Lawyer John Calvin Jones joins me to further debunk Juan Galt’s arguments. Below is what John emailed me.
Dear Marc Stevens,
I just finished listening to you – bless your heart – trying to be fair and reasonable – with Mr. Juan Troll.
I have a few quick points in your defense – that I think you should have said (for the listeners – obvious not for Mr. Troll, he was not interested in having a real discussion).
I noted that he kept asking you for evidence that the Constitution and laws do NOT apply (to some hypothetical defendant – and or your clients).
The main retort you could have said is that: “We cannot prove a negative.” That is, we cannot bring evidence to prove that the laws do not apply to us (anyone).
(And please appreciate, Mr. Troll was very good at giving you non sequiturs). While I agree with Mr. Troll that the police officer (complaining witness) can say what he saw, such testimony does not relieve the burden, of the PROSECUTOR, from presenting one witness who does have first-hand, personal knowledge that the Constitution and laws apply to the accused.
As you have observed, and most who have gone to court for traffic can attest, because the cop is usually the only witness, when she/he admits they they lack that ONE necessary fact (required to prove the jurisdictional element), then the case should be dismissed.
So, we can concede that Mr. Troll was correct on one question: namely, the cop per se, does not have the burden to present facts proving that the Constitution and laws apply. Nevertheless, some witness for the prosecution must.
Hence, Troll was wrong in telling you (and the listeners) that we, the accused, must come armed with facts to rebut the presumption that any laws apply.
We must recall, as you have said, due to your rigorous legal study (which is far superior to that which I got in law school), “no court cannot presume any essential elements of the prosecution’s case.”
Now we can reference a number of legal citations and rulings, on these procedural (hence, universal) principals (and rules):
(Recall, Troll kept claiming that each case is different – because facts are different. But I think that he was being daft intentionally. The rules of procedure are not fact specific. Rather it is the conclusions of any case that turn on the facts, not the existence of the rules of the game).
(1)
“A court cannot presume that the statutes or codes, cited in a complaint, apply to the accused. Cf. Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 469 (1943) (holding that an indictment does not create a presumption of the existence of all the facts essential to guilt); see also Bunkley v. Florida, 538 U.S. 835 (2003) (holding that “a State cannot convict a person without proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).”
The holding from Tot is especially important in a traffic case. Using Troll’s logic, in the traffic citation, the cop lists what she/he presumes are all the essential elements. But as you have shown, the cop fails to state a fact in support of the most important, whether the laws apply at all, in the first place. But because the citation is in the form of an affidavit, if there were no need to attest to any fact on the applicability of the law, and the cop will merely restate the ticket, then, if nothing more were required, the indictment/citation WOULD create a presumption of all the facts essential to guilt).
(2)
“Mere suspicion or accusation in the indictment or complaint, is not an offer of evidence or facts necessary to prove an element of the crime. Only facts can serve as evidence which is necessary to overcome the presumption that the accused is innocent of the charges as levied.” See Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 485 (1978).”
“In order for an accusation of a crime (whether by indictment or some other form) to be proper under the common law, and … th[...]
