What do you think of having identification being hearsay as an additional point on appeal?
The state cannot identify me absent a witness to my birth that has not let me out of his sight since.
Otherwise all the have is hearsay.
They don't have the person who put my prints into the machine to testify.
They don't have person who took the picture on my license to testify.
They cannot establish that I am the name as charged.
They do have the cop to say that's him, but he can't prove my identity any easier than I can.
I don't know that I wasn't secretly adopted, I do know that my parents lied about many things.
I can't testify to my own identity, perhaps I have been lied to my whole life.
Anyway, any thoughts on the matter will contribute to my pondering list.
The fingerprints is an interesting one but it's not heresay. They can easily compare your prints to the ones at the scene. They're called experts for a reason.
If the issue of the validity of a State ID is questioned.... they have a certified picture of someone purporting to be you in the picture (they don't need the actual person to say they witnessed you take the picture) and your signature on a card and then cross reference it with a handwriting analysis expert of any documents found in your possession.
Once they've established that the person willfully submitted to getting an id or driver's license it doesn't matter what you call yourself or if you were adopted that's the person who is going to get incarcerated in the event of being found guilty of a crime as codified by the government.
How can I 'voluntarily' submit when if I don't submit the consequences are anything but voluntary?
And 'certified' with no witness to testify is the very essence of hearsay.
Fingerprints are no problem to reproduce, as is dna.
I can put both at the scene when you have never been there, all I need is access to both, as the armed gang that forces us to pay and obey, ie 'gov't', already has for most of us.
They are called 'experts' because if they were called moronic dupes nobody would believe anything they had to say?
If The id has the State Seal on it and an undamaged lamination the prosecution can do handwriting sample by subpoena-ing your signature card or other known source. The experts who do this aren't morons; they have recognizable skills.
Like I said it's an interesting idea as a defense of placing a print and DNA on a crime scene. I'll do some research on that but as far as proving that the person in Court is the same person that was charged isn't heresay using fingerprints and photo and signature analysis, from priors.
A first time defender might be harder to prove as being the actual person who is charged who is the same person in custody if he refuses to talk; but it can be done with handwriting and photos from the ID's without the prints and it's especially not heresay if they use an expert to make the Identificaton. And once the state starts collecting bio-metrics at the point they issue an ID it's going to get easier.
Duress: It's not duress when you sign the agreement/contract with the state. You have the option of not signing with no repercussions. You make it sound like you are being forced to drive without a license when in actuality you're being told not to And even told what will happen if you do. You aren't required to get a License or an ID; ever. But if you choose to break the law and Drive without a license the results aren't due to signing the contract because there was no duress at that time.
If you're going to make the argument and try and distinguish between commercial driving and "private traveling" you need to have your motions for court already prepared outlining all of the case law in your favor, which I understand there is.
What do you think of having identification being hearsay as an additional point on appeal?
The state cannot identify me absent a witness to my birth that has not let me out of his sight since.
Otherwise all the have is hearsay.
They don't have the person who put my prints into the machine to testify.
They don't have person who took the picture on my license to testify.
They cannot establish that I am the name as charged.
They do have the cop to say that's him, but he can't prove my identity any easier than I can.
I don't know that I wasn't secretly adopted, I do know that my parents lied about many things.
I can't testify to my own identity, perhaps I have been lied to my whole life.
Anyway, any thoughts on the matter will contribute to my pondering list.
The fingerprints is an interesting one but it's not heresay. They can easily compare your prints to the ones at the scene. They're called experts for a reason.
If the issue of the validity of a State ID is questioned.... they have a certified picture of someone purporting to be you in the picture (they don't need the actual person to say they witnessed you take the picture) and your signature on a card and then cross reference it with a handwriting analysis expert of any documents found in your possession.
Once they've established that the person willfully submitted to getting an id or driver's license it doesn't matter what you call yourself or if you were adopted that's the person who is going to get incarcerated in the event of being found guilty of a crime as codified by the government.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from
How can I 'voluntarily' submit when if I don't submit the consequences are anything but voluntary?
And 'certified' with no witness to testify is the very essence of hearsay.
Fingerprints are no problem to reproduce, as is dna.
I can put both at the scene when you have never been there, all I need is access to both, as the armed gang that forces us to pay and obey, ie 'gov't', already has for most of us.
They are called 'experts' because if they were called moronic dupes nobody would believe anything they had to say?
I'll leave the duress argument to the end.
If The id has the State Seal on it and an undamaged lamination the prosecution can do handwriting sample by subpoena-ing your signature card or other known source. The experts who do this aren't morons; they have recognizable skills.
Like I said it's an interesting idea as a defense of placing a print and DNA on a crime scene. I'll do some research on that but as far as proving that the person in Court is the same person that was charged isn't heresay using fingerprints and photo and signature analysis, from priors.
A first time defender might be harder to prove as being the actual person who is charged who is the same person in custody if he refuses to talk; but it can be done with handwriting and photos from the ID's without the prints and it's especially not heresay if they use an expert to make the Identificaton. And once the state starts collecting bio-metrics at the point they issue an ID it's going to get easier.
Duress: It's not duress when you sign the agreement/contract with the state. You have the option of not signing with no repercussions. You make it sound like you are being forced to drive without a license when in actuality you're being told not to And even told what will happen if you do. You aren't required to get a License or an ID; ever. But if you choose to break the law and Drive without a license the results aren't due to signing the contract because there was no duress at that time.
If you're going to make the argument and try and distinguish between commercial driving and "private traveling" you need to have your motions for court already prepared outlining all of the case law in your favor, which I understand there is.
Check this out:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from