Narcolepsy is hitting hard, so I gotta hit and run.
Durham has a plan.
How do you introduce evidence legally?
He's going after the low-hanging fruit first.
You can't indict Hillary without evidence. You can't get evidence without discovery. You can't get discovery without evidence. That's the game the Court plays, and the primary method crooked Judges use to avoid hearing cases -- hiding behind standing and foundational evidence.
It's a common liberal tactic.
"You can't prove it!"
"HERE! Just read this! It's clear as day evidence that Hillary is guilty!"
"I'm not reading anything until you prove your claims!"
...
So, how do you get around this tactic?
Well, discovery of evidence is valid between courts. If one court finds the evidence credible in their discovery phase, it can transfer over to another court.
So, since we can't find a single honest court to hear evidence against Hillary, we must be like Iron man and introduce seemingly unrelated evidential facts before smaller courts. Then, once they are all laid out together, a greater Conspiracy Framework comes into focus.
Please watch until the end:
https://youtu.be/5Rb9hAHifFA?t=151
Durham is putting it together, in a cave... With only a box of scraps.
Each case is gonna seemingly fizzle out and go nowhere. But each one is going to present small matters of fact that allude to a more in-depth conspiracy, until the foundation is laid and all bricks point towards Hillary and Obama.
How do you build a home? Foundation to structure (layers).
Layers (U1, Iran, Human Traffic, Haiti, Corruption, etc etc).
Q already laid out the checklist.
One leads to the other, like stacking bricks.
First comes corruption in the election.
Which leads to Haiti and their blood harvesting.
Which leads to Human Trafficking worldwide.
Which leads to Iran and Alice in the Bloody Wonderland (Saudi Arabia)
Which leads to the U1 deal to frame Russia and spark WW3
Which leads to... "We're saving Israel for last"
Durham is only getting started.
That's bad news if you expected this to end soon.
If each case is about 2-3 weeks, we're looking at about 4-5 months.
Right in time for October.
The Hunt is On.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Here's the Federal Rules of Evidence. They can be mind bogglingly confusing or circular. Fortunately, ample case law exists on how the various rules are applied and can be found doing simple google searches.
Also very useful are the committee notes from the people who wrote the rules and how they intended the rules to apply. These notes are very often cited in case opinions by judges as persuasive in making their ruling. I would start with reading the committee notes on whatever particular rule you are interested in for clarity prior to seeking out cases ruling on them. That is far easier, and saves time. The rule notes are not binding, but are given great weight by judges.
I'm always happy to opine on the meaning and applicability of a rule - be it civil procedure, criminal procedure, evidence etc... Doesn't mean I will be right, but I most certainly have no problem offering my thoughts lol
I've struggled on how to explain the logic in the legal system to those unfamiliar. It is kind of like English grammar - there are rules, and then there are a bunch of ridiculous exceptions to the rules. Some of it is readily apparent and sensible. Other parts seem to contradict themselves. As a long time arm chair lawyer vet, I have stumped many a top tier attorney or law professor with my questions. It is a frickin cluster. People have their area of expertise and simply don't stray outside of it. I suppose you could say its like NASA in that no single individual possesses enough knowledge on how to design/build/launch a rocket.
Thanks!
Today's gonna be a long day.
I have an off-topic question: traffic tickets.
In many states, the system is set up so that it does not follow the state's rules of procedure for either criminal or civil.
Usually, there is no indictment or similar filing (criminal), nor is there any complaint (civil). Instead, there is just a "citation."
I read a court rule (in one state) where the citation can be used in lieu of the indictement/etc., but only if not objected to.
If a court tries to proceed, let's say to an "arraignment," but there is no official prosecution/plaintiff document, only a citation and the "defendant" does not agree, what would be the best strategy?
The ideal result would be to get the case dismissed for lack of Subject Matter Jurisidction, since the court has no legal document from a prosecutor/plaintiff to base any action upon. Of course, the court system (especially traffic) being as corrupt as it is, no judge/magistrate/pro tem is going to go along with that reasoning, but they might dismiss on some other made-up grounds, which is still a win.
Thoughts?
I need to dwell on this one for a bit. Best I can recollect, traffic court is like a hybrid between criminal court and an administrative proceeding. This is why you don’t have a right to a jury trial and get stuck with a judge who arguably has a conflict of interest in charge determining the outcome.
One thing I do know is the requirement of an indictment is universal in federal cases because of the constitution. States vary considerably. Some require grand jury indictments for serious offenses, some have the option but not the requirement. Like Rittenhouse - he wasn’t indicted, he was charged by Binger in a complaint. Texas, I believe, would require an indictment for serious felonies. As would many other states. Wisconsin would have provided for a grand jury as an option but not required.
I’ll mull this over and see if I can parse through it coherently.
I suspect that the entire process in traffic court is an administrative hearing, dressed up to (falsely) look like a court of law. That can be the only logical reason why they think they don't have to follow the rules of court.
However, that does not change the fact that they must still provide due process (which is what the rules of court are largely for), and if they are hiding the true nature and cause of the action, then they are not providing due process, thus losing subject matter jurisdiction.
I have a speeding ticket, and am considering how to proceed.
I do not believe that such an animal can legally exist. That is why they must lie, cheat, and steal in order to make it look like they are upholding the principles of American law. But they hide the true nature.
I did not follow or research that aspect of the case. My initial suspicion is this: The vast majority of defense attorneys out there want to "play ball" because their first duty is to the court, not to their client (who merely pays the bills).
For that reason, they will often overlook things when the prosecutor or judge "cuts corners" because to dispute "routine-but-not-exactly-lawful-procedure" would step on toes and, hey, that attorney will be "doing business" with that judge and prosecutor in future cases. What's this one little case, after all, in the larger context of a financial career?
I know that defense attorneys often do not formally request discovery items in writing, but merely tell the prosecutor, "Give me what you got," and since there is no formal writing or hearing, the prosecutor might "forget" something and many defense attorneys will look the other way.
I recently spoke with a DUI defense attorney who has a client on his 5th or 6th DUI charge. Prosector offers to the defense attorney a "deal" that sounds good. The attorney's reply to prosecutor is, "We will take that deal, but give me some time to drag it out a bit. I gotta justify my $15,000 fee." I had no skin in the game on this conversation. He just told me this shit when we were having a beer.
For this reason, there are probably a lot of corners cut in terms of what is actually required by law, and many attorneys and judges benefit. So, they are hostile to someone like me who will demand that things are done by the book.
That's why I assume that a "strategy" is necessary. Just coming out with the law will be met with hostility, if it steps on their precious toes.
The 14th Amendment and "republican form of government" under Article 4 both require the states to provide due process in any proceeding. That is basic American law, and a primary reason for the revolution against Britain.
Interested in your thoughts.
P.S. This is a basic speeding ticket. Caught in a known speed trap. No jail time to worry about. Max fine around $300 (because I won't roll over and pay, in which case it would have been half that). Anyway, I am considering filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Provide Due Process. I realize that is not an "official" motion, but as a pro se/pro per, the law says I have flexibility in my pleadings, and a judge is required to accept. My reasoning will be that I have not been informed of the nature and cause of the action against me; I have not been informed if this is a criminal or civil matter, or whether the rules of criminal or civil procedure and evidence apply; I have not been informed of who the complaining party is; I have not been informed of who any prosecutor, plaintiff, or plaintiff's attorney is; and therefore, I have been denied due process, and therefore, this court has lost subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The case must be dimssed, as a matter of law. But I don't (yet) have all the sources and citations to back it up. At a minimum, I should demand that an attorney for the other side file a formal document with the court to inform me of what this action is about. The cop is not an attorney. Of course, I will state that I do not accept the citation as a charging document or a complaint, and will demand a more definite statement.
^ btw ...
If you are still reading this and thinking it over, check out this recent thread on GAW that I just had a chance to look at:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15HvL47Kuk/fifth-circuit-court-rules-sec-ca/c/
It seems the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a similar issue regarding SEC regulatory authority. I would argue that traffic "court" authority is a similar issue at the state level. In fact, I think I will include this case in my motion, just as added authority (although, I realize it is not "on point," but if there is nothing closer to being on point, then the principle stands).