Most Dangerous Things Gutfeld Said World Of Chaos Made Biggest Announcement

Chaos is the most dangerous thing in this world today. It is all around us all the time. Volatile and powerful. Below is misc. information and Prophecies That Are About To Be Fulfilled "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." --George Orwell It has been over 60 years since George Orwell published his novel "1984." Described as political satire, it is, in reality, a political prophecy -- one that is being fulfilled in our own times.

Show more

Though the deliciously entertaining chaos at Twitter and the collapse of FTX were the main tech industry stories of last week, they were far from the only disasters to unfold. On Nov. 15, Meta launched a demo of an AI dubbed Galactica. In a statement, Meta told The Daily Beast that the model was trained “on 106 billion tokens of open-access scientific text and data. This includes papers, textbooks, scientific websites, encyclopedias, reference material, knowledge bases, and more.”

Think of it as a kind of academic search engine on steroids. With a simple prompt, Galactica “can summarize academic papers, solve math problems, generate Wiki articles, write scientific code, annotate molecules and proteins, and more,” the company wrote. It was going to be a cheat code for academics and researchers. No more hunting down the right study or paper for your research. No more being delayed by a tricky equation. Meta’s new bot could take care of all that for you with just a few keystrokes.

But just two days after going live, the company took the Galactica demo down.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with other large-language models—or AI that can read and generate texts—could have seen this coming. These bots have a long and sordid track record of producing biased, racist, sexist, and overall problematic results—and Galactica was no exception.

Within just a few hours of going live, Twitter users began posting instances where the new Meta bot would generate completely fake and racist research. One user discovered Galactica making up information about Stanford University researchers creating “gaydar” software to find gay people on Facebook. Another was able to get the bot to create a fake study about the benefits of eating crushed glass.

The bot would also completely filter out queries such as queer theory, AIDs, and racism. But perhaps one of the most disconcerting things about the entire affair, though, was the fact that it would create entirely fake studies and attribute them to actual scientists. Michael Black, the director at the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems in Germany, pointed out in a Twitter thread several instances in which the Galactica would create false citations to real-world researchers.

Meanwhile, these citations would be attributed to very convincing text generated by the model—making it seem, on its face, entirely plausible and real.

Meta took down the demo just two days after launch—but the damage had already been done. It even led to Meta’s chief AI scientist Yann LeCun throwing a hissy fit about those pesky Twitter users pointing out glaring problems with the model. “It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy?” he wrote.

On its face, a model like Galactica seems like a genuinely good idea for solving a big problem. There is a glut of scientific data out in the world, and currently no good way to wrap our tiny human minds around it all. It’s a worthy endeavor to design software able to synthesize decades or even centuries of work and deliver it to researchers in an easy and digestible way. Such a tool could push science and technology development to new heights, and Meta should get credit for trying to make this possible.

But the company completely shit the bed on this one—and, instead, created what is arguably its most dangerous AI model yet.

“I imagine that even with its many predictable flaws, there are desirable uses of such a system,” Vincent Conitzer, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, told The Daily Beast. “My impression is that Meta would have done better by putting more effort into this public release, by doing more serious user studies first, drawing attention to desirable uses of the system, and being honest and forthcoming about undesirable uses.”

At its core, the problem is that Galactica is trying to be a source of authority. It’s been trained to generate material that reads like something that was written by flesh-and-blood academics. So when it starts to just make things up whole-cloth, that means that it can very quickly turn into a tool for bad actors pushing their own agendas.

It’s not a stretch to imagine a world in which someone like a COVID or climate change denier uses Galactica to create “studies” that fit their false narratives and worldviews. Race realists could use it to promote their racist and biased beliefs. Hell, you could start a TikTok trend of people eating crushed glass and point to research to back up why it’s a good idea.

These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the made up papers and studies are sometimes tied back to actual researchers who had nothing to do with it, putting real people’s livelihoods and reputations in danger. Imagine working your whole life as an astrophysicist only to see your name cited in a fake paper about how the Earth is actually flat.

To their credit, Meta does note on Galactica’s website that the model has major limitations and that it “can hallucinate.”

“There are no guarantees for truthful or reliable output from language models, even large ones trained on high-quality data like Galactica,” the website says. “NEVER FOLLOW ADVICE FROM A LANGUAGE MODEL WITHOUT VERIFICATION.” They also add that the generated text from Galactica might appear “very authentic and highly-confident” but could still be wrong.

While those warnings are well and good, it comes at complete odds with the messaging of Galactica being this massive game-changer for scientific research. In order for this bot to work, it needs to be authoritative and trustworthy. If it isn’t, what is even the point of all this?

"Maybe some of the undesirable uses could have been prevented outright, but in any case presenting it in a more modest way and asking the community for help could have made the public reaction less adversarial as well," Conitzer said. "If you put a system like this out there without taking the risks and shortcomings seriously, Twitter will never be kind," he said.

For now, Meta’s Galactica has been taken away from the public—presumably to wait until the embarrassing launch is largely forgotten and to tighten up the model before a potential formal roll-out. No matter what, though, there’s no real pathway for this going well. Large language models have shown time and again that they’re prone to the same biases and problematic behavior to which we’re prone. When you infuse scientific and academic research into the mix, it can and will become even more dangerous.

In all, Galactica (at least its current rendition) is like having a hand grenade in a locked room. Once the pin is pulled, it’s going to get very messy very quickly.

Fulfilling Orwell's Prophecy: 15 Futuristic Films You Should See For years, novels and movies have warned us about the ominous future that we face. In fact, film may be the best representation of what we now face as a society that is fulfilling Orwell's prophecy.

"1984" portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. And people are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother, who appears on posters everywhere with the words "Big Brother is watching you."

Orwell's story revolves around Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party. When Winston meets and falls in love with Julia, they begin seeing each other secretly, thus embarking on what is an "illegal" relationship. They are eventually arrested by the Thought Police and placed into reprogramming.

Much of what Orwell envisioned in his futuristic society has now come to pass. Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness -- a philosophy that discourages diversity -- has become a guiding principle of modern society. The courts have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary America. We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. And much of the population is either hooked on illegal drugs or ones prescribed by doctors.

All of this has come about with little more than a whimper from a clueless American populace largely comprised of nonreaders and television- and Internet-somnambulists. But we have been warned about such an ominous future in novels and movies for years. In fact, film may be the best representation of what we now face as a society that is fulfilling Orwell's prophecy.

The following are 15 of the better films on the topic.

"Fahrenheit 451" (1966). Adapted from Ray Bradbury's novel and directed by Francois Truffaut, this film depicts a futuristic society in which books are banned and firemen ironically are called on to burn contraband books -- 451 degrees Fahrenheit being the temperature at which books burn. Montag (Oskar Werner) is a fireman who develops a conscience and begins to question his book burning. This film is an adept metaphor for our obsessively politically correct society where virtually everyone now pre-censors speech. Here, a brainwashed people addicted to television and drugs do little to resist governmental oppressors. The film features a good supporting cast, including Julie Christie in a dual role.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968). The plot of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story, revolves around a space voyage to Jupiter. The astronauts soon learn, however, that the fully automated ship is orchestrated by a computer system, known as HAL 9000, which has become an autonomous thinking being that will even murder to retain control. The idea is that at some point in human evolution, technology in the form of artificial intelligence will become autonomous and that human beings will become mere appendages of technology. In fact, at present, we are seeing this development with the massive computer databases generated and controlled by the government -- such as ACQUAINT -- that are administered by such secretive agencies as the National Security Agency and sweep all websites and other information devices collecting information on average citizens. This film is a great visual tour de force that presents a frightening scenario.

"Planet of the Apes" (1968). Based on Pierre Boulle's novel, astronauts crash on a planet where apes are the masters and humans are treated as brutes and slaves. While fleeing from gorillas on horseback, astronaut Taylor (Charlton Heston) is shot in the throat, captured and housed in a cage. From there, Taylor begins a journey wherein the truth revealed is that the planet was once controlled by technologically advanced humans who destroyed civilization. Taylor's trek to the ominous Forbidden Zone reveals the startling fact that he was on planet Earth all along. Descending into a fit of rage at what he sees in the final scene, Taylor screams, "We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell!" The lesson is obvious here, but will we listen? The script, although rewritten, was initially drafted by Rod Serling and retains Serling's "Twilight Zone"-ish ending. The film features a great performance by Heston. There was a lackluster remake by Tim Burton in 2001.

"THX 1138" (1970). George Lucas' directorial debut, this is a somber view of a dehumanized society totally controlled by a police state. The people are force-fed drugs to keep them passive, and they no longer have names but only letter/number combinations such as THX 1138. Any citizen who steps out of line is quickly brought into compliance by robotic police equipped with "pain prods" -- electroshock batons. Sound like tasers?

"A Clockwork Orange" (1971). Director Stanley Kubrick presents a future ruled by sadistic punk gangs and a chaotic government that cracks down on its citizens sporadically. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) is a violent punk who finds himself in the grinding, crushing wheels of injustice. This film may accurately portray the future of Western society that grinds to a halt as oil supplies diminish, environmental crises increase, chaos rules and the only thing left is brute force. It features a fine performance by McDowell.

"Soylent Green" (1973). The year is 2022 in an overpopulated New York City, whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation. A policeman (Charlton Heston) investigating a murder discovers the grisly truth about what soylent green is really made of. The theme is chaos, where the world is ruled by ruthless corporations whose only goal is greed and profit. This is Edward G. Robinson's final screen appearance.

"Blade Runner" (1982). In a 21st-century Los Angeles, a world-weary cop (Harrison Ford) tracks down a handful of renegade "replicants" (synthetically produced human slaves). Life is now dominated by mega-corporations, and people sleepwalk along rain-drenched streets. This is a world where human life is cheap, and where anyone can be exterminated at will by the police (or blade runners). Based upon a Philip K. Dick novel, this exquisite Ridley Scott film questions what it means to be human in an inhuman world. It features an outstanding performance by Rutger Hauer as the leader of a group of rebel replicants.

"Nineteen Eighty-Four" (1984). The best adaptation of Orwell's dark tale, this film visualizes the total loss of freedom in a world dominated by technology and its misuse, and the crushing inhumanity of an omniscient state. The government controls the masses by controlling their thoughts, altering history and changing the meaning of words. John Hurt is Winston Smith, the doubter who turns to self-expression through his diary and then begins questioning the ways and methods of Big Brother before being re-educated by O'Brien (brilliantly played by Richard Burton in his last screen performance).

"Brazil" (1985). Sharing a similar vision of the near future as "1984" and Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial," this is arguably director Terry Gilliam's best work, one replete with a merging of the fantastic and stark reality. Here, a mother-dominated, hapless clerk (Jonathan Pryce) takes refuge in flights of fantasy to escape the ordinary drabness of life. Caught within the chaotic tentacles of a police state, the longing for more innocent, free times lies behind the vicious surface of this film. It features a good supporting cast, including Robert De Niro.

"They Live" (1988). John Carpenter's bizarre sci-fi social satire action film assumes the future has already arrived. John Nada (Roddy Piper) is a homeless person who stumbles across a resistance movement and finds a pair of sunglasses that enables him to see the real world around him. What he discovers is a monochrome reality in a world controlled by ominous beings who bombard the citizens with subliminal messages such as "obey" and "conform." Carpenter manages to make an effective political point about the underclass -- that is, everyone except those in power. The point: we, the prisoners of our devices, are too busy sucking up the entertainment trivia beamed into our brains and beating each other up to start an effective resistance movement.

"The Matrix" (1999). Written and directed by the Wachowski brothers, the story centers on a computer programmer, Thomas A. Anderson (Keanu Reeves), secretly a hacker known by the alias "Neo," who begins a relentless quest to learn the meaning of "the Matrix" -- cryptic references that appear on his computer. Neo's search leads him to Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who reveals the truth that the present reality is not what it seems and that Anderson is actually living in the future -- 2199. Humanity is at war against technology, which has taken the form of intelligent beings, and Neo is actually living in the Matrix, an illusory world that appears to be set in the present in order to keep the humans docile and under control. Neo soon joins Morpheus and his cohorts in a rebellion against the machines, which use SWAT-team tactics to keep things under control.

"Minority Report" (2002). Based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and directed by Steven Spielberg, the setting is 2054, where PreCrime, a specialized police unit, apprehends criminals before they can commit the crime. Captain Anderton (Tom Cruise) is the chief of the Washington, D.C. PreCrime force, which uses future visions generated by "pre-cogs" (mutated humans with precognitive abilities) to stop murders. Soon Anderton becomes the focus of an investigation when the precogs predict that he will commit a murder. But the system can be manipulated. This film raises the issue of the danger of technology operating autonomously -- which will happen eventually, if it has not already occurred. To a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. In the same way, to a police state computer, we all look like suspects. In fact, before long, we all may be mere extensions or appendages of the police state -- all suspects in a world commandeered by machines.

"V for Vendetta" (2006). With a screenplay written by the Wachowski brothers, this film depicts a society ruled by a corrupt and totalitarian government, where everything is run by an abusive secret police. A vigilante named V (Hugo Weaving) dons a mask and leads a rebellion against the state. The subtext here is that through repression, authoritarian regimes create their own enemies -- that is, terrorists -- forcing government agents and terrorists into a recurring cycle of violence. And who is caught in the middle? The citizens, of course. Hugo Weaving shows what a fine actor he is, even if it's all done behind a mask. This film has a cult following among various underground political groups such as Anonymous, whose members wear the same Guy Fawkes mask as that worn by Weaving.

"Children of Men" (2006). It is 2027, and the world is without hope, because humankind has lost its ability to procreate. Civilization has descended into chaos and is held together by a military state and a government that attempts to keep its totalitarian stronghold on the population. Most governments have collapsed, leaving Great Britain as one of the few remaining intact societies. As a result, millions of refugees seek asylum, only to be rounded up and detained by the police. Suicide is a viable option: a suicide kit called Quietus is promoted on billboards and on television and newspapers. But hope for a new day comes when a woman becomes inexplicably pregnant.

"Land of the Blind" (2006). This dark political satire is based on several historical incidents in which tyrannical rulers were overthrown by new leaders who proved just as evil as their predecessors. Maximilian II (Tom Hollander) is a demented, fascist ruler of a troubled land named Everycountry. He has two main interests: tormenting his underlings and running his country's movie industry. Citizens who are perceived as questioning the state are sent to "re-education camps," where the state's concept of reality is drummed into their heads. Joe (Ralph Fiennes), a prison guard, is emotionally moved by the prisoner and renowned author Thorne (Donald Sutherland) and eventually joins a coup to remove the sadistic Maximilian, replacing him with Thorne. But soon Joe finds himself the target of the new government. The film features a great cast.

It is definitely time to realize that what we call "the government" is not what it seems. Unfortunately, most Americans, like animals in a cage, have come to believe that the zookeeper is friendly. And, as freedom continues to diminish, we had better wake up or we will become the Winstons of our time.

In fact, as Orwell's novel concludes, Winston and Julia are taken to the Ministry of Love as part of the reprogramming process. Since Winston fears rats, he is tortured with rats until his feelings for Julia are destroyed. As confirmation that he sees the new reality of the state, Winston writes that 2+2=5. The reprogramming is successful. He is cured. As the final sentence of Orwell's book concludes, "He loved Big Brother." Let us hope that this is not an epitaph for our times.

In 1900, an American civil engineer called John Elfreth Watkins made a number of predictions about what the world would be like in 2000. How did he do?

As is customary at the start of a new year, the media have been full of predictions about what may happen in the months ahead.

But a much longer forecast made in 1900 by a relatively unknown engineer has been recirculating in the past few days.

In December of that year, at the start of the 20th Century, John Elfreth Watkins wrote a piece published on page eight of an American women's magazine, Ladies' Home Journal, entitled What May Happen in the Next Hundred Years.

He began the article with the words: "These prophecies will seem strange, almost impossible," explaining that he had consulted the country's "greatest institutions of science and learning" for their opinions on 29 topics.

Watkins was a writer for the Journal's sister magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, based in Indianapolis.

The Post brought this article to a modern audience last week when its history editor Jeff Nilsson wrote a feature praising Watkins' accuracy.

It was picked up and caused some excitement on Twitter. So what did Watkins get right - and wrong?

10 predictions that Watkins got right...
1. Digital colour photography

Watkins did not, of course, use the word "digital" or spell out precisely how digital cameras and computers would work, but he accurately predicted how people would come to use new photographic technology.

This showed major foresight, says Mr Nilsson. When Watkins was making his predictions, it would have taken a week for a picture of something happening in China to make its way into Western papers.

People thought photography itself was a miracle, and colour photography was very experimental, he says.

"The idea of having cameras gathering information from opposite ends of the world and transmitting them - he wasn't just taking a present technology and then looking to the next step, it was far beyond what anyone was saying at the time."

Patrick Tucker from the World Future Society, based in Maryland in the US, thinks Watkins might even be hinting at a much bigger future breakthrough.

"'Photographs will be telegraphed' reads strikingly like how we access information from the web," says Mr Tucker.

2. The rising height of Americans

"Americans will be taller by from one to two inches."

Watkins had unerring accuracy here, says Mr Nilsson - the average American man in 1900 was about 66-67ins (1.68-1.70m) tall and by 2000, the average was 69ins (1.75m).

Today, it's 69.5ins (1.76m) for men and 64ins (1.63m) for women.

3. Mobile phones

"Wireless telephone and telegraph circuits will span the world. A husband in the middle of the Atlantic will be able to converse with his wife sitting in her boudoir in Chicago. We will be able to telephone to China quite as readily as we now talk from New York to Brooklyn."

International phone calls were unheard of in Watkins' day. It was another 15 years before the first call was made, by Alexander Bell, even from one coast of the US to the other. The idea of wireless telephony was truly revolutionary.

4. Pre-prepared meals

"Ready-cooked meals will be bought from establishment similar to our bakeries of today."

The proliferation of ready meals in supermarkets and takeaway shops in High Streets suggests that Watkins was right, although he envisaged the meals would be delivered on plates which would be returned to the cooking establishments to be washed.

5. Slowing population growth

"There will probably be from 350,000,000 to 500,000,000 people in America [the US]."

The figure is too high, says Nilsson, but at least Watkins was guessing in the right direction. If the US population had grown by the same rate it did between 1800 and 1900, it would have exceeded 1 billion in 2000.

"Instead, it grew just 360%, reaching 280m at the start of the new century."

6. Hothouse vegetables

Winter will be turned into summer and night into day by the farmer, said Watkins, with electric wires under the soil and large gardens under glass.

"Vegetables will be bathed in powerful electric light, serving, like sunlight, to hasten their growth. Electric currents applied to the soil will make valuable plants to grow larger and faster, and will kill troublesome weeds. Rays of coloured light will hasten the growth of many plants. Electricity applied to garden seeds will make them sprout and develop unusually early."

Large gardens under glass were already a reality, says Philip Norman of the Garden Museum in London, but he was correct to predict the use of electricity. Although coloured lights and electric currents did not take off, they were probably experimented with.

"Electricity certainly features in plant propagation. But the earliest item we have is a 1953 booklet Electricity in Your Garden detailing electrically warmed frames, hotbeds and cloches and electrically heated greenhouses, issued by the British Electrical Development Association.

"We have a 1956 soil heater, used in soil to assist early germination of seeds in your greenhouse."

7. Television

"Man will see around the world. Persons and things of all kinds will be brought within focus of cameras connected electrically with screens at opposite ends of circuits, thousands of miles at a span."

Watkins foresaw cameras and screens linked by electric circuits, a vision practically realised in the 20th Century by live international television and latterly by webcams.

8. Tanks
"Huge forts on wheels will dash across open spaces at the speed of express trains of today."

Leonardo da Vinci had talked about this, says Nilsson, but Watkins was taking it further. There weren't many people that far-sighted.

9. Bigger fruit

"Strawberries as large as apples will be eaten by our great-great-grandchildren."

Lots of larger varieties of fruit have been developed in the past century, but Watkins was over-optimistic with regard to strawberries.

10. The Acela Express

"Trains will run two miles a minute normally. Express trains one hundred and fifty miles per hour."

Exactly 100 years after writing those words, to the very month, Amtrak's flagship high-speed rail line, the Acela Express, opened between Boston and Washington, DC. It reaches top speeds of 150mph, although the average speed is considerably less than that. High-speed rail in other parts of the world, even in 2000, was considerably faster.

Naturalization and denaturalization, the legal pivot of debates over who gets to be an American, thread throughout our history. We are once again in a moment when naturalization (and thus denaturalization, Esau to its Jacob) is a contentious and charged issue. These debates over citizenship have been perhaps especially visible in the United States because that nation came into existence when the nation-state comes to be the dominant, even hegemonic, political formation, a formation that raises the question whether nationality is a natural (i.e., ethnic, racial) category or a cultural one (i.e., ideological). At various times this question has been answered differently in the US, a problematic visible from the first immigration law (1790) that restricted the path to citizenship to white Europeans. Patrick Weil’s The Sovereign Citizen offers a necessarily partial answer to this question, focusing as it does on the legal, administrative, and judicial history of one key component of citizenship: the rules governing when a naturalized citizen can be deprived of his or her citizenship. Although rules governing naturalization were established at the very beginning of the republic, denaturalization did not become a formal legal category until the Naturalization Act of 1906. That allowed for loss of citizenship for several reasons—expatriation and political views prominent among them. Even then, denaturalization was seldom simple and not always a priority. The willingness of the government departments (at various times, Justice, Labor, and/or Commerce) charged with enforcing the law varied considerably. Perhaps the greatest if perhaps unintended result of the new law was to accelerate the shift in granting citizenship from the states to the federal government. Weil notes such aspects but focuses elsewhere, offering a well-researched legal history that traces changes in the legal basis of citizenship in the United States from the concept, ascribed here to Hannah Arendt, that being a citizen means having the “right to have rights” to making citizenship the basis itself of sovereignty. He uses a “micro-historical approach” to show how the Supreme Court altered its decisions and reasoning about denaturalization and denationalization. Thus, being a citizen of the United States came to mean the citizen was himself or herself the source of sovereignty; hence the government, a creature of the sovereignty of each and every citizen, could only denaturalize and/or denationalize citizens who had themselves clearly renounced any claim to American citizenship and/or committed fraud. How this transformation came about over the course of a little more than 60 years is a fascinating if somewhat disjointed tale, an instructive one especially for readers interested in the workings of the Supreme Court between the 1930s and the 1970s. This is a valuable book, but I would offer two caveats. The subtitle is misleading since the book has no interest in the “origins” of the republic. As well, Weil’s history is perhaps more a Whig history than it would seem to others who might choose different dates to tell this story. Regardless, one has to admire the research, intelligence and value of The Sovereign Citizen.

United States Government Is A Foreign Corporation And Missing 13th Amendment

https://rumble.com/v2wzqn0-united-states-government-is-a-foreign-corporation-and-missing-13th-amendmen.html

The Missing 13th Amendment "If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous." Titles Of Nobility And Honor The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance and Reading of U.S.A. Constitution Word for Word for Word. Etc.

The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287) And we have this decision – one of many – that makes US jurisdiction clear: “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia , and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Catha v United States , 152 US , at 215

But Congress went further and provided not only that all "actions commenced in such courts," but also that all "crimes committed in said territory" prior to the passage of the act should be "tried, prosecuted, and proceeded with until finally disposed of." Grammatically, "crimes committed in said territory" is an independent nominative, and refers to matters different from those embraced within the term "actions commenced in such courts." It is fair under such cases, in order to determine the meaning, to omit the one nominative and read the sentence as though the other only
Page 152 U. S. 215

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/211/

There are surely enough on the Internet learning the truth about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CORPORATION (created on February 21, 1871 by the Forty-First Congress, Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia”. This is also known as the “Act of 1871”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

This is reflected in U.S. Code, Title 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, (Chapter 176) Section 3002 (15) (a, b, & c); which states that ~

(15) ” United States ” means – (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

The Titles of Nobility Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution. The 11th Congress passed it on May 1, 1810, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from an "emperor, king, prince or foreign power". On two occasions between 1812 and 1816, it was within two states of the number needed to become part of the Constitution. Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, so the amendment is still pending before the states.

Text from Amendment
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

On February 27, 1818, President James Monroe communicated to Congress the record shown above. He and Congress were both satisfied that the required number of ratifications had not been reached. A law, passed April 20, 1818, placed official responsibility for overseeing the amendment process into the hands of the Secretary of State, where it remained until 1950.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

The Missing 13th Amendment
The Current 13th Amendment in the American Constitution:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

"If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous."

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old" states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia's vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing' Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).

The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state laws

https://rumble.com/v27x230-the-united-states-government-is-a-foreign-corporation-with-respect-to-a-sta.html

The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)
And we have this decision – one of many – that makes US jurisdiction clear:

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia , and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Catha v United States , 152 US , at 215

There are surely enough on the Internet learning the truth about the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CORPORATION (created on February 21, 1871 by the Forty-First Congress, Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia”. This is also known as the “Act of 1871”.

This is reflected in U.S. Code, Title 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, (Chapter 176) Section 3002 (15) (a, b, & c); which states that ~

(15) ” United States ” means – (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; (C) an instrumentality of the United States

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 41st US Congress Sold Out the Republic

https://rumble.com/v27tdu5-the-district-of-columbia-organic-act-of-1871-41st-us-congress-sold-out-the-.html

It was February 21, 1871 that the 41st US Congress sold out the Republic. On this date, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." Also known as the "Act of 1871."
Congress, illegally acting on it's own behalf, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.

Congress realizing that our country was in severe financial difficulty, cut a deal with the international bankers, in the process incurring a debt to those bankers.

The international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

Instead, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia. The new government consisted of an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city. The Seal of the District of Columbia features the date 1871, recognizing the year the District's government was incorporated.

The Act did not establish a new city or city government within the District. Regarding a city of Washington, it stated that "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington". In the present day, the name "Washington" is commonly used to refer to the entire District, but DC law continues to use the definition of the city of Washington as given in the 1871 Organic Act.

The Act of 1871 The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions

https://rumble.com/v27wcq7-the-act-of-1871-the-united-states-is-a-corporation-there-are-two-constituti.html

Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.
In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD — and that was very significant as you will read.

Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any “legal” document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this.
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).

The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not!

Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.

What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.
By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.

Birth Certificate Equals Slavery Bondage Understanding How Admiralty Maritime Laws

https://rumble.com/v2dau7c-birth-certificate-equals-slavery-bondage-understanding-how-admiralty-mariti.html

Simplified Birth Certificate Equals Slavery Bondage Understanding How Admiralty Maritime Laws. Your Birth Certificate Means You Have Been Bonded As A Slave. When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, sometimes called the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, ALL-CAPS version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JANE DOE SMITH, not Jane Doe Smith. or JOHN DOE SMITH, not John Doe Smith.

Your Momma Sold You Into Slavery ? Who owns your citizenship you or your government

https://rumble.com/v280ewg-your-momma-sold-you-into-slavery-who-owns-your-citizenship-you-or-your-gove.html

Your Momma Sold You Into Slavery ? - Who owns your citizenship you or your government? We’re just getting warmed up and already the government is telling you that they own you. Most people only have one citizenship, issued by whatever governing body happens to be in charge of the patch of dirt they were born on. And governments encourage you to keep it that way.

Meet Your Strawman ? Your Birth Certificate Is Worth Millions ? Swindled by U.S.A.

https://rumble.com/v2dmnio-meet-your-strawman-your-birth-certificate-is-worth-millions-swindled-by-u.s.html

The story of how everyone has a strawman or strawwoman or strawtransgene so i hope everyone is happy now. it's created for them at birth and how it is used to collect revenue for your government. A fun and informative animation made in the spirit of freedom. Meet your ‘strawman and woman’ – the fake ‘you’ the government creates in your name to control you and how you can stop it.

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People?

https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

Nobody Is Safe From People's Republic Of The Tyrannical U.S.A. Government And Death To The Unvaccinated America People And American Nation CDC director says coronavirus outbreak ‘becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ How the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated people of the world for a darwinian perspective. As of 27 May 2023, the 10 leading causes of death accounted for 74.5% of all U.S. deaths in 2021, according to the NVSS. The US has recorded more than 47.7 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and more than 771,500 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University data. The global total for COVID-19 cases and deaths is more than 257.8 million cases and 5.15 million deaths, according to the CDC. More than 196 million Americans, 59.1% of the population, are fully vaccinated. The disease was reported as the underlying cause of death or a contributing cause of death for an estimated 377,883 people in 2020, accounting for 11.3% of deaths, according to the CDC. P.S. Exposing U.S.A. Gov. Their Lies!

https://web.archive.org/web/20230226151842/www.exposingtheirlies.com/post/some-covid-19-horror-stories-you-may-have-missed

You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Corrupt U.S.A. Governments

https://rumble.com/v2kq5mw-you-will-never-trust-another-celebrity-after-watching-this-corrupt-u.s.a.-g.html

Once you see this you'll have no faith in these people again! The system-serving airheads that should be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity like most politicians, oligarchs, globalists and most medias. So many innocent people of all age groups have died or been severely injured for life after listening to the advice of Hollywood celebrities, talk show hosts and politicians regarding the vaccine for covid-19. It’s right that medical ethics should be highly scrutinized, especially in cases like the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out where the process has been accelerated. However, it’s important not to mix up the atrocities of the past with current debates about medicine and policy.

ASSAULT RIFLE BAN AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - FUNNY ?

https://rumble.com/v2kzj20-assault-rifle-ban-and-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-funny-.html

The AR-15/M-16 Is a regular rifle. Is it because it’s black and scary looking? Is it because it’s a semi-automatic? Is it because the leftist media says so. What’s the difference between these two rifles. The top is the AR-15/M-16. The one under it is the Ruger Mini-14/ Etc.# Guns. One is black, the other has a normal looking wooden stock. Guess what? They both shoot the same 5.56x45/.223 cartridge. They are both semi-automatic. both will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, if you’re afraid of the AR-15 because it’s black and scary looking, it’s time you grew up and act like an adult. If it’s because the leftist media says so, then it’s time you start thinking for yourself. The AR-15/M-16 has the same sporting purpose as the Mini-14 / Other Guns. Hell, it has the same home defenses or sporting purpose as any rifle.

Now Our Tyrannical Government U.S.A. Is Sell Guns To Gangs Right Now. Red Flags Laws and U.S. Gangs... Back Ground Check's - Ha ha ha Really... You Are Being Funny Now, See Video (Fast & Furious) How it went down.

https://rumble.com/v28zp34-fast-and-furious-how-it-went-down-about-122000-firearms-sold-over-10000-peo.html

With few exceptions for human trafficking and pedophile and gangs and sex and drug cartels and any and all criminal organization. All State law requires people to meet certain criteria before they can carry, possess, or dispose of a firearm. These qualifying factors include the following:

Be a citizen of the United States.
Be at least 21 years old, except for honorably discharged individuals from either the New York National Guard or the United States Military.
Be of good moral character.
Never had a guardian appointed based on incapacity, mental illness, subnormal intelligence, or other condition or disease.
Never had a handgun license revoked.
Never civilly confined in a secure treatment facility.
Never convinced in all state or anywhere else of a felony or “serious offense.” The definition of “serious offense” includes acts like aiding in an escape from prison, child endangerment, disorderly conduct, illegally using a dangerous weapon, making burglar instruments, rape, receiving stolen property, sodomy, and unlawfully entering a building.
Never discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions.
Never involuntarily committed to a facility under the Department of Mental Hygiene’s jurisdiction.
Not be a fugitive from justice.
Not be an addicted or unlawful user of any controlled substance.
Not have a domestic violence restraining order filed against you.
Not illegally in the United States or admitted into the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
Not present any other “good cause” for denial of the license.
These are some of the most common reasons why people in New York are denied gun permits. Also, you will likely be required to complete a gun safety class before obtaining a firearm permit.

P.S. Remember... The Second Amendment Doesn’t Give Americans The “Right to bear Arms” It Prohibits the Government from ‘Disarming The People’. and It’s a protection from a possible Tyrannical Government Now! The Government does this Gun Control bit every year since 2008. And every year at least 10 million new guns are added to the 350 million we already have. For some reason, we don’t think “Gun Control” is the ‘real’ issue. It’s a great distraction and it causes division among the citizens. We think the Government is secure in their knowledge of their ‘new’ crowd control devices, that we know about, and their “Frequency and Earthquake Weapons” they think we don’t know about. We will be exploring their ‘new’ capabilities soon in greater detail. Yes We The People Of The New World Order Thank You!

Liberty versus tyranny under the U.S. Constitution For the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “liberty” is the universal notion that every person should determine their own path to happiness free from undue government control. Patrick Henry preferred death to living without it. John Adams risked his reputation by defending in court the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, recounting years later that a defense lawyer ought to be the last thing a person should be without in a free country.

In fact, “liberty” is so central to the idea of American democracy that the framers of our Constitution created a Bill of Rights to protect personal liberty from the tyranny of big government. All people, they argued, should be free to express unpopular opinions or choose one’s own religion or protect one’s home without fear of retaliation from the state.

Preeminent in the Bill of Rights is the idea that no one’s liberty can ever be taken away without the process being fair. A jury made up of everyday citizens, protections against self-incrimination, being informed of the nature of the offense for which one is accused, and the right to a speedy and public trial are all American ideas of justice. And so all of them were enshrined in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which became law when they were ratified by the states in 1791.

The right to have a lawyer advocating on one’s behalf is found in the Sixth Amendment. As distinctly English settlements, the laws governing the colonies by and large were based upon the contemporary rules of English common law. In England, however, the law held that a person accused of treason or a serious crime was to be denied the assistance of a lawyer in defending himself against his accusers. Colonial governments broke with contemporary English common law, and instead wrote into their statutes and charters a right to have the assistance of an attorney in any criminal case.

But, wait . . . Those same colonies became the original thirteen states of the United States of America. And almost all of them had already established the right to counsel as state law? Well, if that was the case, then why was it important for the federal Congress to ratify this same right as an amendment to the Constitution?

The citizens of this new republic had created a new federal government to administer the union of their respective state governments. But, those citizens were well acquainted with England’s history of government abuse in which people were subjected to unfair methods of prosecution and investigation, and left with no personal protections. Having just liberated the Colonies from what they felt was the tyrannical rule of the British government, the Framers of our Constitution were loath to create a new tyranny in the form of this Union’s central government that could ignore – or worse, could abolish – these protections of personal liberty.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” We, the people, have just enshrined these rights so you, the federal government, cannot take them away from us. And so, with the passage of the Bill of Rights, the right to counsel was sacrosanct. The federal government was obligated to enforce it for all time.

But as of this point, the Sixth Amendment merely established that an accused person had a constitutional right to have a lawyer assist him in defending himself. It made no mention of the government’s obligation to appoint or pay for the lawyer using tax dollars in the event the defendant couldn’t afford the cost on his own.

So, how did we get from “the government cannot prevent you from being represented by an attorney” to “the government will cover the cost of your defense attorney in any matter where you face potential time in jail”?

Well, it actually required an additional constitutional amendment along with a whole litany of U.S. Supreme Court cases interpreting the Constitution to get to where we are today.

But first, we need to take a step back and clarify one thing, and it’s pretty important. The Bill of Rights were restrictions on federal power, rather than state power.

Applying the Bill of Rights to state governments The Bill of Rights, as originally established in 1791, was a set of restrictions on federal power. But what about restrictions on state power? Were state and local governments obliged to follow the Bill of Rights?

Well, as several historians and legal scholars have noted, the Framers of the Constitution had no intention of restricting the power of state governments through the Bill of Rights. So, if the people of each state saw fit to subject their respective state governments to similar restrictions, they could do so on their own accord. Perhaps it says something about the importance our founding generations placed upon the right to a fair hearing that, in every new state to join the Union, the people of that state unilaterally chose to preserve the right to have the assistance of a lawyer in criminal prosecutions by adopting it as part of their respective state constitutions. And that’s where the constitutional right to counsel was left, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. That is, until the era of reconstruction that followed the Civil War.

The American Civil War ended in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified three years later, in 1868. A host of historians and legal scholars believe its adoption was almost as important as the entire Bill of Rights itself. In particular, it’s the Fourteenth Amendment’s second sentence that they focus upon. It reads:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As the lawmakers who crafted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment readily admitted, it was intended as a direct reversal of a 35-year old ruling of the Supreme Court.

The 1833 case, Barron v. Baltimore, was the first instance in which the Supreme Court confronted the argument that a state or a city government had violated one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. In Mr. Barron’s case, he alleged that local government failed to compensate him for its destruction of his private property in violation of his federal rights contained in the Fifth Amendment. There, the Court ruled that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.” So, in 1833, the Supreme Court confirmed what the original Framers of the Constitution had intended – that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to any state. But the Civil War had changed dramatically the relationship between the federal government and the states.

With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress overruled the Barron decision and instead established that, from hence forth, certain portions of the Bill of Rights could be federally enforced against state governments. But the ability of the federal government to enforce certain portions of the Bill of Rights against the states left open the question of which rights would be enforced, and which rights would not. In a series of decisions handed down over the next several decades, the Supreme Court slowly but surely made clear its process for answering those questions – particularly how it would determine whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was an obligation of state government under the Fourteenth Amendment, or not.

The key Supreme Court ruling came in 1926, in Hebert v. Louisiana, where the court found that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only requires that “state action . . . shall be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” That’s the key for the right to counsel: is it a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice” that one accused of a crime has a right to the assistance of a lawyer in his defense? If so, then the Sixth Amendment is obligatory on state government by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first major test of this idea for the right to counsel was 1932’s Powell v. Alabama – the legendary, notorious case of the so-called “Scottsboro Boys.” Next, we recount the Scottsboro Boys’ story, as a prelude to a discussion of the Powell decision and its impact on the right to counsel in the United States.

https://sixthamendment.org/the-right-to-counsel/effective-assistance-at-critical-stages/

U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Today, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel to every person (adult and juvenile, at trial and on appeal) who faces potential time in jail. The Constitution also requires that an attorney be present for an indigent defendant at every critical stage of their case and that the attorney must provide effective representation.

Here, we examine the history of United States Supreme Court cases behind the right to counsel to understand its origins and how it developed in our American justice system. Read your way through at the links below.

Introducing the right to counsel
Liberty versus tyranny under the U.S. Constitution
Applying the Bill of Rights to state governments
The story of the Scottsboro Boys in Powell v. Alabama
Understanding Powell v. Alabama
The right to counsel in federal trials in Johnson v. Zerbst
Fundamental fairness in Betts v. Brady
The post-Betts era in the states’ courts
Gideon v. Wainwright, the watershed moment
Understanding Gideon’s impact, Part 1: right to counsel services
Understanding Gideon’s impact, Part 2: the birth of the public defender movement
Introduction to the right to counsel for children in juvenile courts
The right to counsel for children in juvenile transfer hearings, Kent v. United States
The right to counsel for children in delinquency cases, In re Gault
The state courts in the post-Gideon era
Fundamental fairness revisited in Argersinger v. Hamlin
Drawing the line at actual imprisonment in Scott v. Illinois
Appointing counsel in the post-Scott era
Understanding Alabama v. Shelton
Defining when the right to counsel must be made available in Rothgery v. Gillespie County..

Through the Fourteenth Amendment, states are required to provide due process and equal protection of the laws – including the Sixth Amendment — to all people. It says in part: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In 1963 in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the United States Supreme Court held that states have a constitutional obligation under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide Sixth Amendment lawyers to the indigent accused.

When States Must Provide Counsel
Early on, Gideon was presumed to apply only to felonies. The Supreme Court has since expressly clarified that the Sixth Amendment also requires the appointment of counsel for the poor in misdemeanors where jail time is actually imposed and in misdemeanors with suspended sentences. Additionally, children in delinquency proceedings, no less than adults in criminal courts, are entitled to appointed counsel when facing the loss of liberty.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed in Rothgery v. Gillespie County that the right to counsel attaches when “formal judicial proceedings have begun.” For a person who is arrested, the beginning of formal judicial proceedings is at “a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction,” without regard to whether a prosecutor is aware of the arrest. For all defendants, the commencement of prosecution, “whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment,” signals the beginning of formal judicial proceedings.
Thank You From New World Order !

Show less