Denied Counsel for Wanting Right to be Heard Too (Wis Const)

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

Denied Counsel for Wanting Right to be Heard Too (Wis Const)

Postby dmb3777 » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:29 am

Because I Believe in Being Heard by Myself AND Counsel (in accord with the Constitution for Wisconsin, Article 1, Section 7), I'm Denied Counsel, and Trial is in a Few Days.

Is there anything I can do? Here's my story:

My friend was moving into an apartment in 2 days. We went to see the apartment (I was curious). He started talking to someone he knew in the apartment's parking lot, so I went up to his apartment by myself. I knocked on the door to see if it was the empty apartment. I eventually turned the doorknob and was surprised that it was unlocked. I opened the door to peek in to confirm that it was my friend's empty apartment (it obviously was), so I went inside to check it out. However, the police were called by the neighbor across the hall in the same apartment unit. I was affected by (and still am affected by) the charge of "Criminal Tresspass to a Dwelling" (Wisconsin statute 943.4 (2).

I never entered a plea, I declared that I accepted the judge's declaration that the Defendant is "Not guilty" (thus, case dismissed) being that the judge cannot represent the Defendant while also being a judge in the matters, but then I objected to the judge's "Not guilty" entry if being a plea (however unlawful that plea is). Within affidavits and hearings, I asserted myself as a living soul as a natural and living flesh and blood human being, a man on the land, only under common law jurisdiction and under threat/duress/coercion in all procedings and matters. I've asserted I am not any type of debtor to, nor any type of surety for, the all capitalized named Defendant. I've asserted I am a sovereign as spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370. I've objected to, refused for cause without dishonor, and waived any and all benefits of, all proceedings and matters. I've asserted I am not Pro Se, that I do not agree to proceed and do not consent to the Matters in any way whatsoever. I've challenged jurisdiction, demanded proof of jurisdiction, asserted that I do not understand the nature and cause and demanded full disclosure from the district attorney. I've invoked the laws of the Republic for all proceedings and matters. I claimed Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (previously UCC 1-207).

Anyway, you should get the drift. I've been doing this stuff over a span of at least 2o years. However, the courts (especially the court in the matter now) just ignore everything and proceed anyway. I suppose they now feel more confident than ever that they can have another easy win at trial being that the last time I was violated and harassed by the court (the only other court branch in the same courthouse), I sat outside the bar while I did not participate in the trial, being that according to Corpus Juris Secundum, any showing of agreement to trial, whether by actions or otherwise, makes a "General Appearance" ...and a General Appearance, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is a direct submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

So now, back to the present matter that I'm affected with. They were fast-tracking me to a railroad job of a trial before I could research to find what I can do keep them from damaging me. Thus, I visited the public defender's office to make arrangements, and I informed the court that I had made arrangements with the public defender for defense counsel in the matters. Upon the public defender's documentation to have a lawyer appointed, I had put in the all capital letter name, being that is the Defendant, but more importantly, it's not me. Then where one is to sign at the end of the document, I signed for the all capital name without making myself liable, by putting "By" before my own name, then a comma, then putting "Authorized Representative" (or "Auth. Rep." for short) at he end. So, for example, someone with the christian nomenclature of "John Martin Smith" who is signing for someone else without having liability for signing, would write: "By John Martin Smith, Auth. Rep." ...without the quotes, of course. Moreover, beforehand, I had protected myself further with a previous affidvit submission stating that any person that helps me and/or is heard on my behalf will work and operate for me only in his/her own private capacity and not in any capacity that would admit jurisdiction and that said person is considered, works and operates as "Assistance of Counsel" (and NOT representation) and that Assistance of Counsel's first and only duty is to be to me and is to be immnune from providing any truth and any remedy to me. Then after that I cited, from the Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI with the end part, "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.", in bold. Then in the next numbered item where I declared that I have the right to be heard by myself and counsel, under that, I cited the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, Article I, Section 7 and bolded the part where it shows, "the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel". And, in the next numbered item of the affidavit, I declared that any document(s)/contract(s)/agreement(s) to procure any person for help in matters (no matter what the wording is therein) that I may inscribe my name to, is/are done under threat/duress/coercion and has no force and effect in the way of: admitting jurisdiction; putting me under any obligation/promise to pay and/or make compensation for services of said person.

Anyway, after the lawyer, Steven G. Richards (that I had arranged for the Defendant and that may operate as assistance of counsel for me), had handled a few hearings for the Defendant, I finally had met him (being that he lives pretty far out of town) at the final Pretrial on Friday, August 31st, 2019 of which was mandatory that I go to that one. After the district attorney stated the parties in attendence, I declared my being a man, and a man on the land, that I invoke the laws of the Republic and that this is a common law court. Then I stated I want to submit a Notice of Requirement for Claim Verification. The judge said I could not submit the documentation and that I have representation. I said, if anything, I have assistance of counsel, that Richards may be representation for the Defendant and that I have the right to be heard as well as counsel. Upon my wanting to submit documentation, Richards used that as an excuse to withdraw and asked the judge if he could do so, which the judge allowed. After that, the judge said I could submit the documentation. After I did, I verbally stated what generally is in the said Notice ...that I am a man and that I require that the man or woman who is named "STATE OF WISCONSIN" verify the claim. The district attorney said he was not going to answer or do anything with the Notice. I told the judge I wished the case dismissed due to the district attorney not bringing the accuser forward to verify the claim. The judge denied it. I then told the judge that in a previous document I had submitted months ago, I demanded that the district attorney provide full disclosure on the nature and cause of the matter and how exactly they have the jurisdiction and authority to affect me, and that the district attorney had 3 days to answer at that time. I told the judge that it is way past the 3-day time limit and that for the district attorney's failure to provide full disclosure, that I wish the case be dismissed. The judge denied that as well. By the way, Steven G. Richards is the lawyer for the Steven Avery case.

I told the court that I want an interlocutory appeal due to his denials and my being deprived assistance of counsel. The judge said something to the effect that it takes procedures or I have to go through procedures or it's qualified or needs to be qualifid or something to that effect.

So, the case is going ahead to trial on Tuesday, September 11, 2018. Being that the lawyer withdrew, they scheduled a time before the trial (Monday, September 10, 2018, 9:00am) so as to show me how to conduct myself at the trial. I told the court that I do not consent to any proceedings toward trial. I asked the judge that if I do not show up, if there would be a warrant put out that would affect me. He said that there would be. So, I said I would be there under threat/duress/coercion.

Even if they had jurisdiction and the statute somehow applied to me: being that I did not actually violate the statute due to all elements of the statute not being satisfied and I wanted to prove my innocence, I would need an investigator to take a picture of the gap that exists between the door frame and the door stop of the before-mentioned apartment, being that I am not allowed there via bond condition, and I need to talk to the apartment unit manager as a witness (both of which Richards did not do even though I mailed him way previous about it), plus I need to make sure my said friend, as a witness, is summoned to court; something I was going to have Richards do as well.

The apartment was empty; nothing was taken and nothing was damaged ...even that was admitted to by the officers. The apartment was available to be shown anyway. I did no harm to anybody. the only one being harmed and stressed out here is ME!!

I later visited the public defender. They told me that the judge said that they cannot appoint another lawyer to the case because the judge said I want "Standby Counsel" ...of which I never did; that's what THEY said I wanted. But, actually, I always said I want or have "assistance of counsel". Standby counsel is a lawyer who is there to assist you if wanted/needed while you are in charge, and have say, over things (I can only guess that "Standby Counsel" is their name for "Assistance of Counsel"). Why do they use a different name for what an accused is guaranteed in the Constitution? The public Defender said that they can only appoint "Adversarial Attorneys" ...meaning that those lawyers can only "represent" while being the only ones heard, are in charge and don't have to do what you direct them to do, while the ones effected by charges cannot/will-not be heard at all (Can't submit documentation, make points in court, etc). They did all this, and are trying to steamroll me using this, even though the Constitution for Wisconsin says that those accused have the right to be heard by themselves AND counsel. How plain and clear is that! Obviously, they're violating my rights and, thus, violating True Law. I've always had the "unmitigated gal" to assert my rights with them in the past, whether orally and in documentation. I can't believe they're pulling this tyrannical BS on me.

So I do not know what I should do before trial, or even be able to do anything in time.

Please tell me your ideas ...as soon as you can if you would.
dmb3777
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:17 am

Re: Denied Counsel for Wanting Right to be Heard Too (Wis Const)

Postby musashi » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:09 pm

You appear to have already identified several of the torts - there may be others to find.
1. denial of constitutional rights and enticement to slavery;
2. you have an awareness of law;
3. you are able to quote code and title – so what's the problem?

If your constitutionally guaranteed rights are being compromised by someone then you sue that someone, that named individual, even if he or she says they just represent the court.
You might consider a Notice of Distress into court highlighting this and informing them that a substantial law suit may follow their continued actions.


NOTICE OF DISTRESS
Parties
allegations – denial of rights thereby enticing into slavery
proof of allegations – letters, notices etc
value of allegations – your specific performance or, if this is insufficient, your public indemnity bond – do your job properly or pay up
notice – twenty one days to sort it out
signature

They'll know by this that the next document they might get might be a lien.
Musashi.


Ps. As you are in Cananda why not try Rob Menard and Mary Croft? They're goddammned gurus in this stuff, aint they?
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Denied Counsel for Wanting Right to be Heard Too (Wis Const)

Postby dmb3777 » Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:42 pm

Actually, I am in the United States of America. It seems because this city's courts have gotten away with some things before, that they are now getting brave and bally and denying my right to be heard by counsel as well as myself. I told them that I've never had this happen before. Of course, what they call "Standby-Counsel", something that the public defender used to appoint a few years back, have in the recent years been disallowed in doing that. Through them, it is only now an "Adversary Attorney" that they are able to appoint, which is, they make the decisions and are the only ones who are heard. However, in going in and talking to the public defender twice now in the last few days, she said the the judge could, in certain situations, have Stand-By counsel appointed. So, if that is the case, then what is the problem? I suppose they want to shut me up or set some type of precedence or something. It is like I am being punished for doing what I have a right to do: assert my rights and ask questions (challenges, objections, etc). Yet, the Constitution for the United States of America in Amendment 6 (the last part) shows:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

And then in the Constitution for Wisconsin, Article I, Section 7 (the first part), it shows:

Rights of accused. SECTION 7. In all criminal prosecutions
the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel;
to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against
him; to meet the witnesses face to face; to have compulsory process
to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf; and in
prosecutions by indictment, or information, to a speedy public
trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the
offense shall have been committed; which county or district
shall have been previously ascertained by law.

So, it should be clear as day. Who's wrong and who's right?
dmb3777
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:17 am

Re: Denied Counsel for Wanting Right to be Heard Too (Wis Const)

Postby musashi » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:16 pm

Okay, it's in the USA. Same thing applies - denial of constitutional rights is actionable. $10,000 fine per offence, as I recall.
Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm


Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron