mode or follow any procedure which would abrogate the Constitution for this State and the Constitution for the united States of America .

(h) The Fifth article of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the united States provides:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." A similar provision exists in all the State constitutions; Athe phrases "due course of law," and the "law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that implies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by Parliament.@ Davidson v. New Orleans ,96 US 97, 25 L.Ed. 616.

(i) I, the Plaintiff or Defendant, also demands that the court not uphold any unconstitutional applications of any statutes. AAll laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.@ Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176. (1803) Upheld nearly 400 times in the ensuing nearly 20 decades (and never overruled or reversed). AThe duty of the court is to insure the Constitution is construed in favor of the citizen.@ Byars vs U.S., 273 US 28. AThe Court is to protect Constitutionally secured rights.@ Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616

(j) I, the Plaintiff or Defendant , have an unlimited right to appoint a representative to act in my behalf, and such act cannot be made into a crime by this court or by the legislature. AThe claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.@ Miller v. U.S. 230 F. 486 at 489.

(k) I, the Plaintiff or Defendant, require that the court apply no laws that would abrogate my rights, and that the court answer to its duty to guarantee to me, my due process of law in all proceedings. I contend on good authority (the Constitution and Supreme Court standing case law) that the legislature cannot violate my right to counsel of choice, as such act would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Illinois State Bar association is nothing more than a private club and is not any form of state agency and does not speak for the state and does not act for the state and has no power to control the lives of private citizens. AIt was held that a state may not pass statutes prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law or interfere with the right to freedom of speech, secured in the first Amendment.@ United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 US 217.

(l) As in the doctrine of the 9th Amendment, the fact that the 10th Amendment secures a right to counsel in all civil matters, cannot be construed to deny that right, to say nothing of the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government, and to defend one's life, liberty, and property in the courts. Any rule of procedure, for the court, is there precisely to guarantee due process of law to the private Citizen as a matter of right.

(m) AWhat is a counsel?@ AWhat is a attorney?@ The terms "attorney" and "counsel" are Common Law terms. "It has been held, and is undoubtedly the law, that, where common law phrases are used in an indictment or information, such phrases must have common law interpretation." Chapman vs People, 39 Mich. 357-359; in re richter (D.C.) l00 Fed. 295-297

(n) The meaning of the Common Law terms is quite clear and the term "Assistance of Counsel" does not necessarily mean that "Counsel" will be a licensed attorney. Certainly a licensed attorney may be a counselor, but all counselors may not be licensed attorneys.

With Counsel being defined from Bouvier Dictionary, 3rd Ed.: COUNSELLOR AT LAW, offices,

1. An officer in the supreme court of the United States, and in some other courts, who is employed by a party in a cause, to conduct the same on its trial on his behalf. He differs from an attorney at law. (q. v.) (emph. added)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This file was too large to post to this forum, so if you want a copy, I need an email address.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by MADU1

Guys,
Thanks for all your response. Weis how would I claim my rights under the common law? This judge is was arrogant and behaves as if as long as he is that courtroom he owns the whole world. I was practically helling at him in court because of his arrogance. But please inform me on how we can claim our rights under the common law. Thanks and God bless you all.

The thing is is to really claim your rights as given to you by God

Then claim that the government is obligated to protect those rights under common law pursuant to the statute in the state code which states the common law is in force and effect

Look at your state's evidence code (rules of evidence) for mandatory Juicial Notice
Submit in writing and file into the record Mandatory Judicial Notice for Common Law Still in force and effect in ______State

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by MADU1

My wife and I were indicted for 2 counts of assult on a police officer, resisting arrest, and obstruction of justice. But we were the ones assaulted by ten officers and thrown in jail accused of the above. This was outrageous but what was most outrageous was that my wife and I went for the arraignment and the judge said that we don't have the right to represent ourselves. That it is upto him to determin if we can competently represent ourselves and he rescheduled us to determin that. I informed him that he was violating our rights. I want to take this judge to federal court but will need help in what violations he has committed. All the help we can get would be appreciated.

Mad - first off, yelling at the judge is not going to help you at all. And he is following the law, not violating it.

Here's the facts of life for you: Accused criminals are guaranteed the right to legal counsel. If a judge allows a layperson to represent themselves at trial, there is an overwhelming possibility the person will end up convicted only because they do not know matters of law and will attempt all kinds of bizarre and really dumb things as are being suggested above, none of which will keep you out of jail.

Because of that, you might even mess it up badly enough that both you and your wife end up behind bars, and no judge is interested in smply allowing that to happen and having an appeal show up on it. Thus, another formal hearing will be held to determine if you are competent to handle it, and if you understand the ramifications of doing so. That has to happen before the court proceeds.

For all we, or the court know, you could even be mentally incompetent or have no ability to comprehend what might happen to you, let alone understand the risks you face in not having an attorney.

During the hearing, once the judge (he may assign it to another judge) puts you under oath and takes you through the determination process (there are lots of questions but they will have nothing to do with the facts of the case itself and he will prevent you from raising any case-related issues), he will probably still recommend to you that you accept the court appointed defender, then you'll have the opportunity to refuse. Chances are, even if he deems you capable, he will still appoint an advisory counsel that you can ask legal questions of off the record.

Once that competency hearing is ruled on, your case can proceed.

Of course, if you have the financial wherewithall to afford your own attorney, you're better of with one than without, but again, it is ultimately up to you if you are deemed competent.

Your wife on the other hand, can't use you as her attorney, nor can she represent you. So she will have to go through the same process. If you have your own counsel, he or she may be able to join the cases, keeping in mind, of course there are rules about testimony of spouses.

And of course, this isn't legal advice, which is what you really need before you do any more damage.