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

originally posted by: MysterX
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.

No, it doesn't. Do you have evidence of any law that says so?
Do you have evidence of this argument ever being used by the authorities in a court of law?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: MysterX
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.

No, it doesn't. Do you have evidence of any law that says so?
Do you have evidence of this argument ever being used by the authorities in a court of law?

OK, i'll rephrase..in legalese, not in law.

There's a difference, as i know you're aware.

a reply to: MysterX
And do you have evidence of any occasion when it has been said "You are under our authority because you have said 'understand'"? Or evidence of any occasion when saying "comprehend" instead has enabled somebody to escape a difficulty?
My argument is that there has NEVER been any occasion when saying "comprehend" instead of "understand" has made a difference, just as there has never been any occasion when saying "innocent" instead of "not guilty" has made a difference.

These are imaginary distinctions created by conspiracy theorists, and the authorities will take no notice of them.

a reply to: Azureblue

When I was in school in the late 60s into the 70s, we were taught practical life skills. Basic cooking, mechanics, how to balance your checkbook, mock trials and fundamental rights. You could take other classes that focused on a specific area of this corriculum. You had to take the basics to get a diploma and learning your rights was required.

Are knowing your rights part of the CORE program?

There is no true justice when celebrities, politicians, LEOS, judges, and the wealthy are treated with much much more leiniency than you or I. Money is what justice is all about. Extortion and the forced separation of you and your assets is justice these days.

We have a legal system that is written intentionally so the commoner cannot understand a word of the legaleaze. One is forced to hire a person who speaks justice's language and who will charge you up the wazoo to represent you to the court. Big bucks.

Why can't the language of law be simple so a person of normal intellect can represent themselves to the court? Not saying that is a good idea, but it provides further evidence of the corruption of our judtice system.

Innocent until proven guilty? Pure fantasy. How much money or liquidatable assets buys your ticket to freedom.

The add on fees for a minor traffic violation is hundreds of dollars. The speeding ticket itself may be $50 but add on the court fees, additional fees for this and that and that $50 speeding ticket is now somewhere near $600 ! If you are curious about this, Google the Superior Court fees schedule or Traffic Violation fee schedule for your county and state. In doing so, you'll quickly see the reality of "justice".

You can declare your innocents until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the days, your innocence is determined by the balance of your checkbook and investment portfolio.

Justice is not blind, she is money hungry. Innocence is bought and sold.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It's all in the sovereign citizen's handbook, which can be yours for only 12 easy installments of $29.99.

a reply to: Shamrock6
That's just repeating what I said myself; "imaginary distinctions created by conspiracy theorists".

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

You do realize that if you plead innocent and are thus found to be guilty an argument could be made that you lied under oath?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's why the advise of just pleading "innocent" just don't cut it.

Firstly, you need to say absolutely nothing to the police, apart from maybe your name and address. Then you need a high priced lawyer who can sell a crafty little alibi for ya. If you can't afford that high priced lawyer, then your probably better off just taking a deep breath and doing the old ankle grab.

But, like I've already said, that's capitalism for ya, only the rich can get one over TPTB.

If you ever get stoped or arrested by cops, all you have to say is what is your name officer, why am i behing stoped or arrested, thats all, if they take you to jail just ask for a lawyer, no need to say anything else.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Whenever I'm in court, I plead "Not Guilcup!".

Like pleading the 5th. Plead Innocent........Let the Court prove your not guilty and from what I here must be 100%.

This is dumb... So much time spent splitting hairs.... The definition of "Innocent" is "Not-Guilty"

in·no·cent
ˈinəsənt/Submit
adjective
1.
not guilty of a crime or offense.
"the arbitrary execution of an innocent man"
synonyms: guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable, irreproachable, above suspicion, faultless; More
antonyms: guilty
without; lacking.
"a street quite innocent of bookstores"
synonyms: free from, without, lacking (in), clear of, ignorant of, unaware of, untouched by
"she is innocent of guile"
without experience or knowledge of.
"a man innocent of war's cruelties"
2.
not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.
"an innocent bystander"
3.
free from moral wrong; not corrupted.
"an innocent child"
synonyms: virtuous, pure, moral, decent, righteous, upright, wholesome; More
antonyms: sinful
simple; naive.
"she is a poor, innocent young creature"
synonyms: naive, ingenuous, trusting, credulous, unsuspicious, unwary, unguarded; More
4.
not intended to cause harm or offense; harmless.
"an innocent mistake"
synonyms: harmless, benign, innocuous, safe, inoffensive
"innocent fun"
antonyms: harmful
noun
1.
an innocent person, in particular.

Next....

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

Actually you're misunderstanding the way the burden of proof works.

If you plea INNOCENT than that is when YOU accept burden of proof. You are making a positive claim, that you didn't do it, and so you accept burden of proof. Our justice system is set up so that they have to prove you are actually guilty of the crime. If they do not have enough evidence to find you guilty they must find you NOT GUILTY but that verdict doesn't mean they have proven your innocence. When you plea not guilty that is actually what places the burden of proof on the prosecution.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull
Just an observation; Scottish law allows the possibility of a third verdict. You can have "Guilty", "Not Guilty", or "Not proven".
This implies that "Not guilty" is actually expressing something closer to "innocence" than "nothing has been proved yet".

Poppycock or hair splitting will not help with a judge.

Close your mouth and hire a lawyer.

Just a small point, but it is not "Innocent until proven guilty" it is "presumed innocent until proven guilty" It is actually different

a reply to: DISRAELI

That may be the case for Scottish law. I'm curious as to what the consequences are when they find people Not Proven, do they get to try them for the crime a second time? Are there laws against Double Jeopardy or is someone's case found "Not Proven" still get to move forward and be retried?

It sounds almost similar to a mistrial where the jury cannot reach an actual verdict for one reason or another and there is no actual conclusion.

Here in America the Not Proven category would probably just fall under the umbrella of Not Guilty because it is well understood that the prosecution must establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution has not proven their case than the defendant is found not guilty, which doesn't mean necessarily that they are innocent it merely means there wasn't sufficient evidence to say they were guilty.

Ive looked deep into the 'strawman' and 'Admirilty Law' stuff enough to believe that there's something there, but I'm not naive enough to think it'll work in court. The system just isn't gonna hear any of it.

Yeah I've seen the YouTube videos that purportedly show a defendant telling a judge off and walking outta court or a traffic stop where the driver insists on this Right or that Right and I've read the websites that define terms in legalese and give all the examples of how Rights and terms are misrepresented to us in court. But best I can tell, in the end, these tactics just don't work. They don't show the follow up videos where the guy had to reappear and receive sentencing and even if you get away with arguing with a LEO on the side of the road it doesn't necessarily indicate victory for you.

Like I wrote above, I believe there's something to all of this, but I don't believe it works in the end.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull
Being English rather than Scottish, I was obliged to look this up.
I was fascinated to discover that "Proven" and "Not proven" were originally just the Scottish equivalents of "Guilty" and "Not guilty". Apparently eighteenth-century juries began using "Not guilty" on the English model as a stronger way of declaring innocence. "Not proven" has remained available, and tends to be used to suggest "we're morally sure that he did it, but not enough evidence to secure a conviction".I understand that legally it counts as another form of acquittal.

I have heard (possibly from Reader's Digest) of a county in Ireland which was renowned at one stage for lax juries.
So at one trial, the judge was moved to declare to the defendant "You have been found Not Guilty by a Kilkenny jury and may now leave the court with no other stain on your character".

originally posted by: MysterX

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.

Haha, I've done that many times, it really annoys cops and anyone else in a declared position of authority.
I always say something like "I hear your words but I do not trust them as being correct so I shall wait until I am in a position where impartial advice is being provided to me before I answer that question".

I've been released with no caution/charge many many times in life and I've been found not guilty quite a few times as well. It's just a legal game as far as I see it. Of course I try to avoid playing the game but when I have to I'm good at it.
Of course living in the UK where every police car, station corridor/cell/booking desk is CCTV'd up and staffed by a generally professional non-roided up staff then it's not really scary to play the legal game with a smug smile.

On-topic, I always plead not guilty as opposed to "innocent", all I have to show in court is 'reasonable doubt' that's all, arguing the semantics of 'innocent' or 'not-guilty' is a freeman-of-the-land type of silliness I avoid as a distraction.
I've only ever received a penalty from police or the courts when I've pleaded guilty/admitted it.
I have a 100% success rate whenever I've denied an alleged offence.

I see no benefit to myself ever standing in the dock and saying innocent, and I've done alright so far in life so I won't start taking advice from the OP anytime soon lol.