srothstein wrote:GeekDad wrote:but Corpus Delicti does play in traffic tickets
I think you may have a misunderstanding of the corpus delicti rule and what is necessary to prove a crime. Corpus delicit means the body of the crime or the body of evidence. It is a term of art used in criminal cases to mean the elements of the offense that must be proven. Every offense is composed of several elements that must be proven. Some of the elements normally include jurisdiction and culpable mental state and the specific parts of each crime.
For example, to prove a murder was committed, the state must prove jurisdiction (that some part of the offense occurred in Texas, noting that finding the location of the body is included as a part of the offense), that the deceased was an individual (as an individual is defined in the law), that the deceased was killed, that the actor (proper Texas term for suspect) killed the deceased, and one of several conditions on the killing (that it was intentional or knowing - culpable mental state, that the actor intended to commit serious bodily injury and committed an act dangerous to life that did kill, or that the actor was committing or attempting to commit another felony and while doing so or fleeing after doing so committed an act dangerous to life that did kill).
Now, taking the illustrated case, you do have an injury involved - the death. but there is no legal requirement for an injury to have a crime committed. For example, there is a whole chapter in the penal code on gambling. Section 47.02 says you commit an offense if you simply place a bet on a political nomination or appointment. Now, this is true even if the gambling is honest and not rigged. Where is there an injury in this offense?
Similarly, there may not be an injury in a traffic offense, but it is still an offense. Traffic offenses also do not require a culpable mental state, differing them from most other crimes. This is a theory of criminal responsibility known as strict liability. I bring this up only to show that the general rule of criminal theory may not apply to traffic law.
One of the problems many people have is in using public references that include otehr states. In some states, traffic offenses are all civil cases. In other states, traffic offenses are crimes. Texas is normally one of those states that makes traffic offenses a crime, but we have moved into a slightly confusing position where it may also be a civil offense. Now, running a red light is a criminal offense when a police officer sees you and a civil offense when you are caught by a camera.
Establishing the victim is key to any criminal case... your definitively right they Traffic cases are stupid when it comes to defining as criminal or civil.
If you don't buy the corpus delicti you should look into the following...
The Right to Travel...
Right To Travel.
1st Amendment right to travel.
5th Amendment to due process.
Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Any laws in clonflict are non-void.
Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
The right to traval is a secured liberty.
Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land any law in conflict null and void the law.
In this case the Right to Travel freely and unencumbered
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
No State can convert a secured liberty into a privilege.
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)
Law is Null and Void and can act with Impunity.
United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
willful disobedience?
Held: The word "willfully" has the same meaning in §§ 7206(1) and 7207,
connoting the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, and
the distinction between the statutes is found in the additional misconduct
that is essential to the violation of the felony provision; hence, the
District Court properly refused the requested lesser included offense
instruction based on respondent's erroneous contention that the word
"willfully" in the misdemeanor statute implied less scienter than the same
word in the felony statute. Pp. 412 U. S. 350-361.
You can not be charged with willful disobedience due to following the constitution and backing of surpreme court decisions.
16 am jurisprudence 2nd, section 97
It will be interpreted in my favor I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for citizens protection of rights and properties.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927)
Unlawful search and siesure, but states that they have to interprate in my favor the clearly
intended and expressly designated beneficiary for citizens protection of rights and
properties.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
The court is to protect against any encroachment on a constitutional secured liberty
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
This could also apply to the second amendment... and I know of one other board member that knows about these law cause its in his sig.
I believe the Founding Fathers meant for the law to be understood by every man, so he/she could understand their rights and defend them. The convoluted laws of today have stripped us of our understanding and as such, our rights. CHL Holder Since 05/04/2012
