Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jul 20, 2013 – Co-host: JT

Posted on July 21st, 2013 by Calvin

Tickets, Tyrants, and Assessments

Co-host: JT.

Show Topics:

  • Grieving the loss of a family member.
  • Maintaining good health to keep well for the many challenges in life.
  • For there to be an violation of the law, you have to provide facts that the law applies.
  • To presume one innocent, you must presume them innocent of every element of the offense until proven (with facts and evidence) guilty.
  • Reaching bureaucrat’s cognitive process by getting specific admissions and feeding them their own mallogic back to them.
  • Using the technique of exposing the judge’s grotesque dishonesty, despite their mandate to provide and fair and impartial proceeding, to halt a railroading.
  • If challenging jurisdiction is so stupid, then WHY when you sue the government; the first thing they challenge is jurisdiction?
  • The only argument, or position, you should be pursuing in the courtroom is that “the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to prove their legal assertions” (e.g.: jurisdiction).
  • Deconstructing the government concept of immoral legalized state-sanctioned violence: “might makes right.”
  • Choosing to not sign a paper that you disagree with, out of your own freewill, is considered contempt of court to unaccountable, morally-deficient judges.
  • How to effectively file a complaint against bureaucrats.
  • Intrastate use of the driver’s license was originally a legal argument invoking state’s rights.
  • Kathleen Barry’s extension to respond to Marc’s inquiry about applicability of the code.
  • Government Indicted will soon be available for pre-order soon and in-hand at Libertopia 2013.
  • Lack of coverage on the high-profile Bradley Manning persecutorial trial compared to the media circus over the Zimmerman and Arias trials.
  • Expecting lawyer tricks and deception and knowing how to effectively counter it with continually pursuing the facts and evidence.
  • Ian Freeman’s bureaucratic legal-attack dropped and Marc’s efforts to assist Ian to engage NH bureaucrats on evidence to prove applicability of the code.
  • Pending follow-up to Marc’s inquiry to the Tempe city council.
  • Update on the legal-attack based from Maine towards a woman in Russia.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Cory from CA: follow-up of a motions hearing: the judge denies motion to demur claiming that “findings of fact are reserved for civil trials,” the judge claims that “traffic infractions are neither criminal nor civil” [engage the question of burden-of-proof to determine the true nature of the charge; beyond a reasonable doubt = criminal, by preponderance of evidence = civil], and the judge claims “no evidence has to be proven before trial.”
  • Adam from AZ: NSP media rep shows for a arraignment hearing for a “public consumption” charge in Scottsdale, judge claims that matters of fact are reserved for trial and demands that the defendant enter a plea despite all the supreme court rulings stating that jurisdiction must be proven and can be be brought up at any time, judge claims there is no legal authority to question the evidence, the judge conflates fact with opinion, making an appearance as accepting jurisdiction, and lawyer friends that advise to not challenge jurisdiction.
  • Chris from TX: threatened with arrest for questioning the evidence at a motion to show cause hearing, forced plea from the record-tampering judge, filing charges against the judge for violations of rights and misconduct, and a post-hearing parking ticket citation.
  • Patriot Wonder from FL: filing bar grievances against attorneys and judges [*note: you cannot file a bar grievance against a judge], and traffic tickets are federal cases [*note: intrastate traffic is not federal, and should not be considered under interstate commerce].
  • Robert from FL: tying up loose ends before going to trial Monday, using the voir dire vetting process to ask the jury if they convict if the prosecution lacked evidence to prove their assertions, using a whiteboard in the courtroom to track empirical proof of 1) applicability of the constitution and laws, 2) first element of corpus delecti: the criminal act that 3) resulted in the second element: some actual (provable) form of loss, injury, and/or harm, 4) mens rea: the evil intent, managing courtroom anxiety, $300 offer for anyone who can document Roberts hearing Monday, and filing an unsigned plea of guilty to avoid the charge that the court needed to force you to plea because of your refusal to plea.
  • Imran from AZ: pursuing cases of judicial/prosecutorial misconduct, finding insurance information from the city’s risk-assessment department and making insurance claims against legally-aggressive bureaucrats, the court’s use of public defenders to control the defendant from asking tough questions, record tampering judge forcing dialogue from the defendant, the unique variant of attorney’s authority complex when communicating with pro per litigants, and an examination of the real underlying lack of presumption of innocence granted by the court.

Meta-content Credits:

              

36 Comments For This Post

  1. Mike Says:

    re not civil or criminal offence…maybe traffic courts are private courts

  2. Randy Says:

    So traffic infractions are not criminal nor are they civil. WTF are they then? Neo-Inquisition?

  3. Dan Says:

    @Randy, I think you nailed it there.

  4. Crazy Says:

    Wow…..If a judge said that to me, I would ask him what type of court is this? Is it not true that courts can only here criminal and civil cases to do with criminal and civil law? Then I would tell him I must be in the wrong place and he needs to make a note that I did appear, but I would not be returning until he is able to identify what type of court I am in and what type of law I am accused of violating……What a complete moron!

  5. tnkhilliard Says:

    Can someone give me contact information of Marc or NSP store.
    I would like to purchase a few templates right away. I would like to call prosecutor in the next day or so.
    The existing information at Store will not work.

  6. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ tnkhilliard – use the paypal button on the site, if you still have a problem, use marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com to email me.

  7. NonE Says:

    Neo-Inquisition? (I like that!) … or maybe Fictional?

  8. RadicalDude Says:

    Predatory.

  9. RadicalDude Says:

    So, for and on the record, there is no criminal cause of action, correct?
    And, for and on the record, there is no civil cause of action, correct?
    So, there is neither a criminal nor a civil action before this court, correct?

  10. Gary Gray Says:

    There are 3 type of trials: Criminal, Civil and Special Proceeding.

  11. Longoria Says:

    Here in Bexar county, TX,”traffic court” is what THEY call “quasi-court” (or is what the judge told me).
    Looked it up and read that a quasi court can take certain shapes and forms of a legit court.
    Figure that one out.

  12. Nomos Says:

    Re Traffic Infractions being civil or criminal: Proof of BULLSHIT

    Code of Civil Procedure

    24. Actions are of two kinds:

    1. Civil; and,

    2. Criminal.

    (Enacted 1872.)

    31. The Penal Code defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action.

    32. When the violation of a right admits of both a civil and criminal remedy, the right to prosecute the one is not merged in the other.

    (Enacted 1872.)

    Penal Code

    683. The proceeding by which a party charged with a public offense is accused and brought to trial and punishment, is known as a criminal action.

    689. No person can be convicted of a public offense

    unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court,

    by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived,

    or by a plea of guilty.

    (Amended by Stats. 1951, Ch. 1674.)

  13. Nomos Says:

    And that’s California btw

  14. Nomos Says:

    California Demurrers

    Unlike these other pleadings, a demurrer cannot allege facts, deny facts, or otherwise allude to extrinsic evidence not subject to judicial notice [see, e.g., Cook v. de la Guerra (1864) 24 Cal. 237, 239]

    All facts well pleaded and facts that may be judicially noticed are considered in ruling on demurrer. Talley v. Northern San Diego Hosp. Dist. (1953) 41 Cal. 2d 33, 36, 257 P.2d 22

    Penal Code

    1002. The only pleading on the part of the defendant is either a demurrer or a plea.

    (Enacted 1872.)

    1003. Both the demurrer and plea must be put in, in open Court, either at the time of the arraignment or at such other time as may be allowed to the defendant for that purpose.

  15. Nomos Says:

    Operative phrase being “well pleaded facts.”

  16. Pete Says:

    In my case (allegedly not providing life jackets for floating picnic table), DA says its civil infraction. I asked, “Contract or Tort?” She answered, “Neither. Its Civil Forfeiture.”

    I wonder, doesn’t there need to be a contract or agreement for something to be “forfeited?”

  17. Nomos Says:

    @Pete,

    It’s the license. In the eyes of “the law” since a license is “applied” for, then your application is your own legal conclusion that you were required to have one and therefore you applied.

    If and when the license applicant is approved, then the licensee is expected to follow the rules and regulation of the agency that regulates that industry.

    For example, the Board of Trustees admitted in an article I read recently, that they don’t have jurisdiction over non-attorneys. All they can do is file a complaint with the police department, but because it’s not a priority they don’t expect immediate enforcement.

  18. Pete Says:

    @Nomos:

    Thanks for that reply. I know you are only summarizing the position of someone else, so please forgive me if I disagree with them by addressing you:

    I don’t buy the whole “license” thing because I think the cop would have ticketed me and dragged me into court with or without a driver’s license (My “state” has no boating license required for canoes).

    But even if the “license” argument is sound, then you (I mean “They”) must be saying that this IS A CONTRACT DISPUTE (not a tort), and that I entered into a contract when I applied for and received my driver’s license? Yet, as Monsieur Stevens points out so frequently and eloquently, there is no evidence of the four required elements of a valid contract.

  19. Nomos Says:

    @Pete,

    Sure.

    However, it wasn’t “my argument,” I’m just saying that’s how the courts “interpret” that position. It’s already been raised in court, and they all hold the same. But, you’re right I was summarizing another’s position, these courts, and those persons believe that a license is not a contract, AND you “applied” for it. It’s a “regulatory” matter.

    And you get no argument from me that a copper will stop and cite you whether you have one or not.

    I’ve never bought into “the STATE.” It’s because I don’t I’ve done (and do) tons of research.

    It’s just must simpler to ASK what facts are present showing that the constitutions, codes, or regulations apply. Simple, easy to remember.

  20. indio007 Says:

    you use a motion to strike line by line on the “complaint” and then demurrer to the wreckage that’s left.

  21. Pete Says:

    @Nomos:

    I didn’t mean to treat you like a straw man and accuse you of making an argument. To the contrary, I appreciate your information almost as much as I appreciate your humorous exchanges with NonE in the comments sections.

    I did everything you said…ask for evidence code applies, evidence of jurisdiction, evidence of standing (injury), etc. I had two motion hearings, and Judge totally denied my motion(s) to dismiss, and let the DA get away with the usual circular-logic code citations to “prove” jurisdiction and applicability of the code. I expect more of the same at my trial next month.

    My take is that they intentionally classify certain “offenses” as civil rather than criminal so they can get way with more abuse against the defendant, such as “preponderance of evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” calling the defendant to testify against himself at his own trial, and no speedy trial requirement. I wonder if it has something to do with efficiency of the court system and cranking more cash-cow victims through the legal sausage factory?

    Even if they say its a license issue, I think the courts ARE implying there is a contract because they are suggesting that everyone has a “duty” to obey these laws. How was this “duty” created if I never agreed to it?

    What is the only enforceable contract that is missing all four elements of a legally binging contract? The Social Contract!

  22. RadicalDude Says:

    The courts do not have much logical basis for the predatory actions they rubber stamp. Your questions should be aimed at exposing that there is no “sense” to their actions, rather than trying to make “sense” of them. If a mugger tried to rob you on the street would you ask him, “Is this a civil or criminal mugging?”?

  23. Randy Says:

    Excellent point, RadicalDude. 🙂

  24. eye2i Says:

    RadicalDude: “If a mugger tried to rob you on the street would you ask him, “Is this a civil or criminal mugging?”?”

    Isn’t this overlooking a rather large dynamic, thus making it an inaccurate/emotionally over simplistic comparison? e.g. the typical mugger has no Public Relations “on the record” (Policy exposure risk) by which his armed comrades are or can be convincingly influenced?

    Which in noting this, is not to ignore the aggressive violence (the gun under the table); rather, merely to be sure one is accurately assessing one’s potential counter “weaponry” (mental) aka ‘damage control’?

  25. Pete Says:

    @Radicaldude:

    By showing that neither civil nor criminal apply, we ARE showing there is no sense OR RULES to their attacks.

    You’re obviously right that none of it makes any sense, and a huge part of what Marc does is expose this by challenging them. But I think you’re slightly naive and probably a no-state courtroom virgin for suggesting we shouldn’t care what set of “rules” are being used against us by the aggressor. I agree with Marc that its essential for damage control AND BS exposure to know and understand whether you’re being attacked under civil or criminal rules.

  26. Randy Says:

    @eye2i: I think all RadicalDude was doing was making a comparison, you know, an analogy.

    @Pete: Where did RadicalDude say we shouldn’t care what rules area being used? Are there invisible words in his comment that only you can see?

  27. Randy Says:

    To Everyone: A bit off topic, but did anyone see where the guy in CA was able to get Exempt plates for his Mercedes?

    http://freeinhabitant.info/travel-rights/dmv-gives-exempt-plate-to-not-for-hire-driver.htm#comment-76892

    I have never seen an E-plated car pulled over.

  28. Longoria Says:

    If a judge claims that he can do whatever he wants in his courtroom,
    may “is that a legal opinion?” be a proper and effective follow-up?

  29. Pete Says:

    @Randy

    Here are your invisible words, written by RadicalDude:

    “If a mugger tried to rob you on the street would you ask him, “Is this a civil or criminal mugging?”

    FYI: Civil and Criminal define the rules used by bureaucrats to attack people.

  30. Randy Says:

    Yes, but is that what RadicalDude was trying to convey? I may be wrong, but I think he was trying to convey the fact that use of either of the rules still means they are mugging you.

    Am I wrong RadicalDude?

  31. RadicalDude Says:

    I think going on record asking if it’s civil or criminal is a fine question. I guess what I was trying to get at, we are asking this question to highlight how they themselves break their own rules and/or just make them up as they go along, or to set them up for a dilemma where they must contradict themselves(what mark calls a double-bind). Not so much for the purpose of determining the rules(although we might ask for this reason too sometimes). We are asking them to bring out the inconsistencies, and the contradictions. For example, they might say it’s civil, which leads to: what is the civil cause of action? Who is the injured party? How does the plaintiff have standing? Usually, in these predatory “civil” actions, there is no legit cause of action, no injured party(except the defendant himself), and these bureaucrats have no standing. So, we get it on the record that it’s civil, so we can then show they do not meet the criteria of a legit civil action.

  32. RadicalDude Says:

    The thing is, these predatory non-cases are like a phony mccdonald’s slip and fall scam lawsuit in that there is no underlying injury for which the plaintiffs are seeking redress, they are just using the court system for purposes of financial predation, not to address a legit case or controversy. So, I compare these DA’s to a mugger, because their M.O. is financial predation, so in that respect they are the same as a robber.

  33. RadicalDude Says:

    Either a civil or criminal proceeding can be used for predation, and I think they both usually are used that way nowadays.

  34. Latimer the Cat Says:

    OK OK, zionist collectivism, masquerading as government, has completely failed (again) in it’s charade. It turns-out that the parasite pretending to be the host just can’t work.

  35. RadicalDude Says:

    If you go to lawyer sites where lawyers talk about examination strategy, one thing they say a lot is “never ask a question if you don’t know the answer.”
    Now, this is specifically applied to examination/cross-examination, and that is what we should be doing, essentially: examining the judge.

  36. the loosecannon Says:

    Marc,
    In New Jersey Motor Vehicle Law NJSA Title 39 is considered Quasi-Criminal New Jersey Rules of the Court Rule 7:1-1 etseq. But the word quasi means two things look alike but there are material and intrinsic differences between the two. The N.J. Court Case Vickey v. Nessler says that all motor vehicle offenses are civil not criminal. To further prove this point you cannot expunge a motor vehicle conviction only a criminal conviction in New Jersey.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jan 24, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Wonder from FL: do you really believe you become a legitimate judge just by putting on that black robe? […]

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