i went to a DUI checkpoint on thursday night

[WalkingWolf]

I asked you to cite a statute that defines "quasi criminal". You didn't. It doesn't matter what you think it means. Matters of law have classifications and they are defined by statute. Cite the statute in your state that creates the classification of "quasi criminal".

Further, conflating civil and criminal rules violates one's right to due process.

Wannabe lawyers are about the only people who use such invented terminology.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The term " Quasi Criminal " does not exist at least according to Black's Law dictionary...

The term " Quasi Crime" however does exist...

Best regards

CCJ

 

[color of law]

I asked you to cite a statute that defines "quasi criminal". You didn't. It doesn't matter what you think it means. Matters of law have classifications and they are defined by statute. Cite the statute in your state that creates the classification of "quasi criminal".

Further, conflating civil and criminal rules violates one's right to due process.

Wannabe lawyers are about the only people who use such invented terminology.

Your arrogant attitudes make you both out to be buffoons.

Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 - Supreme Court (1886)
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 US 693 - Supreme Court (1965)
Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478 - Supreme Court (1978)
MLB v. SLJ, 519 US 102 - Supreme Court (1996)
In re the Exxon Valdez, 270 F. 3d 1215 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2001)
In re Estate of Fife, 164 Ohio St. 449 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1956)
State ex rel. Outlet Communications, Inc. v. Lancaster Police Dept., 38 Ohio St. 3d 324 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1988)
State v. Greene, 61 Ohio St. 3d 137 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1991)
State v. Briskey, 2012 Ohio 5340 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, 7th Appellate Dist. (2012)

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=clevstlrev

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Exxon Valdez is an example of court/prosecutor overreach in an invention of a crime.

 

[georg jetson]

Your arrogant attitudes make you both out to be buffoons.

Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 - Supreme Court (1886)
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 US 693 - Supreme Court (1965)
Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478 - Supreme Court (1978)
MLB v. SLJ, 519 US 102 - Supreme Court (1996)
In re the Exxon Valdez, 270 F. 3d 1215 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2001)
In re Estate of Fife, 164 Ohio St. 449 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1956)
State ex rel. Outlet Communications, Inc. v. Lancaster Police Dept., 38 Ohio St. 3d 324 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1988)
State v. Greene, 61 Ohio St. 3d 137 - Ohio: Supreme Court (1991)
State v. Briskey, 2012 Ohio 5340 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, 7th Appellate Dist. (2012)

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=clevstlrev

View attachment 11046

I can only speak for myself. If I've come across as arrogant, I apologize. I asked you to back up your assertion about "quasi-criminal".

Unless you post a relevant quote otherwise, none of the cases you list "create" a law classification called "quasi-criminal".

Classifications of law are by statute. They cannot be created "legally" by judgement. Here's an example from my state...

"Civil:

Art. 421. Civil action; commencement; amicable demand unnecessary

A civil action is a demand for the enforcement of a legal right. It is commenced by the filing of a pleading presenting the demand to a court of competent jurisdiction. Amicable demand is not a condition precedent to a civil action, unless specifically required by law."

Criminal:

"Art. 381. Nature of criminal prosecution

A criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the state in a court of criminal jurisdiction, for the purpose of bringing to punishment one who has violated a criminal law.

The person injured by the commission of an offense is not a party to the criminal prosecution, and his rights are not affected thereby."



There are similar statutes in every state because of due process requirements. I'm sure you can find the definition of "civil" law and "criminal" law. If "quasi-criminal" is not defined, then it does not exist. If you find the statutory definition for Ohio, I'd love to see it.

 

[OC for ME]

A criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the state in a court of criminal jurisdiction, for the purpose of bringing to punishment one who has violated a criminal law.

The person injured by the commission of an offense is not a party to the criminal prosecution, and his rights are not affected thereby.

I am by no means the brightest bulb on the tree. But, if the state is bringing the criminal charge, and the person injured is not a party to the criminal prosecution, then how the heck does a "injured party" not "pressing a charge" prohibit the state from pressing the charge anyway?

 

[SFCRetired]

I am by no means the brightest bulb on the tree. But, if the state is bringing the criminal charge, and the person injured is not a party to the criminal prosecution, then how the heck does a "injured party" not "pressing a charge" prohibit the state from pressing the charge anyway?

I will be most interested to see an answer to that one! I know of several instances in my state where the "injured party" refused to press charges and let a potentially dangerous person off the hook.

 

[eye95]

I am by no means the brightest bulb on the tree. But, if the state is bringing the criminal charge, and the person injured is not a party to the criminal prosecution, then how the heck does a "injured party" not "pressing a charge" prohibit the state from pressing the charge anyway?

It doesn't. The State can still press the charge. There is, however, the practical question of how the State can do this if the victim won't cooperate in the prosecution.

 

[OC for ME]

It doesn't. The State can still press the charge. There is, however, the practical question of how the State can do this if the victim won't cooperate in the prosecution.

I get that, but is there not physical evidence to support the state in pressing the charge(s)?

A assault is a assault and if there is physical evidence, and as the "statute" seems to "clearly" indicate -

Art. 381. Nature of criminal prosecution

A criminal prosecution is brought in the name of the state in a court of criminal jurisdiction, for the purpose of bringing to punishment one who has violated a criminal law.

The person injured by the commission of an offense is not a party to the criminal prosecution, and his rights are not affected thereby.

- the state don't need no stinking injured party. I may be wrong, or reading too much into the above, but heck, if the girlfriend don't want to press charges for her BF slapping her around she can't even compel the state to not prosecute.

BTW, I am not looking for the state to press anything if the victim chooses not to. Methinks me peasizedbrain is not gunna get wrapped around this puzzle any time soon.

 

[eye95]

I get that, but is there not physical evidence to support the state in pressing the charge(s)?

A assault is a assault and if there is physical evidence, and as the "statute" seems to "clearly" indicate - - the state don't need no stinking injured party. I may be wrong, or reading too much into the above, but heck, if the girlfriend don't want to press charges for her BF slapping her around she can't even compel the state to not prosecute.

BTW, I am not looking for the state to press anything if the victim chooses not to. Methinks me peasizedbrain is not gunna get wrapped around this puzzle any time soon.

And she should not be able to compel the State not to prosecute. Everyone around that guy is less secure if he is willing to slap someone around. The State has a compelling interest in punishing him for that violent behavior.

In the case that you cite, prosecution would likely NOT occur. Even though the State could likely prove the slap, without the victim's cooperation, they'd be hard-pressed to prove the slap was a crime; not all slaps are.

The lack of a need for the victim's permission to prosecute a crime is really warranted for stuff a lot more serious than domestic violence for which the woman is too stupid to stand up for herself. Those kinds of cases routinely get ignored by the legal system as just not worth the effort without the victim cooperating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Methinks me peasizedbrain is now a limabeansized brain.....hurteded too. Thanks

 

[georg jetson]

Methinks me peasizedbrain is now a limabeansized brain.....hurteded too. Thanks

Your question has been answered correctly. Sorry you hurt yourself.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Everyone being more secure when the state prosecutes doesn't sound like solid moral justification to me. Nor does the state having a "compelling interest" (which sounds to me like the same as saying "we have a good reason, don't question it"). Well, I have a compelling interest to go back to work. ttyl.

 

[countryclubjoe]

States make money on silly traffic violations and parking fines then they do on prosecuting a domestic violence situation...

Its all about money, not justice.

Best regards.

CCJ

 

[georg jetson]

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

 

[Freedom1Man]

States make money on silly traffic violations and parking fines then they do on prosecuting a domestic violence situation...

Its all about money, not justice.

Best regards.

CCJ

On DV cases they normally only believe the woman and the prisons make plenty of money from locking people for it plus, if you're even charged with DV you lose your guns. So on the DV side, it's an easy way to disarm the population.

 

[color of law]

Sorry for the belated response.

I can only speak for myself. If I've come across as arrogant, I apologize. I asked you to back up your assertion about "quasi-criminal".

Apology accepted and same to you.

Unless you post a relevant quote otherwise, none of the cases you list "create" a law classification called "quasi-criminal".

Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 - Supreme Court (1886)

As, therefore, suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred by the commission of offenses against the law are of this quasi-criminal nature,..

Incorrect, classifications of law are not always by statute. Yes they can be created "legally" by the courts. It's called case law. Not only that, Ohio lawmakers turned over almost all rule making and court procedures to the courts. This should not be surprising. Agencies create crimes out of whole cloth even though no such law exists to support such regulation. And worse, the courts enforce the bogus regulations.

The Ohio Revised Code specifically mentions quasi-criminal in the following four sections. I can't speak for other states.

R.C. 149.43. Availability of public records for inspection and copying.
...that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, but only to the extent that ...
R.C. 1707.12. Documents open to inspection.
...that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, provided that release of the record ......in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative action or proceeding, including, but not ...
R.C. 1901.23. Issuance of writs and process.
...warrants, executions, subpoenas, writs, and processes in all criminal and quasi-criminal cases may be issued to the bailiff of the court ...
R.C. 2937.22. Form of bail.
...accused to appear and answer to a specific criminal or quasi-criminal charge in any court or before any magistrate at a …

Out legal system is broken. The problem is the people accept it and believe they can't fight city hall. Until they decide to do something we will suffer.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Everyone being more secure when the state prosecutes doesn't sound like solid moral justification to me. Nor does the state having a "compelling interest" (which sounds to me like the same as saying "we have a good reason, don't question it"). Well, I have a compelling interest to go back to work. ttyl.

+1 It's just another excuse to expand state power.

Hey didn't she consent to the abuse by choosing to stay there?...