WA-SWAT raids wrong, empty, condo, homeowner left homeless and $100k in damages

[Wooden Indian]

Someone ban this spamming $#@!tard already.

[jkr]

I believe they are contractors / Mercenaries that's just what I observe from their behavior... I'd like to know if it's true, and how to respond to that

[pcosmar]

Anyone want the truth about this claim made higher up this very thread (that police officers are "private contractors")?

All The Best,

Snoop

Mercenaries.. The Standing Army the Founders warned about..

Police are by definition Control Enforcers.
Police are an Authoritarian construct,, They are necessary only to an Authoritarian Society.

https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

just what is your education kid?

[snoop4truth]

Mercenaries.. The Standing Army the Founders warned about..

Police are by definition Control Enforcers.
Police are an Authoritarian construct,, They are necessary only to an Authoritarian Society.

https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

just what is your education kid?

Hello pcosmar,

Thank you again for your timely comment.

YOUR COMMENT: The Standing Army the Founders warned about..

MY RESPONSE: We do not ELECT the military officers who give soldiers their orders. But, "We the People" do ELECT every single one of our own county sheriffs who give deputies their orders. "We the People" also ELECT every single one of our own city police chiefs who gives orders to police officers. "We the People" also ELECT every single one of our own state governors who give the state police their orders (ex: Highway Patrol) and who name every head of every state agency in the executive branch (DOC, DMV, etc.). "We the People" ELECT every single one of our own presidents who give orders to federal marshals and who name the head of every federal agency in the executive branch (ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS). So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine every single person in charge of every single law enforcement officer in our entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

What's more, every single law that is ever enforced by any law enforcement officer in our republic was written by people who "We the People" ELECT to write our laws. And, all of these people can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That means that all of our laws reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" as reflected through the ELECTION process. The only limit on these laws is the limitations on the state and federal governments contained in the state and federal constitutions, as interpreted by the state and federal courts. So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process determine every single person who ever writes any law that is ever enforced by any law enforcement officer in the entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Moreover, "we the people" ELECT every single county, circuit and supreme court judge who ever presides over any state court case (traffic, most criminal, divorce/custody/support, debt, foreclosure, etc.). "We the People" also ELECT every single person who nominates and who approves of every single district, circuit and supreme court judge who ever presides over any case in the federal court system (federal taxes, bankruptcy, federal rights). So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine who the judge is in every single case in every single court in our entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Further, "We the People" ELECT every single prosecutor and public defender in every case, in every court in the entire state court system. "We the People" also ELECT every single person who appoints every single prosecutor and public defender in every single case, in every single court in the entire federal court system. So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine who will prosecute every single case in every single court in the entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Finally, the parties in every criminal case ACTUALLY PICK THEIR OWN JURIES FROM AMONG "WE THE PEOPLE" who will decide on the question of guilt or innocence. So, in our republican form of government, "WE THE PEOPLE" EVEN DETERMINE WHO IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY (NOT ELECTED PEOPLE, JUDGES OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS)!

Below are the reasons that you will get a fair trial in our republican form of government.

1). Because YOU CO-PICK YOUR OWN JURY (along with the other side) which decides on your GUILT or INNOCENCE (not the ELECTED judge, not the ELECTED prosecutor, not the ELECTED public defender and not the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief, the ELECTED sheriff or the ELECTED governor);
2). Because YOU GET TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE YOUR ACCUSERS in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
3). Because YOU GET TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
4). Because NONE of the WITNESSES that you call to testify IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK are employed or paid by the state;
5). Because neither the ELECTED judge, the ELECTED prosecutor, nor the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief receives a dime of any fine that you might pay in the event that the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;
6). Because THE STATE has the legal burden to prove to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (meaning about a 95% certainty), OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
7). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by "clear and convincing evidence" (meaning about a 75% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
8). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning about a 51% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
9). Because, under the law, the decision of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK MUST BE "UNANIMOUS". If only ONE juror WHO YOU CO-PICK votes "NOT GUILTY", YOU CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY. SO, ALL YOU NEED IS ONE MEMBER OF THE JURY ON YOUR SIDE! ONE! On the other hand, THE STATE MUST GET THE VOTE OF EACH AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE JURY (example ALL TWELVE of them)!
10). Because, under the law, you DO NOT have the legal burden TO PROVE ANYTHING to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK. This means you DO NOT have to prove you are innocent in order to be acquitted. Instead, under the law, the STATE has the legal burden to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK in order for you to be convicted;
11). Because under the fifth amendment, you cannot be required to even testify at all, much less testify against yourself;
12). Because the judge IS ELECTED by the public to be neutral;
13). Because the prosecutor IS ELECTED by the public to be fair;
14). Because the cop works for THE ELECTED police chief to uphold the law;
15). Because your trial will be in "open court" in public for all the world to see, not in secret;
16). Because all testimony and all documents and things admitted into evidence ARE RECORDED and saved for years, even decades;
17). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that you have the RIGHT TO APPEAL if these rules are not followed or if a legal mistake is made;
18). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that JUDICIAL and PROSECUTORIAL misconduct can (and does) result in permanent disbarment;
19). Because the statute you were charged with in the first place was written by lawmakers ELECTED by the public to reflect the will of the public, not to be harsh and punitive.

QUESTION: Can you possibly think of anything else that could possibly make this system more fair than it already is? If so, then what?


YOUR COMMENT: Police are, by definition, Control Enforcers.

MY RESPONSE: Police officers act under the supervision of the Police Chief who "We the People" ELECT to govern their behavior. Deputies act under the supervision of the Sheriff who "We the People" ELECT to govern their behavior. Their job is to enforce the laws written by those people that "We the People" ELECT to write our laws.


MY RESPONSE: Police are an Authoritarian construct,, They are necessary only to an Authoritarian Society.

MY RESPONSE: The authority of law enforcement comes from "We the People". The law that is enforced is written by people that "We the People" ELECT to write our laws (including the law governing the behavior of law enforcement officers). Those who employ and supervise law enforcement officers are also ELECTED by "We the People". All of these people can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process.

In our republican form of government, "We the People" EMPOWER all of these people to do what they do through the ELECTION process. Thomas Jefferson said that it is through their (a PLURAL term) votes (a PLURAL term) that the people (a PLURAL term) exercise their (a PLURAL term) sovereignty.

YOUR COMMENT: https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

MY RESPONSE: Went there. Thanks.

YOUR COMMENT: just what is your education kid?

MY RESPONSE: I have a Doctor's Degree In The Law and a Bachelor's Degree In Public Administration. That makes me an expert in the legal (and governmental) system.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

[snoop4truth]

I believe they are contractors / Mercenaries that's just what I observe from their behavior... I'd like to know if it's true, and how to respond to that

Hello jkr,

That claim that Rodney DALE Class made to the effect that all police officers are "private entities" or "private contractors" is a hoax. If you are interested, I can show you the hoax and how I debunked it.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

[Origanalist]

Someone ban this spamming $#@!tard already.

I second that.

[ATruepatriot]

Hello jkr,

That claim that Rodney DALE Class made to the effect that all police officers are "private entities" of "private contractors" is a hoax. If you are interested, I can show you the hoax and how I debunked it.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

We wanted to hear that since they are required to get a bond they are contractors just like any other bonded contractor. lol

[snoop4truth]

No King But Jesus.

We have a defender of Usurped Authority .. an Authoritarian who believes in the State and it's Corrupted Court System..

Yes,, I am a Sovereign Human Individual..

Hello pcosmar,

Thank you for your comment.

YOUR COMMENT: We have a defender of Usurped Authority...

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. I support the rights of the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY in the form of their ELECTED government of the state. I also support the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) as set forth in the federal and state constitutions as interpreted by the courts.

YOUR COMMENT: an Authoritarian who believes in the State.

MY RESPONSE: In terms of citizenry, the term "state" means ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDARIES. So, in terms of citizenry, THE STATE IS THE PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) AS A WHOLE WHO RESIDE WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDARIES. Under our republican form of government, the laws of the state reflect the will of the majority of the PEOPLE as determined by the ELECTION process. All such laws are valid and constitutional, except for those very few that violate a provision of the state or federal constitutions. Because I support the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term), I support the state (which is simply all of the PEOPLE AS A WHOLE who reside within certain borders).

But, this does not mean that I do not support the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term). To the contrary, I do. Under our republican form of government, the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) are contained in the federal and state constitutions. If a law passed by the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) violates the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) as set forth in the state or federal constitution, then I will stand with the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) against the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term). Otherwise, I stand with the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term).

The fundamental mistake made by all amateur legal theorists is their inability to understand that, under our republican form of government, the rights of the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY in the form of their ELECTED government of the state is almost unlimited and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) are ONLY those few rights set forth in the state and federal constitutions FOR THE INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term). Amateur legal theorists confuse the rights of the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) with the rights of the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term). Generally, in our republican form of government, the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY AS A WHOLE have many, many more rights than the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term).

In the phrase, "We the PEOPLE", the term "PEOPLE" (a PLURAL term) does NOT apply to the INDIVIDUAL. Instead, in the phrase, "We the PEOPLE", the term "PEOPLE" (a PLURAL term) applies TO THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, in the form of their ELECTED government of the state (or UNION of states, which is also a state). Likewise, in the phrase, "Consent of the GOVERNED", the term "GOVERNED" (a PLURAL term) does not apply to the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term). Instead, in the phrase, "Consent of the GOVERNED", the term "GOVERNED" (a PLURAL term) applies TO THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, in the form of their ELECTED government of the state (or UNION of states, which is also a state).

YOUR COMMENT: and it's Corrupted Court System..

MY RESPONSE: There may be isolated players in the court system that are corrupt. But, there is nothing about the court "system" (which was designed by our founding fathers) that is "corrupt" system-wide. Do you have a specific complaint of corruption?

YOUR COMMENT: Yes, I am a Sovereign Human Individual.

MY RESPONSE: You may be a freedom lover. That is perfectly fine. You may oppose all authority figures (politicians, police, judges, prosecutors, etc.). That is perfectly fine. You may oppose our ELECTED, republican form of government. That is perfectly fine. You may oppose all governmental rules and regulation. That is perfectly fine. But respectfully, you are not a sovereign human individual.

Under American law, the term, "sovereign", only applies to governments, not to individuals. Under American law, because you are not a government, you cannot be sovereign. This is why every amateur legal theorist who ever claims to be sovereign with police officers and with judges always lose on that issue. They simply do not know the legal meaning of the word, "sovereign" (which actually means " government").

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

[brushfire]

  #!/bin/rptroll_engine
  yourcomment()
  {
    printf "%s\n" "YOUR COMMENT: "${YOUR_COMMENT}"
  }
  myresponse()
  {
    printf "%s\n" "MY RESPONSE: "${MY_RESPONSE}"
  }
  while true
  do
      yourcomment
   myresponse
       printf "%s\n" "I hope this helps"
   sleep 3600
  done

[Origanalist]

[Anti Globalist]

I bet all those SWAT officers gave themselves a pat on the back.

[snoop4truth]

We wanted to hear that since they are required to get a bond they are contractors just like any other bonded contractor. lol

Hello ATruepatriot,

LOL!

All The Best,

Snoop

[jkr]

Then why do cops claim to be private when ot suits them?
Like when its time to drug test like everyone else?
We know they are allowed to lie...
Why not drop the pretense?
Why use laws to make them a protected class? Are they just a bunch of puss eez?

Why shoot unarmed men woman and children if you are there servant
Oh! They serve "the public",a legal fiction, not me

Not you
Not your 5 lbs chiuaua
Just the state, who is also not me or you

I'll pass

[pcosmar]

  #!/bin/rptroll_engine
  yourcomment()
  {
    printf "%s\n" "YOUR COMMENT: "${YOUR_COMMENT}"
  }
  myresponse()
  {
    printf "%s\n" "MY RESPONSE: "${MY_RESPONSE}"
  }
  while true
  do
      yourcomment
   myresponse
       printf "%s\n" "I hope this helps"
   sleep 3600
  done

Ya think,, ?

[pcosmar]

Snoop

What kind of Crap Lawyer do you claim to be...?

That wall of Text response would be thrown out by a court Clerk,, and laughed at by most judges.

I asked your education..
Now I will give you Mine,, Both College and Seminary,,,closed now.

https://thewalkingtourists.com/the-w...-state-prison/

I learned Freedom there.

Show you are more than an idiot,, though some may be amused by you..

Pull up MY Trial Transcripts. Should be easy for a Lawyer in a Fair System.

Do that,, and I will turn your Red Rep to Green.

[snoop4truth]

What kind of Crap Lawyer do you claim to be...?

That wall of Text response would be thrown out by a court Clerk,, and laughed at by most judges.

I asked your education..
Now I will give you Mine,, Both College and Seminary,,,closed now.

https://thewalkingtourists.com/the-w...-state-prison/

I learned Freedom there.

Show you are more than an idiot,, though some may be amused by you..

Pull up MY Trial Transcripts. Should be easy for a Lawyer in a Fair System.

Do that,, and I will turn your Red Rep to Green.

Hello again pcosmar,

Thank you for your mature, intelligent and scholarly analysis.

YOUR COMMENT: What kind of Crap Lawyer do you claim to be...?

MY RESPONSE: I am a civil litigator. I do not handle criminal cases. I handle only injury and death cases. But, I am nearing retirement.

I have been named a "Lifetime Charter Member" in the "Best Attorneys Of America" and named "Best Attorney" by Rue Ratings (national rating service for attorneys).

For 20 years, I have been a member of the "Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum" (elite society for attorneys who have won multi-million dollar cases) and the "Million Dollar Advocates Forum"(elite society for attorneys who have won million dollar cases).

I also handle civil cases for poor people free of charge.

I hope this helps.

YOUR COMMENT: That wall of Text response would be thrown out by a court Clerk,, and laughed at by most judges.

MY RESPONSE: Why would I file that wall of text in a court in the first place?

It is a 7th grade Civics lesson for those learning the basics about our republic.

Everyone at the courthouse already knows these simple basics about our republic.

That wall of text was not written to be filed at the courthouse.

It was written for those learning the very basics about our republic.

That wall of text simply shows that every single head of every single law enforcement agency in the entire country (city chief, county sheriff, state governor, state agency head, national president, national agency head) is put into power by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly).

It simply shows that every single law enforced by every single law enforcement agency in the entire country is actually written by lawmakers (city council, county commissioners, state lawmakers, federal lawmakers) who are put into power by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (DIRECTLY).

It simply shows that every single judge who ever presides over any case in any courthouse in the entire country (city, county, state federal) is put into power by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly).

It simply shows that every single prosecutor and public defender assigned to any case in any courthouse in the entire nation (city, county, state, federal) is put into power by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly).

Finally, it simply means the parties to every criminal trial ACTUALLY PICK THEIR OWN JURIES (who will decide on the question guilt or innocence) from among "We the People".

And, this does not even include all of the INDIVIDUAL'S state and federal constitutional rights and protections from the PEOPLE of the state or federal government!

I am confused by your remarks.

1. Do you contend that the heads of all law enforcement agencies (listed above) are not put into place by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly)?

2. Do you contend that the lawmakers (listed above) are not put into place by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (DIRECTLY)?

3. Do you contend that the judges (listed above) are not put into place by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly)?

4. Do you contend that the prosecutors and public defenders are not put into place by "We the People" through the ELECTION process (directly or indirectly)?

5. Do you contend that the parties to a criminal case do not pick their own juries (who will decide on the question of guilt or innocence) from among "We the People"?

If not, then what exactly is your complaint?

Why would your oppose an ELECTED legal and governmental system ultimately controlled by "We the People"?

What is wrong with that?

YOUR COMMENT: I asked your education... Now I will give you Mine,, Both College and Seminary,,,closed now. https://thewalkingtourists.com/the-w...-state-prison/

MY RESPONSE: If you really went to college, then you should already know the very basics of our republic as described above (which is actually taught in the 7th grade and only expounded upon in college).

You should already know that ELECTIONS determine everything in a republic.

You should already know that ELECTIONS determine who enforces our laws and how our laws are enforced.

You should already know that ELECTIONS determine who writes the laws and what those laws are.

You should already know that ELECTIONS determine who acts as the "referee" between the opposing parties in a courtroom and who makes the parties follow the rules.

Finally, you should already know that ELECTIONS determine who prosecutes every single criminal case in the country.

YOUR COMMENT: I learned Freedom there.

MY RESPONSE: By the word, "there", do you mean college/seminary?

Or, do you mean the institution depicted in your link?

And, what do you mean by the word, "freedom"?

Do you mean a hatred, opposition and contempt for our republican form of government with ELECTED law enforcement, ELECTED lawmakers, ELECTED judges and ELECTED prosecutors?

If you hate a legal system controlled by "We the People" through the election process, what kind of legal system would you replace it with?

A dictatorial legal system not controlled by "We the People" through the ELECTION process?

An authoritarian legal system not controlled by "We the People" through the ELECTION process?

An enslavement legal system not controlled by "We the People" through the ELECTION process?

YOUR COMMENT: Show you are more than an idiot,,

MY RESPONSE: Why?

This isn't about me or whether I am a perceived idiot.

This is about the truth.

Nothing else matters.

My being a perceived idiot will not make the truth false.

The truth will still be the truth whether I am a perceived idiot or not.

Do not get confused.

MY RESPONSE: though some may be amused by you..

MY RESPONSE: Perhaps they shouldn't be (not, at least, in the derogatory way that you mean it).

YOUR COMMENT: Pull up MY Trial Transcripts. Should be easy for a Lawyer in a Fair System.

MY RESPONSE: You have referred to your trial transcript a couple of times above in this thread.

I take it that you, yourself do not have a copy.

Is this correct?

Why is your trial transcript important to you right now?

Are you simply trying to prove that a miscarriage of justice occurred?

Or, do you want to use your trial transcript in support of an appeal?

Has the time for appeal already transpired?

Would obtaining your transcript make any REAL legal difference in your case at this point?

Do I understand correctly that you want my help in obtaining your trial transcript for you?

If so, send me your name, case number and court name to snoop4truth@gmail.com.

If an appeal was filed, send me the case number on appeal and the name of the court of appeals.

If I can obtain your trial transcript without a law license in your state, if I can obtain your trial transcript without revealing my true identity and without spending too much money for it, I will see what I can do for you.

I am always happy to help.

But, be advised that unless you qualify as an indigent ("forma pauperis") and unless you are filing a timely appeal (in order to justify your trial transcript at state or federal expense), your trial transcript (if it still exists) may cost you money.

If your trial transcript is not available from the trial court or the appellate court, it will still likely be available from the court reporting agency for which the court reporter worked at the time of your trial.

But, that version is likely to be expensive if it still available.

YOUR COMMENT: Do that,, and I will turn your Red Rep to Green.

MY RESPONSE: Your hostile tone is not bothersome to me.

If it was, I would not help you.

But, if you are actually asking me for help, there are more courteous and polite ways to do it.

Just say, "I need your help", like any normal person would do.

Calling me an idiot and simultaneously asking for my help is a bit confused and inconsistent.

Just a thought.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop.

[pcosmar]

Hello again pcosmar,


MY RESPONSE: I am always fascinated by people outside the legal system who try to teach us on the inside of the legal system what goes on inside the legal system. Maybe its just "grandstanding" and "showboating" for other haters on the forum.



Snoop.

Hey Phuckhead..

You don't know What you are SPAMMING about.

You sound like you have a 4th grade Law understanding..

I have in fact ,, been DEEP inside the Legal System.

And the reason I ask for a Trial Transcript,, was multi- purposed.

First,, All Transcripts are Sealed. and that should spark interest in any REAL Lawyer.

Secondly,, if you read it,, you would see that I did not have a trial,, but a rubberstamp hearing..

And seeing that I have completed Three 25yr sentences,,, and am walking around free,, I have every right to chalange your spurious claim of Fairness..

It is a Corrupt and Broken system,,and there is seldom any justice involved.
You get another RED Box instead.

[snoop4truth]

Then why do cops claim to be private when ot suits them?
Like when its time to drug test like everyone else?
We know they are allowed to lie...
Why not drop the pretense?
Why use laws to make them a protected class? Are they just a bunch of puss eez?

Hello jkr (Does this mean, "Joker"?),

Thank you for your comment.

OUR COMMENT: why do cops claim to be private when ot suits them?

MY RESPONSE: They don't.

YOUR COMMENT: Like when its time to drug test like everyone else?

MY RESPONSE: They don't.

YOUR COMMENT: We know they are allowed to lie...

MY RESPONSE: Not under oath and not on police reports.

YOUR COMMENT: Why not drop the pretense?

MY RESPONSE: There is no pretense to drop.

YOUR COMMENT: Why use laws to make them a protected class?

MY RESPONSE: The laws do not make them a protected class.

YOUR COMMENT: Are they just a bunch of puss eez?

MY RESPONSE: Unlikely. As a general rule, puss eez do not undertake careers that put themselves in harm's way until retirement.

YOUR COMMENT: Why shoot unarmed men woman and children if you are there servant

MY RESPONSE: They are trained and authorized to use weapons because the public is authorized to have and use weapons. They are sent into harm's way to protect the public from crime. If they shoot unarmed men, women and children in genuine perceived self-defense, they are not charged with a crime (exactly as any civilian would be treated). On the other hand, if they shoot unarmed, men, women and children NOT in genuine perceived self-defense, they are charged with a crime (exactly as any civilian would be treated).

And, today with the public having video cameras on their phones and cops having chest and dash cameras turned on during encounters, the cops are being held accountable for misconduct as never before. But, the reverse is also true. Many cops are being exonerated from claims of murder by using video evidence in their defense. So, it works both ways.

YOUR COMMENT: Oh! They serve "the public", a legal fiction, not me.
Not you
Not your 5 lb chiuaua
Just the state, who is also not me or you

MY RESPONSE: Yes. They serve the PUBLIC (which means THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE). They do not serve any INDIVIDUAL (A SINGLE PERSON), unless they undertake a special duty to that particular INDIVIDUAL.

YOUR COMMENT: I'll pass

MY RESPONSE: OK

Best Regards,

Snoop

[Danke]

jee, I wonder why in the 1800s "lawyers" were barred from entering so many cities...

[snoop4truth]

Hey Phuckhead..

You don't know What you are SPAMMING about.

You sound like you have a 4th grade Law understanding..

I have in fact ,, been DEEP inside the Legal System.

And the reason I ask for a Trial Transcript,, was multi- purposed.

First,, All Transcripts are Sealed. and that should spark interest in any REAL Lawyer.

Secondly,, if you read it,, you would see that I did not have a trial,, but a rubberstamp hearing..

And seeing that I have completed Three 25yr sentences,,, and am walking around free,, I have every right to chalange your spurious claim of Fairness..

It is a Corrupt and Broken system,,and there is seldom any justice involved.
You get another RED Box instead.

Hello pcosmar,

Thank you again for your mature, intelligent and scholarly analysis.

YOUR COMMENT: Hey Phuckhead, You don't know what you are SPAMMING about.

MY RESPONSE: My results say otherwise.

YOUR COMMENT: You sound like you have a 4th grade Law understanding..

MY RESPONSE: My results say otherwise.

YOUR COMMENT: I have in fact ,, been DEEP inside the Legal System.

MY RESPONSE: Criminal law is but a fraction of the legal system as a whole.

I am sure that you are intimately familiar with your own individual case from your own individual perspective as a layman and defendant.

But, there are other perspectives too. Like society's perspective, which is obviously different than yours.

Regardless, it is obvious that you have suffered greatly.

And, for that, I am profoundly sorry.

It sounds like you believe that you suffered an injustice.

And, this may be entirely true.

But, the reason for this injustice was not the "system" itself.

The "system" itself is ingenious and is designed and intended to be perfectly fair to all sides.

It is designed to see to it that only the guilty are punished and that the innocent are acquitted and walk free.

So, if you were wrongfully convicted or sentenced, that was something that the "system" itself was actually designed and intended to prevent.

So, the "system" itself was not the cause of the problem.

The cause of the problem was something else entirely (perjury, fraud on the court, witness tampering, jury tampering, collusion, corruption, etc.).

YOUR COMMENT: And the reason I ask for a Trial Transcript,, was multi- purposed.

MY RESPONSE: The reason I asked you why you wanted the trial transcript is that the government is required by law to pay for your trial transcript and to send it to the court of appeals for you for free if you are poor and if you filed a timely appeal.

I was simply trying to determine the most cost-effective way for you to get your trial transcript. I was also trying to determine if I could get the government to do my leg work for me.

Finally, I did not want to invest the time and money necessary to obtain the trial transcript for you if it would not make any legal difference in your case anyway. Using such a trial transcript to "pick a bone" with authorities or the witnesses against you (after all this time) would not be productive and might actually be dangerous to all parties involved.

YOUR COMMENT: First,, All Transcripts are Sealed. and that should spark interest in any REAL Lawyer.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. If all trial transcripts were really sealed, then you would have no reason to obtain the sealed trial transcript. You would be unable open it, unable to read it and unable to use it for any purpose. So, you know that this claim is simply not true. Besides even if the trial transcript really is sealed, you can always move for and obtain a court order to open it for good cause.

The general rule in the law (state and federal) is that all court files (including all trial transcripts) are always unsealed and open to the public for viewing.

But, there are some narrow exceptions to this rule.

The courts have the power and obligation to seal the entire court file (or parts thereof) in certain types of cases to protect the privacy of certain litigants in certain types of cases, like juvenile offender cases (to protect the child's privacy), mental competency proceedings (to protect the mental patient's privacy) adoption proceedings (to protect the privacy of the adopted child and the adoptive parents) and sexual assault cases (to protect the victim's privacy and to encourage similar victims to come forward in the future).

The same holds true with respect to trial transcripts (or other parts of the court file). Courts will seal trial transcripts to protect the privacy (or other legitimate interests) of the innocent parties involved.

But, contrary to your understanding, there is no such thing as a blanket rule sealing all trial transcripts. That is simply not true. I have obtained dozens of trial transcripts.

YOUR COMMENT: Secondly,, if you read it,, you would see that I did not have a trial,, but a rubberstamp hearing..

MY RESPONSE: It sounds like you either had the "ineffective assistance of counsel" (a constitutional violation), you were factually guilty of the charge, or both. (Even if you were factually guilty of the charge, you were STILL entitled to the effective assistance of counsel.).

Did you demand a jury? Yes or No?

Did you help pick who was on the jury? Yes or No?

If so on both counts, did the jury find you guilty? Yes or No?

YOUR COMMENT: And seeing that I have completed Three 25yr sentences,,, and am walking around free,, I have every right to chalange your spurious claim of Fairness..

MY RESPONSE: You would have every right to challenge my claims about the fairness of the justice "system" even if you had never served any time.

Regardless, it is obvious that you have suffered tremendously at the hands of the authorities.

For that, I am so sorry.

Which branch of the government do you blame for the injustice?

Did law enforcement officers who were employed by the ELECTED police chief or the ELECTED sheriff "plant" evidence on you, testify falsely against you or violate your INDIVIDUAL federal Constitutional rights in the Bill Of Rights?

Did the ELECTED lawmakers who wrote the statute(s) that you allegedly violated make the sentence/punishment for your alleged violation too harsh?

Did the ELECTED judge who "refereed" between the opposing parties in court fail in his legal duty to hold the prosecutor to the rules or sentence you to more time in prison than the ELECTED lawmakers dictated in the statute(s)?

Did the ELECTED prosecutor commit prosecutorial misconduct like withhold exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated you, manufacture false evidence against you, elicit perjury from a government witness or spring an undisclosed witness at trial without advance notice?

YOUR COMMENT: It is a Corrupt and Broken system,, and there is seldom any justice involved.

MY RESPONSE: I realize that you will never accept this reality, but the problem is not the "system" itself.

If there was a problem in your particular case, it occurred despite that the "system" itself is specifically designed and intended to prevent it.

Heck, now you have me wanting to read your trial transcript. Go figure.

YOUR RESPONSE: You get another RED Box instead

MY RESPONSE: That is entirely your prerogative.

I respect that.

Whatever makes you feel better.

But remember, I am not here to conform to "group think".

I am not here to validate your belief system about the world.

I am not here to win a popularity contest.

I am here simply to tell the truth.

Nothing else matters.

Everything else is a waste of time.

Best Regards,

Snoop

[pcosmar]

I am simply here to tell the truth.

Nothing more.

No. You are NOT..
You claim to be a Lawyer and I believe you to be nothing but a Liar.

I post under My real name.. (and would be easily searchable,, even for a law clerk)

and I have always been Honest with this Forum..

I believe you are in the wrong place , as you have no regard for this Forum,,or it's members.

[snoop4truth]

No. You are NOT..
You claim to be a Lawyer and I believe you to be nothing but a Liar.

I post under My real name.. (and would be easily searchable,, even for a law clerk)

and I have always been Honest with this Forum..

I believe you are in the wrong place , as you have no regard for this Forum,,or it's members.

pcosmar,

I have enjoyed our dialog and I wish you the best of luck in obtaining your trial transcript and in all of your other legal endeavors.

Best Regards,

Snoop

[jkr]

"uh-uh" is not a retort
everyone here has witnessed their treachery


i guess hes never heard of "professional courtesy " or "qualified immunity"


some animals are more equal AND you slave for their pensions...what a racket!

[UWDude]

Hello pcosmar,

Thank you again for your timely comment.

YOUR COMMENT: The Standing Army the Founders warned about..

MY RESPONSE: We do not ELECT the military officers who give soldiers their orders. But, "We the People" do ELECT every single one of our own county sheriffs who give deputies their orders. "We the People" also ELECT every single one of our own city police chiefs who gives orders to police officers. "We the People" also ELECT every single one of our own state governors who give the state police their orders (ex: Highway Patrol) and who name every head of every state agency in the executive branch (DOC, DMV, etc.). "We the People" ELECT every single one of our own presidents who give orders to federal marshals and who name the head of every federal agency in the executive branch (ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS). So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine every single person in charge of every single law enforcement officer in our entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

What's more, every single law that is ever enforced by any law enforcement officer in our republic was written by people who "We the People" ELECT to write our laws. And, all of these people can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That means that all of our laws reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" as reflected through the ELECTION process. The only limit on these laws is the limitations on the state and federal governments contained in the state and federal constitutions, as interpreted by the state and federal courts. So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process determine every single person who ever writes any law that is ever enforced by any law enforcement officer in the entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Moreover, "we the people" ELECT every single county, circuit and supreme court judge who ever presides over any state court case (traffic, most criminal, divorce/custody/support, debt, foreclosure, etc.). "We the People" also ELECT every single person who nominates and who approves of every single district, circuit and supreme court judge who ever presides over any case in the federal court system (federal taxes, bankruptcy, federal rights). So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine who the judge is in every single case in every single court in our entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Further, "We the People" ELECT every single prosecutor and public defender in every case, in every court in the entire state court system. "We the People" also ELECT every single person who appoints every single prosecutor and public defender in every single case, in every single court in the entire federal court system. So, in our republican form of government, "We the People", through the ELECTION process, determine who will prosecute every single case in every single court in the entire country. And, all of them can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process too. That is slightly different than a standing army.

Finally, the parties in every criminal case ACTUALLY PICK THEIR OWN JURIES FROM AMONG "WE THE PEOPLE" who will decide on the question of guilt or innocence. So, in our republican form of government, "WE THE PEOPLE" EVEN DETERMINE WHO IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY (NOT ELECTED PEOPLE, JUDGES OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS)!

Below are the reasons that you will get a fair trial in our republican form of government.

1). Because YOU CO-PICK YOUR OWN JURY (along with the other side) which decides on your GUILT or INNOCENCE (not the ELECTED judge, not the ELECTED prosecutor, not the ELECTED public defender and not the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief, the ELECTED sheriff or the ELECTED governor);
2). Because YOU GET TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE YOUR ACCUSERS in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
3). Because YOU GET TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
4). Because NONE of the WITNESSES that you call to testify IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK are employed or paid by the state;
5). Because neither the ELECTED judge, the ELECTED prosecutor, nor the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief receives a dime of any fine that you might pay in the event that the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;
6). Because THE STATE has the legal burden to prove to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (meaning about a 95% certainty), OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
7). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by "clear and convincing evidence" (meaning about a 75% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
8). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning about a 51% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
9). Because, under the law, the decision of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK MUST BE "UNANIMOUS". If only ONE juror WHO YOU CO-PICK votes "NOT GUILTY", YOU CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY. SO, ALL YOU NEED IS ONE MEMBER OF THE JURY ON YOUR SIDE! ONE! On the other hand, THE STATE MUST GET THE VOTE OF EACH AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE JURY (example ALL TWELVE of them)!
10). Because, under the law, you DO NOT have the legal burden TO PROVE ANYTHING to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK. This means you DO NOT have to prove you are innocent in order to be acquitted. Instead, under the law, the STATE has the legal burden to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK in order for you to be convicted;
11). Because under the fifth amendment, you cannot be required to even testify at all, much less testify against yourself;
12). Because the judge IS ELECTED by the public to be neutral;
13). Because the prosecutor IS ELECTED by the public to be fair;
14). Because the cop works for THE ELECTED police chief to uphold the law;
15). Because your trial will be in "open court" in public for all the world to see, not in secret;
16). Because all testimony and all documents and things admitted into evidence ARE RECORDED and saved for years, even decades;
17). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that you have the RIGHT TO APPEAL if these rules are not followed or if a legal mistake is made;
18). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that JUDICIAL and PROSECUTORIAL misconduct can (and does) result in permanent disbarment;
19). Because the statute you were charged with in the first place was written by lawmakers ELECTED by the public to reflect the will of the public, not to be harsh and punitive.

QUESTION: Can you possibly think of anything else that could possibly make this system more fair than it already is? If so, then what?


YOUR COMMENT: Police are, by definition, Control Enforcers.

MY RESPONSE: Police officers act under the supervision of the Police Chief who "We the People" ELECT to govern their behavior. Deputies act under the supervision of the Sheriff who "We the People" ELECT to govern their behavior. Their job is to enforce the laws written by those people that "We the People" ELECT to write our laws.


MY RESPONSE: Police are an Authoritarian construct,, They are necessary only to an Authoritarian Society.

MY RESPONSE: The authority of law enforcement comes from "We the People". The law that is enforced is written by people that "We the People" ELECT to write our laws (including the law governing the behavior of law enforcement officers). Those who employ and supervise law enforcement officers are also ELECTED by "We the People". All of these people can be replaced by "We the People" through the ELECTION process.

In our republican form of government, "We the People" EMPOWER all of these people to do what they do through the ELECTION process. Thomas Jefferson said that it is through their (a PLURAL term) votes (a PLURAL term) that the people (a PLURAL term) exercise their (a PLURAL term) sovereignty.

YOUR COMMENT: https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

MY RESPONSE: Went there. Thanks.

YOUR COMMENT: just what is your education kid?

MY RESPONSE: I have a Doctor's Degree In The Law and a Bachelor's Degree In Public Administration. That makes me an expert in the legal (and governmental) system.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop

ar3 U A b07?

[Origanalist]

Dedicated to @snoop4truth

[snoop4truth]

ar3 U A b07?

UWDude,

LOL!

Love it.

Nope.

Best,

Snoop

[pcosmar]

Snoop

MY RESPONSE: I have a Doctor's Degree In The Law and a Bachelor's Degree In Public Administration. That makes me an expert in the legal (and governmental) system.

I Have A Maters Degree in Survival.
I have also Completed 3 ,, 25yr sentences for Armed Robbery.
Though there was an extensive Law Library at my disposal,, it was only a side study..

I have likely been inside of more courtrooms than you. Given I have been jailed in three States,, and dealt with both Criminal and Civil Matters.. And Yes I have argued my case before more than one Judge.



I am quite aware of Real World Applications of the LAW.


I am looking for that Fictitious Good Lawyer I have often heard about.
and apparently you ain't it.

http://pcosmar.blogspot.com/

[snoop4truth]

"uh-uh" is not a retort
everyone here has witnessed their treachery


i guess hes never heard of "professional courtesy " or "qualified immunity"


some animals are more equal AND you slave for their pensions...what a racket!

Hello jkr,

Thank you for your timely comment:

YOUR COMMENT: "uh-uh" is not a retort.

MY RESPONSE: I have no idea what this means. You lost me on this one. Sorry.

YOUR COMMENT: everyone here has witnessed their treachery

MY RESPONSE: Everyone here has witnessed what they PERCEIVE as their treachery. But, what is REAL treachery and what is PERCEIVED treachery are two entirely different things. Unless a rogue cop actually violates the law and the legal system, their was no REAL treachery, their was only PERCEIVED treachery. The legal system itself is specifically designed and intended to prevent treachery and corruption.

Consider this. The cops do not make the laws which they are REQUIRED to enforce. Instead, ELECTED lawmakers do that. The cops do not preside over court cases or sentence the accused in accordance with the law. The ELECTED judges do that.

The authority of the cops is limited to citing for violations of non-criminal laws passed by ELECTED lawmakers and in the event of a CRIMINAL violation of law passed by ELECTED lawmakers, arresting and charging the accused.

Again, there are individual cops who are corrupt, dishonest and even criminal. But, the legal system itself is not corrupt, dishonest or criminal.

YOUR COMMENT: i guess hes never heard of "professional courtesy"

MY RESPONSE: I have. If practiced by the police, "professional courtesy" is a form of police corruption. But, it is not the law. So, it is not a part of the law or the legal system. Indeed, police engaging in "professional courtesy" constitutes a violation of the laws and the legal system.

YOUR COMMENT: or "qualified immunity"

MY RESPONSE: As an attorney, I am very familiar with qualified immunity. In order to truly understand qualified immunity, you need a little history on "SOVEREIGN" ("GOVERNMENTAL") immunity.

In England (where much of out law comes from), a subject (a person) could not sue the KING (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") under the rationale that the KING (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") "could do no wrong" (a legal fiction).

Likewise, in England, a subject could not sue individual employees of the KING (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") as long as they were acting on behalf of the KING (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") and in the course and scope of their duties for the KING (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT").

But in our country, we rejected the notion of a single "MONARCHY", a government by the KING or QUEEN.

Instead, we opted for a REPUBLICAN form of government (a government by ELECTED representatives of "We the People").

So in our country, the ELECTED government of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY speaking with a single voice (called the "STATE") replaced the "MONARCH" (KING or QUEEN) and the "STATE" (meaning ALL of the people residing within certain borders speaking with a SINGLE VOICE) became the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT".

At first (just like in England), a citizen could not sue the "STATE" (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT" of "We the People").

Likewise (just like in England), a citizen could not sue individual employees of the STATE (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") as long as they were acting on behalf of the STATE (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT") and in the course and scope of their duties for the STATE (the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT").

But, many (CORRECTLY) saw this as unfair. After all, employees of the "SOVEREIGN"/"GOVERNMENT" (the STATE) can and do make mistakes which can harm individuals.

So, the federal government and the government of every state PARTIALLY "WAIVED" ("gave up") their legal protection from being sued (called "SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY").

Under this PARTIAL WAIVER OF "SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY", citizens can now sue the STATE (the "SOVEREIGN") for mistakes of STATE employees (which cause harm) while performing "MINISTERIAL" (mandatory, non-discretionary) duties, like carrying out orders.

But, because this WAIVER of "SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY" was only "PARTIAL", citizens still cannot sue the STATE (the "SOVEREIGN") for mistakes of STATE employees (which cause harm) while performing "DISCRETIONARY" (optional, planning, non-ministerial) duties, like giving orders.

So, you cannot sue the state for a state employee giving a negligent order, but you can sue the state for a state employee negligently carrying out an order.

Example: Paul Plaintiff lives in a state where the Governor has ordered the Highway Patrol not to engage in high speed motor vehicle chases of suspects because of the danger to innocent motorists. Trooper Tom negligently smashes into Paul Plaintiff's car during a high speed motor vehicle chase of a suspect. Paul Plaintiff can sue the state Trooper Tom's negligence in failing to obey his orders and in negligently causing the crash.

Example: Paul Plaintiff lives in a state where the Governor has ordered the Highway Patrol to engage in high speed motor vehicle chases of suspects regardless of the danger to innocent motorists. Trooper Tom negligently smashes into Paul Plaintiff's car during a high speed motor vehicle chase of a suspect. Paul Plaintiff can not sue the state for the Governor's negligence in contributing to the crash, but can sue the state for the Trooper Tom's negligence in causing the crash.

That is what is called, "qualified [sovereign] immunity" (the immunity depends on the kind of activity involved).

In most state and federal jurisdictions, most individual employees of the state/federal government still cannot be sued in their individual capacity, so long as they were acting in the course and scope of their duties for the state (although suits against some state or federal agencies can be brought NOMINALLY against the head of the agency, but that agency head has no individual liability if acting within the course and scope of his duties for the state).

YOUR COMMENTS: some animals are more equal

MY RESPONSE: Cops can be CRIMINALLY CHARGED AND CONVICTED for violating the law, just like everybody else ("sovereign immunity" will not protect them in CRIMINAL CASES).

"Sovereign immunity" only applies in CIVIL LAWSUITS.

YOUR COMMENT: AND you slave for their pensions...what a racket

MY RESPONSE: Well, in fairness to the cops, they slave for their pensions too, some at great risk to life and limb.

If you have a verifiable example of police treachery, please let me know.

I am always interested in learning about the event or events that triggered a person's perception that the cops are "treacherous".


Best Regards,


Snoop

[pcosmar]

I am always interested in learning about the event or events that triggered a person's perception that the cops are "treacherous".

Could be my Broken Back from one driving his Knee into it.

Could be 45 years of observation since the first one cocked a gun at my head.

Could be the "Sticky" Thready just above.. "The Counted"

It could be the long and brutal history of Authoritarianism.

The Phucking Mercenaries have never been anything but a threat to Life and Liberty.

https://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

Abhorrent is a good word.

[pcosmar]