This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6155.html

version 0.5

The beginnings of

Pearl’s big fat new motion #6155 demand for dismissal

The 142 cases that constitute constitutional procedure for criminals: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html

See the first 2 of the 4 cases about double jeopardy.

Faretta case: is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/faretta.html

Your rights as a pro se litigant: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html

The Faretta inquiry: http://www.jud10.org/faretta.htm ; www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/farettaq

Your highly evolved right to counsel: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/shelton.html

Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for defendants: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html

Faretta is at Findlaw.com at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/806.html

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html

Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html

Big fat issues:

1. Previous cases have been upheld because the defendant elected the two tier system. N. Dakota’s system is not an election. It requires two trials. Defendant has a right to one trial and one appeal! This is another example of sloppy legislation by idiots in North Dakota - same as in Wyoming and other empty states with stupid legislators.

2. De Novo process violates double jeopardy clause. They will say no cause it is like a screening. I say that it makes Pearl pay for a trial twice! It permits the prosecution to file no written motions.

3. Double Jeopardy: Authority: Double Jeopardy: If the 'judge' or DA causes the mistrial DJ definitely apply's From: "Thomas" <thomhill@knology.net> Date: Wed Dec 24, 2003 2:48 amSubject: Re: [lawyerdude] Re: Reversible Error ? FLORIDA CRIMINAL TRIAL PRACTICE Chapt. 18-13 Double jeopardy

The defense of double jeopardy means that a defendant may not twice be put in jeopardy of prosecution for the same conduct. Generally, the issue to be decided is whether the defendant was previously put in jeopardy for the charged offense.

Jeopardy attaches when a jury is empanelled and sworn. fn1 Under certain circumstances, however, a defendant's right to a chosen jury may be infringed upon by the state's bad faith conduct whether the selected jury is discharged before or after it has been sworn. fn2

The guarantee against double jeopardy also includes collateral estoppel which prevents relitigation between the same parties in any future litigation when an ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment. fn3

Thus, the state is precluded from relitigating certain facts in order to establish a crime which includes a redetermination of evidentiary facts as well as ultimate facts. fn4

In order for the defense to apply, one of the facts necessarily determined in the former trial must be an essential element of the presently charged offense. fn5

A necessarily established fact is one which was resolved in favor of the defendant at a previous trial and was essential to the conviction in that case. The defense does not apply if the verdict in the subsequent case can he grounded upon an issue other than that which the defendant is setting forth. fn6

The defense also applies to issues of search and seizure. fn7

If a defendant requests a mistrial, the defense of double jeopardy does not bar a retrial, except if it is shown the judge or prosecutor by his conduct, caused the defendant's motion for mistrial, and the conduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial. fn8

The physical condition of defense counsel may be a proper basis for granting a mistrial, thereby not preventing a retrial of the defendant after jeopardy has attached. fn9

DEFENSES

fn:

1. Brown v State, 367 So 2d 616 (Fla 1979).

2. Fassi v State, 591 So 2d 977 (Fla, 9th DCA 1991).

3. State v. Strong, 593 So 2d 1065 (Fla 4th DCA 1992).

4. State v. Strong, 593 So 2d 1065 (Flq 4th DCA 1992).

5. State v. Strong, 593 So 2d 1065 (Fla 4th DCA 1992).

4. State v. Strong, 593 So 2d 1065 (Flq 4th DCA 1992).

5. State v. Strong, 593 So 2d 1065 (Fla 4th DCA 1992).

8. Happ v. State 17 FLW S68 (Fla 1992).

9. Thomson v. State, 594 So 2d 310 (Fla 4th DCA 1992).

----- Original Message -----

From: legal_teeth <legal_teeth@yahoo.com>

To: <lawyerdude@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 4:27 AM

Subject: [lawyerdude] Re: Reversible Error ?

> There is reversible error and there is harmless error.

4. Motion to vacate because judgment is void for having been the product of denial of constitutional rights, a systemic prolem that cannot be solved by mere appeal because there is no appeal, there is only another trial, which violates double jeopardy clause.

5. Bias. The clerk sends out notice for the prosecution but not for Pearl.

6. Failure to advise that there would be no court reporter.

7. Failure to even comment that they were denying Pear’s written request for court reporter!

8. I believe that N. Dakota, like Wyoming, permits a court reporter when demanded!

9. Court reporter in implied in the right to a freakin transcript! MLB SLJ

10. All the issues from Melvin Looser case: brief 2871 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/2871.html

Please review the Shelton case at:

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/shelton.html

The De Novo procedure is inherently unconstitutional. That is my opinion. It invalidates the conviction AND prevents a retrial because of the double jeopardy clause. Also they should have advised you in advance that there was no court reporter because you asked for one in writing. NOW ! Do you see the advantage of putting all your demands to the court in writing?!!!

--- In lawyerdude@yahoogroups.com, "PRT" <pearlis@7...> wrote:

> Thom,

> I repeatedly reminded the Court that I was there without Counsel. The Judge

> said that they had provided an attorney for me who I rejected. I told him I

> wanted a counsel of choice and his public defender did not qualify to allow

> me to speak for myself.

> By the way, I discovered yesterday that it was a Court of No Record. I can

> not get a transcript of the trial because there isn't any. Now what do I do

> about an appeal? What happens to the sentence and the fine? the probation

> and also the designation that the cops can come and search me, my home, my

> car anytime for any reason with or without a search warrant?

> Pearlis B. Timmerman, Consultant

> 701-642-9017

>> -----Original Message-----

> From: Thomas [mailto:thomhill@k...]

> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:45 AM

> To: lawyerdude@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [lawyerdude] Get out of jail card ?

> Pearl,

> I don't know the intimate details of your particular case but you may want

> to check out this USSC case - It says basically you cannot be sent to jail

> unless you were represented by counsel at trial -

> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1214.ZS.html

> Please send cookies if it helps {:-)

> Merry Christmas,

> Thom

124. Id. at 10-11. See also Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 (1978)

(remanding for determination whether appellate majority had reversed for

insufficient evidence or whether some of the majority had based decision

on trial error); Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (1981) (Burks applies

where appellate court finds some but insufficient evidence adduced, not

only where it finds no evidence). Burks was distinguished in Justices of

Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (1984), holding that a

defendant who had elected to undergo a bench trial with no appellate

review but with right of trial de novo before a jury (and with appellate

review available) could not bar trial de novo and reverse his bench

trial conviction by asserting that the conviction had been based on

insufficient evidence. The two-tiered system in effect gave the

defendant two chances at acquittal; under those circumstances jeopardy

was not terminated by completion of the first entirely optional stage.

125. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982). The decision was 5-

to-4, the dissent arguing that weight and insufficiency determinations

should be given identical double jeopardy clause treatment. Id. at 47

(Justices White, Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun).

126. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (state may

reprosecute under habitual offender statute even though evidence of a

prior conviction was improperly admitted; at retrial, state may attempt

to establish other prior convictions as to which no proof was offered at

prior trial).