Question about something that would probably be laughed out of court, but I don’t understand why. I was recently the defendant in “People of the State of (my state)” vs. me. As a resident of my state, doesn’t “People of the State of…” include me? Doesn’t that mean I’m filing charges against myself? As one of the People of the State of…, don’t I get any say in whether the defendant (me again) should be prosecuted?
For those of you demanding specifics, my state is New York (not NYC), and it was only a traffic infraction. Sorry about getting the hopes up of anyone who was hoping for a felony case.
Yes, you do. You exercised it the last time you voted. (Yes, that has little direct effect on your violation. But it’s about the same as your 1 in 19,000,000 share in “the people,” so it’s all a wash. I suppose you could try removing your fraction of the fine. A $100 fine would be reduced, with rounding, all the way down to…$100.)
Think yourself lucky you don’t come from north of the border, where it would be the Queen of Ontario or of Quebec prosecuting you. The good (and loyal) subjects of Her Majesty in those provinces don’t get any say in who they get as their sovereign.
Thanks for replying! Good point there. I realize I just voted last month for judges of the town I live in (call it town A), but this took place in an adjoining town (call it town B) where of course I have no vote in anything. In this case, “town” is relevant as I was ticketed by town (of B) police and appeared in town (of B) court. The alleged infraction allegedly occurred on a federal road within town B, if that’s relevant.
But didn’t sovereigns attain their positions by “divine right”? (Sorry, but as a product of the U.S. educational system, the concept of being a subject of a monarch is totally alien to me.)
That’s what they want you to believe. Generally they get the position by having the right father, grandfather, etc., but eventually you can often trace back to someone who had the stronger army on the day (e.g., William of Normandy on 14 October 1066). Elizabeth II is Queen of Quebec because her ancestor’s general (General Wolfe, serving King George III) beat General Montcalm serving King Louis XVI of France in 1763. It’s “divine right” if you think that God decides who wins battles.
It’s the Crown, not the Queen. And that’s kinda an important distinction. Crimes are prosecuted by the sovereign, i.e., that thing that represents the will of the state as a whole. In the commonwealth countries, that concept is embodied “the Crown.” In republics like the United States, the sovereign is “the people.” Not individual persons, but the people as a whole in their capacity to vote for and elect their government.
No, it’s the Queen, not the Crown. For example, R. v. Lifchus – in full, “Her Majesty The Queen, Appellant, v. William Lifchus, Respondent”. Of course, Her Majesty takes no real part in these proceedings, but they are taken in her name by officials in her realms and dominions.
The people of a jurisdiction agree, by the passage of law, to allow elected offices to represent them in certain manners. Yours is a situation in which (through the passage of law and subsequent election or appointmaent according to your local law) the people have agreed to have their interests be represented by an agent, for example the officers of the court.
Similarly, the “jury of one’s peers” means a jury chosen from among “we the people” collectively. I have read of a case somewhere (sorry, no cite) where some reprobate defendant argued that the jury was tainted because it wasn’t composed of his peers, that is, 12 reprobates like himself (who would, of course, have had more sympathy for the defendant, or something like that).
This argument went exactly as far as you would think it would. But why? I interpret that to be, because the defendant is still one of the collective “we the people” and those are who his peers are, and those are who the jury is drawn from, not just his friends and relatives and fellow guttersnipes. Nice try, though.
Of course they do; the same is the case with every other Commonwealth country, including the UK. The national parliaments of the countries individually (not jointly) determine who to recognize as sovereign, and it’s the citizens who elect the members of parliament. As a matter of course the various governments just stick to the line of succession by default, so the matter rarely comes up, but they have on occasion passed legislation explicitly deposing or installing a monarch, most recently in 1936. While they all agreed on the same substitution, they didn’t all do so at the same time.
Sure we do; we just haven’t seen any reason to change it. Same as the good subjects of Her Majesty down in Oz, who rejected a referendum to switch to a republic. The option doesn’t come up very often, since there’s general acceptance of the current arrangements, but if we wanted to, we could go republican.
That makes perfect sense… that’s what a republic is, after all. My remaining quibble would be that I had no say in the laws and elections of town B, which is where the alleged infraction of state law occurred. I was stopped and ticketed by their town police, and had to appear in their town court. I have some say in what goes on in the adjacent town A, which is where I live and vote.
I say my remaining quibble “would be” because I think I ended up better off than if I’d committed a similar infraction in my own town.
This sounds a little like the guy who argues with a policeman, saying, “I pay your salary, so that means I’m your boss!”
Yes, true, valid, and legitimate. But everyone else in the city or county is also the policeman’s boss. So the policeman has no reason to listen to that one person to the exclusion of everyone else.
(Also, we delegated our power to the police chief, the police commissioner, the district attorney, the city council, the mayor, and the county board of supervisors.)
As to the original question, so what? Suppose you are discovered embezzling money from the Loyal Order of Raccoons Lodge #12, from the partnership of Dewey Cheatham & You, and from your condo association. Each entity sues you, yet you also remain a member of each entity.
True, but I know better than to argue that with a policeman or judge. That’s why I’m asking here.
In my particular case, I live in town A, but was ticketed for an alleged infraction in the adjacent town B by town B police, and faced a town B judge in town B court. I have no say in the running of town B because of course I don’t live there.
However, I was charged with an infraction of the state V&T code occurring on a federal road, and I do have some (very slight) influence at the state and federal levels. This leads to a question of why a traffic infraction gets handled by a city/town/village court but a state felony gets handled by state court, although both are violations according to the state code. I’m not complaining about that, just curious. I assume all cases start at the lowest court that handles that type of case, and if I’d been ticketed for the same alleged infraction by county or state authorities, I still would have ended up in town B court.
Anyway my original question about my being included in the prosecution of “The People of [my state] vs. me” has been answered. Thanks, all!
For example, in my county liquor stores must close at 7 PM. In other counties in my state they can be open until at least 9 PM. Something below the state level has to have the authority to enforce this. Some towns specify no parking along certain roads during winter, but I doubt all of those regulations are in the state code.
By “federal road” (which may not be the correct term) I meant its maintenance is the responsibility of the federal government, generally major highways. Examples would be all the interstates, US 1, US 101, etc. (although in NYS that’s handled by the state DOT). State roads would be NY 9A, NY 55, etc. County roads, at least in this county, are officially “county road 12” (or whatever number). Anything less that’s still a public road is the responsibility of the city, town, or village it’s in. “Responsibility,” AFAIK, means not only repairs but snow clearance.
Now we’re getting into things I’m not terribly sure about.
Those are state owned and maintained roads. The federal government does support this maintainance by disbursing money from its highway funds, but it does so by going through the states. Interstate highways were built mostly with federal money, but the US routes were originally all built with just state money. The US Numbered Highway system was set up by the states back in the 1920s to provide a nationwide network of highways, but it was all done by the states. The federal government didn’t get involved at all.
(Sorry, but as a product of the U.S. educational system, the concept of being a subject of a monarch is totally alien to me.)