legal theory waiving procedural defects fictitious charge

NRS 200.310 : KIDNAPPING : Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon the person, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person,

and a person who

leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor

with the intent

to keep, imprison, or confine the minor

from his or her parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor,

or with

the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service,

the "predicate" of the offense, or known as the "primary" offense, also known as the "lesser included" offense. all of which is legally required to prove the "subject" offense, or known as the "secondary" offense to prove the " greater" offense, kidnapping.

or

perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act

is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

________________________________________

This is the Original arrest complaint, in justice court, the Complaint in district court, and page 2. Notice the embellishment of the law written by the district attorney in the complaints.

From page 10 of Nouzat's first statement to Detective Clarkson:

Which is probable cause for kidnapping, which is "harboring a minor", a misdemeanor. This, I allege, is the only legal contribution the mother can provide to the prosecution. To note, Nevada does not have a specific "harboring a minor" law, but from the link above there is NRS 201.110, CONTRIBUTORY DELINQUENCY. It should be noted throughout my prosecution, and of course Parris never mentions this, that this law is the more appropriate charge possible. See curious statements made by Mr. Parris.

From the arrest warrant page 2 :

From the arrest warrant page 3 :

Detective Clarkson stated, "Vice Detectives Gorski and Gatus arrived to handle the investigation for possibly pandering of a juvenile and a sex offender with a minor. ...and rebook with further charges."

However, Ms. Pieper admits pandering was never booked, from below, "... although we didn't charge it, ...".

The State's theory of prosecution, from my guilty plea hearing transcript, page 7 :

Here's Danelle explaining how she deals with no victim statements, and looks for "other evidence':, "other ways". Yup, and when she cant find that, then you get a case like mine.

From the next page:

The "unlawful service" (for 2012) :

See this case on legal theories on "specific intent "

So, what are these (procedural) "defects" stated by Mr.Parris (above) and 3 times by the Nevada supreme Court, see page 3?

The answer is based on Ms.Pieper's statement from above, "...although we didn't charge it, ...", and Parris' statement, "... that's why we're waiving the defects...".

Because the State failed to file the pandering of a child charge, it is then the State that admits it cannot legally prove the kidnapping offense. The guilty plea is defective, a factual basis is required in order to put a defendant in prison.

This defect is based on unmentioned criminal case against Amanda, because she provides no evidence of pandering because she made no (recorded?) statements to the State of Nevada.

Therefore, the pandering charge is fictitious. see changing conviction statute

Then the court says in the plea hearing, page 11 :

From nrs 200.310, "... and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine the minor from his or her parents ..."

So the court is saying that merely "took her" [across state lines] is category A is automatically violent kidnapping ? But the complete law says "a person who ... takes ... the minor ... with the intent to ... keep ... the minor from ... her parents". So, the second element of the crime has to be proven, intent, also known as "mens rea" the actual mental state of the person to specifically keep the minor away from her parents. The court doesn't bother to include that element simply because there is no evidence to support it!

Also, "and he knew he wasn't supposed to do that", is that Danielle Pieper saying, "and he knew wasn't supposed to murder her"? How is "supposed to" characterized with a felony? it matches with a misdemeanor, being with her with out parent's permission, back to "harboring a minor".

See videos of my plea and sentencing hearings below :

I got a response from an Attorneys on the NSC waiving defect statement :

Source Email response.

Go to Legal theory page 2