Co-host: JT & Guest: Jillian Wemyss [StatelessSweets.com].
Show Topics: The STATE’s War on Freedom and #AiLL Updates -|- Jillian’s assault from ICE federal agents while freely traveling through Texas and her extraordinary treatment resulting from the following “call flood” -|- intentional false-alarms used by privacy-invasive officers -|- effectively challenging jurisdiction in alleged “cases” of victimless-crime by 1) understanding key legal issues, 2) choosing to ask the right questions, and 3) objecting to non-responsive answers to your questions -|- Marc’s “CITIZENSHIP” questioned in Texas in 2005 -|- keeping the pressure on by reminding the judge and prosecutor that you intend on asking the witness the same questions regarding the issues brought forward in the motion to dismiss -|- properly preparing for court by role-playing and understanding WHY you are raising particular issues -|- sending legal paperwork to the court through the mail -|- “one-judge-fits-all” court hearings -|- using petition of writs -|- the gibberish/frivolous persecutor cop-out -|- listeners phone-in with questions and comments regarding commercial airliners swiftly obeying orders to surrender their passenger’s private information to the military, NH persecutor’s non-responsive reply to a question of existence of a valid cause-of-action in respect to its required factual elements, violating municipal “code“, first-timer tips, AL judge denying a motion to dismiss that’s based on a lack of evidence of the existence of legally required facts as gibberish and frivolous, AL judge acting as prosecutor while THE prosecutor AND witness are MIA for a hearing, judges denying to inform the defendant in open court of the nature AND cause of the charges AND proceedings being brought forward against them, dealing with forced assisted council, #AiLL success story from PA, and pushing a CA judge to inform the defendant whether a complaint has been verified for the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for action.
June 24th, 2012 at 9:36 am
A comment Marc made at the beginning of the show amused me. He said something about it being wrong to initiate violence against someone for holding a plant. My question, Marc, is why did you need to add any words after the word “violence?” Denizen and his wife and I were conversing years ago and one of them commented that when writing the “Bill of Rights” they should have just stopped after the first five words… “Congress shall pass no laws…”
“wrong to initiate violence” is all that is needed. FOR ANYTHING! Anything else simply acts as justification for some initiation of violence. And then where do you stop? I’m reminded of the man who recently chopped off his daughters head and paraded around with it because he wasn’t happy with her choice in men. Sigh.
On that cheerful note I’ll let you get back to your Sunday morning activities.
- NonE
June 28th, 2012 at 5:53 am
Just in case everyone missed it…
http://www.michaelwdean.com/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-marc-stevens-on-why-his-no-state-project-show-probably-does-more-harm-than-good/
Wow. Just wow.
June 28th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I’ve posted a response to this http://marcstevens.net/articles/michael-deans-emotional-hit-piece.html