You depict my silence by right as arising from some kind of constitutional privilege? That is a great relief indeed. How about calling it 6000 years old - that right? When Abel's blood cried out from the ground...
God did not interrogate Cain about it. The blood itself was the evidence and testimony.
I'll take the Constitution, thanks. I wouldn't be sanguine about the prospects of your evidence circulating very far in a courthouse.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
Back to my question before that you never addressed.
How do you claim a violation of the speedy trial rule when the time for a speedy trial doesn't begin to run until the defendant enters a plea of not guilty. You continue to profess that you have yet to enter a plea, or have been arraigned, so the time for a speedy trial has yet to begin.
Speedy trial commences on the date of filing the not guilty plea. Harrison v. District Court, 192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977), Rodman v. Adams County Court, 694 P.2d 871 (Colo. App. 1984).
I suppose the real record is hidden from view? I mean really! You guys think that SAMELSON can alter the Register of Action and still be in charge? He only pretends to be presiding in a court of record if there is no record.
But that addresses both issues and I addressed them both in the video by showing the first paragraph of the Affidavit of Warrantless Arrest (Affidavit of Probable Cause). We see the same dissassociation from reality you all express around here - right there in the coached wording of the lying police officer. For one thing, we get Wesley's point up front and clear - that my right to remain silent only began when the police officer gave it to me? I beg to differ. But you see it right there - the police officer is trying to make me sound guilty by saying that my silence was acting very strangely. Maybe strange to him - because he is used to sheep just cooperating in the gathering of evidence simply because after he feels he has enough to make the arrest, then, he will inform them they should have shut up the whole while.
And that seems to be where Wesley is coming from. We agree that a consent form is just that - consent. But he feels it is in the domain of a judge, even after violating his oath of office to grant me or refuse to grant me the right to remain silent. And that is why we find Wesley an upstanding Bar associate - an attorney. So is SAMELSON. Neither of them seems to know the difference between protecting my right to silence and pretending to be in a position to grant it or not.
Well, actually, SAMELSON does. That is why this is not getting to trial and the day it was set for trial, he double-booked the stage.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Like some bozo a couple pages back saying that I was ordered to cooperate with the evaluation. No. It did not say that on the Order. It said I was to meet with the doctor. That is what I was ordered to do.
P.P.S. Dezcad's point;
Five years down the road SAMELSON admits my name is David Merrill (envelope in my evidence repository). I published a contact number on an abatement requesting the clerk of court correct the case header to my name if they wanted my appearance/response. It is not my doing that I will not appear for DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as David Merrill Van Pelt. That is not my name. You can call me Van Pelt all you want - thinking that you somehow have the power to change my name? Or as I gather, that you think it annoys me? Well, if SAMELSON insisted I was Van Pelt then you might bother me about it.
But like Wserra says - that envelope was just SAMELSON calling me by what I wanted to hear. Great! That admits the clerk of court could have just corrected the name on the case too. So again, the delay in speedy trial was obviously not me fleeing the jurisdiction. It was only me being truthful about my name and a fatal flaw of misnomer.
The acts of a court of record are known by its records. Judicial records are not only necessary but indispensable to the administration of justice. The court judgments can be evidenced only by its records. The acts of a court of record are known by its records alone and cannot be established by parol testimony. The court speaks only through its records, and the judge speaks only through the court. Herren v. People, 147 Colo. 442, 363 P.2d 1044 (1961).
And it is now known that SAMELSON has falsified the record of the court. And that falsification is clearly to obscure the charge of $20M for "indefinitely deferred arrest warrant" and furthermore there remains a note on the court record where SAMELSON tries to blame police for not executing a timely arrest. SAMELSON delayed arrest for five years and three days so Dezcad; you can live in your reality about pleading to the court. The reality I am in has it published back in 2004 that I would be arraigned by my own doing in any name around, should they just give me a call and be bold enough to call me, without my authorization, David Merrill Van Pelt.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S.
Randall wrote:
David Merrill wrote:It will be interesting to see the DVD on the US courthouse clerk's copier...
Photocopies of DVDs don't play very well for some reason.
Let me explain it yet another way. I knew by the calendar and sensation about the passage of four and a half years that I was being denied a speedy trial. I did not need the Register of Action and subsequent falsification thereof to tell me that SAMELSON had breached our trust - his oath of office.
David Merrill wrote:For one thing, we get Wesley's point up front and clear - that my right to remain silent only began when the police officer gave it to me? ... And that seems to be where Wesley is coming from. We agree that a consent form is just that - consent. But he feels it is in the domain of a judge, even after violating his oath of office to grant me or refuse to grant me the right to remain silent.
David, David, David - how in the world did you get that from what I actually said: "I'll take the Constitution, thanks"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
You called it under the penumbra of the Fifth Amendment and privilege. Private Legis.
Like tampering with the mails: private legis. Privilege of the Bank and Fund - not for private use of David Merrill. Postal SERVICE is process servers for the Seven Noachide Laws administered by The Sanhedrin through the Freemasons during the Diaspora. That is why I resorted to a much more ancient model than the 1787/1789 American model.
OK, time to lock the thread. David (or anyone else), feel free to start another. BTW, David, I may agree with you on very little, but I'm glad you can post here again.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
