Categorized | Featured, NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP live Ep 30 Discovery is Now Asking For Legal Advice

Posted on August 16th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

You have to hear this; to cover her lack of evidence, a Concord, Massachusetts prosecutor said she could not provide discovery because she “cannot give legal advice.”  Wow.



Some crazy evasions from Concord, Mass. prosecutor Tiffany Castillo. When asked for proof of her claim the laws apply to Eric, Tiffany goes from “We don’t need evidence” to “they just apply”. Tiffany then turns the crazy up a level claiming she can’t provide her evidence because she “can’t give legal advice.”

Do I really need to explain that providing discovery is not giving legal advice?  Apparently there is no level low enough for a bureaucrat to stoop to in order to avoid their lack of evidence.  If they could support their claims, then they would.


2 Comments For This Post

  1. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    The law (politician’s opinion) that says it applies, must be proven to apply before its command that it applies can apply.

    Wikipedia says:
    “Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.”

  2. desertspeaks Says:

    Greetings fellow victims of fraudulent government.

    Government agents “judges, prosecutors, police officers, et al” will “as we all know very well at this point” initially insist that they have evidence of jurisdiction and applicability, right? of course.. that works for us in a great way.. get them to make that assertion in in court in front of the judge and or on the record. or better still, in a motion.. WHY?? Their position must be stated, prior to using it against them as a defensive weapon of mass destruction! When they insist that they have evidence, they “as happens with so many online morons, judges, prosecutors etc” change tactics and tell you that it’s now philosophical or that they don’t need evidence, OR YOU MUST BE CRAZY AND NEED A PSYCH EVALUATION!,.. sorry but you made the claim and changing your claim, that’s a no no!

    Judicial Estoppel: In the practice of law, judicial estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel that precludes a party from taking a position in a case that is contrary to a position it has taken in earlier legal proceedings.

    The principle was used in 2001 by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in the Piscataqua River border dispute, in which New Hampshire argued that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was in New Hampshire after having previously joined a consent decree that agreed on a border that would put it in Maine.

    An estoppel arises when one is concluded and forbidden
    by law to speak against his own act or deed. Gural v.
    Engle, 128 N,J.L, 252, 25 A.2d 257, 261

    I would also assert that the prosecution bringing and arguing a case with no evidence “prosecutorial misconduct” violates the clean hands doctrine!
    The unclean hands doctrine is an equitable defense that allows a defendant to defeat the plaintiff’s claim against them. Under the unclean hands defense, the defendant would argue that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief because they have committed some sort of wrongdoing or are themselves liable for an offense.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here