For ALL the legal gurus on Facebook that try to use UCC and other fabricated civil and criminal methodologies to fight their cases in the current legal injustice system, try to open your minds and consider that you are doing it WRONG!! How many of you actually know and understand the phrase due process of law? What does that mean to you versus what does it mean under the law? Lets see what the phrase due process of law actually means IN LAW: =================================================== Due process of law. Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. A course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution-that is, by the law of its creation-to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or his voluntary appearance. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law. An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 IlL2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282, 290. Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing. Pettit v. Penn, La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69. The concept of due process of law as it is embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to the object being sought. U. S. v. Smith, D.C.lowa, 249 F.Supp. 515, 516. Fundamental requisite of due process is the opportunity to be heard, to be aware that a matter is pending, to make an informed choice whether to acquiesce or contest, and to assert before the appropriate decision-making body the reasons for such choice. Trinity Episcopal Corp. v. Romney, D.C.N.Y., 387 F.Supp. 1044, 1084. Aside from all else, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883. Embodied in the due process concept are the basic rights of a defendant in criminal proceedings and the requisites for a fair trial. These rights and requirements have been expanded by Supreme Court decisions and include, timely notice of a hearing or trial which informs the accused of the charges against him or her; the opportunity to confront accusers and to present evidence on ones own behalf before an impartial jury or judge; the presumption of innocence under which guilt must be proven by legally obtained evidence and the verdict must be supported by the evidence presented; the right of an accused to be warned of constitutional rights at the earliest stage of the criminal process; protection against self-incrimination; assistance of counsel at every critical stage of the criminal process; and the guarantee that an individual will not be tried more than once for the same offense (double jeopardy). See also Procedural due process; Substantive due process. =================================================== First thing to consider is this, in a truly corrupt justice system, what care they for the rules, whether proper, improper, or just plain wrong? If they genuinely dont give a shit about following the rules, then it doesnt matter WHAT rules you apply, you will LOSE if that is the outcome they desire for the case! Right? Furthermore, what care they for whether or not those rules are correctly known, used, and applied to your case? However, what if they ONLY recognize and provide remedy using a specific set of rules, regardless of whether or not those rules are right or wrong under our constitution(s) and Republican form of law? Therefore, it would seem more than reasonable, at least to me, that the closer we are to the mark on proper use and application of their own recognized rules, the better chance we have of those rules working in our favor rather than against us. Let me give you some examples of the utterly brilliant legal theories and arguments that I have shaken my head over time-and-time again. First and foremost, those so-called paperwork defaults in criminal cases ... you had better come to understand one VERY important concept of law, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CIVIL DEFAULT IN A CRIMINAL CASE!!! I have listened to this BS until my ears have bled and my concept of rational and critically thinking intelligent life on Earth has wained into the twilight. While there is always the possibility of more than one viable solution to a problem, those legal solution variations that result in a win will almost always fall into these disparate categories: ... 1) A win that was well researched and properly argued at trial. ... 2) A win that was well researched and properly argued appealable error ... ... at the appellate level. ... 3) Accidental win on appeal due to automatic operation of law IF properly ... ... raised and preserved error by objection. ... 4) Accidental win due to automatic operation of law without ... ... ANY action or intelligent argument on Defendants part (VERY rare). ... 5) Accidental win by sheer dumb luck on virtually any aspect of ... ... argument and presentation. And for those of you that want to argue the inapplicability of the 14th Amendment to you while ALSO claiming the ability to file a Title 42 federal lawsuit, think again. Without the provisions of the 14th Amendment there is no Title 42 enactment to use for seeking relief. While I personally despise the imposition of the 14th upon the entire population of the sovereign states of the union by the federal courts, it IS the current state of the law as it exists and is applied. This includes your ability to seek any form of federal judicial relief. Get that through your heads. Watch these videos and try to LEARN how much of this stuff truly works. Who knows, you MIGHT actually learn how and where you are doing it wrong and misleading others by your lack of knowledge and disinformation, whether or not that was or is your actual intent. https://youtube/results?search_query=%22+Erwin+Rommel+School+Of+Law+-+Tape%22 . .
Posted on: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 03:00:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015