Law

[Sapiens]

The Secret Of The Special Maritime Jurisdiction

http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20...%20Exposed.pdf

A brief dissertation exposing the true nature and cause of modern criminal accusations by Valiant Liberty.

.pdf file.

Many secrets are now being revealed.

If blocked try this link: http://datadepository.googlepages.co...20Exposed1.pdf

[Sapiens]

Re: Law

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

VALIANT LIBERTY

2003

There is a void in the law because the US Congress abrogated the gold clause without authority. It is up to the US Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but Congress also has the authority to borrow on the full faith and credit of the United States. On the other hand, the states are prohibited from issuing bills of credit and making anything other than gold and silver coin a legal tender. When all the gold and silver coinage was removed from circulation by Presidential edict and legislative fiat (beginning in 1933 and aided and abetted by series of legislative enactments culminating in 1976 or 77), the states could not function as de jure states of the United States because they could not lawfully collect taxes; they were insolvent; they had a serious cash flow problem caused by omissions of the US Congress. This vacuum created a void in the law. When there is a vacuum or void in nature, or in the law, something is going to rush in and fill the vacuum. When a void occurs in the law, equity will rush in and fill the void, because if the law cannot provide a remedy, equity will.

With substantive money steadily disappearing from circulation at an alarming rate,(until it disappeared altogether by 1977 and is today as extinct as the dodo, all that remains of the money are a few fossilized remnants of the coinage hanging on charm bracelets or exclusively circulating among collectors and speculators without parity) the US Congress chose to borrow credit from a private bank of its own creation (Federal Reserve Bank) for the loan of credit to the United States which would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States (the property within the jurisdiction of the United States and future uncollected taxes generated within the jurisdiction in the US). But, the jurisdiction of the United States was limited to the District of Colombia and the territories and the property in this limited jurisdiction was insufficient to back the tremendous amount of credit needed to fill the needs of commerce in the US and several states. So, President Roosevelt called the governors of the states to Washington and invited them to participate in this scheme and the governors agreed by pledging the faith and credit of the states for the debts of the United States, but even this was not enough collateral; the Fed wanted every property, person, place and thing in the entire country collateralized or hypothecated in its favor and so the federal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction of the United State was extended to include the several states. To get around the Constitutional impediment of the gold clause, New Federal States (referred to in the statutes as this state) were created by operation of law to displace the de jure states. Nature and Necessity demanded that something fill the void. These de facto New Federal States arose by operation of law as resulting trusts to fill the void. There were no Constitutional restrictions on the New States. These New States and the United States doing business as a federal corporation, do business entirely in the equity of commerce and exclusively with commercial paper. They never pay for anything, they just promise to pay with someone elses collateral. The New Federal States are also designated as THE STATE OF DELAWARE, etc., as opposed to the de jure Delaware state. The de jure republic states still exist, they are just dormant and cannot act or do business in commerce because, having no gold or silver coinage and no apparent prospect of getting any, they are insolvent. But now since the New States and the United States Inc. do business exclusively with bills of credit and other forms of commercial paper, they have put themselves under the Clearfield Doctrine and forfeited their sovereignty when conducting business in commerce with commercial paper, which is probably about 95% of their acts.

These New States and the United States Inc., needing ever more collateral to finance the debt obligations of the United States, began to resort more and more to various schemes and artifices to induce the people into accepting trust benefits offered by the New States and further extend the jurisdiction of the United States. They ever need more and more collateral to run their socialist benefits programs because the Federal Reserve Bank is not a charitable organization. Like any other corporation, the Fed has but one purpose, and that purpose is to generate a profit for the stockholders. And the board of directors of the Fed, like any other bank, is not going to make a loan to the United States unless the United States puts up a sufficient amount of collateral to cover the loan.

Over time, the United States, acting in concert with the NEW STATES offered more and more inducements to the people to get them to waive their property rights and liberty and enter into the trust. Once a man was induced to accept a trust benefit, the legislature had him hooked into the jurisdiction of the resulting trust which equates with within the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The benefits offered range from social security benefits, student loans, subsidized or federally insured house loans, farm programs, bank loans, ad infinitum, to the benefit of discharging ones debts with trust money of account, a.k.a., Federal Reserve Notes, instead of extinguishing debt with lawful coinage of the Republic. Once the real flesh and blood man actually accepted trust benefits, the law requires that the trustee of the resulting trust hold the legal title of the mans property in common with everyone elses property in trust for the benefit of all the beneficiaries to prevent one man from unjustly enriching himself in relation to the other beneficiaries. So, since there is no money of the Republic circulating, the presumption must arise as a matter of law that everyone has donated their property to the trust STATE to be held for their own benefit and the benefit of all the other beneficiaries or the trust STATE OF DELAWARE, NEW FEDERAL STATE, or this State. Thus, the beneficiaries can enjoy the use of the trust money of account and re-insure everyone elses debt in a scheme of maritime limited liability. The FRNs are money of the trust account and the PERSONS or beneficiaries do not and can never possess legal title to the FRNs; they can only acquire an equitable title to the trust funds or money of the trust account. In other words, the commercial PERSONS who are beneficiaries of the resulting trust don t own their own money. They only have the use of it. When FRNs or trust money of account is used by the commercial PERSON or beneficiary to purchase goods and services, the PERSON can only acquire an equitable title because the trust is already holding the legal title. The trustee is the legislature of this STATE and the legislature is continually modifying the trust instrument, the color of law statutes, that controls the benefits paid out and attempts to control the conduct of the beneficiaries through the imposition of penal provisions written into the trust instrument, for instance the STATE penal code, which holds the real man liable for the conduct of his commercial person in the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME, hence all crimes are commercial crimes, see: 27 CFR Part 72.11. And, to make bad matters worse, the real man, does not even control his labor, because, if his commercial PERSON, is accepting benefits, everything produced by the labors of the real man automatically becomes trust property by operation of law, other wise he is unjustly enriching himself. So, when the real man sends his commercial PERSON into commerce by the use of FRNs he enters into the trust by his PERSONs acceptance of benefits, or even by the presumed acceptance of benefits, real liabilities are incurred on the real man because the real man is presumed to have intended to have conveyed his legal title to his property and labor to the trust to be held in common for the benefit of all and by the new resulting relationship with his PERSON. What do you call that theory of government where the government holds all the property in common for the common good and use? -------Hmmmmmm, -------- Its call communism, isnt it?

To state this another way, John Doe, the real living man was separated from his commercial person JOHN DOE at the time he was presumed to have granted his property to the res of the resulting trust, or this New Federal STATE OF DELAWARE. Thus, John Doe, the living man, is the presumed settlor of the trust res; JOHN DOE, the commercial person, is the presumed beneficiary and THE STATE OF DELAWARE is the presumed name of the trust, with the legislature of this State being the trustee, all of this arising by operation of law and based on the presumed intent and actual conduct of John Doe, the real man, to create a cestui que trust and appoint this State or the STATE OF DELAWARE as trustee. Since John Doe is presumed to have had the intent to donate or grant all his property to the res of the resulting trust, this presumption arising from his use of FRNs and other conduct, he has not only separated his self from his commercial PERSON, he has also separated the legal title of the property that he thinks that he owns lock, stock and barrel from the equitable title of his property. John Doe is presumed to have donated the legal title, and in some cases, as in the matter of his motor vehicle, or any thing that has been issued a certificate of title, has in fact donated the legal title of his property to the resulting trust and is left with only the equitable title, the intent of the transfer is prima facie evident on the face of his certificate of title, and he is left with only ownership, or right of possession and use of the motor vehicle. Since this state now holds the legal title to Johns motor vehicle, this State can dictate when, where, and how fast John can operate the motor vehicle and compel John to indemnify this State from liability in case John does something stupid with this states motor vehicle, in other words, John can be compelled to insure the car. John can be compelled to wear his seat belt. The trust instrument the color of law traffic code demands it because if John is driving this states car without insurance, is not wearing his seat belt and is at fault in a wreck, and for some reason cannot or will not personally pay for the damages, he would be shifting his liability of the damage caused by the wreck onto the other beneficiaries of the trust because this state is the legal owner and ultimately liable for any damages caused; in other words, this State is going to have to pick up the tab for the damages, which will in turn be passed on to the other beneficiaries through higher taxes. John Doe the man, is presumed to have had the intent to create a cestui que trust having himself as the settlor, or donor for the benefit of the commercial person, JOHN DOE with the legislature of this State the trustee appointed by operation of law.

The state congressmen and senators that are the true trustees and are very busy people. They are continually running for office, begging for contributions and passing favors for their campaigns. They dont have time to ADMINISTER the trust. So being trustees, they have the power to appoint trust agents to act on their behalf. This is why all the states enacted State Bar Acts in the 30's. Isnt it amazing that the country muddled along without having state bar associations until the 1930's! When the BARs were created and organized, the legislators then had an immense pool of prospective trust agents which could make claims for enforcement of the trust and collect for injuries and damages caused to the trust or res of the trust. This does not necessarily mean that every attorney is a trust agent, but every attorney, upon admission to the bar is put in the position (or has the capacity) that he is able to accept the benefit of being a trust agent. The attorneys general of the US and the this states are the boss trust agents and make policy for the control all the lesser trust agents, like the local county attorney and district attorney, the bankruptcy trustees, court appointed guardian ad litems, public defenders, etc., but they are all under the control and direction of this states supreme court. Since administrating and enforcing the trust could be a nasty business on occasion, the Bar appointed trust agents need some muscle. So, again, beginning in the mid to late 30's we had the sudden appearance of the ominous STATE POLICE who were commissioned by acts of the legislature of this state much like U.S. Military officers are commissioned by act of the US Congress. The STATE POLICE are law enforcement agents. By law enforcement agents, I think what the legislature really means is TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. The common law peace officers have pretty much gone the way of the dodo and the lawful coinage. It makes one wonder how did the country get along without the STATE POLICE from the time the first English settlers arrived in the early 17th century until the 1930's without suffering total anarchy! And over time, the constitutional peace officer like the local sheriffs and constables became TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS and, by statute, were put under the authority of the STATE POLICE. No, Virginia, the sheriff is not the highest authority in the county anymore. The STATE POLICE are, by whatever name they are called in your state.

The jurisdiction of the local sheriff, STATE POLICE or TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS extends only to the beneficiaries of the trust. If your person is not a beneficiary they cant legally touch you. In fact, if your PERSON is not a beneficiary, you are as foreign to the TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS and this state as the Klingon Empire is to Capt. James T. Kirk. If you are not a beneficiary of the trust and if they mess with you and cause you and injury, or even use your persons NAME, they will be liable under the law for a common law trespass, libel, or both. But beware, the presumption is that everyone is a beneficiary.

When a resulting trust is presumed to have been created, the trustee of the trust has no duties or obligations, excepting that he must return the legal title to the cestui que trust when it is demanded by the cestui que trust. And interestingly enough, it takes extraordinary evidence to prove the existence of a resulting trust. Extraordinary evidence evidently means evidence sufficient to convict in a criminal case, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it take very minimal evidence to put the existence of a resulting trust into question. A denial of intent to create the cestui que trust by the presumed donor of the res under oath would probably be sufficient. Likewise, a denial under oath by the beneficial PERSON of his intent to accept the benefit or of his intent to reject and waive the benefit would probably be sufficient.

Now, if you have been paying attention while reading this drivel, the question foremost in your mind should be, how am I going to regain control of my commercial PERSON and reunite equitable title with the legal title? You are probably thinking, how the hell am I going to truthfully deny that I use Federal Reserve Notes? Well you probably cant. But, the use of FRNs is a compelled benefit because there aint no other money to be had. As a matter of law under the Compelled Benefits Doctrine, a man cannot be held liable for benefits that he is compelled to accept, especially if it is a compelled economic benefit. See: Maynard Mehl V. John H. Norton, No. 31,338, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 201 Minn. 203; 275 N.W. 843; 1937 Minn.

So, it is really quite simple, just enter evidence into the record that proves that neither you nor your commercial PERSON had intent to create a cestui que trust, resulting trust, or any other kind of trust or had intent to accept benefits offered by the trust and put a verified claim in Admiralty on the trustee or appropriate trust agent or agents for the legal title to your property. Make a political decision to exit the experiment of social Democracy/American communism and re-enter the land of the Republic. Get your snout out of the public feed trough and stand on your own two feet and be self sufficient and independent as were your forefathers. In other words, grow some backbone and stop nursing Uncle Sams sugar tit. BUST THE TRUST!!

Some think the republic is a goner, dead, kaput, buried and memorialized. NOT SO!! The legislature cannot destroy the Constitution by their own acts and omissions, neither can the President destroy it by Executive Order, nor the judiciary by [mis]interpretation of law. The people created it and only the people can change it or abolish it. It would take another Constitutional Convention by de jure state Citizens to get rid of it. As long as there is one man left on the planet that is an heir of the Constitution and has not reduced himself to the status of a 14th Amendment emancipated slave citizen of the United States within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Republic is alive and well. The Congress, the President, and the Judiciary will protect him and his guaranteed Republican Form of Government from all foreign powers including the foreign this State of trust.

There is really quite a bit more to it than this, but you should get the idea by now and I am going to quit because I am getting tired of writing about this crap, it really gives me a headache when I think about it too much. Bust the trust! You dont want to keep on being a communist, do you?

I been busy with the CONgressional record lately, and there are many things the elected officials are doing that left me scraching my head, as to what was their fundamental authority, seaching for a basis of authority I found those previous posts.

[Sapiens]

Laws, Rules, Regulations.

Laws, Rules, Regulations.

http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/

Laws, Rules, Regulations. You must know the difference between Rules & Laws, or you will be the victim of the bureaucrat's system!


If you don't discover the difference between VOLUNTARY RULES and MANDATORY LAWS you could lose your home, custody of your children, your right to drive or travel in your car, your right to earn a living and engage in commerce, your guns, your freedom of speech and worship, and even your liberty -- you could end up in prison!
INTRODUCTION

The courts, public servants, lawyers and lawmakers are loading you down with rules. They twist the meaning of words to make you believe that the rules are laws you are required to obey. They use trickery and deceit in continued attempts to control and manipulate every facet of your life.

Exposing the multitude of scams and half-truths used by the bureaucrats and power masters is what this book is about. If the current system of ruling by deceit, threats and intimidation is not halted, our Constitution will be changed in a controlled convention and we will all become the controlled subjects of a totalitarian police state - A New World Order!

This book will show you how to recognize the difference between rules, laws and regulations. You will learn how to stop these usurpers of Liberty in the easiest way possible. You will learn how to BREAK THE RULES AND WIN!

People are being defeated by rich and powerful special interests. YOU could easily be the victor when you know their power secret!

How deep does the rabbit hole go? Begin here to try to find out... http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/

[metalman]

Re: Laws, Rules, Regulations.

Laws, Rules, Regulations.

http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/

How deep does the rabbit hole go? Begin here to try to find out... http://www.breaktherulesandwin.com/

all respect but what the fuck is this? looks like an ad for loonies.

[sadsack]

Re: Laws, Rules, Regulations.

all respect but what the fuck is this? looks like an ad for loonies.

About as loony as some disgruntled planters and other men of means hatching a certain conspiracy. I seem to recall Step 1 being "dump tea" . . .

While the ideas are not new, so too can the tactics be considered "antiquated." How can the finer points of Latin save your sovereign rights today? We need higher productivity revolutionary tools . . .

;)

[Sapiens]

Re: Laws, Rules, Regulations.

all respect but what the fuck is this? looks like an ad for loonies.

I do not know what you mean by loonies, however, if you mean by loonies those individuals that question the policies and authority of the State, then they may not be so loony after all.

I discovered the power of contracts early in my adolescence, the essence of contracts rests in language and the definition of the words used therein. Having said that, it should be very obvious the purpose of the graphic, even with the institutional “educational” programming that may currently reside between the observer’s ears.

Rgs,

-Sapiens

[Rajiv]

Re: Laws, Rules, Regulations.

For metalman

In the "Secret History of Credit Cards" video -- the only reason the credit card companies could get away with it was the interpretation by the SCOTUS that the credit card companies could operate in all 50 states from the one state (now two) that did not have anti usury laws -- an interpretation and parsing of language of the law! Now tell me who was violating the intent of the law -- the credit card companies, the SCOTUS or the individual states.

[mercerbear]

Re: Law

I think I just got red-flagged for reading everything posted in this thread. It was pretty dry but you got the doomer in me riled up Sapiens. Time to start stock piling ammo one of these days. I already have the gold and guns.

[Sapiens]

Lawrence Taylor: The DUI Exception to the Constitution

http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html

The DUI Exception to the Constitution

Lawrence Taylor
Click Here to Listen

... been a law professor. He specializes in drunk driving as an attorney. Welcome Larry.

Thank you, Gene. Thank you. Thank for the invitation to speak and to appear and take part in this really exciting gathering. I’ve been looking forward to this for quite a time. Particularly, I’ve been looking forward to coming and listening to my — one of my personal heroes, Charles Murray, speak. And I did listen to him this morning and I was certainly not disappointed — well, maybe a little disappointed. After 27 years of being an attorney and finding out I have absolutely no social value is disappointing, but then I guess Abraham Lincoln would have been disappointed too. We can all just hope and pray very strongly that Mr. Murray is never arrested by a police officer, wrongly or otherwise and forced to confront the powers, overwhelming resources of the state in front of a jury of his peers. Or if he does, let us hope and pray that he knows a very good physician or accountant to defend him.

I hope to convin — is this working? It doesn’t sound like it—I’m getting any—I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, convince some of you, in the next hour that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in our Bill of Rights to our constitution. The single greatest threat is not from China. I don’t think it’s from Choostan. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat as it has always been throughout history is internal. It is from within. I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you the greatest single threat to our freedoms today is a group of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD.

I am fully aware that some of you belong to MADD. And I am certainly not here to make fun. Many of you who are in MADD are — have had tragic losses at the hands of drunk drivers. Others of you here do not belong to MADD, but you have contributed to MADD and many more of you here, perhaps most of you here, are in complete sympathy with their goals and their activities. But I hope to convince you after one hour that you might want to reassess your view of that particular organization.

And I do not take them lightly in terms of their intentions. But we know that throughout history it is the well-intentioned zealots — those who believe strongly in the rightness of their cause — that are most willing to impose those ideas upon others. I do not, by the way, for a moment suggest that we should legalize drunk driving. I'm going to make that clear at the outset. But it is the true believer who is the greatest threat. And I should at the outset acknowledge my tremendous debt to Mr. Eric Hoffer who wrote that book, The True Believer. He was a longshoreman when I was going to school at Berkeley in the 60’s. Did not have a high school education, but he was teaching Philosophy at the University of California Berkeley and wrote this tremendous little jewel of a book that has been terribly influential in my own thinking.

I would like you to imagine for a moment that you’ve gone to a friend’s house for dinner. In the course of a very good dinner you’ve had a couple of glasses of a good Petit Serah and it is now time to drive home. I would like you to imagine that you are on your way home — and, I will tell you parenthetically, by the way, that two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit of .08, or .10 depending on your home state. As you are driving along the highway, you see ahead of you some flashing lights and barricades and police cars accordioned across the highway, with flashing lights directing you into an increasingly small channel. And, as you go in, you are stopped and two police officers approach you and stick a flashlight in your face and say, "Breath on me. Have you been drinking tonight? Please step out of the car."

Some of you say, "Well that can’t happen in the United States. We have the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which says, 'police officers have to have probable cause to stop you. They have to have a reason to believe you’ve done something criminal before they can stop and detain you.'" And so said the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Sitz vs. Michigan. The Supreme Court of Michigan said, "The Fourth Amendment does not permit these types of roadblocks." And reversed the DUI conviction. They went up to the United States Supreme Court, unfortunately and that august body decided 5 to 4 that somewhere in the constitution there is something called a DUI Exception. And in a 5 to 4 vote sent it back to Michigan saying there is no violation here. What’s interesting is the Michigan Supreme Court, bless them, for there are fewer and fewer of them, said, "Well, if you will not protect our citizens in the state of Michigan from this kind of police conduct, we will. And we again reverse the conviction and this time we rely upon our own state constitution." (Applause)

The state of Washington and three other states have followed suit. In 46 states today it is legal to stop you for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you are driving a car. But only to check you out for drunk driving.

You have been stopped, you have been taken out of the car and you have been handcuffed. You are placed in a police vehicle and you are on your way back to the police station. About this time you’re probably wondering — I’ve seen this TV show somewhere — they’re supposed to read me something aren’t they? Something called Miranda? Aren’t I supposed to have a right for an attorney? A right to remain silent? Because, as you’re driving, the officer's asking you all kinds of questions. Like, "Where have you been?" "Where are you coming from?" "How much have you had to drink?" "How long ago was it?" "When was the last drink?" "Do you feel the effects?" "Where are you now?" "What time is it?"

Well, again, a state Supreme Court said, "Hey, this person’s handcuffed under arrest, you’ve got to advise him of his constitutional rights under Miranda." And again, it went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Birkemer vs. McCarty in 1984. The Michigan vs. Sitz case was 1990, by the way. In Birkemer vs. McCarty, the [United] States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, "Well, we really can’t tell you when you’re supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations." So, U.S. Supreme Court has told us we don’t know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later.

Well, about this time you arrive at the police station and the officer takes you into a room and there is this little metal box about the size of an IBM typewriter. Some of you may remember those. And he says breathe in here. And you say, "Wait a minute, I have a right to an attorney. Can I make a phone call?" "No". And he’s right. Only in DUI cases. He’s right. You’re about to give the most incriminating evidence it is possible to give in a DUI case and you have no right to seek the advice of an attorney as to whether to breath into that machine or to attempt a urine or a blood test in the alternative.

And I’m only touching on a few of the problems. In California, for example and in many other states, the law says you have a right to choose between breath, blood and urine. Your choice. We have discovered in California, through our own Supreme Court that when the officer doesn’t give you that choice—just makes you breathe into that little black box—that’s okay. They’re not supposed to do it, but there’s no remedy. There’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t suppress the evidence. Police are not stupid, so now about half of them simply don’t give you that choice, since nothing’s going to happen if they don’t. So you find out that you have no right to consult with an attorney.

Your next thought is, "I don’t know if I trust that little machine. Maybe I should refuse to breath into it. I think I’m okay because, becase as I remember, there’s a Fifth Amendment right in the United States constitution that I don’t have to incriminate myself and, not only that, but if it goes to trial, the prosecutor cannot even refer to the fact that I’ve exercised my Fifth Amendment right."

The South Dakota Supreme Court, in Neville vs. South Dakota agreed a few years ago and they said, "This gentleman refused to incriminate himself by breathing into that machine and it was reversible error for the prosecutor to comment upon that to the jury and tell them that he refused, because he knew he was guilty." Now you’re probably ahead of them. It went to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Neville in 1983 said, "There’s a DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment. There is no right to refuse and the prosecution can comment freely in trial upon that refusal." And they sent it back to South Dakota. And South Dakota said "If you in Washington will not protect our citizens, we will rely upon our own state constitution," and they reversed it again based upon the South Dakota constitution’s provisions against self-incrimination. That’s the last story I have of the State Supreme Court exercising protections of its own citizens.

So, you decide you’re going to breathe into that machine. And you do. You breathe into one end and out the other end comes a piece of paper that says your blood-alcohol concentration is .13. Now, at this point, in most states, the police are supposed to give you a choice as to whether you want a urine or a blood saved as well, so that you have something for your defense attorney to examine with an independent analyst rather than [rely] upon a crime lab of that very same law enforcement agency.

This is called the Trombetta Advisement. They don’t give it usually. They’re supposed to, but if they don’t, no harm, no foul and so it rarely isn’t done. It’s called the Trombetta Advisement because a few years ago, in 1984, a defendant in California said, "Wait a minute, that machine captured my breath and minutes after analyzing it, just purged it into the room air. It could have saved the breath. (Very easy to do. Costs about $1.50 for a special kit to just preserve it.) It could have saved the breath and then my attorney could have had it analyzed by a separate laboratory. You have destroyed evidence that I could have analyzed and may have been exculpatory." This went to the United States Supreme Court and in Trombetta vs. California, the Supreme Court found yet another DUI exception to the constitution and said "Well, it would be nice if they saved the breath, but there’s no obligation to do so. And destruction of that evidence, unless you can prove that it would have been exculpatory, has no impact." So, today it is alright to destroy the evidence after you get your own results and make sure the defense doesn’t get a-hold of it.

Finally, you’re rather outraged because you know you’re not under the influence. You know you’re not over .08, which is the California standard and the standard in about a third of the states today. And in 10 years will be the standard in all of your states because the federal government is telling you that’s what it’s going to be. And the Mothers Against Drunk Driving are ensuring that happens. You decide to go find one of these people completely without any social value and ask them to represent you in trial. You want to tell a jury of 12 of your peers what happened. You want to give your version. So you tell your attorney, "I want a jury trial." Your attorney says, "I am really sorry, but you can’t have one. You see we don’t have jury trials for DUI cases in this state, because in 1989 the United States Supreme Court in Blanton vs. North Las Vegas, a DUI case, said, "There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as it’s not punishable by more than six months in jail."

So, in four states today, obviously including Nevada, you have no right to a jury trial. And the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and a few other organizations are doing everything they can to make sure there are no jury trial rights in other states as well.

All right, we’ve taken a look at what happens to you as you go through the process in terms of any constitutional rights you thought you had. And if you’d been charged with burglary, murder, rape, you would have had those rights. At least for now.

Now, let’s take a look at what the crime itself is. What is the offense you just committed? I will tell you, that when I have clients come in the door, almost none of them know what the crime is and probably half of them don’t know if they’re guilty or not.

In the beginning there was a law. That law said thou shalt not drive under the influence of alcohol. Period. It was a good law. We need it. It addressed the problem. It was fair. Unfortunately, there were some defendants being acquitted. And so an inventor came along and said, "Well, I’ve got this super neat little gizmo here. I call it the Breathomatic. It’s a box and if you breath in this end, out the other end comes this piece of paper and it’ll tell you exactly how much alcohol is in the person’s blood, which is going to the brain."

Cont.. at site

Worth a read.

[c1ue]

Re: Law

From what my police officer friends tell me - the only way out if you are stopped for DUI is refusing to take all tests.

You are presumed guilty and suffer the penalties, but you can then appeal - at least for reinstatement of license, etc.

Furthermore presumption of guilt may not(or may) be the same as conviction.