LEGALITY OF CASINO TRESPASSING
Quote: ZenKinGIf the 6th amendment says ALL criminal trials, it means ALL, end of story....
WRONG...Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).
So, let me get this straight... The ultimate decision in a court is down to the immutable US Constitution and a Jury of ordinary citizens, so no matter how corrupt the judges, justice and Zenking's assertion of the law shall prevail...Quote: ZenKinGtldr
But hang on a moment... Won't the jury be made up of droned out, uneducated, ignorant fools? Is there no chance that the immutable constitution and ZK's absolute rights won't prevail and he will be screwed? Rather makes his forceful assertion that knowing his rights will render him safe?
"He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"
Quote: UP84WRONG...Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).
You do realize that Supreme Court case REVERSED the erroneous findings of the lower New York courts by confirming that the 6th amendment applies to ALL criminal cases and that the defendent was indeed entitled to a jury trial.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concluded that the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury applies to "all crimes," and not just to those crimes deemed to be "serious."
Nice try, but you're the one that's wrong. Do you and others even read what you're citing on here, let alone the information I provide before trying to rebut me?
Quote: ZenKinGYou do realize that Supreme Court case REVERSED the erroneous findings of the lower New York courts by confirming that the 6th amendment applies to ALL criminal cases and that the defendent was indeed entitled to a jury trial.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concluded that the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury applies to "all crimes," and not just to those crimes deemed to be "serious."
Nice try, but you're the one that's wrong. Do you and others even read what you're citing on here, let alone the information I provide before trying to rebut me?
I've been a lawyer for 25 years and am very familiar with this case. In Baldwin the Supreme Court found that the right to a jury trial under the 6th Amendment does NOT apply to a criminal proceeding where the maximum penalty does not exceed 6 months. Dude, that is the law of the land.
Quote: FinsRuleIf 99% of people are mindless drones that just trust what authorities tell them, who are you hoping to be on this jury you’re so excited for?
That's the exact fear I have been trying to illustrate in my posts if you and others actually took the time to read them. The best chance at success in a jury trial is representing yourself pro se and choosing the jury YOURSELF rather than the help of your lawyer. In choosing the jury, make sure to choose ALL MINORITIES, especially black people as they have a higher probability of ruling against the government and sniffing out potential corruption as they are more open to hearing a different side of things compared to other races and groups of people. This has to do with most of their upbringing in how they have dealt with government such as the police force, etc and them having the feeling they have been treated unfairly compared to others.
Do you mean “does not exceed”?Quote: UP84I've been a lawyer for 25 years and am very familiar with this case. In Baldwin the Supreme Court found that the right to a jury trial under the 6tt Amendment does NOT apply to a criminal proceeding where the maximum penalty exceeds 6 months. Dude, that is the law of the land.
Quote: UP84I've been a lawyer for 25 years and am very familiar with this case. In Baldwin the Supreme Court found that the right to a jury trial under the 6tt Amendment does NOT apply to a criminal proceeding where the maximum penalty exceeds 6 months. Dude, that is the law of the land.
Anyone can play a lawyer on the internet, but I go by facts and actual law and what's actually been stated in these court rulings.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concluded that the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury applies to "all crimes," and not just to those crimes deemed to be "serious."
Next.
Quote: OnceDearSo, let me get this straight... The ultimate decision in a court is down to the immutable US Constitution and a Jury of ordinary citizens, so no matter how corrupt the judges, justice and Zenking's assertion of the law shall prevail...
But hang on a moment... Won't the jury be made up of droned out, uneducated, ignorant fools? Is there no chance that the immutable constitution and ZK's absolute rights won't prevail and he will be screwed? Rather makes his forceful assertion that knowing his rights will render him safe?
"He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"
Yes, that's my only fear as I've stated many times now and why I'm as passionate about educating everyone as possible. That's the only fear anyone should have in this country regarding enforcement of laws.
Quote: ZenKinGYou don't even realize what the link says that you quoted. First off, your legal proceeding was a STATE matter, not a FEDERAL matter, correct? Additionally, your case if it resulted in no jail time, was a CIVIL matter and a jury trial is guaranteed by the 7th amendment. The link you showed me was regarding the FEDERAL courts and the 6th amendment. Nonetheless, the court has no right to interpret the Constitution. All interpretation is found in the Federalist Papers and Madisons' Notes. If the 6th amendment says ALL criminal trials, it means ALL, end of story. Any court that says otherwise can be challenged.
Jesus Christ.
1.) The states are compelled, from a legal and judicial standpoint, to adhere to the Constitution of the United States in their handling of legal affairs. While states may make their own laws provided same are not in contravention of federal laws, by default, if no special law is made any applicable federal law applies by default.
2.) My link, which you evidently did not read, goes on to address this fact that states generally treat the right to a jury trial the same way.
3.) My link further states that not all civil cases automatically invoke the right to a jury trial, so even if you are right on that point, it’s irrelevant.
4.) It is actually a criminal trial because there is a finding of either guilty or not guilty. The case would not be disposed as such in a civil proceeding.
5.) What you are saying could be challenged can and has been challenged with the SCOTUS holding precisely what the link I provided you says.
6.). There are only two states, Vermont and Virginia, which enable the accused to have a right to jury trial regardless of the underlying charge and potential penalties therefrom. This occurred in neither of those states.
It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, I promise. I don’t think any less of you. I’m wrong quite frequently.
Quote: ZenKinGAnyone can play a lawyer on the internet, but I go by facts and actual law and what's actually been stated in these court rulings.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concluded that the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury applies to "all crimes," and not just to those crimes deemed to be "serious."
Next.
The BLACK and DOUGLAS opinions were in dissent. That means they don't count.
It's obvious you don't know how to read a Court opinion.
Also everyone that has stated my OP on trespassing simply say I'm wrong, but can't argue facts or tell me why? I wonder why. So common today in society from corrupt groups of agenda based organizations, agencies, and corporations. The truth will always prevail. It's all a matter of spreading it and getting everyone knowledgable to enforce it. Evil only exists due to ignorance.
Quote: ZenKinGThat's the exact fear I have been trying to illustrate in my posts if you and others actually took the time to read them. The best chance at success in a jury trial is representing yourself pro se and choosing the jury YOURSELF rather than the help of your lawyer. In choosing the jury, make sure to choose ALL MINORITIES, especially black people as they have a higher probability of ruling against the government and sniffing out potential corruption as they are more open to hearing a different side of things compared to other races and groups of people. This has to do with most of their upbringing in how they have dealt with government such as the police force, etc and them having the feeling they have been treated unfairly compared to others.
You don’t get to choose the jury yourself.
Quote: ZenKinGI also love how certain people completely hijacked the thread and don't get suspended or banned, but I say one f bomb completely undirected at anyone and I get sentenced.
My line of posts is literally the exact subject matter of this thread. More than that, I have personal experience in this regard and you’ve heard from at least one other poster who has general law experience. I believe you have neither of those things as relates this matter, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Quote: TigerWuDear god, somebody get ZK some help. This is actually worrisome.
Actually, ZK's ramblings on this thread are very similar to a lot of Pro Se pleadings I've read from prisoners over the years...long, articulate, and completely off-the-wall wrong from a legal perspective.
Quote: UP84The BLACK and DOUGLASS opinions were in dissent. That means they don't count.
It's obvious you don't know how to read a Court opinion.
Yes, but the other two justices also said otherwise. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what a court holds, even the Supreme Court. It makes it lawful for NOW, until challenged otherwise. A court can't make it's own interpretation of what the 6th amendment was intended to mean. The 6th amendment is supposed to apply to ALL criminal trials, and the 7th amendment is supposed to APPLY to all civil cases. Just more unconstitutional B.S going on. Usually the Supreme Court gets it right, so this was a poor moment for this country by having several justices say that cases can be tried without a jury if imprisonment is less than 6 months.
Quote: ZenKinGYes, but the other two justices also said otherwise. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter what a court holds, even the Supreme Court. It makes it lawful for NOW, until challenged otherwise. A court can't make it's own interpretation of what the 6th amendment was intended to mean. The 6th amendment is supposed to apply to ALL criminal trials, and the 7th amendment is supposed to APPLY to all civil cases. Just more unconstitutional B.S going on. Usually the Supreme Court gets it right, so this was a poor moment for this country by having several justices say that cases can be tried without a jury if imprisonment is less than 6 months.
So you admit you were wrong on the Baldwin holding.
Quote: Mission146Jesus Christ.
1.) The states are compelled, from a legal and judicial standpoint, to adhere to the Constitution of the United States in their handling of legal affairs. While states may make their own laws provided same are not in contravention of federal laws, by default, if no special law is made any applicable federal law applies by default.
2.) My link, which you evidently did not read, goes on to address this fact that states generally treat the right to a jury trial the same way.
3.) My link further states that not all civil cases automatically invoke the right to a jury trial, so even if you are right on that point, it’s irrelevant.
4.) It is actually a criminal trial because there is a finding of either guilty or not guilty. The case would not be disposed as such in a civil proceeding.
5.) What you are saying could be challenged can and has been challenged with the SCOTUS holding precisely what the link I provided you says.
6.). There are only two states, Vermont and Virginia, which enable the accused to have a right to jury trial regardless of the underlying charge and potential penalties therefrom. This occurred in neither of those states.
It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, I promise. I don’t think any less of you. I’m wrong quite frequently.
First off, I never argued about the Federal law not having supremacy over the states. If you actually read what I write, you wouldn't have said that, so I don't even know what you're arguing with me.
Secondly, no Court, not even the Supreme Court can try to redefine what the 6th amendment or what the Constitution says. It's not up to the Justices to define what is 'Pretty' in a criminal case and what is not. The 6th amendment clearly says in ALL criminal prosecutions, you are guaranteed a jury trial. Plain and Simple. Regarding civil cases, you are guaranteed a jury trial as well by the 7th amendment.
Quote: ZenKinG
...not even the Supreme Court can try to redefine what the 6th amendment or what the Constitution says.
Of course the Supreme Court can define what the Constitution says. That's one of its biggest functions!!
Black and Douglas were a concurring opinion. The decision was a plurality. You are missing some nuance here for someone so quick to rub ZK’s nose in it.Quote: UP84The BLACK and DOUGLAS opinions were in dissent. That means they don't count.
It's obvious you don't know how to read a Court opinion.
Quote: ZenKinGFirst off, I never argued about the Federal law not having supremacy over the states. If you actually read what I write, you wouldn't have said that, so I don't even know what you're arguing with me.
One of your arguments was that my matter was not before a Federal Court, but rather a State Court. My counter was that the same standard would apply in a State Court, by default, absent a state law to the contrary.
Quote:Secondly, no Court, not even the Supreme Court can try to redefine what the 6th amendment or what the Constitution says. It's not up to the Justices to define what is 'Pretty' in a criminal case and what is not. The 6th amendment clearly says in ALL criminal prosecutions, you are guaranteed a jury trial. Plain and Simple. Regarding civil cases, you are guaranteed a jury trial as well by the 7th amendment.
The primary reason for the existence of the SCOTUS, for better or worse, is to interpret the Constitution. I’m just informing you of what the highest court in the land decided. Believe it or not, neither your personal and fallacious opinion of what is nor your personal opinion of what ought be will do anything to alter reality. At least, not the reality that the rest of us drones experience.
Quote: UP84So you admit you were wrong on the Baldwin holding.
No I'm not wrong. Yes, several justices throughout the trial mentioned that the 6th amendment said it doesn't apply to 'petty' offenses that are under 6 months, but that was in reference to the Douglas v. Louisiana case. In the end the other two justices confirmed in 'concurrence' that the 6th amendment applied to ALL criminal cases. Also what The excerpt from black and douglas also was NOT in dissent and even if it was, what makes you think something in dissent is meaningless? It gives future proceedings a bit more weight if several justices confirmed it.
Quote: Mission146One of your arguments was that my matter was not before a Federal Court, but rather a State Court. My counter was that the same standard would apply in a State Court, by default, absent a state law to the contrary.
The primary reason for the existence of the SCOTUS, for better or worse, is to interpret the Constitution. I’m just informing you of what the highest court in the land decided. Believe it or not, neither your personal and fallacious opinion of what is nor your personal opinion of what ought be will do anything to alter reality. At least, not the reality that the rest of us drones experience.
Yeah, when you showed me that link, I forgot about the supremacy clause, as I was in the middle of doing several things at once and replying to someone else and didnt have time to read the whole thing. I'm very aware of the Supremacy Clause found in the Constitution. States do have their own laws about whether offering a jury trial, but as you said, it's irrelevant.
Regarding the SCOTUS. let be more specific. The job of the SCOTUS is NOT to give their OWN interpretations, but to interpret it BASED ON what was said in the Federalist Papers and Madisons' Notes at the time of the Constitution being written and ratified. They cannot pick and choose what an Amendment or anything in the Constitution says and do as they will. Not to mention, the 6th amendment doesn't even give any vague angle to pick and choose what it means. It's pretty clear cut. 'ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS'. and NOT 'SOME CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS'.
You and Up84 have now destroyed my thread with meaningless drivel unrelated to the original subject at hand. This was an epic thread on the legality of casino trespassing and now has gone by the wayside.
Quote: ZenKinGIn choosing the jury, make sure to choose ALL MINORITIES, especially black people as they have a higher probability of ruling against the government and sniffing out potential corruption as they are more open to hearing a different side of things compared to other races and groups of people.
How do you choose your own jury? This is not my area of expertise, but I was recently on jury duty in a case of a black defendant and all white jury. I'm sure his attorney was not happy about it, but you didn't seem him asking to find 12 random jurors at Jerry's Nugget.
Quote: ZenKinGLet be more specific. The job of the SCOTUS is NOT to give their OWN interpretations, but to interpret it BASED ON what was said in the Federalist Papers and Madisons' Notes at the time of the Constitution being written and ratified. They cannot pick and choose what an Amendment says and do as they will. Not to mention, the 6th amendment doesn't even give any vague angle to pick and choose what it means. It's pretty clear cut. 'ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS'. and NOT 'SOME CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS'.
You and Up84 have now destroyed my thread with meaningless dribble unrelated to the original subject at hand.
Look up United States v. Nachtigal. Per Curiam. That means unanimous.
You can think whatever you want about what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. After that, you can get charged with some form of criminal trespass and request a trial by jury. If the maximum punishment, in terms of jail time, is six months or fewer, then you can appeal not getting a jury all the way to the SCOTUS whereupon you will lose if it’s heard at all.
Anyway, I’m not the biggest fan of either the SCOTUS or The Constitution. However, I tend to have at least the minimum required amount of maturity to know that things aren’t going to be a different way than they are simply because I want them to be, which is not to say that you lack said maturity.
I didn’t destroy your thread with anything. I spoke to being 86’ed from a casino, returning to said casino thereafter and then being charged with defiant trespass. That is literally the exact subject matter of this thread. Also, the notion that anything I said was meaningless dribble is laughable. Not only has nothing I’ve said so far been incorrect, but more importantly, you’re the one who chose to engage me with your nonsensical quasi legal arguments when I was discussing the actual experience of appearing in court over a trespass charge stemming from an incident in a casino.
Quote: WizardHow do you choose your own jury? This is not my area of expertise, but I was recently on jury duty in a case of a black defendant and all white jury. I'm sure his attorney was not happy about it, but you didn't seem him asking to find 12 random jurors at Jerry's Nugget.
You can't choose the actual jury pool that arrive there, that's done by random by mailing the people who are registered to vote, etc. What you can do, is you then get to choose from that pool in the courtroom many months before trial or however long before it is. I guess in the terms of your case, the whole pool must have been over 95% white. The lawyer usually is the one choosing, but if you're representing yourself, you can then choose them yourself.
Quote: Mission146Look up United States v. Nachtigal. Per Curiam. That means unanimous.
You can think whatever you want about what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. After that, you can get charged with some form of criminal trespass and request a trial by jury. If the maximum punishment, in terms of jail time, is six months or fewer, then you can appeal not getting a jury all the way to the SCOTUS whereupon you will lose if it’s heard at all.
Anyway, I’m not the biggest fan of either the SCOTUS or The Constitution. However, I tend to have at least the minimum required amount of maturity to know that things aren’t going to be a different way than they are simply because I want them to be, which is not to say that you lack said maturity.
I didn’t destroy your thread with anything. I spoke to being 86’ed from a casino, returning to said casino thereafter and then being charged with defiant trespass. That is literally the exact subject matter of this thread. Also, the notion that anything I said was meaningless dribble is laughable. Not only has nothing I’ve said so far been incorrect, but more importantly, you’re the one who chose to engage me with your nonsensical quasi legal arguments when I was discussing the actual experience of appearing in court over a trespass charge stemming from an incident in a casino.
Having now read the Baldwin case I don’t think it’s clear someone loses. It’s a plurality decision. The case at issue was someone facing a one year sentence. Three justices said that any jail time in excess of 6 months makes it “serious”. (NOTE: they don’t say the converse that less than six months is per se not “serious” as that issue was not in front of them.) Two said the “serious” distinction isn’t part of the 6th Amendment. The door seems open for a “serious” criminal trial where the punishment is less than six months. That said, I don’t love ZK’s facts as my case to broaden the law here.
Quote: Mission146Look up United States v. Nachtigal. Per Curiam. That means unanimous.
You can think whatever you want about what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. After that, you can get charged with some form of criminal trespass and request a trial by jury. If the maximum punishment, in terms of jail time, is six months or fewer, then you can appeal not getting a jury all the way to the SCOTUS whereupon you will lose if it’s heard at all.
Anyway, I’m not the biggest fan of either the SCOTUS or The Constitution. However, I tend to have at least the minimum required amount of maturity to know that things aren’t going to be a different way than they are simply because I want them to be, which is not to say that you lack said maturity.
I didn’t destroy your thread with anything. I spoke to being 86’ed from a casino, returning to said casino thereafter and then being charged with defiant trespass. That is literally the exact subject matter of this thread. Also, the notion that anything I said was meaningless dribble is laughable. Not only has nothing I’ve said so far been incorrect, but more importantly, you’re the one who chose to engage me with your nonsensical quasi legal arguments when I was discussing the actual experience of appearing in court over a trespass charge stemming from an incident in a casino.
I guess to be fair to you, you didn't exactly hijack it, but the discussion went on longer than need be because I think I was right the whole time and was clear what the 6th amendment does. The baldwin ruling didn't change anything as confirmed by several justices in a 'concurring' opinion and not in dissent. Besides, even if it did change anything, the ruling is still unconstitutional and can be challenged once again because the 6th amendment as well as the 7th amendment leave nothing to interpret as what is petty and what is not, it is pretty cut and dry by saying 'ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS get a JURY TRIAL. The Justices at the end of the Baldwin ruling stated the same thing.
I won't be found of a criminal trespass because as was stated in the OP, they cannot trespass me without good cause, the district court judge won't let that be appealed to the Supreme Court and at the most will get thrown out after appeal, but most likely even before the appeal.
Quote: unJonHaving now read the Baldwin case I don’t think it’s clear someone loses. It’s a plurality decision. The case at issue was someone facing a one year sentence. Three justices said that any jail time in excess of 6 months makes it “serious”. (NOTE: they don’t say the converse that less than six months is per se not “serious” as that issue was not in front of them.) Two said the “serious” distinction isn’t part of the 6th Amendment. The door seems open for a “serious” criminal trial where the punishment is less than six months. That said, I don’t love ZK’s facts as my case to broaden the law here.
In other words, the king was right again, thanks.
Quote: unJonHaving now read the Baldwin case I don’t think it’s clear someone loses. It’s a plurality decision. The case at issue was someone facing a one year sentence. Three justices said that any jail time in excess of 6 months makes it “serious”. (NOTE: they don’t say the converse that less than six months is per se not “serious” as that issue was not in front of them.) Two said the “serious” distinction isn’t part of the 6th Amendment. The door seems open for a “serious” criminal trial where the punishment is less than six months. That said, I don’t love ZK’s facts as my case to broaden the law here.
Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have been such a topic of conversation during the Kavanaugh confirmation process if the SCOTUS could not make decisions that effectively reverse something the SCOTUS itself previously held. So, I certainly agree that could theoretically happen.
That said, I would also encourage you to read United States v. Nachtigal, unanimous, and that is hardly the only SCOTUS decision that has held similarly. I believe a majority of the justices that heard Nachtigal are still on the SCOTUS.
I’m not even suggesting that ZK’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is wrong or that I disagree with him on what ought be. I agree with him on what ought be for precisely the reason I said a few pages ago to the effect that a Magistrate has no incentive towards a finding of anything but guilty if the only penalty is going to be a fine.
Anyway, ZK’s original counter was that what he is now saying should be the case actually is the case. It’s not and it probably won’t be, regardless of whether or not both he and I wish for it to be. So, my position is just that I was telling him how it actually works now.
Yup I agree with you. United States v. Nachtiga is pretty clear.Quote: Mission146Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have been such a topic of conversation during the Kavanaugh confirmation process if the SCOTUS could not make decisions that effectively reverse something the SCOTUS itself previously held. So, I certainly agree that could theoretically happen.
That said, I would also encourage you to read United States v. Nachtigal, unanimous, and that is hardly the only SCOTUS decision that has held similarly. I believe a majority of the justices that heard Nachtigal are still on the SCOTUS.
I’m not even suggesting that ZK’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is wrong or that I disagree with him on what ought be. I agree with him on what ought be for precisely the reason I said a few pages ago to the effect that a Magistrate has no incentive towards a finding of anything but guilty if the only penalty is going to be a fine.
Anyway, ZK’s original counter was that what he is now saying should be the case actually is the case. It’s not and it probably won’t be, regardless of whether or not both he and I wish for it to be. So, my position is just that I was telling him how it actually works now.
But then again, all this is just bluster from a failed counter. Otherwise he would be out making money, adding his bankroll, keeping a low profile instead of picking internet fights when he’s not suspended.
So either he is lying about his results, about even after a year plus in Vegas, or just isn’t that good at what he professes to be the best at. Or a 3rd possibility is he could be good at counting but just doesn’t have the discipline to succeed at it, therefore he is treading water, which again is failing compared to many.
We all know someone who blames their failures on everyone and anyone except the person who is actually responsible for how their life turned out, the guy in the mirror.
We all have our thoughts on how this ends for the King, but I have to admit it’s fun watching the self destruction from a distance. And those of you who have tried to help him, nice gesture but your time is better spent doing anything.
Some people just don’t want, need or deserve help. Unless you know that person is a danger to others, then it becomes a moral responsibility to report them. Unlike the King, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t speak of anyone’s legal obligation, only a moral one.
Signed Just another Drone...Boz
Quote: ZenKinGYou can't choose the actual jury pool that arrive there, that's done by random by mailing the people who are registered to vote, etc. What you can do, is you then get to choose from that pool in the courtroom many months before trial or however long before it is. I guess in the terms of your case, the whole pool must have been over 95% white. The lawyer usually is the one choosing, but if you're representing yourself, you can then choose them yourself.
Where to start? I'm pretty sure that the day I had jury duty they selected random numbers to go to particular courtrooms. I seriously doubt the defendant in my case knew I was going to be in the jury months in advance, much less my race or anything other than my address (which would mostly give away my race, to be honest with you).
In my case about 100 jurors were sent over to the particular courtroom and 95% were white and the other 5% looked to be of some sort of mixed race. I assure the the defendant had the darkest skin in the room, by far.
What is my point? I still doubt the defendant or his attorney has much say in the jury that is randomly chosen. I think both sides can reject three people for any reason they wish in cases like burglary. Hopefully somebody who knows what he is talking about can shed some light on this.
Quote: ZenKinGI guess to be fair to you, you didn't exactly hijack it, but the discussion went on longer than need be because I think I was right the whole time and was clear what the 6th amendment does. The baldwin ruling didn't change anything as confirmed by several justices in a 'concurring' opinion and not in dissent. Besides, even if it did change anything, the ruling is still unconstitutional and can be challenged once again because the 6th amendment as well as the 7th amendment leave nothing to interpret as what is petty and what is not, it is pretty cut and dry by saying 'ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS get a JURY TRIAL. The Justices at the end of the Baldwin ruling stated the same thing.
Supposing that we were both on the SCOTUS, we would rule the same way on what the Sixth Amendment says and does. Relevantly, neither of us are on the SCOTUS or ever will be. I should think we’d both be disqualified just based on stuff we’ve said on this forum here and there.
Baldwin may or may not, but there have been several decisions that came later which resulted in the same finding. United States v. Nachtigal being a very easy to find and short to read per curiam decision to the same effect.
I agree that it could theoretically be challenged again. I’m also pointing out that it has been challenged since then with a similar result.
Quote:I won't be found of a criminal trespass because as was stated in the OP, they cannot trespass me without good cause, the district court judge won't let that be appealed to the Supreme Court and at the most will get thrown out after appeal, but most likely even before the appeal.
Well, good luck with that. I was found guilty of defiant trespass despite the fact that neither the owner of the property, nor an agent thereof, barred me from the property. How could they? It was owned by an entirely unrelated company/corporation when I was banned. Again, that’s the result you’re going to get in a Magistrate Court. It’s not even guilty until proven innocent, it’s guilty because the @$$clown says so.
I could have theoretically appealed to County Court, but all the Magistrate would have to do is say that I didn’t introduce my argument in the lower court and that’s that. You can’t bring up an argument for the first time on appeal, and with no transcript of proceedings, I can’t prove that I argued what I’d be telling the County Court I argued.
Quote: Mission146Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have been such a topic of conversation during the Kavanaugh confirmation process if the SCOTUS could not make decisions that effectively reverse something the SCOTUS itself previously held. So, I certainly agree that could theoretically happen.
That said, I would also encourage you to read United States v. Nachtigal, unanimous, and that is hardly the only SCOTUS decision that has held similarly. I believe a majority of the justices that heard Nachtigal are still on the SCOTUS.
I’m not even suggesting that ZK’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment is wrong or that I disagree with him on what ought be. I agree with him on what ought be for precisely the reason I said a few pages ago to the effect that a Magistrate has no incentive towards a finding of anything but guilty if the only penalty is going to be a fine.
Anyway, ZK’s original counter was that what he is now saying should be the case actually is the case. It’s not and it probably won’t be, regardless of whether or not both he and I wish for it to be. So, my position is just that I was telling him how it actually works now.
Well, I will say this, you were right about when I started talking about state vs federal when you provided that first link of yours. For some reason I forgot about the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I just immediately went into defensive mode without having time to read the whole thing. Other than that, this is typical legalese reading these court opinions. They never come out and directly say something, you ahve to dig in between the lines. The truth in the baldwin decision is like what unKon said. It was addition by subtraction in a way. They agreed that the 6th amendment applied to all, but the decision at hand was only referencing what happens if it's more than 6 months and then the reader falsely assumes it also means the reverse where it's also under 6 months means the opposite, but the judge NEVER said that, we just falsely assumed. Supreme Court judges usually get it right even if they make it confusing to comprehend, so I do have a lot of respect for them compared to lower level corrupt district court judges.
Also just to reaffirm, I also never said Supreme Court justices don't have their place, they are a vital piece to enforcement of the law. It's just that when you say they can interpret the Constitution, that's patently false.
Quote: Mission146Supposing that we were both on the SCOTUS, we would rule the same way on what the Sixth Amendment says and does. Relevantly, neither of us are on the SCOTUS or ever will be. I should think we’d both be disqualified just based on stuff we’ve said on this forum here and there.
Baldwin may or may not, but there have been several decisions that came later which resulted in the same finding. United States v. Nachtigal being a very easy to find and short to read per curiam decision to the same effect.
I agree that it could theoretically be challenged again. I’m also pointing out that it has been challenged since then with a similar result.
Well, good luck with that. I was found guilty of defiant trespass despite the fact that neither the owner of the property, nor an agent thereof, barred me from the property. How could they? It was owned by an entirely unrelated company/corporation when I was banned. Again, that’s the result you’re going to get in a Magistrate Court. It’s not even guilty until proven innocent, it’s guilty because the @$$clown says so.
I could have theoretically appealed to County Court, but all the Magistrate would have to do is say that I didn’t introduce my argument in the lower court and that’s that. You can’t bring up an argument for the first time on appeal, and with no transcript of proceedings, I can’t prove that I argued what I’d be telling the County Court I argued.
Ahh, well if you read my OP, I said it's vitally important to seek discovery in district court and then if you have to APPEAL it. It will eventually get thrown out as what happened in the Wilkinson Appeal. They found Annette Wilkinson guilty until she appealed it. That's where you went wrong unfortunately. Why were you trespassed in the first place, I didn't read your story.
Quote: WizardWhere to start? I'm pretty sure that the day I had jury duty they selected random numbers to go to particular courtrooms. I seriously doubt the defendant in my case knew I was going to be in the jury months in advance, much less my race or anything other than my address (which would mostly give away my race, to be honest with you).
In my case about 100 jurors were sent over to the particular courtroom and 95% were white and the other 5% looked to be of some sort of mixed race. I assure the the defendant had the darkest skin in the room, by far.
What is my point? I still doubt the defendant or his attorney has much say in the jury that is randomly chosen. I think both sides can reject three people for any reason they wish in cases like burglary. Hopefully somebody who knows what he is talking about can shed some light on this.
I know what I'm talking about. You just didn't understand my post. They select the 'pool' by random through voter registrations and what not, etc. The mailing goes out, and the people who received the letter attend the courtroom. This is the 'jury pool' I was referencing before and what you're getting at with the '100 jurors'. You then are chosen to go to jury box one by one where you are asked questions to see if you're able to be unbiased if picked for the trial. That's where the lawyer or you if representing yourself would 'choose' the jury.
Quote: ZenKinGAhh, well if you read my OP, I said it's vitally important to seek discovery in district court and then if you have to APPEAL it. It will eventually get thrown out as what happened in the Wilkinson Appeal. They found Annette Wilkinson guilty until she appealed it. That's where you went wrong unfortunately. Why were you trespassed in the first place, I didn't read your story.
I can’t really disclose the specifics of the play out of confidentiality. The short story is players club cards belonging to other people, though used with permission. They nabbed me picking up free play on one or more of them, we think one or more of them were flagged.
Quote: BozAmazing how the King makes the average observer root for the casinos.
But then again, all this is just bluster from a failed counter. Otherwise he would be out making money, adding his bankroll, keeping a low profile instead of picking internet fights when he’s not suspended.
So either he is lying about his results, about even after a year plus in Vegas, or just isn’t that good at what he professes to be the best at. Or a 3rd possibility is he could be good at counting but just doesn’t have the discipline to succeed at it, therefore he is treading water, which again is failing compared to many.
We all know someone who blames their failures on everyone and anyone except the person who is actually responsible for how their life turned out, the guy in the mirror.
We all have our thoughts on how this ends for the King, but I have to admit it’s fun watching the self destruction from a distance. And those of you who have tried to help him, nice gesture but your time is better spent doing anything.
Some people just don’t want, need or deserve help. Unless you know that person is a danger to others, then it becomes a moral responsibility to report them. Unlike the King, I’m not a lawyer so I can’t speak of anyone’s legal obligation, only a moral one.
Signed Just another Drone...Boz
Lying about my results? No. Not as good as I profess to be. No. No discipline? That's laughable,because when you can adopt a pure backcounting style and not place a bet for hours on end each trip, i would say you have discipline, so no you're wrong about that as well. So how about none of the 3.
You did leave one out though, which is the one that's actually true. What have I said since I got here? It was a lot harder to log hours than I thought. Combine that with the fact I just havent played enough and didnt play around 4 months of actual blackjack due to trips to go visit my family combined with the fact that I also play video games competitively and that took out some time from blackjack. Then on top of that combine it with the fact that it's very hard to log hours with all the short sessions combined again with the fact that I have been too passive with playing.
This passive part time style has been attributed a lot to me thinking the casinos were cheating me and caused a lot of downtime being reluctant to play. But for the most part, me not playing enough has more to do with it just being very tough to log hours jumping from casino to casino. I've only logged around 405 hours in Vegas and I'm up +17.2k in vegas and -1600 in SoCal with 6.5 hours played there. So only really about 410 hours played since I got here last May. Do the math, what's that in EV? Pretty close to my expectation betting on average 2x200 since I got here, huh?
Nice try, keep on moving.
Quote: Mission146I can’t really disclose the specifics of the play out of confidentiality. The short story is players club cards belonging to other people, though used with permission. They nabbed me picking up free play on one or more of them, we think one or more of them were flagged.
Hmm, that type of action is more 'gray' area and not exactly the same as someone who is trespassed for counting so it's not really an apples to apples comparison. Still, you probably would've succeeded had you appealed and sought discovery in district court. Would have been likely thrown out.
Quote: ZenKinGHmm, that type of action is more 'gray' area and not exactly the same as someone who is trespassed for counting so it's not really an apples to apples comparison. Still, you probably would've succeeded had you appealed and sought discovery in district court. Would have been likely thrown out.
It’s the same as the Magistrate. I’d have either paid a lawyer more than the amount of the fine and maybe won, or I would have filed the appeal pro se, made the same exact arguments that the lawyer would have and definitely lost.
The action I did is not even a gray area in terms of what the casino allows, it is expressly prohibited by the casino’s stated terms and conditions. I have no argument whatsoever against them kicking me out the first time aside from my opinion that they are a bunch of cry babies. Of course, the profits were not insubstantial.
Again, the problem with the trespass is the fact that the owner of the casino nor any agent thereof ever barred me from that casino. The law says blah blah blah owner of a property or any agent thereof blah blah blah. The Magistrate acknowledged that the casino was owned by a different company, he simply said that doesn’t matter. His argument against me, because to be clear, it was HIM arguing against me (as opposed to listening) and not the other side, is that the casino has the same name as it did under the previous owner. Like I said, in my opinion, it was objectively ridiculous.
Quote: Mission146It’s the same as the Magistrate. I’d have either paid a lawyer more than the amount of the fine and maybe won, or I would have filed the appeal pro se, made the same exact arguments that the lawyer would have and definitely lost.
The action I did is not even a gray area in terms of what the casino allows, it is expressly prohibited by the casino’s stated terms and conditions. I have no argument whatsoever against them kicking me out the first time aside from my opinion that they are a bunch of cry babies. Of course, the profits were not insubstantial.
Again, the problem with the trespass is the fact that the owner of the casino nor any agent thereof ever barred me from that casino. The law says blah blah blah owner of a property or any agent thereof blah blah blah. The Magistrate acknowledged that the casino was owned by a different company, he simply said that doesn’t matter. His argument against me, because to be clear, it was HIM arguing against me (as opposed to listening) and not the other side, is that the casino has the same name as it did under the previous owner. Like I said, in my opinion, it was objectively ridiculous.
Then you should've said, what disorderly conduct or damage to the property did I do for a public place such as a casino to trespass me? Then introduce the Wilkinson and the Thomas Robertson case into evidence as I illustrated in the OP.
By the way, just read the UNITED STATES v. NACHTIGAL case. This is depressing. I guess the Supreme Court isn't as reliable as I once thought because I dont know how they can get this wrong. I guess you are right though, the 6th amendment is limited in it's application according to the Supreme Court. I will still say as I said before, that still doesn't make it constitutional just because even the Supreme Court has said what they said, but now becomes an uphill battle. It could easily be challenged again, but no one knows the outcome so kind of a slippery slope. I guess the jury trial is out of my plans now if i do get railroaded by the judge lol.
What was the first court decision that decided if something was a 'petty' offense and what was not? This is a complete disgrace by the one court I thought was somewhat reliable.
Quote: ZenKinGAlso just to reaffirm, I also never said Supreme Court justices don't have their place, they are a vital piece to enforcement of the law. It's just that when you say they can interpret the Constitution, that's patently false.
Then whose job is it to interpret the constitution?
Quote: ZenKinGThen you should've said, what disorderly conduct or damage to the property did I do for a public place such as a casino to trespass me? Then introduce the Wilkinson and the Thomas Robertson case into evidence as I illustrated in the OP.
By the way, just read the UNITED STATES v. NACHTIGAL case. This is depressing. I guess the Supreme Court isn't as reliable as I once thought because I dont know how they can get this wrong. I guess you are right though, the 6th amendment is limited in it's application according to the Supreme Court. I will still say as I said before, that still doesn't make it constitutional just because even the Supreme Court has said what they said, but now becomes an uphill battle. It could easily be challenged again, but no one knows the outcome so kind of a slippery slope. I guess the jury trial is out of my plans now if i do get railroaded by the judge lol.
There is no, “IF,” when it comes to going before the Magistrate. If there is a fine to be paid, you will lose. I guess if you want to go full hog with a lawyer and hire a stenographer so there will be a transcript of proceedings, then you may have a shot in hell at winning.
Like I said, I don’t disagree with you on what the Sixth Amendment says or what the meaning of those words should be. We’re 100% in lockstep on that one. I read it as quite unambiguous.
Quote:What was the first court decision that decided if something was a 'petty' offense and what was not? This is a complete disgrace by the one court I thought was somewhat reliable.
I’m honestly not sure on that one. I only found two because there was some disagreement on the implications of the first one mentioned, but both of those were after that one. I cited Nachtigal because it was much shorter than the other as well as being more recent than the other. I don’t even remember the title of the other one now.
Quote: WizardThen whose job is it to interpret the constitution?
No one 'interprets' it. The Supreme Court Justices when dealing with a Constitutional issue rely on the excerpts and statements made in the Federalist Papers and Madisons Notes by James Madison and our other founding fathers at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. At least that's how it should be done. After reading these catastrophic rulings regarding the 6th amendment and jury trials, I'm pretty disappointed. I dont know how these Justices could have gotten that one wrong. The amendment clearly says that ALL criminal prosecutions, one has the right to a jury trial. The 7th amendment also says for civil cases, you have the right to one as well. This country really is doomed if the Supreme Court now is failing us as well.
From a practical standpoint, it makes sense, even if it is not what the Constitution says. I honestly don’t know how Vermont and Virginia pull it off, unless most people just don’t invoke the right. Could you imagine if every petty offense had a full jury trial? The costs and time expenditure would be astronomical.
You’d also need to pay more judges, because there would be no way to guarantee a speedy trial, what with waiting for jury deliberations and everything. I think for minor offenses you’d just have to have them write down guilty or innocent as soon as both sides presented the case and pass it in without deliberating.
Jury deliberations are really about the mob rule mentality anyway, which is why juries are so strongly encouraged to agree. That and the costs associated with another trial, of course.
If you want to know a real travesty of justice, how about in Louisiana you don’t even need a unanimous jury for a finding of guilty?
Anyway, I do agree with what the 6th says and think that’s how it would be in an ideal world, while acknowledging that it’s cost and time prohibitive. The good news is Magistrates have no real incentive to want to lock people up, except maybe in an ultra-Conservative, “Law and Order,” type district. There’s no financial incentive, anyway. But, fines and community service? Absolutely. All day long. Why not?
Quote: ZenKinGNo one 'interprets' it.
Then what is supposed to happen when issues bubble up that the founding fathers didn't foresee, or ignored -- abortion, background checks on gun purchases, or even slavery?
Quote: Mission146There is no, “IF,” when it comes to going before the Magistrate. If there is a fine to be paid, you will lose. I guess if you want to go full hog with a lawyer and hire a stenographer so there will be a transcript of proceedings, then you may have a shot in hell at winning.
Like I said, I don’t disagree with you on what the Sixth Amendment says or what the meaning of those words should be. We’re 100% in lockstep on that one. I read it as quite unambiguous.
I’m honestly not sure on that one. I only found two because there was some disagreement on the implications of the first one mentioned, but both of those were after that one. I cited Nachtigal because it was much shorter than the other as well as being more recent than the other. I don’t even remember the title of the other one now.
Well, it's my understanding, once appealed, you will win if it's a pure card counting trespass case. Just seek discovery in district court and if ruled against, appeal it to the circuit court and that's where it will get thrown out. There will be a stenographer the second time around on appeal, if there wasn't the first time, if not like you said hire one.
Quote: WizardThen what is supposed to happen when issues bubble up that the founding fathers didn't foresee, or ignored -- abortion, background checks on gun purchases, or even slavery?
Well, slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment. Regardless, what you're saying is starting to branch off into a different subject. If you want to grasp at straws here, i guess they DO indeed do some interpreting if need be, but that wasn't my original argument, of course. When I mentioned the SCOTUS interpreting something, I was specifically mentioning things such as the Bill of Rights, and the many clauses from each of the Articles in the Constitution. If new things come up such as abortion(which I'm against by the way), as long as the decision is within constitutional authority, whatever the decision is fine.
