Navigating Small Claims

Small claims

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This amendment inhibits the use of small claims courts. Which brings about Judge Judy and other television judges.

This amendment has been interpreted differently to fit in with the modern times. Think, back when this was written $20 was quite a bit of money. Today the monetary amount has risen.

"Any person or business with a civil claim that does not exceed $3,000.00 may bring a suit in small claims court. The $3,000.00 limit does not include court costs and interest on the $3,000.00 which the judge may award you. You may still file a claim if the amount exceeds $3,000.00. However, if you choose to do this, you give up your right to claim any amount exceeding $3,000.00 both in your present suit and in any other claim involving the same person or business and the same issues."

Missouri Bar

His 6th amendment right

In this story, a man is pleading to maintain his legal citizenship after being given bad counsel advice in a 2001 drug trial.

His 6th amendment right

The fairness of this article is complicated. The defendant did plead guilty to drug charges but now faces deportation despite having legal citizen status. Is this a fair deal? What about others who may or may not be facing deportation due to guilty pleas upon advisement of their attorneys? I agree with the idea that judges should include the disclaimer statement. It is unfair that a defendant pleads guilty unbeknownst to them that they could be facing deportation afterwards.

Nummer Zex

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.




As stated in the 6th amendment, the right to a speedy and public trial is stated. This is open to interpretation depending on who you are. The wait time between charge and trial can take months even up to years. I personally do not find this speedy. That's too much time in between for one to change their story, witnesses memories fade, facts get twisted. Public trial by an impartial jury is something I can agree with. This prevents the judge from making a biased decision based on your crime and it allots for a non bias jury to present your verdict. The State and District wherein is a preventative measure to keep one who commits a crime in KC,MO from getting charged in KC,KS. If one flees from a state in which the crime has taken place, they cannot be charged in another state should they be apprehended. They must be returned to the state in which the crime was committed in order to be charged. One must be aware of the charges that they are on trial for. The next part I don't completely agree with either. If I am a witness to a murder I do not want the murderer on trial to know that I am the one bearing witness against them. This statement is why we have the Witness Protection Program. The ability to choose a witness to vouge for you is a privilege held by the Constitution. The access to council is also a privilege. Fortunately for many of those who commit crimes, they can hire someone that can talk their way through difficulties for them. For those who are not very intelligent speakers, this is quite possibly a life saver.
 
 
Speedy Trial

Under the 5th

Under the 5th amendment my property, my personal testimony, and my right to have a jury present is protected. Nor can I be subject to loss of life liberty or property. As an American citizen, I value this amendment.

In other countries around the world, people may be held imprisoned, tortured, even murdered for crimes they may or may not have committed. With having the statement that no one can be punished for a criminal offense without a grand jury, I am protected.

It is common now to watch a tv shoe where someone is on trial in which they plead the 5th. This is not something that only people on tv are capable of doing. If one finds themselves in a cross examination on trial, in order to not convict themselves, they must be careful with what they say. The cross examiner is looking for you to slip up and bear witness on yourself. You have the right to not be a witness against yourself, only under our 5th amendment.

One of the bigger fighting issues is the just compensation issue. If a government run organization wants to utilize your property for any sort of public us, be it public building, highway or road, or public entertainment/recreation facility, you must be compensated for that which you have given up. The standard of compensation is the fair market value of the property at hand. If we were in many other countries, the government may be able to just walk in, kick me out and take over my house for any other purpose and I am very thankful that our government cannot do that.

I plead the 5th

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



In this one amendment, so many items are covered it's kind of hard to interpret. The first part of this one means that no one can be prosecuted for a major crime without the use of a grand jury. I.E. If I kidnapped someone I could not receive punishment for it unless I had been tried in a court with a grand jury present. Unless, it was a crime committed within military services during time of war. I.E. the instance where the US troops took advantage of the Iraqi prisoners, tortured, beat, even killed them. Photos were released, an investigation was put into effect, and an independent panel was formed to review the evidence. Several were found guilty, demoted, fined, discharged, and other several criminal punishments were instilled.

Here is one of the photos released.

Next is the issue of Double Jeopardy. No person shall be charged of the same crime twice. For example, the OJ trials. When OJ was convicted of not guilty, and they found the bloody glove as new evidence. However, because OJ was found Not Guilty under the 5th amendment, he could not be tried again for that crime despite new evidence.

One shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself.

To take the 5th, is the refusal to testify on the ground that the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness in a crime, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," applied to state courts by the 14th Amendment. The term became famous during televised Senate committee hearings on organized crime in 1951, when a series of crime bosses "took the Fifth."

No private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.

For example if I own my house and the government wants to build a freeway in it's place, they must pay me fair market value in compensation for my house.

Another example is here: Just Compensation Case

Nobel Peace Prize, Really?

As of the morning of Friday Oct. 9, 2009 Barack Obama is the official winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. But for what reason? Barack has given 3 speeches promoting peace and APOLOGIZING for our nations economic gluteny. Really? Basically this is saying that Obama has promoted the idea of peace. How about when Clinton negotiated the release of 3 US citizens from Korea a few months ago? That was definately not award worthy : / How about the individuals who serve in the US Peace Corps everyday, or those who serve in our military to "help bring PEACE to the middle east" or how about those protesting their tyrannical governments putting their lives out there for the peace of their countries? If non of those are award worthy, then how can we promote that talking about the idea of peace is Nobel worthy let alone little more than news worthy. I speak of peace everyday, I speak of solutions for peace, many of us talk about the peace movements everyday. Why is it that the recognitition of this glorious prize goes to a man who only speaks of peace but has yet to provide solidified evidence of potential worldly peace?

Yes, we can take pride in knowing that our president has been awarded the NobelPP but Jimmy Carter was awarded it in 1997. Can we take pride in knowing that one of the most prestigeous prizes has been awarded to someone who has yet to earn it? Speeking of peace and creating peace are two different stories.