Arrest warrant issued for Barton Buhtz

[Livefire]

I think notorial needs to learn that jurisdiction can be challenged AT ANY TIME!!!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

"Nothing more than..." very deprecating way of trivializing it?

Is "individual" concisely and clearly "defined" in whatever "code" and "regs" pursuant to "all Federal Trial procedures" referenced below?

If so, specifically, and precisely where, how, etc.?

Fact or opinion; if fact: specifically, and precisely, what, where, how, etc.?

Fact or opinion; if fact: specifically, and precisely, what, where, how, etc.?

You just specifically said it is a "hearing", so if "There are no hearings...at this time," then what, exactly, is it and why are we here?

As well as, perhaps, unwittingly submitting to
in personam jurisdiction, subjected to silent judicial notice, and other deceitful little intricacies of the tricks of the BAR Association trade, truck and traffic?

Do you not contradict yourself as to what you seem to think arraignment is?

Do you not first say it is "nothing more than" this one thing, then, that it is a hearing but that there can be no hearings, then do you not say "the only action that can be taken..." is such, then do you not list three actions that apparently were taken, as well as, perhaps, erroniously, or arbitrarily, limiting the options in regard to the one action that you stated was the "the only action that can be taken...?"

Fact or opinion; if fact: specifically, and precisely, what, where, how, etc.?

Apparently something else did "go on" there, so if indeed "There is nothing else that can go on," what was that "nothing" that apparently did go on about?

Here is what one larns in BAR Association Liaryer Skool:

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/arraignments.htm

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

Strip away the excess verbiage (smoke and mirrors) and:

"I find...John E. Doe...guilty."

Is this not a clear presumption of guilt, if not an outright entry into the record of the "judge's" (or is that "magistrate's?") "conviction?"

In fact, does not the term “defendant” clearly state 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, would not one be in 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, precisely, is the justice in secrecy?

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

How is something not found within "this Constitution" other than un-Constitutional?

Non-Constitutional perhaps?

Quasi-Constitutional?

Extra-Constitutional?

Private privileged BAR Association

(trade unions having a monopoly on re-presenting as the likeness of, human beings, forced into BAR Association controlled tribunals--a monopoly within a monopoly-- under color of law)

controlled process?

Does not 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?”

Why would I want an attorney, when I have an unalienable Right, specifically protected by Amendment VI to “Assistance of Counsel?”

Exactly where within "...this Constitution for the United States of America" is to be found that "Assistance of Counsel" is defined exclusively as "re-presentation by BAR Association 'licensed' attorney at law?"

In fact, exactly where within "...this Constitution for the United States of America" is to be found the term attorney?

Under which specific law are the questions phrased the way they appear here rather than Constitutionally as:

Does "the accused" want"the Assistance of Counsel?"

Can "the accused" "pay" for "the Assistance of Counsel ?"

Why, precisely, 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.”

Why would I ever voluntarily or knowingly "plead???!!!"

I might positively state, declare, assert, etc... but will never, ever figuratively, or literally, get on my hands and knees and knowingly or voluntarily perform as a beggar, or penitent!!!!

Never!!!

Ever!!!!

How, precisely, does not the use of the infinitive to "plea" place one, as a beggar, in the hapless, destitute, position of a peonaged penitent pleading for absolution from a confessed transgression?

How would not the procedure of being forced into this position bring up Amendment V, both in light of Amendment VI, and of its own?

Why would I ever 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 is forced to submit to the utterance of the term “guilty” as applying to oneself, is it not admitted that one accepts guilt and will thus have to attempt to defend against self- incrimination, forced upon one by the court, by proving “not” as to the admission of “guilty?”

How, precisely, would it not be other than irrational and insanely 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?

[mrg]

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.


[ROFLMAO big time!!! give me a f-ing break]


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 spouting nonsense?

Or private BAR Association propaganda?

“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?!

And I still need to know where "the accused" went!!!

“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.”

I am certain Barton Albert need not concern himself with any of that.

What "constitutional rights???!!!"

How, precisely, considering the "Unanimous Declaration," for instance, do rights come from any constitution other than the will of the Creator?

How, if one admits to, and by so doing submits to "constitutional rights," which are non-existent does one not surrender "unalienable Rights" "endowed" by "Nature" and "Nature's God?"

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

Where, exactly, is the part about "plea bargains" in the Constitution?

Where, exactly, for that matter, is the part about pleading for one's unalienable Rights?

“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.”

Would not allowing oneself to be knowingly and voluntarily accepting all this, perhaps, be indicative of and observable as "irrational behavior" as described above?

And, perhaps, taken "silent judicial notice" of?

Second, if a "judge’s" “irrational behavior" (eg., schizophrenic or otherwise irrational tendency to assume multiple personalities/roles such as practicing law from the bench by acting as attorney for the defense, as well as attorney for the prosecution, as well as impartial "judge," legislating from the bench, and executing the legislation by force if so inclined, feigned deafness, outbursts of ill temper, etc...) 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," referred to in the Constitution?

If this aspect is “observed in judicial proceedings,” does the following equally apply to all parties?

“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?

Exactly who "pays?"

Does "he who pays the piper call the tune?"

Does he who pays the piper pick which piper will pipe?

"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."

First, the Constitution does not confer any rights, the Creator endows unalienable Rights.

Second, the author quoted an opinion, and not the Constitution.

Why would I not demand “Assistance of” EFFECTIVE “Counsel,” rather than submit to being re-presented by INEFFECTIVE young dumb full of come overworked underpaid, more than likely ignorant, compulsorily appointed “BAR" Association “licensed” “officer of the court” attorney/lawyer/plea bargaining machine?

[bruce77]

11/30/2006 23 Minutes of Proceedings:Arraignment held on 11/30/2006 before Judge Owen M. Panner for Defendant Barton Albert Buhtz on Counts 1, 2-4, 8-13. Defendant advised of rights and charges; Defendant did not enter a plea at this time; Order confirming trial date of 1/24/2007; Conference to determine status of defendant's representation is set for 12/11/2006 at 10:00AM by telephone before Judge Owen M. Panner. Defendant's pretrial release is continued; defendant is ordered to report to the U.S. Marshal for processing; the Federal Defender is directed to secure temporary panel representation for defendant. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Douglas Fong and William Fitzgerald.Counsel Present for Defendant: Pro se and Donnal Mixon.(Court Reporter Cynthia Thomas-Klosterman) (wk) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

Docket Sheet for 12-10-06
Indictment - Sealed in Sept of 2005
ORDER sealing Indictment Sept. 2005
Dockets of 16, 24, 25, 26, and 27 have this single sheet - no copies of the filing of Buhtz by the Clerk - very interesting.

[Shoonra]

Buhtz is hyping his situation. To begin with, "Judge" John P. Cooney is not a full-fledged judge but a Magistrate. The federal courts try to handle the enormous workload by having magistrates (who are appointed in much simpler procedures than are judges) handle the hearings in what are presumed to be less complicated cases, issue a report and recommended decision, and then have a full-fledged judge accept (they rarely reject) the report and recommendation. The use of a magistrate is normally consensual, but if a party insists on having a judge preside he's usually put on a slow track because the judges themselves have a considerable workload. Since Buhtz was clearly going to be very troublesome, the magistrate figured (rightly, I think) that the case would better be handled if a full-fledged judge presided.

This is hardly unprecedented or remarkable. Buhtz bought himself a delay in his trial but judges tend to impose tougher penalties than do magistrates.

As for the business about his plea, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 10 does not guarantee Buhtz a right to have the entire indictment read to him, if he is provided with a full copy and is informed of "the substance of the charge". Under rule 11(4), since Buhtz will not enter a plea, the judge is REQUIRED to enter a Not Guilty plea for him; this law goes back to the First Congress, and the Not Guilty plea preserves all of Buhtz's legal options for him.

Again, nothing odd nor unprecedented about this.

As for Assistance of Counsel, Buhtz is entitled to a court-appointed (free) defender only if he is too poor to afford a lawyer. Considering that Buhtz refuses to divulge his financial records, but has bragged about how his refusal to pay taxes has made him rich, it would appear that Buhtz is not entitled to a free defense lawyer but must pay his own money for a lawyer.

[Sweed]

Shroona,

Please provide examples of Barton bragging that not paying taxes has made him rich.....

Sweed

[ndusa]

OHHH MY GOD! There is SOME justice in this world! Court yard and blade comming down at the crack of dawn would be nice here. PPV!!

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ndusa

OHHH MY GOD! There is SOME justice in this world! Court yard and blade comming down at the crack of dawn would be nice here. PPV!!

Wait! Can't he just pay the monetary bvond on his criminal case with a Bill of Exchange?!?!

Why is he not free and charges dismissed if he was right?

My prediction, Plea bargain and turning in friends for for a lesser sentence.

[Sweed]

The arrest warrant was not signed by a judge, backed by an affidavit.

Reading the indictment, it becomes clear the US Attorney's have a limited knowledge of geography, negotiable instruments or the Uniform Commercial Code.

The prosecution has refused to certify on the record, under penalty of perjury, that the charges are true and correct.

The good Judge Panner is operating in the Public without Limited Liability Insurance.

This should be fun to watch......

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The arrest warrant was not signed by a judge, backed by an affidavit.

Reading the indictment, it becomes clear the US Attorney's have a limited knowledge of geography, negotiable instruments or the Uniform Commercial Code.

The prosecution has refused to certify on the record, under penalty of perjury, that the charges are true and correct.

The good Judge Panner is operating in the Public without Limited Liability Insurance.

This should be fun to watch......

Yep. If you think that seeing people go tp prison is fun. It won't be the judge and Barton will never get a penny from the judge.

Anyone want to bet?