|
Written records of
interrogations of criminal suspects in Leiden, Netherlands between 1678 and
1794 formed the basis of an analysis of offense patterns for male and female
offenders in that impoverished industrial city during that period.
Data
were gathered on the suspect's name, age, sex, birthplace, address, marital
status, children, occupation, spouse's occupation, location and nature of the
offense, prior offenses, disposition, and related information.
Results
revealed that male suspects were involved in 1,266 cases and female suspects in
1,012 cases.
The men were accused of 1,638 crimes and the women of
1,198 crimes.
The main gender differences in offenses related to moral
offenses and violence.
Women committed more moral offenses, while men
committed more violent offenses.
Men were also more likely than women
to be involved in public order offenses, but only small differences were found
in property offenses.
In addition, women tended to commit their crimes
alone, whereas men tended to act in groups.
Furthermore, short prison
sentences were usually given in cases involving violence, drunkenness, and
other offenses; 299 men and 188 women were
flogged,
branded, or physically
punished in another way.
Some men received death
sentences after a long series of property crimes.
Corpus Delicti
"For a crime to
exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be
no sanction or penalty
imposed on one because of this Constitutional right." Sherer v. Cullen 481
F. 945: "With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face". Gibson v.
Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512
Supreme courts ruled "Without Corpus delicti there
can be no crime""In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish
the "corpus delecti", i.e., the body or elements of the crime." People v.
Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
"In every criminal trial, the
prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime
itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal
agency as its cause. " People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting
People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46
P.3d 372.].
"As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial
process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant
has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either
suffered or is about to suffer an injury. " People v. Superior Court, 126
Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
"Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable
controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal.
Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) "Typically, … the
standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint's
allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an
adjudication of the particular claims asserted. " (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468
U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally
revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer
some injury, actual or threatened. " Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45
Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
There are seven elements of jurisdiction and
every element MUST be met in order for the court to proceed.
SEVEN
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:
1. The accused must be properly identified,
identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The
individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be
subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost
always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF
IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED
WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no
constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th
Amendment; also see, Brown vs. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v. Lawson 461 US
352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or
common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy
of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or
even low-level bureaucratic orders
(example: colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an
unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed
sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by
alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be
declared to be a crime. Charges must meet the statutory definition of an
offense without exception.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial
language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to
understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act
or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be
described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of
the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a
statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated.
Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third
party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some
certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not
an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen
may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must
make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else
testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as
direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of
perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.
Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply
with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the
accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law,
procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined
probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be
abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to
deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of
defective process.
"The essential elements of due process are notice and
an opportunity to defend. "Simon v. Craft, 182 US 427. "one is not entitled to
protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct
answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must
determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken
in his refusal. "Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)
7. The
court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the
tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its
creation, i.e., Article III judge. Lacking any of the seven elements or
portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all
designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the
defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of
sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is
no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense.
Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings
prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven
elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by
government are often unlawful. Most
bureaucrats lack
elementary knowledge and
incentive to comply
with the mandates of constitutional due
process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted
without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today,
informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than
due process of law.
Jurisdiction, once challenged,
is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert
jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The
court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, "McNutt
v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp, 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be
found in "MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2
U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
 |
|
 
 |
This web site is not a commercial web site and
is presented for educational
purposes only.
This website defines a
new perspective with which to engage reality to which its author adheres. The
author feels that the falsification of reality outside personal experience has
forged a populace unable to discern propaganda from
reality and that this has been done purposefully by an international
corporate cartel through their agents who wish to foist a corrupt version of
reality on the human race. Religious intolerance occurs
when any group refuses to tolerate religious practices, religious beliefs or
persons due to their religious ideology. This web site marks the founding of a
system of philosophy named The Truth of the Way of the Lumière Infinie -
a rational gnostic mystery religion based on reason which requires no leap of
faith, accepts no tithes, has no supreme leader, no church buildings and in
which each and every individual is encouraged to develop a personal relation
with the Creator and Sustainer through the pursuit of the knowledge of reality
in the hope of curing the spiritual corruption that has enveloped the human
spirit. The tenets of The Truth of the Way of the Lumière Infinie are
spelled out in detail on this web site by the author. Violent acts against
individuals due to their religious beliefs in America is considered a "hate
crime."
This web site in no way condones violence. To the contrary the
intent here is to reduce the violence that is already occurring due to the
international corporate cartels
desire to control the human
race. The international corporate cartel already controls the world
economic system, corporate media worldwide, the global industrial military
entertainment complex and is responsible for the collapse of morals, the
elevation of self-centered behavior and the destruction of global ecosystems.
Civilization is based on coöperation. Coöperation does not occur at
the point of a gun.
American social mores and values have declined
precipitously over the last century as the corrupt international cartel has
garnered more and more power. This power rests in the ability to deceive the
populace in general through corporate media by pressing emotional buttons which
have been preprogrammed into the population through prior mass media
psychological operations. The results have been the destruction of the family
and the destruction of social structures that do not adhere to the corrupt
international elites vision of a
perfect world. Through distraction and coercion the direction of thought of
the bulk of the population has been directed toward solutions proposed by the
corrupt international elite that further consolidates their power and which
further their purposes.
All views and opinions presented on this web
site are the views and opinions of individual human men and women that, through
their writings, showed the capacity for intelligent, reasonable, rational,
insightful and unpopular thought. All factual information presented on this web
site is believed to be true and accurate and is presented as originally
presented in print media which may or may not have originally presented the
facts truthfully. Opinion and thoughts
have been adapted, edited, corrected, redacted, combined, added to, re-edited
and re-corrected as nearly all opinion and thought has been throughout time but
has been done so in the spirit of the original writer with the intent of making
his or her thoughts and opinions clearer and relevant to the reader in the
present time.
Fair Use Notice
This site may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice,
human rights,
political, economic, democratic, scientific, and
social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information see: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
 Copyright
© Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved
|