Today is my birthday, and where else would I want to be at 8:30am except in Judge Burke’s courtroom, awaiting another parking ticket arraignment? Last time I tried the “dead fish” strategy: I didn’t speak during arraignment, I barely spoke during trial, and I was predictably railroaded by the prosecution. Judge Burke found me guilty of two parking violations and fined me $10.
The trial and everything leading up to it costs the court (and therefore the taxpayers) far more than the $10 collected in “revenue”. Not only is it costly for the government to prosecute this victimless crime, it’s also time consuming: the prosecutor was kept busy filing paperwork, gathering witnesses, and preparing his arguments. The entire parking enforcement (which only consists of 2 people) was incapacitated for nearly 4 hours while sequestered for trial. How much money can the city government collect in 8 parking enforcement man-hours? Well, that opportunity was lost because I chose to take these tickets to trial.
If you think this is stupid, you might be surprised that I agree with you. What a waste of time and money! But remember — I didn’t set the system up this way — the people calling themselves “the government” did. And they can stop this charade at any time by simply dismissing the parking tickets. What would they have to lose? They’d certainly have a lot to gain.
Anyway, this time, I chose a new strategy: Go to arraignment with a piece of paper already written out, explaining that I want to plead GUILTY, except the paper is *UNSIGNED*. Once Judge Burke accepts this piece of paper, it becomes part of the record. It is now on the record that I want to plead guilty.
You’d think that would be enough, but Judge Burke did something interesting. He entered a plea of NOT GUILTY on my behalf. Why would he do that? The answer can be found in the following short video from court this morning:
In short, my point was: The judge has demonstrated bias against me, the defendant. Judge Burke is presuming (without evidence) that I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire, but that is one of the elements that must be proven by the prosecution! How can I be forced to be at arraignment if the Judge is not presuming jurisdiction?
What do you think about this strategy? My next step is to file a motion to reverse the plea and motion to have Judge Burke recuse himself because of the bias he demonstrated. He is protecting the prosecutor and doing his job for him by assuming one of the essential elements of the crime: jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed, but he’s not going to let that happen, is he?
Courts can presume jurisdiction unless affirmatively challenged.
Moonbat
Good point, unless you’re the government and assume everyone has “consented” whether or not they agreed per a written contract.
I would call Lysander Spooner (figureatively) as a witness and ask if my unsigned plea is unacceptable can the court / state then produce any contractual evidence of my agreement to be part of their system or is that self granted exception going to be upheld via a gun?
Of course this will get Derrick nowhere, maybe even get him a contempt charge, because some animals are more equal than others.
You had two parking tickets and you took it to court? You lost and you had to pay the $10.00. Looking at what was written, it doesn’t appear you are above the law. It would appear Derrick is complaining about the cost of court to tax payers but you want to take a $10 fine as far as you can take it costing the tax payers money. You were found guilty. I suggest you move on and pay your $10 fine.
Jumping Jacks
Is the law above the law? If they require Derrick to sign something for it to be valid , shouldn’t they be held to the same kind of contractual arrangement with individuals? If they “automatically” have authority over others, where does that authority come from Mao Tse Tung?
WEEDA CLAUS Jumping Jacks Derrick had two parking tickets. He went to court and lost. He now owes $10.00. This isn’t a difficult case to figure out.
What’s the point of the unsigned piece of paper?
Are parking tickets even criminal violations in the first place?
ShaunnaNash It’s
I like it but I would probably start with:, “Is there any evidence of a claimant?” “What evidence is there that there is a claimant in this matter”?
WEEDA CLAUS Moonbat “can the court / state then produce any contractual evidence…”
More to the root of the matter: is there even any evidence that there is a “state”?
Jumping Jacks WEEDA CLAUS To be clear, those were previous parking tickets, and their fines have been paid. This is a new one.
Jumping Jacks
Are you suggesting that the accused shouldn’t dispute the allegations or judgments of the state (even by using the state’s own legal proceedings) because of the cost it might incur to the taxpayers? You do understand that Derrick J doesn’t owe the taxpayers anything do you? But I wonder if you understand why. It’s very simple, actually. Derrick J doesn’t owe the taxpayers anything because he IS a taxpayer. It’s bureaucrats, not taxpayers, who are ultimately responsible for how taxpayer-funded budgets are spent. It’s not the other way around.
Drac Vermell Jumping Jacks You said, “Are you suggesting that the accused shouldn’t dispute the allegations or judgments of the state (even by using the state’s own legal proceedings) because of the cost it might incur to the taxpayers”? He was already found guilty. He chose to drive his vehicle and
illegally park.
You said, “You do understand that Derrick J doesn’t owe the taxpayers anything do you”? I never said he did. But it’s hypocritical for freekeene activists to complain about taxes yet, they abuse the court system which does cost the tax payers money.
Radicalogical WEEDA CLAUS Moonbat
Toto leave that curtain alone…oh my gawd….there’s a man back there!!!
WTF, THAT is that great and powerful oz?
Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell
If victimless crimes were done away with wouldn’t the tax payers receive massive relief?
Although all the people that parasitically benefit from the victimless crime structure might have to get real jobs…point of view is often skewed when the hand that feeds you is also the hand that smites others for no good reason.
WEEDA CLAUS Radicalogical Moonbat In my opinion Derrick should have kept at that curtain until they kicked him out or dropped it. I think he is theoretically arguing too much. When defending in court always QUESTION keep the ARGUING to an absolute minimum, ideally zero. “Is there any evidence of a claimant?” “What is the evidence?” “Have you spoken with the claimant?” “How do you know there is one?[Religious faith?] etc IMo Derrick should have just stuck to questioning the facts/evidence. Don’t let them get you off point drawing you into arguing. The other side has the burden of proof. When you… Read more »
Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell “He was already found guilty. He chose to drive his vehicle and illegally park.” No Jacks. And once again you’ve demonstrated the severe shortcomings you have in reading and retaining new information. The first paragraph of the article describes Derrick J’s strategy in court when he’d fought two other parking tickets that he’d been found guilty of IN THE PAST. Derrick J even clarified this for you yesterday in his reply to you. Even if you had missed that reply, you still should have been able to deduce this logically from the remaining facts. If Derrick J… Read more »
WEEDA CLAUS Moonbat Bare in mind the institution of “court” is a fundamentally religious institution. Their rituals of persecution are based on their scriptural cannon. The “plaintiff” as such is a supernatural “entity” – a figment of the imagination. One of the demi-gods of the state religion. The “city of Keene” is one of the demi-gods of the state religion (the deities being the 50 states and the supreme deity of the government religion: the “Federal State” aka “The United States of America” – the “entity” people pray to during the flag-idol worshiping rituals. Just call them on their religious bs… Read more »
Radicalogical ShaunnaNash and Marc Stevens is taken seriously because….?
“scriptural article of faith” makes no sense to me.
Drac Vermell Jumping Jacks Again, you have proven to twist words around that make no sense. You are wrong.
WEEDA CLAUS Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell There will always be parking tickets, speeding tickets, ect…
Jumping Jacks Drac Vermell “Again you have proven to twist words around that make no sense. You are wrong.” If my reply didn’t make any sense to you than how can you be so certain I’m wrong? Shouldn’t the appropriate response be to ask me to clarify my statements? Which parts didn’t you understand? I thought you believed that reasons needed facts to back them up Jacks? I don’t see any in your reply. You didn’t even bother to post an irrelevant link, which is unusual since you usually post at least one in reply when you encounter an article or comment that you don’t understand. Are you… Read more »
Jumping Jacks WEEDA CLAUS Drac Vermell
“There will always be parking tickets, speeding tickets, ect (sic)…”
And you believe this to be a good thing Jacks?
ShaunnaNash Radicalogical Are there any facts/evidence proving he has the magic power of jurisdiction, or is the conclusion founded on faith in sacred written dogmas? Either a conclusion is based on evidence, or it’s an article of faith, right? So what’s the evidence? Sacred written dogmas?
ShaunnaNash Marc Stevens is one of the most important thinkers of our modern era imo, especially when it comes to information on the legal system, since he is one of the few “experts” who bases his analysis on logic. If you notice, most legal experts will merely quote sacred dogmas like the constitution etc and rarely use actual logic in their arguments. If you ever want to learn about the legal system using a logic-based analysis (based on socratic reasoning) rather than just having some guru indoctrinate you with dogma, Marc is possibly the best source for that kind of… Read more »
Radicalogical ShaunnaNash Dogma is not a text, text is not an article of faith jfc no wonder marc steven is the most important thinker in the room
Radicalogical WEEDA CLAUS Moonbat I want some of what you’re smoking.
I applaud the attempt to make an issue out of what most participants in the legal system consider a given, the system’s jurisdiction over the accused. But you’re doing it wrong, in the eyes of the system. If jurisdiction is not affirmatively challenged from the get go it will be presumed. And appearing in court and defending oneself–or filing a document admitting guilt–will be deemed consent to the court exercising jurisdiction.