Christ, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll discuss the problems one by one.
Here's what I am talking about. Standard court law in America if one invokes it is:
I don't know what you mean by "standard court law in American." This is federal court. That's federal law, federal rules, federal procedure.
1. There has to be an accuser; in Ross's case it is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Google the indictment;
The entity prosecuting Ulbricht is the United States. This is correct.
2. There needs to be one who is accused; in this case it is Ross (maybe);
Your "maybe" is incorrect. Ulbricht is indeed the named defendant in this case.
3. There needs to be an impartial witness;
This is patently incorrect. Witnesses need not be "impartial." "Impartial" is not a legal term of art, so I'll assume you're giving it the colloquial meaning. The credibility of witnesses is for the trier of fact, in this case, a jury. Witnesses often have "stake" in a case, and juries evaluate that witness's credibility in light of their stake. For instance, many, many (most?) cases in federal courts and probably even more in state courts have only police officers as the witnesses in the case. Are they "impartial?" Not in any colloquial sense of the term I would give it. They are paid by the State to investigate crimes.
4. There needs to be evidence.
Correct. Evidence need not be direct, however, and can be circumstantial.
If any of the above fails, there is no case. If a judgment is handed down anyway, it is a void judgment.
You are incorrect. See above. I also don't think you're using the term "void" correctly, but that's another matter. We don't really use "void" in criminal law. It's a term that's often used in contracts though.
Regarding the above 4 points:
1. If Ross stands as a man, unrepresented in any way,
Ulbrichted is represented by counsel. He is not "unrepresented in any way."
his accuser must be a man who can take the oath or affirmation, get on the stand, and state how he was personally harmed or injured (injured means damage to property). In this case, the accuser, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, will be unable to take the oath or affirmation, get on the stand, and utter anything by voice. No case because of this.
This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
If the government chooses to call witnesses at the sentencing hearing, then yes, they must take an oath. But the government need not call witnesses, though it appears that they plan to, inasmuch as I can see that they have said as much in their recent filing.
The babble about the United States not being able to take an oath is the kind of crap I see from the sovereign citizen gold-flag fringe folks, and I need not address that bag of crazy further.
2. It is obvious that Ross is the defendant. However, if Ross had stood as a man in court, and filed a claim in the same case, requiring his accuser (in this case THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) to come forward and testify so that Ross could pay for any harm or injury done, Ross's claim would have to be heard first.
You are incorrect. Defendants in criminal cases in federal courts cannot file "claims" in a pending case.
Since THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA couldn't do any of these things (as explained in #1), because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA isn't a man or a woman, Ross would be found innocent of any wrongdoing, and would have won the case.
This is your similar rubbish as above.
3. Where in all of this was an impartial witness who saw Ross do any of the things the plaintiff, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, was claiming? There might have been evidence that a witness saw after the fact. But there was no witness that actually saw Ross do any of the wicked evil wrongdoings. Ross wins.
See above regarding witnesses and circumstantial evidence.
4. The evidence is insecure because all kinds of folks had opportunity to tamper with the evidence. Ross wins.
Mere opportunity to tamper with evidence is simply rank speculation. Ultimately, any evidence that the government
ever possesses
could be tampered with. If the government found drugs in Ulbricht's house and locked them in a locker pending trial, they
could have been tampered with, but mere possibility is not evidence. That's speculation.
If Ross got up and stood present as a man without any form of representation whatsoever, not even representing himself,
Ulbricht can be respresented by counsel, or he can represent himself. He cannot do neither.
and if he said words to the effect that he did not understand any of the legal system and law, (thereby placing himself outside of it), and even if he said that he did those illegal things, but where is the man or woman claiming harm or injury, if no man or woman comes forward, Ross wins.
This is incorrect.
This is standard American law.
This is incorrect.
The reason things seldom happen this way is, few people ever do it this way.
Hmm. I should have read through this more thoroughly before responding, since you're clearly a crazy sovereign citizen type. The reason criminal defendants don't do what you suggest is that it's a sure way for them to lose their case, and probably be found in contempt to boot.
If they did, they would win, except that the 4 elements at the beginning of this post were present:
1. Man/woman accuser actually had harm or injury;
2. Defendant;
3. Impartial witness (man/woman) who saw Ross do the harm or injury;
4. Secure evidence not tampered with.
If you don't believe this, see
http://voidjudgments.com/ for the legal sites.
If you want to understand how this works, listen to the first video and the first 3 audios at the right side of
http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.
Then get your friends who have been sent to prison out, because of their void judgments.
Persons should seek the advice of licensed counsel in dealing with their criminal matters, not bullshit on the internet.
Poll
