Never Plead "Not Guilty". Plead "Innocent".

This may be in the wrong forum, but I couldn't really see one that this would fit perfectly under, so I thought this thread would be as good as any other, considering the value of the information.

Please feel free to relocate it if you find a better classification for it.

If you are ever taken into court proceedings and you wish to contest the charges brought against you.

When are asked to plead 'GUILTY or NOT GUILTY', plead 'INNOCENT'.

There is a very simple, but good reason for this.

Modern Justice systems are built on the principle that the accused are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.

By this, it would mean in a court of law that you should plead INNOCENT, or GUILTY.

The reason they request that you plead NOT GUILTY, is because this effectively WAIVES YOUR RIGHT TO INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ON RECORD.

It is disgusting.

It switches the burden of proof over to yourself, instead of them. Very clever. But it can't legally be done. They only get away with it, because people let them.

They clearly document you 'waiving your right' in court, to say that instead of pleading INNOCENT, you pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Meaning that you are happy to bare the burden of proving yourself innocent.

Effectively making you GUILTY until proven NOT GUILTY.

This is illegal by the foundation standards of innocence until proof.

When you plead INNOCENT instead of NOT GUILTY, if the court demands that you either state yourself GUILTY or NOT GUILTY, then they are forcing you into a situation which amounts to (under their own law) ENTRAPMENT.

Where a distinction must be made between trapping the unwary innocent, as opposed to the unwary criminal.

Therefore not only can they not force you to plead NOT GUILTY for their record (so they have you documented in giving up your right), but they CAN NOT HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT for doing so.

If they do so. Then they are ignoring the possibility of trapping the unwary innocent, literally FORCING YOU into giving up the rights upon which the Justice System was founded, and by such, are guilty of committing several crimes against an individual (entrapment just one of them) in their pursuit of justice.

This cannot be done.

Or at least, it should not be done.

And with a good lawyer, THEY WONT DO IT!

They prove you guilty. You don't prove yourself innocent. Remember that.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Interesting post.

So if I take a plea deal can I plead not innocent?

I like it.

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
This may be in the wrong forum, but I couldn't really see one that this would fit perfectly under, so I thought this thread would be as good as any other, considering the value of the information.

Please feel free to relocate it if you find a better classification for it.

If you are ever taken into court proceedings and you wish to contest the charges brought against you.

When are asked to plead 'GUILTY or NOT GUILTY', plead 'INNOCENT'.

There is a very simple, but good reason for this.

Modern Justice systems are built on the principle that the accused are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.

By this, it would mean in a court of law that you should plead INNOCENT, or GUILTY.

The reason they request that you plead NOT GUILTY, is because this effectively WAIVES YOUR RIGHT TO INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ON RECORD.

It is disgusting.

It switches the burden of proof over to yourself, instead of them. Very clever. But it can't legally be done. They only get away with it, because people let them.

They clearly document you 'waiving your right' in court, to say that instead of pleading INNOCENT, you pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Meaning that you are happy to bare the burden of proving yourself innocent.

Effectively making you GUILTY until proven NOT GUILTY.

This is illegal by the foundation standards of innocence until proof.

When you plead INNOCENT instead of NOT GUILTY, if the court demands that you either state yourself GUILTY or NOT GUILTY, then they are forcing you into a situation which amounts to (under their own law) ENTRAPMENT.

Where a distinction must be made between trapping the unwary innocent, as opposed to the unwary criminal.

Therefore not only can they not force you to plead NOT GUILTY for their record (so they have you documented in giving up your right), but they CAN NOT HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT for doing so.

If they do so. Then they are ignoring the possibility of trapping the unwary innocent, literally FORCING YOU into giving up the rights upon which the Justice System was founded, and by such, are guilty of committing several crimes against an individual (entrapment just one of them) in their pursuit of justice.

This cannot be done.

Or at least, it should not be done.

And with a good lawyer, THEY WONT DO IT!

They prove you guilty. You don't prove yourself innocent. Remember that.

Or plead NO CONTEST.

a reply to: Kratos40

Just going by the OP's point, no contest would mean that you can't contest your innocence.

Which could be seen as incriminating.

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNINGNever Plead "Not Guilty". Plead "Innocent".

I get the point, but you CAN be jailed for contempt!
Perhaps a good lawyer can beat the contempt charge, but it will cost you lots of money and time!
Not everyone has unlimited funds for fancy-asssed lawyers, and pisssing off the judge before the trial even begins is poor strategy, to say the least!
Pick your fights wisely!
In this casino, the house is fully stacked against you!

Alford plea anyone?

An Alford plea is when a defendant enters a plea of guilty without making an admission of guilt. In other words, he pleads guilty but at the same time he maintains that he’s innocent. This is very different from the typical guilty plea where the defendant usually admits, in open court, that he’s guilty of the crime.

criminal.lawyers.com

I don't think its very common, and the lawyers I've asked about it haven't seem to have heard it being used.

a reply to: namelesss

Not everyone has unlimited funds for fancy-asssed lawyers

Should it require unlimited money to properly defend yourself?

Most plea deals are taken because the defendant could not afford an attorney and went with a public defender.

It's innocent until proven guilty, the onus should be on the prosecutor, not the defense.

I do not understand your question.
Want to see a judge get pissed off and dismiss your case.
The answer to the question, "Do you understand?"
Is a simple "No."

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: namelesss

Not everyone has unlimited funds for fancy-asssed lawyers

Should it require unlimited money to properly defend yourself?

Sorry, but I do not do 'should', what IS, is that we get all the 'justice' that money can afford!
If I did do 'should', I'd agree that in a perfect system, the 'innocent/not guilty' should be paid, well, for his lost time and troubles, and the entire cost to him 'should' be nothing/refunded!
EQUAL protection under the law, is a good ideal, but far from Reality!

Most plea deals are taken because the defendant could not afford an attorney and went with a public defender.

Translation;
The cops entered my living quarters and saw a series of artfully forged and unique 'throwing stars' nailed to my wall!
They ripped each one from the wall and charged me with a separate felony for each!
It seems that I was very willing to accept a much smaller plea!
A good lawyer would have had it all dismissed, but the cops add as much in there (and plant the rest) so that most are forced, by economic necessity, to cut our own throats!

It's innocent until proven guilty, the onus should be on the prosecutor, not the defense.

You are preaching to the choir!
If only 'shoulds' were horses... *__-

originally posted by: skunkape23
I do not understand your question.
Want to see a judge get pissed off and dismiss your case.
The answer to the question, "Do you understand?"
Is a simple "No."

Pissed-off judges do not 'dismiss your case', they HURT you, they take revenge, they 'get even'!
The one going home at the end of the day will be the judge!

From my understanding, the only reason the majority of minor possession (cultivation) charges are ever successful is because the defendant runs there mouth off to the arresting officers, or because they don't have the funds for a lawyer whose prepared to dispute the charges.

Think about it!

"I haven't been in my backyard for over 6 months... I have no idea how 4 two metre tall cannabis plants got there. I did have a few german backpackers staying with me a few weeks back. But they didn't really speak english, so I never caught any names... That's all I know".

Unfortunately, no lawyer would be prepared to argue such a defense, unless there was a large amount of money involved. But that's capitalism for ya, I suppose.

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
This may be in the wrong forum, but I couldn't really see one that this would fit perfectly under, so I thought this thread would be as good as any other, considering the value of the information.

Please feel free to relocate it if you find a better classification for it.

If you are ever taken into court proceedings and you wish to contest the charges brought against you.

When are asked to plead 'GUILTY or NOT GUILTY', plead 'INNOCENT'.

There is a very simple, but good reason for this.

Modern Justice systems are built on the principle that the accused are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.

By this, it would mean in a court of law that you should plead INNOCENT, or GUILTY.

The reason they request that you plead NOT GUILTY, is because this effectively WAIVES YOUR RIGHT TO INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ON RECORD.

It is disgusting.

It switches the burden of proof over to yourself, instead of them. Very clever. But it can't legally be done. They only get away with it, because people let them.

They clearly document you 'waiving your right' in court, to say that instead of pleading INNOCENT, you pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Meaning that you are happy to bare the burden of proving yourself innocent.

Effectively making you GUILTY until proven NOT GUILTY.

This is illegal by the foundation standards of innocence until proof.

When you plead INNOCENT instead of NOT GUILTY, if the court demands that you either state yourself GUILTY or NOT GUILTY, then they are forcing you into a situation which amounts to (under their own law) ENTRAPMENT.

Where a distinction must be made between trapping the unwary innocent, as opposed to the unwary criminal.

Therefore not only can they not force you to plead NOT GUILTY for their record (so they have you documented in giving up your right), but they CAN NOT HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT for doing so.

If they do so. Then they are ignoring the possibility of trapping the unwary innocent, literally FORCING YOU into giving up the rights upon which the Justice System was founded, and by such, are guilty of committing several crimes against an individual (entrapment just one of them) in their pursuit of justice.

This cannot be done.

Or at least, it should not be done.

And with a good lawyer, THEY WONT DO IT!

They prove you guilty. You don't prove yourself innocent. Remember that.

I agree with your logic and thats how it should be. I know of a bloke who did plead innocent and presisted in doing so. The magristrate simply ordered the clerk to record a plea of not guilty.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNINGNever Plead "Not Guilty". Plead "Innocent".

I get the point, but you CAN be jailed for contempt!
Perhaps a good lawyer can beat the contempt charge, but it will cost you lots of money and time!
Not everyone has unlimited funds for fancy-asssed lawyers, and pisssing off the judge before the trial even begins is poor strategy, to say the least!
Pick your fights wisely!
In this casino, the house is fully stacked against you!

The real point is that people should not need a lawyer to defend themselves in court.

The reason the school system does not teach kids how the law and the various defences that are avaiable to them is because the govt and big busienss who set the school ciriculems know that if you dont know your rights you effectively have no rights and therefore you are unlikly to defend yourself in any legal sense.

Additionaly, they know that not knowing your rights makes you more likely to obey instructions given to you by persons in authority. Incidently, they alo know that preventing you from knowing your rights by not educating in your rights, makes it much easier to punish and harm you because it much easier for them to use the legal system as a weapon against you.

It is possible to learn how to defend yourself in court for free as there is heaps of information and resources on how to do this on the net. Readers should look search under terms like Strawman, Admiltary law, common law etc. There are all sorts of useful material on the internet.

Poeple are doing this and learning how to defend themselves against the corporate empire.

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
The reason they request that you plead NOT GUILTY, is because this effectively WAIVES YOUR RIGHT TO INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ON RECORD.

No, it does not. It is simply the historic way of denying the charge. Probably goes back to Ango-Saxon times.
I don't suppose you can quote any example of defendants pleading "not guilty" who have, in practice, been expected to prove it without hearing any case from the prosecution.
You are creating a purely imaginary danger out of nothing.

I know of a bloke who did plead innocent and persisted in doing so. The magistrate simply ordered the clerk to record a plea of not guilty.

This observation made by another poster confirms my point rather than yours.
The two terms mean the same thing, but "not guilty" is the standard legal way of putting it.
If they are able to ignore the "protest", if they are not "held" by the words you use, then what difference does it make? What's the point?

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNINGNever Plead "Not Guilty". Plead "Innocent".

I get the point, but you CAN be jailed for contempt!
Perhaps a good lawyer can beat the contempt charge, but it will cost you lots of money and time!
Not everyone has unlimited funds for fancy-asssed lawyers, and pisssing off the judge before the trial even begins is poor strategy, to say the least!
Pick your fights wisely!
In this casino, the house is fully stacked against you!

The real point is that people should not need a lawyer to defend themselves in court.

Yeah, I spoke about all those 'shoulds' earlier.
'Shoulds' as opposed to Reality as it is!
I cannot speak to 'shoulds', any more than 'wishes'.

The reason the school system does not teach kids how the law and the various defences that are avaiable to them is because the govt and big busienss who set the school ciriculems know that if you dont know your rights you effectively have no rights and therefore you are unlikly to defend yourself in any legal sense.

Very true!
Same with 'medicine'!

Additionally, they know that not knowing your rights makes you more likely to obey instructions given to you by persons in authority. Incidently, they alo know that preventing you from knowing your rights by not educating in your rights, makes it much easier to punish and harm you because it much easier for them to use the legal system as a weapon against you.

Agreed!
That is one reason for the saying "You know that you are getting old when the cops stop fking with you!"
By then, you finally know your 'rights' and some 'law'!

It is possible to learn how to defend yourself in court for free as there is heaps of information and resources on how to do this on the net. Readers should look search under terms like Strawman, Admiltary law, common law etc. There are all sorts of useful material on the internet.

Poeple are doing this and learning how to defend themselves against the corporate empire.
There is great truth to the saying that;
"A man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client!"
A jailhouse lawyer can file all sorts of neat papers, it passes the time, and is rarely effective.
One can become a real lawyer in slam, though!
Learn everything and pass the bar!
But even the pro doesn't defend himself in court!

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

You have things backwards the court you are inn scent until proven guilty. The reason the court asks you to plead guilty or not guilty is because this statement. By pleading omniscient the judge will think your an idiot and probably send you back to jail for mental evaluation. Under no circumstance do you ever not answer the judges question. If he sees you as a smart ass he will decide sentencing. You don't want him thinking your disrespecting him or his office. Even in cases where the state sets sentencing a judge can all ways go over that so if say it 6 months in jail judge could decide to add an additional 2 years. Next so not ramble on I've seen many people in court that talk there way into jail time. The less you say the better especially when pleading not guilty.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Good post ,thank you .In the justice system there is a saying , "let he who would be deceived ,be deceived" . Back in the 70's I was involved with a few different groups challenging the system in my neck of the woods concerning the reverse onus law within the Fish and Game act . The horror stories that I heard from individuals was incredible . It was in affect a near impossibility to prove yourself innocent or like you say not guilty . In most cases all the crown had to do was show that you were there and were capable of commuting a crime .

ie. under the act was a crime of "laying in wait" of game . So if you happened to be out for a walk in the woods and decided to sit down and a animal happened to walk by you could be charged . Another one was molesting game .if you were driving at night and decided to turn around and happened to do so where there were deer in the field ,you could be charged . The way the law was worded was ridiculous . ie. if you had a light or lights capable of sporting game and were in a resort of game ,you could be charged . The thing was that a car has lights capable of doing that and the whole province was deemed a resort of game . I am guessing that taking your plea of innocent may have addressed the issue ....thanks again ....

Even before then, when the cop reads your Miranda rights, heed them. Shut the heck up. Dont help them convict you. That is their job.

Reddit probably isn't the best place to get your legal advice. But you go on ahead and try to plead "innocent" and see how that works out for you.

You can also plead "not guilty by reason of insanity." Y'know...if the shoe fits.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I do not understand your question.
Want to see a judge get pissed off and dismiss your case.
The answer to the question, "Do you understand?"
Is a simple "No."

Never, under ANY circumstance say that you do 'understand' when asked by someone in authority, such as a Judge or Police Officer etc.

In law (NOT in common language..) admitting or affirming that 'you understand' is the same as saying that you agree to stand under that person authority over you.

Always answer that you do 'comprehend' what is being said to you, which is completely different in law.