Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Dec 15, 2012

Posted on December 16th, 2012 by Calvin

Show Topics:

Due to technical difficulties, the LIVE show only survived 2 segments. The remainder of this podcast is an off air recording of trial-prep with Delilah:

  • Objecting on grounds that the prosecution is not ready to proceed because they have no facts to prove the constitution and code are applicable; needed for jurisdiction.
  • Courts are supposed to only adjudicate justiciabile cases and controversies.
  • Stopping the judge from bailing out the prosecutor.
  • Halting the proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction.
  • Maintaining a presumption of innocence by objecting to their legal assumptions that you are guilty of specific elements of the crime.
  • Why prosecutors are so confident of their erroneous assumptions.
  • Questioning contempt charges precipitated by asking for the facts that prove jurisdiction and elements of the crime.
  • Not falling victim to predictable “silly lawyer tricks”; save it for the defense attorneys.
  • Challenging the issue of a conflict of interest between the judge (who is paid by the STATE and is supposed to be a fair and impartial decision-maker) and the prosecutor (who is also paid by the STATE).
  • Exposing the threat of force behind the proceedings and opinion enforcement.
  • Reminding the court that violations of due process will be brought up on appeal.
  • Preparing for a potential habeas corpus if you are wrongfully held in contempt.
  • Prosecutors leading the witness.
  • Exposing the gun in the room by exposing the force the judge is using to order the court proceedings.
  • Everyone’s substantive due-process right to cross-examine a witness’s competency and credibility.
  • Questioning absurdities from the prosecutor and/or judge and predicting their moves.
  • Using #NSP media-reps to keep pressure on the court to maintain order.
              

12 Comments For This Post

  1. dan gould Says:

    I know the technical problems Marc experiences are very frustrating but this podcast is golden. But what do I know? I could just be a total schmuck.

  2. NonE Says:

    Calvin, I’m really disappointed in you going all kissy face in your flame war, but I AM happy you got this ‘cast up. Now I’ll set aside my search for accelerants and listen to yesterday’s show.

    – NonTotalSchmuck(orNot)

  3. Calvin Says:

    As long as I keep acceleRANTS out of the hands of the NonE-mischievous, then I am doing my job. 😉

    All in all, Randy and Lyndon are pretty upright guys, we are all just tossing pebbles between our respective angles at which we stand.

  4. Pete Says:

    I loved the prep session for upcoming “trial”…made my pulse race thinking about and visualizing my upcoming trial next month. Great questions and great answers!

  5. NonE Says:

    Proof that there is a god. Or… the theory that all things happen for a reason. (or, well, it COULD just be serendipity. who nose?)

    Marc, I know how frustrating this must have been for you, but the bottom line for me is that this is a great show. Going slowly and methodically through the steps and the reasoning with your client was extremely educational.

    This show should be flagged as a must listen for anyone facing a similar situation.

    Bravo.

    – NonE

  6. Andy Says:

    Marc does a stellar job of conveying the thought process of “attacking” their PR rational of fairness and legitimacy. Especially so in the Voir dire in gaining favor with the potential jurors. It addresses a person/juror’s sense of justice. It may persuade some jurors to actually want to be there to see that real justice is served.

    It may be a good thing before motion to dismiss and in a motion thereafter to inform the prosecutor that if he/she takes it to trial without evidence of applicability of the code — an essential element of the crime or civil infraction — that complaints will be filed, and if necessary, raised on appeal. Thus Mr. prosecutor, you’re best option is to withdraw the complaint. (Prior to that ask him/her if it’s a criminal or civil complaint.)

  7. Packabowlla Says:

    “When a judge acts when he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” US vs. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. ct, 471, 66 L. Ed. 2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6wheat) 264, 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821).

    “Dismissal of charges is warranted, because of fraud placed on the court.” Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) ~~~~~ So, if there are no judges, there are no real courts; therefore there is ONLY the “APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE…”

  8. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ packa the actual quote is: “In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court
    “must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/449/200/case.html

  9. Paul in Toronto Says:

    Allow me to emphasize the the need to KEEP OBJECTING!!! at every attempt by your opponents to discredit your position.

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Paul, excellent point.

  11. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    Excellent episode!,,

  12. alex Says:

    does one motion for dismissal on the first letter to the court/prosecutor based on no evidence/applicability/jurisdiction…..OR…does one request for evidence that would prove applicability/jurisdiction? this is on the first letter to the court over speeding infraction. thankyou everyone

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Dec 15, 2012 - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] View original article. […]

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 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. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here