Due Process of Law: The Three Meanings of Due Process

Burt Neuborne at Cooper Union. November 29, 2012
The eight in a series of nine free lectures delivered by Burt Neuborne, renown civil rights attorney and constitutional law scholar in the Cooper Union's Great Hall.

[@sarrasosayzar5645]

The Public Defenders office in Vidalia George is a perfect example of a miscarriage to Justice, after one abandoned my case,and two very ineffective P D's,I had to represent myself at a Jury trial of twelve, from jail,I was able to show my accusers to lie on the stand,and even one admit to making threats to have me sent to prison,even under a false pretence,it was a two day trial,and it took The Jury two hrs. to come back with a not guilty verdict. I was facing 150 yrs. for recivitisim,on another charge that I didn't commit. Happy-but-Sad.

[@rodderick1983]

From this speakers perspective, he sounds sincere. On my side, sounds like lawyer speak where they can’t focus but are trained to divert, misdirect, confuse & outright agitate others. If anyone violates rights & does it by colorfully interpreting clear language (as this speaker is), make your case and file charges. Make criminal complaints. Whatever it takes to stop crap as I’m hearing from the speaker.

[@tomthx5804]

File charges against him for annoying you.

[@dennishickey7194]

See my own amen brother.

[@rockinrobinbuddi2112]

At traffic court arraignment, when asked if I understood the charges, I said no I don't understand and told the judge I wanted to challenge jurisdiction/subject matter as well as nature/cause because I'd felt it was necessary. The judge told me that this was simply a plea taking and not the place or time to make this challenge, then was asked "How do you plea?" I'd explained that I needed some additional time to get some answers to serious questions regarding the wording of the charge itself. He got irritated with me, and said "I'm gonna enter a plea of not guilty for you then, and I'll set your trial date where you can iron that out and make such challenges." I said, "Isn't you entering a plea for me practicing law from the bench?" He said "you're free to go". I feel strongly that this was a clear lack of due process. To make matters worse, he gave me the trial date and time of 1:30PM, however, I believe he'd purposely told me 1:30PM and then entered 9:15AM knowing full well that this would generate a fail to appear warrant, and it most certainly did generate a warrant for my arrest. When I'd turned myself in, had court via televideo and to my surprise it was the same judge, who was now audibly laughing, and says "well, if you wanna plead guilty to the smaller charge, I'll dismiss the two bigger ones. (Then laughingly) "Unless, you want me to set a trial date?" I also believe there was some serious judicial misconduct going on here. How do I go about this? I feel very wronged. Please advise. Thanks a million!!

[@gdenterprise2500]

Very flipping dishonest bastard this upset me very much.thst judges needs to arrested charge for legal abuse and causing harm.make a claim on his actions let's get a investigation start ASAP.

[@rockymntain]

Sue him in Federal Court for deprivation of rights under color of law. I believe it is Section 1938. Even if you lose, you are getting a smart@ss judge to recognize that People are not here for his amusement. Also, look at Jack and Margy Flynn's work on Constitutional remedies.

[@dennishickey7194]

Welcome to the machine. Please read other comments including mine. Knowledge is power.Together we are strong.

[@LukeRoxALot]

How did it go? @rockinrobinbuddi2112

[@JohnDoe-yi9rm]

Big Think: I can guarantee all criminal and civil cases involve Due Process violations. If you don't bring them up, it is assumed that you accept those violations! You must always challenge Due Process violations. Bring them up in court. If the Judge talks over you to prevent the violations from entering the Record, submit a written document into the record mentioning the violations before the next hearing.

[@riponresearch3082]

great speech sir, thanks

[@lilmoesk899]

Great lecture! Thanks for uploading.

[@christopherbesa5089]

Good information but was waiting for the part where the individual has equal power as the state to bring those challenges to constitutionality of state laws. He's talking to a bunch of lawyers so thats also why he mentioned "who would take that case?" Talking about an attorney with enough guts to stand up. The Bar associations control on attorneys is unreal and I know a lot of them wish they could stand up but as the saying goes " just doing their job" not bound by duty I guess bound by society just a law job and status. The individual must educate himself and fight for his case in most instances and attorneys willing to fight the state are few and far between as are real americans that learn how to legally protect themselves. Government run school districts would not allow any constitutional law into a standard curriculum but let's keep sports because that's the kids right to participate in those life long values of teamwork. I am finally not believing in antone but myself and what I can do to change things. Keep reading America.

[@dennishickey7194]

Thanks Chris.See my own take on this. Direct control of the courts through juries is part of the solution.

[@johnparham6796]

The American system of government is designed off of nature. That is, it serves and protects those best whom have the knowledge to serve and protect themselves. And, as a result thereof, those whom lack sufficient knowledge of their rights and duties in this country live outside of the protections of the law! They're also known as "the disadvantaged class!"

[@JohnDoe-yi9rm]

Chris, it's far more worse than you think. The Bar is a PRIVATE GUILD OF BRITAIN. Why are U.S. Attorney's swearing an Oath and joining a Foreign Guild? Because the U.S. didn't win complete Independence from Britain. None of your teachers told you that. Did they? In the War of 1812, the U.S. and England negotiated an agreement that allowed the British Court System to remain in Place and a PRIVATE CULT, the British Bar to have 100% control of those courts. So, the entire U.S. Court System is run by U.S. Citizens who've sworn an Oath to a Foreign Guild in Britain. Think about that!

[@2livecrew270]

@@johnparham6796with enough equity & time padded into “the disadvantaged class” whether by design or inadvertently will birth a new class of people called the “disenfranchised class” who birth the bastards that might free their forefathers once again. -the disenfranchised

[@ChelseaHoffmancrime]

This is helping me immensely during my Constitutional Law and Judicial Process courses. Thanks!

[@europhile2695]

excellent! I had never seen that link before.

[@controlfreakssuckass]

we the people created the government... the government created the citizen... people have rights, citizens only have privileges and are subject to the jurisdiction of the style called the UNITED STATES... we the people know the system is voluntary and object to any statute or code we don't want... case dismissed.... we the people represent our selves in court and in that capacity are human beings, being, not dead... he who hires an attorney is dead and helps to offset corporate debt with fines and jail time... we the people are not citizens or subject to the jurisdiction

[@tomthx5804]

Koo Koo

[@swazzia12]

You are a man not a human being

[@surfgod509]

Absolutely Brilliant. GOT TO LOVE THAT MADISON, BILL OF RIGHTS ALSO MAKES BETTER SENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION! RELIEF SOMEWHAT for critics of the CONSTITUTION....

[@michellebarnermckeej.d.3347]

Good teacher!

[@iranlopez2796]

They must have a Delegation of authority to Act on behalf of your public PERSON. Because they never get this. You sue their PERSON in International court in New York. Takes 21 days to default their PERSON. Serve them by Registered mail. Postal rule. Drop a copy of the evidence. Proper Notice into US court in care of. Grand Jury Foreman or Deputy.

[@aliziasight3851]

Thank You !!!!!

[@JohnDoe-yi9rm]

Does anyone have Case Law supporting this speakers statements in the First Part of the Video. I know he mentioned some cases in the later part of the video.

[@DaTruthAssassin]

This is not a democracy it's a republic, our forefathers abhorred a democracy

[@kwasipasonm7835]

CR1138 thank you

[@MrDLRu]

Right outta the gate, Burt can't even get that right.

[@sonnyh9774]

The "republic" you mention was weakened and relegated to a "life support" position of existence. The "republic" is made up of "united States" (lower case "u") as noticed in the original Declaration of Independence which is a union of sovereign States of which the "sovereignty" rests in the people and the people received their "authority"/status/stewardship from the Triune God of the Bible which is acknowledged by the US Supreme Court. (I don't like using "sovereign" in reference to anyone other than God, but most people use the term anyway. Our authority from God comes in the way of "stewardship" of God's property which is the basis of property rights.) In 1871 a new corporation was formed using the name "UNITED STATES" (sneaky) which inhabits 10 miles square (in addition to some territories) and commonly known as Washington DC. The US corporation of 1871 may rightly be called a democracy, but the original republic is not a democracy. We've all been lied to most of our lives. "The devil is in the details"... literally.

[@killcops4399]

no its not its a dictatorship thats y u vote for a president. poor sheeple.

[@joseluispcastillo]

@@killcops4399 No. A dictatorship is a dictatorship. We have a republic governed by Constitution. That means no matter who is elected, in theory they are bound by the Constitution which is a contract that says says how the govern should govern and their limitations. Forgetting the Constitution is to forget the limitations that the government contractually guaranteed not to overstep. Every heard the phrase "if you don't know your rights, than you dont have them?"

[@glenpontious1284]

Let me talk to you for 2 days I swear, you'll make me the Richest man on earth over all the violations I've been through

[@jamesloughin9302]

What kind of Law are you talking about?

[@hankscorpio6111]

Starting at about 3:50, he claims the 2nd amendment assures the people the right to serve in the military so that the people in the military is made up and looks like the general populous. He's suppose to be a Constitutional professor? It doesn't mean that at all!! How does: Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Translate to a right to join the military? It doesn't.. The 1st part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is simply a true statement.. It holds no legal standing, its like saying oranges are orange.. In fact if your in the military do you have a "right" to have a weapon on you? No... So.. The 2nd part means that each and every citizen has a right to keep and carry arms. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that when the US Constitution says a right of the people it means all of its people. Another point he keeps saying "Our democracy". This jokers a Constitutional professor!! How can he say that when the US Constitution is the Supreme Law Of The Land.. AND it informs us that we have a Republican form of government " in Article IV section 4.

[@beatbuilder2485]

before u call him A joke go read some more,,, ALL LAW IS COMMERCE..so WHO would those laws be for then? go do someMORE homework my boi.! i gave you psrt answer with WHO...start diggin!

[@RamBam3000]

I would say gender is also a factor. Consider this: when was the last time a black *woman* was stopped for "driving while black" or stopped and searched under Terry?

[@tomthx5804]

Yesterday at 4:15pm

[@killcops4399]

the stop is unlawful . a winning cicil law suit

[@kdonovan3129]

Sounds like bernie sanders

[@iranlopez2796]

We the People is the US govt. Invoke the Republic!

[@JeremyHelm]

Folder of time

[@JeremyHelm]

1:41 Madison's chronological construction of the criminal justice process

[@JeremyHelm]

1:50 the great poem to order liberty, that is the Bill of Rights

[@JeremyHelm]

1:58 Bill of Rights carefully structured...

[@JeremyHelm]

2:09 the six textual ideas 2:26 a careful picture of the ideal, robust and tolerant democracy Madison hoped to found

[@JeremyHelm]

2:34 organized horizontally as the half-life of a democratic idea... Reminiscent of the account of history-making in Disclosing New Worlds

[@lotushealingsanctuary]

None of these rights in #NevadaCounty #California

[@jamesloughin9302]

Common Law is the Law of the Land and I do not consent to Color of Law , it's a fraud

[@peterthompson6651]

He is a professor of what? In his first few sentences, he talks about a free "Person" does he even know what the word means in that definition? Why does he not talk about "free men/women"? That is what people want to know about, and not a free person, as a person (n.) directly from the Latin persona "human being, person, personage, a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay, covering the whole head, worn by actors in later Roman theatre. Then if he knows the Bible, he should have a look at Acts 10:34, 34: Then Peter opened his mouth and said, of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. Then should know his "maxim of Law" in Latin, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," translated into English as "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other." That is what is called the one, two and three; Christians will of told that is God's laws, the commandments, in the land of the living, so why does he not join us; whoever accepts the "Messiah" will be saved, and no one goes to the Father without knowing him, and he will receive those sins. Those founding men knew him and even warned us, the people of keeping, hold of the constitution and not lose it. They gave you democracy, but will you be able to defend it? Stopped listening to it after that, saying with a forked tongue.

[@waliswatwaliswat3252]

یوڈشنری یوڈشنری

[@waliswatwaliswat3252]

یوڈشنری

[@iranlopez2796]

Unregistered debt colectors. Its easy to talk about the problem. It another story to be the Executor of persons for Piratcy & Treason at International court And I refuse to Grant immunity to the Useless US Attorneys.

[@chestercopperpot1325]

Greenstien? Enough said. I prefer to go listen elsewhere now.

[@brandonlegomanfreelancecom7570]

Officer Della Rowley Williams remember voyurism? What is Voyeurism? The crime of voyeurism is defined in A.R.S. 13-1424. Voyeurism is classified as a sexual offense. The essence of the offense is invasion of privacy. But to constitute a criminal act, there are a number of facts that must be proven. The law says voyeurism is (a) a knowing invasion of privacy of someone, without that person’s knowledge, for purposes of “sexual stimulation,” or (b) the disclosure of a photo or recording (digital, video or film) which is made in violation of section (a) above, without knowledge or consent. Invasion of Privacy None of these words mean very much, of course, unless the phrase “invasion of privacy” is adequately defined. The statute therefore goes on to say that it includes a number of possible circumstances, in which the person photographed or recorded has a reasonable expectation that they will not be viewed and/or photographed, taped or recorded, and that the viewing/photographing/taping/recording includes: The person while engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual contact (direct or indirect fondling of the genitals, buttocks, or female breast); or The person while partially or completely undressed; or The person while defecating or urinating; or Directly or indirectly, captures the person’s genitals, buttocks, or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, so long as the view is not visible to the public. While some of these situations may be fairly straightforward, some are not. For example, in what circumstances can the viewing of a fully clothed person be an invasion of privacy? This is not the only case where questions may arise as to the meaning and interpretation of the voyeurism law. Without Consent For purposes of sex crimes, ARS 13-1401A7 defines the phrase “without consent” to include much more than simply being unaware of the situation in question. It also includes (a) being coerced or forced by the threat of immediate force against a person or property, (b) lack of consent by virtue of mental disorder, intoxication (drugs or alcohol) or any situation in which the alleged victim’s cognition is impaired provided that the condition is known or reasonably should be known by the other party, (c) the alleged victim is deceived intentionally as to the nature of the act in question, or (d) the alleged victim is deceived into believing that the other person is the victim’s spouse. The essence of the above statute leads to the conclusion that voyeurism includes not only situations where the viewing/photographing/taping takes place without the alleged victim’s knowledge, but also where consent is predicated on deception, mental disorder, or drugs and/or alcohol. Exceptions to Voyeurism There are numerous situations in which conduct that might otherwise be classified as voyeurism is specifically exempted. These situations include: Videotaping, etc., where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the action is for the purpose of security, and notice of the activity (videotaping, etc.) is clearly posted. Filming, etc. by a law enforcement officer as part of an otherwise lawful investigation. A recording by correction officers, provided that it is for security reasons or is related to an investigation of alleged misconduct in a jail or prison. Use of a child monitoring device in a residence for supervision or safety monitoring by a parent, guardian, or responsible person in that person’s residence. While the above list details the statutory exceptions to a voyeurism charge, there are additional defenses that may apply in a voyeurism case. Defenses to Voyeurism Charges Certain defenses may be raised to any charge, and these are not necessarily dependent upon the case being a voyeurism or other sex crime case. Materials (videotapes, recordings, etc.) obtained through a search violating your fourth amendment rights will lead to the materials being excluded from evidence. In some case, the inability to use these materials could effectively destroy the prosecution’s case against you. Similarly, prosecutorial misconduct, false testimony, and entrapment, among others, may lead to your case being thrown out. With regard to the defense of a voyeurism charge in Arizona, however, the starting point is that the action complained of - viewing, videotaping, recording, photographing, etc. - is only illegal where it is both knowing and for the purpose of sexual stimulation. Your state of mind in this regard, both that you are aware of your actions and that they are for the purpose of sexual stimulation, are elements of the offense, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent such proof, the case against you will ultimately be dismissed, or a not guilty verdict will be entered. Voyeurism Penalties Voyeurism is generally a class 5 felony. If, however, it is alleged that you displayed or distributed a photo or recording in which the person depicted can be recognized, it will be charged as a class 4 felony. The presumptive sentences for these offenses are 1.5 year (class 5 felony) and 2.5 years (class 4 felony) in prison. Although conviction for voyeurism does not, by the terms of the sex offender registration law, always require registration as a sex offender, the judge has the discretion to order anyone convicted of any offense under Chapter 14 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which covers sexual offenses (including voyeurism), to register.

[@brandonlegomanfreelancecom7570]

Officer