Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Aug 18, 2012

Posted on August 18th, 2012 by Calvin

Show Topics: Flash Release. This is an unfortified version of the raw broadcast without the archive version’s off-air commentary and post-show news segments, which will be be available after processing. However in the meantime, the audio has gone through a scrubbing of post-processing for your listening ease. Enjoy.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Bill from New Hampshire: Bill’s #AiLL.
  • Chris Geo and his brother Steve.
              

30 Comments For This Post

  1. Bucky Says:

    I am trying to wrap my head around this : The judge stated that he had already established jurisdiction over Bill’s person from a previous motion that Bill had filed. The subsequent motion to dismiss that is based on discovery which shows that the attorney openly admits that he cannot provide evidence of applicability of the law, statutes, etc. – is ignored because jurisdiction had already been established.

    So once the judge claims jurisdiction, jurisdiction can no longer be challenged? And applicability of laws, statutes, etc. are no longer relevant?

    Did the judge clearly explain exactly how he came to claim jurisdiction? “By a previous motion” doesn’t explain crap.

    I wonder if the the man acting as judge presumed this jurisdiction by the fact that Bill, acting in his legal capacity, filed a motion in the first place? Marc, I have and am learning a ton of stuff from you – but I have never understood why you use THEIR paperwork.

    (I’m in the middle of listening to the first part of podcast)

  2. Andy Says:

    Sir (judge), are you concerned that by answering my question(s) your response(s) will expose fraud? That’s probably not a safe question to ask. Despite the PR would say a judge’s job is to expose fraud.

  3. Blessings Says:

    I’m listening to this show and was wondering about demanding judicial notice while Bill was recounting what went on in the courtroom. Then yea!, finally it was mentioned. I have a couple of questions.

    First, knowing how the scam operates, is there any point in bringing in a written notice of demand of judicial notice that you can walk up to the judge and provide–knowing that they’re going to try and railroad the entire process. Would it be worth the psychological effect of silently pointing out that you know how much they’re going to try and scam you? (Sort of like Bill’s filing an appeal in advance of the hearing?)

    Isn’t it an offense against their “office” for them to continue proceedings absent the prosecutor having evidence of an offense?

    And, excuse my confusion on this aspect, but is the point of being calm when the case continues absent proof of jurisdiction that the case is most certainly going to be overturned on appeal?

    And, if a challenge to jurisdiction is ignored, denied or, as in Bill’s case, the judge simply says, “I’ve already handled that”, is there a way to force the finding of jurisdiction into writing? Really, if we bring a case against them, don’t they usually provide a written response about how jurisdiction “doesn’t” apply? (Something was mentioned on the Skype group about an affidavit that points out every irregularity during the proceedings that will be reported to a federal court. It seemed like a great way to put them on notice that they were putting their license to scam in jeopardy by railroading your case through . . .)

    Bill was great on the judge’s interruption during his closing argument. I may have taken that bait and gone off point . . .

    And, relative to a judge telling you that standing is NOT required, can the writen version of this be modified to account for their word games?

  4. Lyndon Says:

    Marc: “Refusing to plea” seems to me the equivalent to “refusing to consent to jurisdiction”. If one hasn’t consented to jurisdiction, the J-O’-P/Judge/Magistrate has no juridiction and cannot have a valid reason to enter a plea when one is presented, willing, and able to discuss and deal with the matter.

  5. Bucky Says:

    That is my line of thinking, Lyndon. I am refusing to play their game. I don’t have an army of brainwashed cops/military to force others to play games with me. It is them and their military against people who are just trying to live their lives.

  6. bruce sloane Says:

    Buckster,

    If a Motion, other than a Motion to Dismiss has been filed
    the Court has acquired Jurisdiction

    the same with entering a Plea

  7. Lyndon Says:

    Bruce Sloane: I agree with your comment also. Motions are a request, and by requesting it seems the court would deem you have granted jurisdiction by entering them.

  8. Bucky Says:

    Do you have to enter a plea before you can make a motion?

    I know that the judge will try and enter a plea of ‘not guilty’ on your behalf if you refuse to plea. But he doesn’t have the authority to make decisions on your behalf without your permission. I looked up “authority” in Black’s and the very first word says “permission”. It also says that “authority” is the right to exercise powers and enforce laws and it also means jurisdiction. But not without prior permission. Prior permission from whom? His employer? Himself? The aggregate of U.S. citizens as a body politic?

    If the judge enters a plea on your behalf after you tell him something like, “I am explicitly telling you that I do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, grant you permission to make decisions on my behalf”, then that plea couldn’t be construed to be an implied admission of not guilty – until proven guilty under their statutory system.

    The judge won’t let you plead innocent under their implied authority/jurisdiction. But there it is – the judge won’t “let” you. Under statutory authority. You have not entered into their statutory jurisdiction until you use THEIR statutory rules which puts you under their statutory/political authority. Right???

    I am guessing that the judge, without establishing jurisdiction first, would say that you are in contempt for disruption of HIS court. They are not going to give up their power even if they have to break every rule in their book – and the cops are going to mindlessly follow every order they make. Because once they lose even a little bit of power, the whole system is going to fall like dominoes.

  9. Lyndon Says:

    Bucky, I hold the same view as you do. I express it differently in court, but I inform “this court and all its constituants”, that ‘I do not consent to its authority”, but I add the proviso: “upon proof, with evidence, that a valid complaint has been brought forward and and my questions as to the nature of the proceedings is expressed and answered substantially”.

  10. Bucky Says:

    Lyndon, that is a good approach. You are merely informing them that, upon proof, you will be responsible for any damage or injury that occurred because of your actions. Nothing wrong with that!

  11. Lyndon Says:

    Bucky:
    From my experience, when your presence is provisional, they treat you differently and I have never had the contempt card raised at me -ever!. Of course, you have to be positive, very polite, co-operative, and don’t make arguements. I like what Marc said about respecting our adversaries. That is a very good approach to not get angry or emotional even if they do (as that would fan the flames). We should all be mindful that we can always withdraw from the proceedings with cause and take the matter to appeal.

  12. Bucky Says:

    Lyndon, You said, “withdraw from the proceedings with cause and take the matter to appeal” How do you do that?

  13. Stephen Says:

    Let the judge enter enter a plea for the Defendant, then you just tell the the Judge you accept his Plea and that he has made a “chose in action” and accepted all liabitiy as surity for the Defendant.
    Pg. 241 Blacks Law 6th Ed.

    Sorry for my misspellings

  14. bruce sloane Says:

    Lyndon …
    ” with cause ”
    kinda sounds like
    ” Refusal for Cause ”

    which is a UCC thingy, and has no legal purview outside of Commercial Law

    elucidate, please

  15. Bucky Says:

    Stephen, That sounds pretty slick. So the defendant accepts the plea entered by the judge on his behalf. Does this create a principle/agent type of relationship? The judge didn’t have permission from the defendant to act on his behalf but the defendant accepted anyway and now the judge is liable?

  16. Lyndon Says:

    Et al: When I state, on and for the record, that “I shall withdraw from the proceedings with cause and take the matter to appeal” I am not talking in UCC code. I never use the UCC. There is no state, so why use their UCC rules? The commercial redemption people use UCC.

    The key word here is “cause”. What I’m really saying is “proximate cause”. The judge has harmed me legally by representing me without my consent. What right does the bench have to represent me and especially if I have not consented to the jurisdiction of the court? From all that I have seen on documents and as a witness, when the judge enters a plea for someone that act is not on the record. I doubt a judge would enter a plea for a defendent in a court of public record. But in a court of private record (like traffic courts, administrative courts) the clerks do as they may with the record.

    I prefer to ask questions. If one wants to bring up surety, one may say (very politely) “Madam/Sir, if it is your intention to enter a plea on behalf of the defendent, is it also your intention to accept the defendent’s liabilities?”

    Look at it this way: an injury to one’s rights has occured if anyone enters a plea for another without their expressed consent. What caused the injury? The act caused the injury. Therefore, the act is the cause of the injury/harm.

  17. Bucky Says:

    Thank you for breaking that down, Lyndon. I really do appreciate it.
    So a judge in a court of record is pretty much bluffing when he says he’s going to enter a plea for you. And, referring to Stephen’s post, telling the judge that you accept the plea is basically calling his bluff.

    You could approach it in either manner – question the judge, “Madam/Sir, if it is your intention to enter a plea on behalf of the defendent, is it also your intention to accept the defendent’s liabilities?” or “tell the the Judge you accept his Plea and that he has made a “chose in action” and accepted all liabitiy as surity for the Defendant.”

    Either way, you let the judge know that you’re not falling for his bluff.

  18. bruce sloane Says:

    Lyndon ..
    more info is needed on what You propose

    “withdrawal” is not a recognized Pleading

  19. Lyndon Says:

    bruce sloane: “withdrawal” is not a plea. Withdrawal means what you would presume it means. To withdrawal is to remove oneself from the proceedings, and no longer participate in the attempt of resolution of the conflict, because the (supposed) impartial third party (the judge) has attempted to represent you without your consent. There is no point in continuing a hearing if the judge, who is supposedly there only to examine the facts and evidence brought before her/him, attempts to forcibly represent a party in the proceedings without that party’s consent. It is so grave, and irrevocable an error, that one has not only a right but I would say a duty to remove oneself from such a sham of court. Who can argue in defense of such a judge that so openly makes decisions for a party without that party’s consent???

    And, bruce sloane, this is not something that I propose, this is something I do.

  20. bruce sloane Says:

    I did not say ” Plea “, I stated recognized ” Pleading “

  21. Bucky Says:

    Bruce, what is the difference – between a plea and a pleading? Pleadings are recognized? Pleas are not?

  22. Lyndon Says:

    bruce sloane:

    One’s response -both vocal and with written documents- to the accusations brought before one is one’s pleading.

    The “plea” is the formal phrase one choses to state in response to the accusations brought before one. The plea helps the court understand one’s standing in the matter.

    By withdrawing, one is withdrawing one’s pleading and not recognizing (givine jurisdiction) to the court because the judge has proven himself/herself incompetant by openly and intentionally attempting to represent a party.

  23. bruce sloane Says:

    I am well aware of the difference between a ” Plea”, and a ” Pleading ”
    that’s why I brought up this

    If You have entered a Pleading in a Case, You have already filed an Answer, or such, in essence, You have Pled

    My particular ” State” would not recognize a ” Motion for Withdrawal ”
    as You have already filed an Appearance

    My particular ” State ” would want to see a ” Challenge to Jurisdiction ” as a Pleading

    Please elucidate further as to how You proceed with Your “Withdrawal ”

    Referencing a “State” might help reference Rules of Court for purposes of this discussion

  24. Bucky Says:

    It sounds like a win-win situation to me. Making a plea is voluntary. If you are compelled to make a plea – that wouldn’t be considered to be valid evidence, would it? BeCAUSE the plea is made under threat.

    And the plea wouldn’t be valid if someone other than yourself made it without your consent. You would have to explicitly say that you do not give permission to the judge to make a plea for you, though. Otherwise, it’s implied.

    When you voluntarily make a plea, you waive the THRESHOLD defense of ‘lack of TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY to adjudicate’. I guess that means you haven’t entered onto their “jurisdictional territory” until you start playing their “you have three options” game.

  25. bruce sloane Says:

    here, Buckster …

    “Territorial jurisdiction” is question of state’s power to prosecute and punish accused for crime and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.” People v. al-Ladkani, 647 N.Y.S.2d 666, 169 Misc.2d 720 (1996)

  26. Lyndon Says:

    Bruce, I’ll give you an example. Take a traffic matter, if one starts by requesting a trial, then entering motions, and making an “appearance” as they demand, and possibly entering one of the pleas they allow, then I agree, one has commenced -to some extent- a pleading and has consented -to some extent- jurisdiction. But I’m not writing about that…

    What I have been writing about is countering their offers (really orders) -right from the start- with conditional counter-offers. All of this starts with the first piece of paper you are given which you take (or mail) and address the need to hear the matter with a third party.

    Now, I have never entered a MOTION to withdrawal from the proceedings. I simply declare my intentions (with my own observers in the room recording what I have said). Look, even if one consented to jurisdiction in the manner they demand, who ever said one must consent to being represented by the party whose role it is to solely examine the facts and make sure fair procedure is being followed? If you ask Marc’s “conflict of interest” questions first, you can still go back to the judge and say “you said there is no conflict of interest here!” And, then, you may say “Are you representing and judging all of the parties here?”

    The bottom line here is they are not supposed to be forcing you into accepting an unfair proceeding. If your are looking for court rules of procedure that will outline all the methods your state accepts, you MAY be missing something here. This is “black letter law”, which means, some things are so universally understood they do not have to be written down. For example, EVERYONE knows that an unsigned document is worthless. It is not necessary to right that down. Another example is jurisdiction, NO court has the authority to decide outside its jurisdiction and jurisdiction must be proven upon demand.

    Fair well friend.

  27. Bucky Says:

    Well, a state is an imagined political being that is given imagined governmental authority. It is what the creators of it imagine and ordain it to be. It is an idea written on paper that has no power if not acknowledged by living men and women.

    I don’t acknowledge the existence of a state, based on the presumptions of others. I don’t acknowledge the existence of a so-called sovereign because I am not a slave and I do not owe allegiance to anyone or anything.

    (Yes, Bucky – but you have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the one’s still living in an illusion that a state has the power to prosecute and punish you. And that’s what really matters, doesn’t it? You are alone in your reality and it’s US against YOU. Throw Bucky to the lions! Show what happens to people who question our reality!)

  28. bruce sloane Says:

    well, believe it or not …
    we are not that far apart on ” procedure “, Lyndon

    but maybe in a different way…

    In NY, we have been declining “Appearance Tickets ” by a kind letter to the Court, advising such ” Court ” that the have a defective Process, due to the lack of a complete Information

    note that this is not ” conditional acceptance ” which seems to be Your course

    the problem is, in a Traffic Issue, the DMV can still suspend License/Registration, but for Fish ‘n Game, Zoning, etc… been kickin’ butt

    “Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant.” People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 appeal denied 678 N.Y.S.2d 26, 92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)

    “Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court.” People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)

    “Courts acquire authority to adjudicate matter if they have both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction.” McKinney’s CPL v. sec. 1.20 subd. 9. —
    People v. Marzban, 660 N.Y.S.2d 808, 172 Misc.2d 987 (1997)

    “It is a common mistake for law enforcement to misname legal process, such as referring to an appearance ticket erroneously as a summons.”

    People v. Wienclaw, 183 Misc. 2d 727, 730 (N.Y. J. Ct. 2000).

  29. Lyndon Says:

    Bruce, I agree, the DMV hold the license and the patrol men and women who guard it which experience has shown that they may make their own rules. But, we have the questions, we have witnesses too, and we have our own paper trail which we have to be clever in producing. In all of the methods of damage control that I have studied, these fundamentals will always serve one in good stead:

    1) Knowledge of the ins and outs of a court.
    2) Knowledge of the principles of Law.
    3) Spotting premises and ability to reason.
    4) Spotting and questioning fictions (Bucky’s illusions ;]).
    5) Being able to think on one’s feet.

  30. indio007 Says:

    @Bruce that New York case you posted was very good…. as it lead to this….

    As we have recently noted, “[t]he extraordinary remedy * * * of prohibition * * * lies only where there is a clear legal right, and * * * only when a court (if a court is involved) acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 62, citing Proskin v County Ct. of Albany County, 30 N.Y.2d 15, 18; Matter of Lee v County Ct. of Erie County, 27 N.Y.2d 432, 436-437; Matter of Hogan v Culkin, 18 N.Y.2d 330, 335-336; see La Rocca v Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 578-579; Matter of Nigrone v Murtagh, 36 N.Y.2d 421, 423-424). The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be, in a pending criminal proceeding, but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue (Matter of State of New York v King, supra, at p 62, and cases cited therein). Further, in order for prohibition to be appropriate, the writ must be directed to some inferior judicial tribunal or officer and must seek to prevent or control judicial or quasi-judicial action only (Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 N.Y.2d 8, 13; see Comment: Writ of Prohibition in New York — Attempt to Circumscribe an Elusive Concept, 50 St John’s L Rev 76, 84).

    In the instant case, the Steinguts challenge the geographical 316*316 jurisdiction of Kings County to indict and prosecute them for their alleged offenses. It is well settled that prohibition is the proper remedy for such a challenge (23 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, p 806). Illustrative is Matter of Hogan v Culkin (18 N.Y.2d 330, 336, supra) in which we held that “prohibition is the proper remedy whenever a court threatens to act without or in excess of its power, not only with respect to a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter * * * but also where the Legislature has confined the exercise of jurisdiction to a court of some other county.” (See Matter of Murtagh v Liebowitz, 303 N.Y. 311, 319; Matter of Di Lorenzo v Murtagh, 43 AD2d 938.) It is equally well settled that the challenge to geographical jurisdiction may be properly made prior to trial (Matter of Murtagh v Liebowitz, 303 N.Y. 311, 319, supra).

    You don’t negotiate with a criminal over whether he has jurisidiction when he clearly doesn’t even have a case to adjudicate. You prohibit and restrain him from acting.

    There is an Oklahoma case concerning a non-resident motorist whom they tried to get with their “traffic enforcement”. A writ of prohibition stopped them cold.

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 we can also 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 youtube.com. 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. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here