Laws as they should be and as they were 200 years ago

People today don't realize there was a logic to the court system 200 years ago which is missing today. This misunderstanding has caused changes in the laws and these changes often force law enforcement agents to break the law themselves.

I read last month that even a justice of the peace can issue search warrants and that is just crazy. All the foul ups and complaints about violations of rights during searches would be cut in half or less if felonies started out and stayed at the superior court level as they always used to. I am certain that these days the higher courts, as well as the police, must get into the middle of some bad situations because of it.

The objective is to assign a crime from the very start to the most qualified judge.

The way it is now one minute a justice of the peace may be performing a marriage service and then the next minute dealing the issuance of warrants on crazed murderers. Am I the only person that sees this problem?

Also, the higher courts deal with those such as drug lords and understand the issues involved. It's dangerous to have a lower court justice involved in something he knows less about than those judges in Superior courts. There are other reasons as well such as the potential for corruption in the lower courts being far greater. The information in warrants can potentially put a person in prison for the rest of their life. You have a plethora of people in the lower courts with knowledge that can can cause a Waco type situation as a result of a clerk talking to friends. It absurd to think the information is going to remain within the courtroom walls.

The lower judges often have to believe everything law enforcement tells them without having studied those laws which a Superior court judge has. He is supposed be in the legal process to exercise judgment and that is impossible without proper knowledge of those crimes. Besides, most judges in the municipal court don't want to deal with hardened criminals and serious crimes. It places them into a position of acting as a superior court judge (and next they will probably be wanting the same pay).

What makes this insidious is that you have people (judges) who are unqualified starting Felony criminal procedures in place of Superior court judges.

Basic to American law, it's a violation for a lower court to ever interfere in the actions of a higher court. The Superior courts powers are being usurped by the lower courts. What this causes is a loss of the respect by the citizens who sense the outside intervention simply as a corruption of the court system.

Next:

When an arrest warrant is served there has to be a court date already set and of course it needs to be kept in secret within the court. Otherwise it is just kidnapping. A warrant is to bring a 'reluctant' person to trial and so obviously there has to be trail set up to take them to.

Extradition from other states does not require it because an immediate arraignment used to be made as soon as they entered the next state. This next part does not apply to Federal prisoners. Judges used to have to get up in the middle of the night to arraign people brought in from out of state. There was one Virginia judge who got upset a lot because the timing of the stage meant that the Marshals with prisoners could only use the ferry at midnight. So he had to get up almost every other night and weekends at about 1:30 am for court at about 2:30 am so that the law enforcement personnel could then get on the early morning stage with their prisoners. (They had to go through this in each state, I think, to keep it legal.) Then it was too late for the judge to go home to sleep so he would stay awake and then fall asleep the next day in his court. He quit and the next two judges also quit when they went through about the same thing. Then we got a tough old buzzard that needed only two or three hours sleep each night.

If a transported prisoner is not legally under arrest and arraigned by that state when the Marshall takes them through it then it is a form of kidnapping.

I better explain to you what evolves if arraignment is not made in each state they pass through. Since that law enforcement officer who is transporting the criminals has no legal authority from that state they must use their personal will and power instead. This creates the domination they need for the necessary control of the prisoners. This is what turns good cops in a short amount of time into bad cops. It is almost inevitable.

Next:

This is going to upset more people than anything I put down but the same person that takes out a warrant needs to be, and always was 200 years ago, the one that actually served the warrant. He knows more about the situation than anyone so he knows where the contraband is located. That narrows the search so it doesn't become a 'fishing trip' with everything taken just to make certain they have the evidence, thus being a huge violation of the persons rights. That officer also knows more about the person and hence the dangers involved. Whether others know the dangers involved or not it is a crime having them serve the warrant. The search warrant allows the one person to go in (with deputies) and that is all. Search warrants used to say some thing like: '___ ___ has permission to search....' giving permission to only the person who took out the warrant.

If the person that took out the warrant is not present then others are liable to over react and protect themselves by shooting first and finding out later that they made a horrible mistake that would have been prevented if the person who took out the warrant had served it.

You hear about police getting the wrong address all too often with disastrous outcomes and this happens much less if the the person that got the evidence also got the warrant and then served it.

When it is the wrong house the person inside isn't usually breaking the law so they assume it is not the police and stand up for their rights against what is obvious to them to be criminals intent on possible murder.

It may be the correct house but officers have in the past killed persons simply because the officer that took out the warrant was not along and did not think to tell them that a deaf person was living there, etc.

Right near the top of our rights is that of being safe on our own property and with our possessions. The lax attitude that pervades law enforcement now with regards to searches is appalling and should not be allowed.

I would have to find an old search warrant to show you how specific they were. If anything was violated that was not specifically on that warrant they would arrest the officers instead. It had to be on the warrant or it was not taken. It was theft otherwise and it was usually fully prosecuted. Then on top of all this the judge often threw the book at them simply for creating a bad impression in others concerning the legal system. (The English were looking for any violation of our own laws by our own law enforcement in order to establish us as being a lawless or pirate country so that they could invade us.)

We got rid of that kind of abuse when we kicked out the English who would send search warrants from England authorizing them take what was needed. They would come into homes and often take everything in it leaving only the bare walls.

The true reason for the laws being like this is the following.

As strange as it may now sound the way it used be to was to make every action of the entire legal system completely legal. Otherwise the criminals ended up on both sides of the legal system. Having them on one side was bad enough.

(This was all remembered in about four hours time and that is an improvement over a month ago when I could only recall an issue similar to one of these every three or four days. A certain level has just been passed from trying to understand the laws (as I knew them when I was Thomas Jefferson) and to the point where I understand the laws even better than I did in that life. Not just remember them but actually understand them better than I did then.)

Previous Page
© 2005-8 John Pinil