I don't know your particular case, obviously, but especially if you have no criminal record were accused of a non-violent offense, this isnt uncommon. Its the way the legal system works. The DA overcharges, then offers a deal (im not saying this is good, just the way things are). It has nothing to do with the court recognizing some sort of loop hole that says you don't have to follow the law if you don't want to. As a matter of fact, if you started spouting that nonsense to the DA, you probably ended up getting a worse deal than you would have otherwise.
Most of these "success stories" seem to be someone getting charged with a minor crime, the citing officer or primary witness either not showing up at the hearing or deciding not to tesitfy . If it was based on a ruling that the court had no jurisdiction, there would be a written judgement stating that explicitly, not a dismissal due to lack of evidence. One wouldnt have to infer it.
Thats why so many of his "successes" are summary offenses like tickets. In most jurisdictions ,tickets get dismissed about half the time you take them to court anyway (because the guy who wrote it doesnt show up). So every time that happens, he sees a dismissal and interprets it as backing up his wackadoo theories.
Also, i should point out that this "shill" , in about a y ear and a half of criminal practice, kept more people out of jail than you and marc stevens put together. So there's that. As someone who has actually been in court, and actually argued cases and negotiated plea agreements, i can tell you with zero hesitation that taking the position you are talking about is going to hurt your prospects. A lot.
I'm not saying that you don't do good, or that you are not a good person, I am saying that your facts are wrong.
I have a lengthy criminal record, and several years studying in the law library, I was kept out of the court of criminal appeals by deadlines that I missed, or I would have a ruling from them.
So, if your position is so plain that we should all just bow down to the criminals in robes and uniforms, tell me now, what evidence can you present that demonstrates that the law applies to me simply because I am in a geographical area?
What facts would you like to submit to demonstrate that your assumption that the law applies to me, actually does apply to me?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That isnt the argument im making. I happen to disagree with your particular take, but its irrelevant to my point.
For the sake of argument, just for a moment, lets assume that you are 100% objectively right. Courts really have no jurisdiction. Judges are acting outside natural law. And its a criminal act when police, governments and courts write laws and try to compel people to follow them.
My point is that even if your beliefs are 100% true, no judge is going to agree with you. My point is that even if you are 100% correct that the force that the judge and the government use to punish you is forced used in a criminal and immoral manner, you will still suffer the punishment.
I don;t think you should bow down to the criminals in robes. I just think you should have some reasonable expectations as to whats going to happen to you if youre in court and you call them that.
Now if youre looking to go to prison to prove a point, thats cool. I wouldnt do it, but i can respect it. What i don't respect is someone who ends up locked up because he vastly overestimated his chances of success and didn't think about the potential consequences of using the defense being discussed.
The following, in my mind, is a perfect analogy to the conversation were having.
Imagine that you and I are walking down the street. A criminal with a large gun walks up to you and points it at your head. He demands your wallet.
You: "fuck it" you say "he has no right to my wallet."
Me: "youre gonna get shot"
You: But its my wallet. He doesnt have the right to impinge on my freedom and take my stuff from me. Im not going to give it to him. Im going to tell him to screw off and explain to him what my rights are.
Me. YOURE GONNA GET SHOT
You: But i read on this website where someone stood up to a criminal, and there werent many details but when he told the criminal that the criminal had no right to his wallet, the criminal agreed and backed down, so im going to say fuck this criminal and tell him that he can't have my wallet.
me: Yeah, that probably didnt happen. And if it did, it was a one in a million longshot. And the other 999,999 guys got shot. YOURE GONNA FUCKING GET SHOT.
you: You're just saying that because you want me to give up my wallet to criminals. Youre a shill for the mugging industry. What proof do you have that this criminal should be able to take my wallet.
me: OK get shot if you want to whatever.
Now keep in mind here that the most ridiculous part of the argument in the above scene is that you think the criminal is going to respond to you pointing out to him that hes committing a crime by not committing the crime.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you about sending lambs in to get slaughtered.
I had advantages that most folks don't get. (time in a law library to learn the ropes)
I knew how to file with the superior court, but I missed it on when, one was a five day deadline that I missed by five days, and a ten day window that I missed by nine, the third denial was bs, they said I didn't notify the local court when I did.
Which reinforced my belief that they would skirt the issue unless I could corner them and leave them no alternative other than to admit that the emperor is running around naked.
That aside, I have been very vocal about the lack of training on what to do when the criminal in the robe just railroads you.
If you don't know the deadlines in your state, or if you don't get acknowledgment of your intent to appeal the ruling with an interlocutory appeal to the superior court on the record at the hearing, you are just screwed.
No matter how valid your argument, the superior court won't hear it.
I won't make that mistake again.
The fellas have begun to step up on that and are putting more out about how to file the interlocutories.
They also stress that this is for parking/traffic tickets where the consequences are minimal.
Now, back to my question that you haven't answered.
What facts do you rely upon to prove your assertion that the law applies to me?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't have the time to respond to all of this, but nice strawman attempt. Also, the # of people you may have kept out of jail is irrelevant to the merits of my actual position you claim is "wackadoo". Maybe you think there are citizens/states and governments, care to provide evidence of such? "Zero hesitation", so you have evidence to back up your assertion that challenging the foundation of a prosecutor's case is going to cause hurt, or just making an assumption?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit