will corpus delicti get me out of a driving on a suspended license charge in MA.?

[fruitrollup]

sounds like with out it they cant proceed if theres no c.d.? has anyone tried this one?

 

[andar]

I don't think you understand what that term means. It just means they have to prove a crime was comitted (you driving without liscense) before they can convict you. The cops have records of your liscense being suspended so it would be simple for them to prove you didn't have it. You aren't getting out of it

 

[fruitrollup]

whats a crime? with all crimes there must be a corpus delicti. elements of corpus delicti are injury loss or harm and a criminal agency that causes injury loss or harm. no victim, no c.d., no case. there are no allegations of injury crimes have victims no vic no case. im cramming my marc stevens and becoming a real american. this is just one aspect of my defense.he has a ton of shit thats like mind games and simple law contradictions youd be shocked at america ive been watching marcs stuff for free and if it really works as good as a lot of it really sounds he deserves to be sent some money or something he rules... but how bout this c.d in massachusetts kids! any thinking caps wanna comment from experiance? to have standing a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendants alleged unlawful conduct that is from the supreme court allen v. wright

 

[andar]

Wow you are one confused individual. You don't have to hurt someone physically to commit a crime. You can do things like steal or in your case drive without a liscense. If you got pulled over with no liscense then you commited the crime of driving without a liscense. They have proof that you were doing that because you got pulled over and they caught you. This is a very simple case they have against you. Now if they tryed to accuse you of murder but had no evidence that anyone was murdered and no circumstantial evidence then you would have no c.d.

 

[fruitrollup]

with stealing there is a loss so thats different than driving issues. driving on a suspended license has no injury loss or harm and they have no standing according to allen v. wright in supreme court ruling. so i hear

 

[Murfy]

he is correct-

in order for action their MUST be injury. loss, theft, property damage, etc.. that is what the constitution says anyway. making the government follow the rules is the tough part. also it would seem that the judge deciding the case works for the same corporation as the police. the state. that would be a conflict of interest in the common language of the constitution.

i believe laws are confusing by design. for the purpose of obfuscating the constitution, and so regular americans can't understand they are doing it.

i have known people that used this defense regularly for driving offenses. he was of the opinion that he didn't need one because he was traveling, and not driving(a term that involves commerce). he also believed that taxes were illegal(it would seem, from reading the constitution, they ARE). so he beat every traffic case (under appeal mostly), but went to prison for tax evasion.

 

[IAm5toned]

the loss was to the state, in his renewal fee.
theres no getting out of it using CP as a defense.

 

[EvolAlex]

i say go for it and let us know how it turns out.

 

[doowmd]

i would be interested in learning more about this: Corpus Delecti defense.
Murfy, what state did ur friend use this defense successfully to beat "traveling" tickets? i ask because i'n wondering if it was a commonwealth state or not, and whether that would make a difference in using this defense?

 

[Murfy]

but, not paying the renewal is not what he's charged with. directly anyway, i tis the underlying motive though.-

i twas put to me like this, " a cowboy rides through town (sans cows) and is confronted by the sheriff. just traveling/passing through sheriff. or he has his cows and is [driving] across the land".
that made sense to me because it was terminology i have heard in lessons of history in the U.S.. when driving you are involved in the act of commerce and traveling simultaneously

from uslaw.com;
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary," "common law," or "prerogative writs," which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. When the original 13 American Colonies declared independence and became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.


so according to that the police officer must prove he is qualified to even OFFER the testimony against you, and that he must ahve standing.


which as specified by wikipedia(same answers as law .com);

Standing requirements

There are three standing requirements:

1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[5]
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

 

[blazin256]

read this, it might help.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

 

[fruitrollup]

but, not paying the renewal is not what he's charged with. directly anyway, i tis the underlying motive though.-

im a little worried about them twisting up some kind of money loss on this? also i was originally pulled over for not having the little reg. sticker that goes on your back license plate. nowhere on the ticket does it say anything about the reg sticker, just driving on a suspended. could this little factoid help me out at all? he would not have seen my license with out pulling me over for that and its not on the ticket? He actually let me go after giving all my stuff back the first time. when i looked to pull in the road i see him running after me for round 2 because he forgot to run my license, the idiot, does this help?

 

[tip top toker]

lol, somehow i don't think you're getting out of this one, man up and take responsibility for your actions

 

[Murfy]

how about we make the judge man up and obey the constitution. he swore to do it anyway-

it would seem that charging you a fee to travel as a citizen on a road you own, is illegal. due the U.S. constitution. i am revoked for life. this directly relates to me as i have chidren and not being able to travel makes my life a bitch. and it affects my children. how can that be in america where my rights are guaranteed?

the internet is spreading the truth fast. politicians are done fucking it up. i just won't take it anymore.

research this topic. learn these LAWS, have them in writing and present them to the judge. you will at the least get years of adjournments, due to the fact the judge can't circumvent the constitution, and probably NOT want to admit it.

 

[tip top toker]

it would seem that charging you a fee to travel as a citizen on a road you own, is illegal. due the U.S. constitution..

So who do you think is responsible for carrying out repairs and making laying new roads?

 

[fruitrollup]

read this, it might help.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

thanks a few good points in there!

 

[fruitrollup]

lol, somehow i don't think you're getting out of this one, man up and take responsibility for your actions

not if I can help it

 

[fruitrollup]

So who do you think is responsible for carrying out repairs and making laying new roads?

me and everybody else who paid for it

 

[Murfy]

we the people, solely pay for the road-

it belongs to us. it is public property.

and having been involved in construction with an emphasis on excavating my whole life, those jobs are cash cows.

 

[fdd2blk]

im a little worried about them twisting up some kind of money loss on this? also i was originally pulled over for not having the little reg. sticker that goes on your back license plate. nowhere on the ticket does it say anything about the reg sticker, just driving on a suspended. could this little factoid help me out at all? he would not have seen my license with out pulling me over for that and its not on the ticket? He actually let me go after giving all my stuff back the first time. when i looked to pull in the road i see him running after me for round 2 because he forgot to run my license, the idiot, does this help?

you're driving on a suspended with no registration and you think the cop is the idiot?

pay your bills and stop wasting tax money tying up the court system. you are GUILTY. pay your fines and learn your lesson.