Should I defend myself?

[Ctripi]

Hi there,
I have already been to court and pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanors, criminal mischief in the first degree and disorderly intox. This will be my second disorderly intox charge. I already applied for a public defendor and was denied. I have spoke to 1 attorney that I know in the area and he wants to charge way too much money, I think anyway. I have to appear in court in a week. Is it too late to try and defend myself, or even a good idea at all?
Please help!!

 

[mafioso]

It is best to get a lawyer............You don't want to have a long rap sheet of convictions. It could hurt you in jobs and career. Defending yourself should be the very last option.

 

[Scooterdog]

Hi there,
I have already been to court and pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanors, criminal mischief in the first degree and disorderly intox. This will be my second disorderly intox charge. I already applied for a public defendor and was denied. I have spoke to 1 attorney that I know in the area and he wants to charge way too much money, I think anyway. I have to appear in court in a week. Is it too late to try and defend myself, or even a good idea at all?
Please help!!

Hold on: let me see if I have this strait: YOU were charged by the city/county/state, who in turn payed a judge to uphold those laws, then placed as your main accuser, a PROSECUTER, Then, above all things, appointed a STATE EMPLOYED LAWYER!!??? iS THIS CORRECT?????

I have the actual transcrips of confesions of the witch trials, I can email them to you.

Man, this is exactly the words I use incourt:

"It is an undisputed fact that court-appointed counsel is both incompetent and beholden to the Accused's adversary. see Burgett v. Texas 389 U.S. 109, the Accused demands that the court make monies available so that the Accused may find competent impartial counsel on the Accused's own, in whom the Accused may have confidence. If these demanded monies are not made available, the Accused will stand before the court in propria persona without counsel, and under the foregoing conditions, only the Accused can speak for the Accused Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 ; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806. The Accused understands that one cannot be incarcerated by the court unless one has counsel at trial. The Accused will NOT sign a waiver to counsel. The Accused will engage counsel only under the aforesaid conditions see, Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972) et al"

Again, this won't be rebuted.

I'd even bring this point up:

It is an undisputed fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that any crime for which a person may be incarcerated is an Infamous Crime Mackin v. U.S. 117 U.S. 348 et al. The Fifth Amendment provides for indictment in all infamous crimes. The Accused understands that any attempt at prosecution of this free and natural Sovereign in the absence of said indictment constitutes a willful violation of Rights by the court, and/or its officers. The Accused will demand that the instructions to the Show Cause/Grand and Trial jury include: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power.. to acquit in disregard of the instructions given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 113

And:

. It is an undisputed fact that a trial by a Common Law jury of twelve veniremen of my peers must decide all issues of Law and Fact, including my Right to argue the Constitutional bar to state unlawfulness in my theory of the case, as provided for under Article III, Section 2, Paragraphs 2; 3, and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. The court will take notice of Frank v. U.S. 395 U.S.147 (1969) et al, in which the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, "...all sentence must be suspended when jury trial is denied the Accused." The Accused is aware that an attempt to enforce a fine by threat of illegal incarceration, constitutes extortion by the court and/or its officers.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Some states,and all the Federal courts have whats known as a motion for counsel,you have to appear in court regardless with or without an attorney. Either tell the judge you cant afford an attorney or submit a motion for counsel. Warning:The link is a sample do not download it since it is not the correct form for the court you are in. Also like any other motion the motion can be denied,so just because a motion is submitted is no guarantee it will be granted. Typically you must either be incarcerated,or indigent to qualify,or you can not find an attorney.

 

[Scooterdog]

Is GH spreading lies. Please produce cases or case law public servant.

Justice Holmes explained:

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends."

 

[Green_Hornet]

Is GH spreading lies. Please produce cases or case law public servant.

What are you talking about dumb shit read the instructions.

 

[CdwJava]

Why were you denied? Do you have assets or too high an income to meet the eligibility requirements for a public defender?

If you do not qualify to have a public defender, and you can not pay for or will not pay for a private attorney, do you feel you are capable of defending yourself against these allegations?

There are procedures to go about this, but you will need to post your state so that someone might be able to look up the relevant format for such a request.

- Carl

 

[Scooterdog]

If you do not qualify to have a public defender, and you can not pay for or will not pay for a private attorney, do you feel you are capable of defending yourself against these allegations? - Carl

Carl, what other choice is there? Plead guilty? Ya, I guess. Or stand up and be a man and call bs on this. The government called him up on a charge, pay for his rep. or drop the case. The alternative, give hime the moneis to go "buy" one.

Think outside the box for once.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Justice Holmes explained:

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends."

Yes he said it in an equity suite douche bag, Kawananokoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907):Under Equity Rule 92, where a part of the mortgage premises has been sold to the sovereign power which refuses to waive its exemption from suit, the court can, all other parties being joined, except the land so conveyed and decree sale of the balance and enter deficiency judgment for sum remaining due if proceeds of sale are insufficient to pay the debt. Now exactly where does that fall into play for the posters motion for counsel? Is there an eminent domain problem I missed in the post?

 

[Scooterdog]

There are procedures to go about this, but you will need to post your state so that someone might be able to look up the relevant format for such a request.

- Carl

WHO'S???? Yours? WTF Carl. common. Even as a mere cop, you took an oath, and that oath included, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, not bs laws passed. Why can't you see that??? Do they give you people pills so you just act, never think, just act, and god forbid if someone throws a wrench in there, they must be bad. Prob. Terroriest types. I"m sure the Founding Fathers are damn proud that we degenerated to this level. :no:

 

[Green_Hornet]

Think outside the box for once.

You idiot judges dismiss frivolus motions, the spam motion you posted will be dissmissed. The only box the poster will see for submitting it is a 10 X 10.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, what other choice is there? Plead guilty? Ya, I guess. Or stand up and be a man and call bs on this. The government called him up on a charge, pay for his rep. or drop the case. The alternative, give hime the moneis to go "buy" one.

Think outside the box for once.

The state can set reasonable standards for qualification for an attorney. The state does NOT have to provide an attorney for people with assets or funds to pay for one.

Sure, he can challenge this, but ... oh, wait, he can't afford an attorney for the criminal case - I guess he can't afford one for the civil one, either.

Presumably, he can bring up his dilemma to the court. Usually, you will find that it is not an inability to pay, it is a lack of desire to pay. So, to think outside the box, what say we try selling a car, taking a home equity loan, getting a cash advance, etc.?

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

WHO'S???? Yours? WTF Carl. common. Even as a mere cop, you took an oath, and that oath included, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, not bs laws passed. Why can't you see that??? Do they give you people pills so you just act, never think, just act, and god forbid if someone throws a wrench in there, they must be bad. Prob. Terroriest types. I"m sure the Founding Fathers are damn proud that we degenerated to this level.

Okay ... gee ... I guess I was wrong ... there are NOT procedures you have to follow in order to represent yourself in court. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Scooterdog]

Okay ... gee ... I guess I was wrong ... there are NOT procedures you have to follow in order to represent yourself in court. Thanks for the correction.

You follow civil or criminal procedure, there is no specail procedure for those of us proceding in Pro Per.

Where does one find these "special procedures' of which you speak?? I"ve been representing myself for over 13(no loss's) and helping others, I have never, in any state found these "special Procedures" which you made up.

 

[Scooterdog]

Okay ... gee ... I guess I was wrong ... there are NOT procedures you have to follow in order to represent yourself in court. Thanks for the correction.

Carl, you're just as bad as GH. You two never prove anything. It's rediculouse to say the least. Where are your facts at? Why can't you ever override the case law? Why do you think some bogus "law" passed in CA overrides the US constitution and Federal Law.

I don't ask for much, just proof. I"m getting really sick of your opinion, which is totally baseless.

 

[Green_Hornet]

You follow civil or criminal procedure, there is no specail procedure for those of us proceding in Pro Per.

Where does one find these "special procedures' of which you speak?? I"ve been representing myself for over 13(no loss's) and helping others, I have never, in any state found these "special Procedures" which you made up.

What a complete moron filing Pro Se you still have to follow rule of court procedure.
That is laughable since the poster did not specify the state he is in I will link the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2007) which you have to understand if you file a civil action in Federal court. If you were defending yourself Pro Se in a criminal charge in Federal court you would have to follow Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (2007). State courts have Civil Procedure,and Criminal Procedure as well. This is why the notion of going Pro Se is laughable. Going Pro Se does not absolve the plaintiff or defendant of following court Procedure, or rules of evidence.

Poster Spammerdog is pulling a con there is no way he ever went Pro Se, if he did not know something this basic. The procedures are not special,on the contrary these rules govern the conduct of all civil,and criminal actions brought in Federal district courts. While they do not apply to suits in state courts, the rules of many states have been closely modeled on these provisions. Most state court rules governing Civil,or Criminal Procedure for State courts can be found on the internet as well.