Artificial being gets 55 years

[rogfulton]

Another sad resolution to declaration of exemption from the laws of the land.

Fannin County. GA man, his mother and cousin tried for armed robbery and things didn't quite go as planned.

https://fannin.fetchyournews.com/2019/0 ... med-robber

One of papers filed by Mormon to Judge Weaver and District Attorney Sosebee states: “As a true flesh and blood American and sovereign citizen, I refuse to participate in any colorable law schemes or practices”.

[Burnaby49]

Here in Canada it's a firm sovereign belief that if they refuse to make any plea at trial they can't be tried. They tend to get upset when the judge (as she's legally empowered to do) makes a not guilty plea on their behalf.

I recall one case where one of the idiots I followed refused to make a plea before an administrative judge, essentially someone handling housekeeping issues. The judge wasn't empowered to make a plea on a defendant's behalf so we had to all plod over to another courtroom where a real judge spent two minutes doing it.

[Chaos]

Another sad resolution to declaration of exemption from the laws of the land.

Fannin County. GA man, his mother and cousin tried for armed robbery and things didn't quite go as planned.

https://fannin.fetchyournews.com/2019/0 ... med-robber

One of papers filed by Mormon to Judge Weaver and District Attorney Sosebee states: “As a true flesh and blood American and sovereign citizen, I refuse to participate in any colorable law schemes or practices”.

was this put in front of him:

[fortinbras]

Dear Burnaby,

Same deal here in the USA. But Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 perpetuates a law going back to the birth of the republic that failure/refusal to enter a recognizable plea requires the court to enter a Not Guilty plea. This is not a choice of the judge, it's automatic and it's the law. The same rule was adopted long ago in every state.

[Burnaby49]

It's a required rule here too, a plea must be entered by either the defendant or a judge. If the defendant refuses the judge must enter a not guilty plea on the defendant's behalf. In my prior example the initial judge didn't enter a plea on behalf of the defendant because she was at too low a level, she was an auxillary judge of some kind. So we had to move to a Provincial Court of British Columbia judge.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Whilst in the most part i reject the notion promoted by SovCits and FOTLers that superseded laws have any validity, I would welcome a return of peine forte et dure for just these circumstances!

[Burnaby49]

That may be where our current sovereigns got the idea that if they didn't plead they couldn't be tried;

The common law courts originally took a very limited view of their own jurisdiction. They considered themselves to lack jurisdiction over a defendant until he had voluntarily submitted to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court.[1] Obviously, a criminal justice system that could punish only those who had volunteered for possible punishment was unworkable; a means was needed to coerce them into entering a plea.[2] Alternatively, individuals were frequently tried under Admiralty law, as observed by Henry de Bracton.[3]

Since they know they aren't about to be tortured it's an easy and painless way to get out. Or it would be if it wasn't for that damned mandatory not guilty plea entered by the judge that somehow slipped into the picture a few hundred years ago.

[Hyrion]

They tend to get upset when the judge (as she's legally empowered to do) makes a not guilty plea on their behalf.

I have no idea what the actual Legal standing is, but I suspect it's better phrased as:

• The Judge is legally required to enter a not guilty plea on the behalf of a defendant in the event a plea is not forthcoming.

My thoughts on why that wording. The Rights and Laws are based around the concepts of:

• Innocent until proven guilty.

• An accused has a right to remain silent.

• An accused has a right to a reasonably speedy resolution of the accusation.

Innocent until proven guilty means basically you are not required to provide a defense unless the Crown has provided sufficient evidence to meet the elements of the crime you are charged with.

Right to remain silent basically means you can't be forced to give evidence against yourself - such as that evidence you might give under torture just to get the torture to stop.

Add in the right to a speedy resolution of the accusation and you get a situation where either:

• The defendant can be declared innocent of wrong-doing simply by not entering in a plea till the (with the recent rulings) 2? year period from the point of charges has elapsed.

or

• A default plea of Not Guilty is entered on behalf of the defendant so the process can move forward.

Logically, if a defendant can completely avoid any kind of trial by simply not pleading: there'd be no criminal trials... no need for prisons because no one would ever be found guilty and therefore would never be sentenced... and since they don't actually do anything productive no need for either Police or Crown Prosecution since the end result of what they do would end up releasing every suspect back into the community without a trial anyway. Which does not make any sense in a civilized Society.

So... the only reasonable option is a Lawful default of a Not Guilty plea. That's my reasoning anyway... I can't say if the default is explicitly encoded in Criminal Law, embodied in Lawful Precedence or just overlooked because it makes such obvious sense to everyone who decides to take even a 10% fair look at the situation.

Edited to add:.... now I get to the further-down post where Burnaby confirms it's a Lawful requirement.

[AndyK]

Innocent until proven guilty means basically you are not required to provide a defense unless the Crown has provided sufficient evidence to meet the elements of the crime you are charged with.

In the Colonies (and probably throughout the Empire), a person (natural or artificial) a defendant is not required to present any defense. The defense can rest as soon as the state concludes.

[Burnaby49]

Innocent until proven guilty means basically you are not required to provide a defense unless the Crown has provided sufficient evidence to meet the elements of the crime you are charged with.

In the Colonies (and probably throughout the Empire), a person (natural or artificial) a defendant is not required to present any defense. The defense can rest as soon as the state concludes.

As I've related in Russell Porisky's thread neither he nor his wife, Elaine Gould, presented any defense at all at their joint trial for tax evasion and counselling fraud. This was in the face of very compelling evidence of their guilt. Porisky never explained why he took this approach. It probably wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome had he presented a defense but remaining silent guaranteed their convictions since there was no counter-narrative to the Crown's evidence.

[eric]

Innocent until proven guilty means basically you are not required to provide a defense unless the Crown has provided sufficient evidence to meet the elements of the crime you are charged with.

The classic case with regards to this is the Sick Kid's Hospital possible murders. Short summary:
1. Unexplained deaths of babies at a hospital;
2. Nurses were interviewed by police and the one nurse who refused to answer any questions and lawyered up was charged with the murders. (Susan Nelles);
3. Nelles and her lawyers never presented any defence and the Crown's case collapsed at the Preliminary Inquiry when the Judge rejected the Crown's arguments with the obvious implication that they only charged the single person who never said anything must be the guilty party.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/han ... sequence=1