Comment: Let me help here

(See in situ)


Let me help here

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King he shall not be bound."
People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348, (1825)

"The people of this State, as successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative."
Lansing v Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829)(New York)

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,..."
Fifth amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America

The mechanism used to get around the sovereignty of the people is called an indictment from a grand jury. If there is no indictment, the state has no jurisdiction.

File a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Cite these cases and the Fifth amendment as points and authorities.

You could also throw in Article 6 section 3 of the Constitution as a point and authority to put the Judge in a bind.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Article 6 section 3, Constitution for the United States of America

If the judge does not dismiss the case with prejudice, then they are liable to lose their bench for perjury to their oath, it is called judicial misconduct.

If there is an indictment then that complicates things.