Like the subject says: Is there a way to invoke constitutional right to speedy trial without granting Jurisdiction?
Some info on my case.
Allegedly Speeding 60 in a 45.
Arraignment in May 2016
Jury trial scheduled June 2016. Cop doesnt show up. Prosecution granted continuance.
Jury trial scheduled August 2016. Cop doesnt show up. Prosecution granted continuance.
Jury trial scheduled mid October 2016. I have a sneaky feeling that the cop isn't going to show up.
Also is it too late to file a counter claim?
Thanks,
Namor
It is never too late file a counterclaim.
You need to comprehend what arraignment is for. Arraignment was to get your consent. You could submit a document to the court withdrawing your plea. You could simply lodge your objection to the code. Of course, the best way to do it is to file a counterclaim based on jurisdiction.
I would not be demanding a speedy trial, because trials in their inferior court have rigged juries who do not believe for a moment that you are not guilty. The cop not showing up repeatedly gives you an opportunity to ready your paperwork to do it correctly.
M. R. Hamilton
and you let it happen twice. you didn't even bother to get this figured out months ago. during this time have you done any work on your behalf to learn what is going on with your life?? sounds to me like you need a care giver. It is nice guys like Hamilton put up with sheeple like yourself.
I like myself so much better now that I have become politically correct when dealing with dumbasses like you,
In a criminal case, the law requires an arraignment within 72 hours, and if there is any sluggishness on that point, a habeas corpus writ should get the ball rolling. Depending on the fact situation of the criminal case, the issue of jurisdiction may be relatively simple. Most criminal cases simply rely on in personam jurisdiction - the crime was committed within the geographic jurisdiction of the court, the defendant was found within the geographic jurisdiction of the court; simple.
In a civil case, an answer to the complaint, which may set forth some challenge to the court's jurisdiction. There are a variety of reasons that jurisdiction may be challenged, depending on the situation, but it is usually necessary to bring this to the judge's attention, as jurisdiction may be presumed in the absence of a challenge that sets forth some reason.
This initial appearance, simply to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, is a "special appearance" and the only topic of the special appearance is the issue of jurisdiction. BUT, if the judge, after hearing the arguments on the issue of jurisdiction, determines that his court does have jurisdiction, the case moves directly to the merits of the case, sometimes with little delay, and you should be prepared to argue the merits of the case in such an eventuality.
The judge does not get to decide he has jurisdiction. This is going to bne a big issue for you. For starters, judges do not have jurisdiction over "people". They only have jurisdiction over "persons" and "US citizens" who are by definition subjects of government.
Secondly, you comment that "if the judge, after hearing the arguments on the issue of jurisdiction, determines that his court does have jurisdiction" holds no merit. The courts have repeatedly held that once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven on the record.
There is a lot more, but these should get the point across. A judge does not get to decide his own jurisdiction. I can also attest from experience, no judge has ever been able to prove he has jurisdiction over a people.
M. R. Hamilton
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the burden for proving jurisdiction falls on the person who brought the case into court - the prosecutor or plaintiff. Both sides present their arguments for/against jurisdiction and the judge makes his decision on his court's jurisdiction of the case; it may yet be reviewed on appeal.
Who, after all, did you think makes the decision in a court over whether the court has jurisdiction?
The problem you have is a comprehension of a court of record. The judge is not allowed to make any decisions in a court of record. He is merely a magistrate. Only the tribunal of the court is permitted to make a decision in a court of record.
In a court of record the tribunal is the sovereign of the court. Your use of the term plaintiff shows your lack of knowledge of "law". Plaintiff is an equity court term. In law the correct term is claimant. So, if I challenge jurisdiction in a court of record of an inferior court, the plaintiff in the inferior court has to prove to the superior court of record all jurisdictional issues. Not even the SCOTUS has the authority to review a decision of a court of record. And that is by their own opinion. So in contrast to your claim that "it can be appealed", no it cannot. SCOTUS said so.
The one and only way that you can get around the sovereign tribunal is to demand a jury trial. And unlike your statutory courts where both attorneys get to participate in jury selection, only the claimant picks the jury in his actions. And nobody who is a US citizen is permitted to sit on a jury to judge a people, because citizens are subject by definition and people are sovereign. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for public servants. That is case law, too.
M. R. Hamilton
