NSP – Nov 17, 2012 – Co-host: JT

Posted on November 17th, 2012 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Topics:

  • People’s “feelings” vs the facts during litigation in a Tempe municipal court “case”.
  • Marc’s response to recent criticism of his article: Complaints Against Lawyers, and the “idiot factor”.
  • Addressing vague attorneys on the adversarial nature of their proceedings and whether their code is, in fact, applicable.
  • Must-see video: Derrick J’s Victimless Crime Spree.
  • No violation of applicable STATE law = no jurisdiction.
  • Developing effective litigation skill and technique by understanding factual and legal applicability.
  • Utilizing the AiLL Wiki.
  • Lori Hendrickson trying to keep the transcript off-the-record for Mike’s appeal; why?
  • Challenging the court’s jurisdiction as early as possible to stop judges from proceeding absent evidence of jurisdiction; which may be challenged at any point in the process.
  • The belief that “the LAW” applies to everyone by default.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Paul from Toronto: traffic ticket kicked out. Second ticket; won’t let Paul question cop in front of judge, court not adversarial. Prosecutor suggested Paul call the prosecutor’s manager.
  • Pete from Montana: obstruction of police officer, resisting arrest for staying silent and the cops didn’t like Pete signing non-assumpsit on paperwork. Filed motion to dismiss.
  • Dale from Washington: speeding ticket, no cause of action.
  • Don from Philly: Throwing a curve-ball by “moving” the court to notice their own admissions. IRS prosecution, challenge at trial to throw a curve; not very effective and we don’t need to element of surprise because there is no evidence the code is applicable.
  • Bruce Sloan from New York: $300 parking tickets in NY and perfecting the appeals process.
  • Matt from Texas: arraignment in Austin night court: judge yells “you don’t ask questions; I asked questions” and then enters a plea on the defendant’s behalf and sets a trial date. Getting a recording of a proceeding for purposes of self-education.
  • Neil from Maine: Neil wants to help with the problem in Maine regarding Carletta Bassano. Questioning why prosecutors will not disclose facts relied on to a defendant.

If I’ve presented anything on the show, book or website, it is always subject to public criticism.  I have no problem with challenges and if I get something wrong, please call, comment on the site, skype or email me about it.

Do complaints give jurisdiction?  I don’t advocate complaints because we are seeking protection, rather it is to bring attention to criminals and possibly affect their insurance.  I don’t ask for anything to actually be done, I’m just pointing out immoral acts by lawyers and bringing attention to it.  This way not only can I challenging certain fictions, but others living on other continents can also.

Please post your video/audio of court proceedings on the forum and wiki page.

This is the video mentioned on the show.  It is well worth your time to watch and let friends know about it.  Cops are not your friends and you should always keep your mouth shut.  If you have to talk, just keep asking for their evidence the constitution and code are applicable.

              

22 Comments For This Post

  1. akseeker Says:

    Darn, no ‘break-chat’…

  2. Calvin Says:

    @akseeker: It’ll be added later, looks like late tonight/early tomorrow…

  3. akseeker Says:

    Kewl, Thanks, Calvin!

  4. Ben Says:

    That defense attorney is a good friend of a professor I had in college. She told us to check his video out this past spring. Great reasons why to never talk to police.

  5. indio007 Says:

    signing non-assumpsit=awesome

  6. NonE Says:

    Calvin,

    That “…looks like late tonight/early tomorrow…” doesn’t cut it in Norte America. You can pull off manana (with the worm over the first “n”), but in the Show Me State we KNOW what “early tomorrow” MEANS!

    – 🙂

  7. Robert Says:

    Be sure to watch part II here,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

    Also check out this video,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kmmEmsuFN4

  8. Lyndon Says:

    Grievances Are Not Complaints
    A “complaint” has a very specific meaning in law. A “complaint” in a civil action is the first written pleading that explains the plaintiff’s (the complaining party) reasons for an action. In a criminal action, the “complaint” is the charge or bill. Grievances are not complaints. When one “files a complaint” against a lawyer to the bar guild, or when one does the same against a judge to a judicial oversight panel, one is not moving a “complaint” but by nature a grievance.

    Who files grievances? Members of groups file grievances. Employees and many other types of subordinates file grievances. One must be a member of a particular group to grieve about another member of that group. If one works for Coke or AT&T one may grieve about a fellow’s or superior’s act. A grievance alleges an obligation has not been met or an injustice has occurred. A grievance is by nature internal to a particular group.
    If one is not a member of a particular group, one does not file a grievance. If one objects to an act by a man or woman of a particular group one may act privately or publicly in seeking relief but not from within the offender’s group unless one is a member of the offender’s group.

    Tacit Jurisdiction
    What should we do if we demand of the prosecutor to show proof of jurisdiction, and if the prosecutor refuses to comply with our demands but the man or woman on the bench, otherwise known as “the Court”, proceeds to hear the prosecutor’s pleading as if the demand for proof of jurisdiction has been met?

    If we depart from the court at once when the prosecutor refuses to show proof of jurisdiction, and we if declare our status and conditional demands prior to our departure, and if we do so with witnesses and record, and if we do not leave the court jurisdiction, we have not granted the court jurisdiction. We are free to go and the conspirators may meddle between themselves.

    If we continue by remaining “before” the court by stating our name, entering a plea, stating an oath, entering evidence, questioning witnesses, and so on, we have tacitly granted the judge jurisdiction. If the judge did not have jurisdiction to begin with then why we were we there “before” that court?
    If we have remained in court after the prosecutor has refused to show any proof of jurisdiction we are in error. Jurisdiction should always be determined long before attending any meeting or hearing, but jurisdiction may also be demanded anew after a hearing. Applicability of the law is always relevant and immediate. Decisions can be later reversed and collapsed.

    Grievances May Confirm Jurisdiction
    However, filing grievances disguised by court forms as “complaints” only aggrieves the problem. Is it not a contradiction to be demanding jurisdiction at one time, submit to that jurisdiction, and later submit to that authority a second time by filing a “complaint” to the court for not showing jurisdiction? If the court had no jurisdiction then why had you remained in court and why had you doubly granted the court authority (granting jurisdiction) to resolve your complaint?

    If the prosecutor truly had no facts or evidence to prove his or her claim, why would one create facts that prove the prosecutor’s claim? Why not seek to resolve these matters privately rather then doubling one’s consent of jurisdiction? If one is not seeking relief of the court for the errors of the judge then why grant the court any authority in a matter at all?

    I accept that we must be very meticulous with our use of language and in our acts in our attempts to defend ourselves, defend others, and in seeking relief.

    I may be wrong, and if anyone can show my reasoning to be inferior I would hear a reasoned, superior response.

  9. NonE Says:

    Interesting thoughts, Lyndon.

    I’m particularly curious about the idea of just walking out of a court if jurisdiction has been challenged and evidence has not been presented. Your point about tacit jurisdiction being assumed should you remain is interesting. I’m wondering if there is evidence of this approach being used anywhere, and what the results might have been. This looks like something that “activist” minded folks might want to look into.

    – NonE

  10. NonE Says:

    Hmph. It’s STILL not early tomorrow yet. Am I living in a Mobius world? 😉

    – NonE

  11. Calvin Says:

    @None: I have the legitimacy of a [don’t] Show-Me [the evidence] STATE attorney. 😀 Working back-to-back 13 hour shifts leaves little time for work on the podcast before Tuesday. I hope I’ve improved the archiving process by posting the raw LRN stream shortly after the show Saturday for those hungry for a replay.

    However, you are quite accurate to state the nature of my/our very mobius life/lives. 😉

  12. NonE Says:

    Calvin,

    Yes, immediate posting of the original feed is an excellent idea and I am sure most appreciate it. But say, I don’t see what the problem is. Back to back 13 hour shifts is only 26 hours, so that leaves you another seven hours to get the podcast done, right? Can’t you even do math right?

    – NonE

  13. Andy Says:

    @ Lyndon, Sir, absent evidence of jurisdiction I’m in error being here. Thus I’m leaving and if you try to stop me you’re just a man (or woman) using threat, duress, coercion and violence against me thus I will have a cause of action to file a complaint against you the man not in office and your minions — also men out of office — that conspire to stop me from correcting my error in being here.

  14. NonE Says:

    WOW! Cool. I point out your mathematical inadequacies and you jump to and get it DONE! Hurts to be shown for an incompetent, doesn’t it?

    Thanks, Dude! 😉

    (Now I have to quick listen to the show so it doesn’t interrupt Survivor tonight. Priorities, priorities!)

    – NonE

  15. Lyndon Says:

    NonE and Andy:

    Long before one meets “man to man” with the prosecution before the company arbitrator (the judge) much paper work is done. There is NO element of surprise. In fact, an “ambush” is detrimental. If we are to attend a “man to man” meeting, which SHOULD NOT be necessary, we expedite a notice copied to “the Court” AND the prosecution weeks in advance and declare OUR intention to make a “Special Appearance” as a private, independent party seeking to resolve a claim. But we want to grant the prosecution many opportunities to provide the evidence and facts that jurisdiction exists. We want to grant the prosecution an EXHAUSTIVE number of opportunities to provide that all-essential proof of jurisdiction. We want to grant the prosecution EVERY opportunity PRIOR to, IF ANY, meeting “man to man”. We want to grant the prosecution EVERY opportunity so that we may eliminate every excuse the prosecution may come up with. We want to have lawful authority to ORDER the prosecution to quit or face private consequences.

  16. Andy Says:

    @ Lyndon, I agree… Also, it’s obvious that it must start somewhere. How far back? To the acceptance of social security number or further back than that?

  17. NonE Says:

    Lyndon,

    I’ve not listened to ALL of this week’s show yet as Survivor came on and I DO have my priorities! 🙂 That said, one thing you say here runs very counter to Marc’s position on dealing with them.

    You say: “We want to have lawful authority to ORDER the prosecution to quit or face private consequences.”

    Marc points out more than once that he never wants to use “their” tool, force, to achieve his ends. He wants to always act with respect and in a voluntary fashion.

    I must say that I have to respect his position in this matter, even when my emotions might want to bash their heads in with a baseball bat.

    I’m not sure he’s right, but I do hope that he is, for the sake of my humanity.

    I wonder what thoughts you might have regarding this issue.

    – NonE

  18. Lyndon Says:

    NonE:

    An “order” is a directive. An order is a command. We give orders to those that harm us or intend to harm us. An order is a demand for someone to act or not to act in a particular manner. An unobeyed order must have a consequence. The consequence for not obeying an order to refrain from harming a man or woman must lead to force to enforce the order.

    When a home invader is ordered to stop and get out of one’s home, and if the home invader ignores the order, what else can one do but to use force to get the home invader out?

    If no force was ever used against perpetrators of injury there would be no consequence for harming others and there would be no relief for the harmed.

    I do not know if Marc’s reasoning is congruent with mine, and I express for myself only when I state that my view of a voluntary society implies free men and women engaging in voluntary acts only. No act is compulsory in a voluntary society other than to NOT harm others. Even in a voluntary society, involuntary acts must be stopped by force. How may one stop robbers, thieves, and bandits other than by order and force?

  19. Lyndon Says:

    Andy:

    Do not use a SSN while selling your goods or services (labour). If one has no alternative, one must declare on a document that one does so by necessity and under duress. That document must then be served to those people calling themselves the “IRS”.

    Marc has said many times, and I agree with him, we should not use anything the “government” may deem as evidence of adhesion. Why give a potential accuser evidence with which to base a presumption?

  20. Andy Says:

    @ Lyndon, Whereas your question was a rhetorical question, mine wasn’t. Do you have a responsive answer to: how far back do you take it?

    I’ll cut to the chase. The fact that so-called government is funded by means of compulsion/theft and operates in fraud, it has no legitimate claim or right to the money and products and services bought with it; nor services provided by government.. There is no evidence of valid adhesion to so-called government. That everyone has blood on their hands is not by valid contract. Most people are naively innocent. Conversely, governments, especial the state and federal governments of the so-called United States have many co-conspirators. To name a few, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, foreign governments that buy U.S. Treasury bonds, many corporations of the Military Industrial Complex and et cetera.

    As an aside is something I noticed at your November 21st, 2012 at 5:55 pm, post:
    “we” count: 8
    “I” count: 0
    “you” count: 0

    Lyndon, you wee-wee’d all over your post. 😉

  21. Lyndon Says:

    Andy:

    How far back do “you” take what? What are you asking?

  22. Andy Says:

    Lyndon, Interesting that you should ask that now after you already replied to my question with a non responsive answer. As to your question, never mind, I’ve got what I needed to know.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Nov 17, 2012 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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