What rights? We don't need no stinking rights.
If you're charged with DWI you're going to need a lawyer. It might not do you much good, but you're still going to need one. Because DWI is a serious charge?
But is it. The law really is nonsense, it has nothing to do with rational thought. You see, the constitution promises you a jury trial. But the Supreme Court decided that they only need to stand up that promise if the charge is "serious". What does that mean? Well, whatever it means they've decided that DWI isn't really serious.
I mean it's a serious crime that the legislature has to take seriously and judges and prosecutors and cops have to take seriously. But it's not serious enough to require the government to actually follow the law themselves.
Isn't legal analysis great?
But is it. The law really is nonsense, it has nothing to do with rational thought. You see, the constitution promises you a jury trial. But the Supreme Court decided that they only need to stand up that promise if the charge is "serious". What does that mean? Well, whatever it means they've decided that DWI isn't really serious.
I mean it's a serious crime that the legislature has to take seriously and judges and prosecutors and cops have to take seriously. But it's not serious enough to require the government to actually follow the law themselves.
Isn't legal analysis great?
Labels: DWI/DUI, nevada dwi
posted by Gary Carson at
6:57 AM
2 Comments:
Okay, since the US Supreme Court has deemed the addition of the confiscation of your license an "Administrative Sanction" and does not apply to the “”Double Jeopardy” protection, I feel that we need to take a look at what an "Administrative Sanction" really means. This would also apply to states that assess fees to get the confiscated license re-instated.
According to Miriam-Webster (2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction), this is defined as: the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law.
According to Miriam-Webster (2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing), coercive is defined as:
1. to compel to an act or choice
2. to restrain of dominate by force
3. to achieve by force.
According to Miriam-Webster (2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex), annex is the act of:
1: to attach as a quality, consequence, or condition
2archaic: to join together materially: unite
3: to add to something earlier, larger, or more important
4: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
5: to obtain or take for oneself
Now that we have a definition of what a sanction is, we can now see that from sanction (coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law) this is a condition in addition placed on the original infraction of the law. To become a third-party to a legal proceeding by others for the protection of an alleged interest (Miriam-Webster, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intervene) combined with coercion, the state has now become a FORCED third-party to enforce a law. Well, the "sanction" has now become an addition (annex) to the original law. In other words what ever the state law dictates for the infraction, the other third-party is adding to the remedies/preventative measures of the state law. Since a sanction is defined as "the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law", how can they say this does not apply additional penalties and/or fines to a state law?
Penalty is defined as the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense (Miriam-Webster, 2008 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penalty).
BOTH SANCTION AND PENALTY are NO different in meaning. Each are applied repercussions to an offense, yet they are applied at different time periods within the Judicial System by different governing bodies. In other words, each time an action is taken on a single offense, damage is assessed to this action. This violates the Double Jeopardy law that is supposed to protect the US citizen in both the US Constitution, as well as most State Constitutions.
This has additional repercussions. In the current Judicial System, a defendant can be brought to court for the offence in two different court systems. The Criminal and the Civil court systems. This has always been a concern of mine ever since I was interviewed for a civil case jury. The defendant had already been brought under a judicial system and was acquitted. In other words he was found innocent. They were then brought before a civil court for punitive damages that were all based upon the original alleged offence in criminal court, in which they were acquitted. If this is not double jeopardy, I do not have any hope for our society. Either they are guilty of a crime or not. The prosecution has one chance to prove beyond a doubt to show that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime/offence to society or not. You should not be able to then try and apply civil actions based upon the same alleged infraction no matter the the action named. This is nothing more than applying a single offence in two different court systems in order to gain a favorable result. In other words, according to the Fifth Amendment, is an action either a crime or not. Then try the individual for the crime in a Criminal Court OR Civil Court, not both. The idea that an individual can be tried in both, "NOT" either, has always sent bone-chilling effects as to individual rights of a defendant, no matter the case and has always been a subjective case of Double Jeopardy” in my eyes.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Holtz, Jr., (A soon to be FORMER resident of the state of Texas)
They can say words mean whatever they want because they're lawyers and they've read Alice in Wonderland.
There's an entire section on the bar exam about rabbit holes and language.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home