Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 15, 2014 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Delilah

Posted on February 15th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Delilah from San Diego, CA.

Show Notes:

  • Larken Rose‘s speech for Freedom Summit 2014: “Forgetting the Lie.”
  • The lack of enthusiasm for being forced into court to defend yourself against bureaucratic legal-attacks.
  • Delilah’s oral argument hearing is set for February 26 at 9am at the California Superior Court in San Diego.
  • City attorneys do not want to responsively answer the question of “what evidence they have to prove the constitution and codes apply?”
  • Based on the many examples of their actions and predictable behavior traits; judges are simply corporate psychopaths.
  • Because the best the prosecution could do was to respond with “I’m not going to go there” when questioned on evidence of jurisdiction, there was a last minute change of prosecution for the trial.
  • “Appellant also claims she was denied the presumption of innocence. This argument must fail.”
  • The judge completely sidesteps the issues laid out on appeal of the lower judges rulings 1) denying the process was adversarial, 2) denied a presumption of innocence, and 3) relieved the prosecution of their burden of proof.
  • The erosion of will and wherewithal when taking a case to trial.
  • Despite the judge’s mandate to presume you innocent of [all the elements of] the crime, they’ll almost always proceed to assume jurisdiction without any non-logically-fallacious supporting evidence from the prosecution.
  • “How can you presume me innocent while relieving the prosecution of proving every element of the crime by graciously assuming jurisdiction at the same time?”
  • Asking judges to cite the laws that they are just making up on-the-fly.
  • A judge doesn’t allow the prosecutor to get away with making wildly absurd responses to a defendant’s question of evidence.
  • Impeaching the officer if he isn’t qualified to give testimony on what evidence he has that the laws he enforces are applicable to those whom he enforces it upon.
  • Using metaphor to better illustrate what you are saying when attorneys don’t seem to, or pretend not to, get it.
  • Evidence of jurisdiction was considered “outside the scope of the hearing” because it was “vague” and “irrelevant.”
  • The differences between cross-examination and direct-examination.
  • Utilizing a Brady request.
  • Bonehead mistakes of law enforcement officers.
  • Filed complaints of misconduct against the judge and prosecutor were thrown out of court.
  • Update on Gerald Wilhelm Complaint – Logical Fallacy from Patrick R. Burns.
  • Running through court procedure based on past experiences.
  • Watching out for when the judge bails-out the prosecutor by relieving them of their burden of proof.
  • Catching non-sequitur responses and other logical fallacies used by deceptive attorneys.
  • The law applies because the law says so circular-logic fallacy.
  • Ian Freeman’s DMV administrative hearing.
  • Refining your logical process using maturely developed methods such as the trivium.
  • Prepping for court by doing some role-playing with the NSP skypers from all three perspectives; the judge, the prosecution, and the defendant to punch hole in each position and argument.
  • Tracking ever due-process violation, reminding them of each offense along the way, and formulating them for a formal misconduct complaint.
  • Are you obligated to answer questions in court?
  • Exposing the coercive nature (the gun in the room) of the requirement to obtain a driver’s license.
  • Police exploitation of vulnerable women.
  • How to counter when they try to shift the burden on to you.
  • Seinfeld – The Car Reservation.
  • Bringing about a voluntary society cannot happen without the court activism challenging their authority/jurisdiction over us.
  • The universal bewilderment of bureaucrats when you question the evidence of their authority.
  • The inevitable result of mass victimization of innocent individuals by government D.B.A. the STATE via violent opinion enforcement.
  • Internal stonewalling within the Scottsdale city council when investigating, as a journalist, and asking the question “do you have any evidence to prove that just because I am physically in Scottsdale the constitution and laws of the state apply to me and you have jurisdiction over me?”
  • Sending city officials other examples of asking for evidence to prove the constitution and codes apply so to avoid getting the same boneheaded logical-fallacy responses.
  • Unprofessional responses from Scottsdale city council members to legitimate media requests for basic information; “good luck with your quest.”
  • A “critical thinkers” roundtable, potentially with Richard Grove, Jan Irvin, and Brett Veinotte, is in the works for a future show.
  • Marc’s recent phone call with Rachael Smetana, who flips the burden to prove jurisdiction over their subjects/citizens by stating “Mayor Lane wonders if you can produce evidence that the City does not have jurisdiction over you?”
  • Compiling a documentary spotlighting people calling bureaucrats and asking them for evidence to prove that their constitutions and codes apply just because of physical location.
  • NSA does not have jurisdiction nor are they “legal.”
  • How-to Win Every Political Argument.
  • “Waking up” to the true nature of STATE government and pursuing real solutions to organized coercion.
  • Authenticating information independently for yourself.
  • Intercontinental AiLL success stories.
  • Mirroring and building templates based on past successes.
  • Ademo’s Wiretapping Convictions Overturned by New Hampshire Supreme Court.
  • Building a history of non-responsive bureaucrats that cannot produce any evidence that prove the constitution and codes apply to you.
  • “Saying you have jurisdiction is not proving you have jurisdiction.”
  • Governments teaching the scientific method in their schools, which is used to prove STATES and CITIZENS don’t exist.
  • The assertion that you need to be a legalese black-belt to effectively exercise damage control in court.
  • Engaging bureaucrats to better prepare for court.
  • Micheal Hayden’s mischaracterization of activists and anarchists as the most dangerous sinners in cyberspace.
  • Focusing the anti-bullying campaign at the world’s biggest bullies.
  • No accountability for the CIA’s numerous atrocities.
  • The Marc Dutroux affair and Franklin cover-up.
  • Phoenix’s pointing out of government’s false-alarm fires.
  • “Those who challenge the rational of the game are its most dangerous opponents.
  • Thoughts on The Day We Fight Back anti-NSA campaign.
  • Thoughts of activism on the Peace Roundtable @ Keenevention 2013.
              

20 Comments For This Post

  1. Bangalore Says:

    Can one make a citizen arrest of a prosecutor in court if he/she proceeds to prosecute without evidence of jurisdiction?

    I.e. he has lost his immunity if he acts outside of his scope of authority.

  2. anonymous benefactor Says:

    I have marcstevens.bit and nostateproject.bit please contact me on twitter so i can release these addresses to you for free.

    Libertas

  3. anonymous benefactor Says:

    @anonben001

  4. Dan Gould Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqewojda3M0

  5. KeithOB Says:

    Judicial misconduct happens with them daily Bangalore.They do as they please.The possibility of becoming a target is not worth the effort.IMHO

  6. Ryan Says:

    “Appeal to the stick”, also known as “Argument from intimidation”

  7. Dean W Says:

    Sampson vs. Delilah? Art thou serious? Did no one make note of that pairing? Who do we have next week? Juliet and officer Romeo?

  8. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dean, I never caught that.

  9. AL Says:

    Marc:

    The following illustrates one of your points about obfuscating any request for evidence that the laws and codes apply>>>
    I emailed the following to the City Manager>>

    From Al XXXX
    2044 XXXXX
    Chino Hills, CA 91709

    City Manager Bartlam:

    Regarding a parking ticket.

    Please provide, to me, the empirical evidence that the California State Constitution Laws, Chino Hills Laws, ordinances and statutes apply to me and any other person.

    A valid response avoids circular logic and logical fallacy such as “the laws apply because we say so”, or “the ordinances and statutes apply because the ordinance or statutes say they apply”.

    If you feel you are unqualified to provide the evidence I am requesting you are encouraged to refer my request to the appropriate department such as the San Bernardino Sheriff, City Attorney/your legal staff.

    Please note that I am asking for the Evidence and not a Legal Opinion.

    There Reply>>>>

    To Me Jonathan Marshall
    Today at 9:14 AM

    Good morning Mr. XXXX,(AL)

    Thank you for contacting the City of Chino Hills regarding your request for information (laws and codes) on the City’s policy on issuing citations. Your email has been forwarded to Jonathan Marshall, Community Services Director, for follow-up and response.

    Once again, thank you for contacting the City of Chino Hills.

    Sylvia Salas-Ruff | Executive Assistant

    City Manager’s Office

    My reply>>
    Thank you for your reply but you misunderstand my request. To clarify my request I am not inquiring about policy or information. I am requesting that you provide evidence (empirical evidence) that the State Constitution Laws and the City of Chino Hills laws, codes, statues, ordinances apply to me or anyone else.
    This is an evidence request, it is not a policy or information request. Since I am preparing to meet a hearing officer, it is important that I get a timely answer for this Evidence request.

    It seems more appropriate to refer this to your City Attorney and Law Enforcement Official than a Community services director as they know little about the subject (Evidence).

  10. AL Says:

    Marc:
    Here is the response for proof of empirical evidence from the City of Chino Hills that the Constitution Laws, statues and ordinances apply to me and any other person.

    To City Manager-web mailMeJonathan Marshall
    Today at 11:49 AM

    Hello Mr. LeCou,

    Thanks you for your request for empirical evidence that the California and Chino Hills laws, ordinances and statutes apply to you and other persons. The simplest empirical evidence I can provide that a person within the jurisdictional boundaries of a country, state, or city is subject to the “laws of the land” is the fact that these laws are not arbitrary, are enforceable, and an independent judiciary exists to ensure laws are administered objectively.

    As an outline of the process, the United States Constitution establishes State powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, in the 10th Amendment. The California Constitution establishes the boundaries and legal authority for counties and cities in Article 11 of the California Constitution. And a majority of the local laws are set forth in a city’s Municipal Code which is adopted by democratically elected members of the city’s governing body (City Council).

    A variety of law enforcement agencies uphold the laws of the land and the judicial system interprets and applies the law. The judiciary also has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review.

    It is this balanced system that sets boundaries for a society while protecting the liberties of members of that same society.

    I hope this information is valuable. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at 909-364-2715 or bmontgomery@chinohills.org.

    Sincerely,

  11. Grant Says:

    I think I hear you say the police officer decides not to appear in 75% of the times they are sent letters detailing your key elements of defense.

    Would it up the odds of success of getting your case dismissed if you inquire with Prosecutor’s boss (Mayor Smugly and City Administrator Mr. Ahole )about their bonding company in reference to this case. Even a 1% chance of their bonding getting dinged or worse, losing bonding capacity based on their misfeasance, negligence, lack of training, lack of supervision over their evil prosecutor / member of the executive branch, could possibly help get the case dismissed? Before going to court in front of the psycopaths. Opinion?

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ grant, yes, we’ve spoken about making that a regular part of the process.

  13. AL Says:

    My reply to Ben, The Neighborhood Services Manager>>>

    Ben: Thank you for expressing your opinion regarding the applicability of the Constitution Laws, Ordinances and Statues. According to my research the vast majority of cities, nationwide, would not even respond to the question of evidence. Surprisingly the Calif. Constitution of 1849 is in force along with the later adopted version of 1879.

    From the Calif. Constitution of 1849 (still in effect) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
    Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

    As you can see the purpose of the Government (that is Calif). is consistent with the Constitutions of other states and has three purposes (protection, security, and benefit of the people). Any laws, ordinances and statues which conflict with the stated purpose are at least suspect no matter how good intentioned they are as well as having no lawful jurisdiction over its inhabitants. It is a well know fact that many ordinances and statutes conflict with the stated purpose of Government and have been overturned from time to time.
    As a result of Progressive mistrust of elected officials, the 1879 constitution is the third longest in the world (behind the constitutions of Alabama and of India), and has been described as “the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be” Wilson and Ebbert via Korey 11. Korey states, “The convention did succeed in producing what one writer has called ‘a document that was the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be.'” The work cited is Wilson and Ebbert, California’s Legislature.

    One of my points is this, just because I live in Calif., Chino Hills, does not mean I am subject to laws, ordinances and statues that violate the purpose of Government as stated in the Constitution. If I had violated someones inalienable rights I would not be prone to contest but I have not. I live in the boundaries of a local Buddhist temple but that does not make me a Buddhist or subject to their practices. You may think you have provided empirical evidence but all I see is a standard defense of “its the law” without citations of fact.

    I hope I can speak to you in the near future regarding the issues and I want to again thank you for at least responding.

  14. Andrew Says:

    @AL
    The response you received is correct – it applies to “persons” as stated in the response. “Persons” are a corporate politic and defined in ACTs/Statutes in most western countries and are commercial in nature.

    The state presumes you are a “person” unless proven otherwise.

    As a side observation, I’m not sure what your intention is with your letter in the first place. Your original letter isn’t demanding any performance, doesn’t set out the terms of performance or non-performance, or what will happen by non-performance or non-response.

    These types of communications need to be clear in the objective and must meet the exceptions to the hearsay rule to be considered as fact and to establish a legally binding agreement (contract).

    The Judge can then only enforce the record between the parties and not make the law up (I mean – make you an offer) which is what they always try to do and is the problem in most cases I listen to. It’s critical to establish an agreement before going into court and then conditional accept the hearing that you will be there only to have the Judge enforce the record between the parties and dismiss the case.

    Your response creates argument with “Ben”, thus not gaining any agreement…I’m not sure how this approach will help anyone’s case. More than happy to help restructure your approach if you require help.

    Also, Admitting you live in California implies you are a “person”, only legal entities can live in another legal entity, eg a legal document lives in a legal binder. In contrast, Don’t living men and women live in the confines of one’s skin?

    Cheers

  15. Andy Says:

    @Andrew, why do you chose to conform to their rules that side step the primary issue — they are a gang of killers, thieves and liars? Are you looking to get in good with them? Perhaps you want to get a “government” free pass to steal, kill and ruin people’s lives?

    Never argue, just ask question for them to prove their accusations. Do not side with them as though their word choice negates their psychopathy or makes them legitimate.

  16. AL Says:

    Andrew: Thanks for your response. I am new to this and yes, need help with restructuring my strategy.
    So far I am at the stage of having requested to meet with a hearing officer. I previously submitted a demand to dismiss, to the ticket processing company that was rejected. I have not submitted anything in writing to the hearing officer because it will be an “in person” meeting”. The City has not yet scheduled the meeting. I have asked the city Manager for evidence that the Laws, ordinances and statues apply to me and any other “persons”. I used persons because of information from Marc’s web site.

  17. Geeves Says:

    Here AL: Make sure you over stand what an “in person” meeting. You can listen to Andrew but you better do your own research. Even Marc tell you to research things, question everything! Be sure you are meeting with a person!

    “[I]t is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.).

    Obviously, state officials literally are persons. But a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471 (1985). As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself. See, e. g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 -166 (1985); Monell, supra, at 690, n. 55. We see no reason to adopt a different rule in the present context, particularly when such a rule would allow petitioner to circumvent congressional intent by a mere pleading device.

    We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under 1983. The judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court is affirmed.

    It is so ordered.

  18. Geeves Says:

    @ marc, @NONE please review ASAP

    http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=clr Pages 84 – 88

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_52

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-167_d1oe.pdf pages 12-14

  19. Andrew Says:

    @al
    I suggest you take a look at some conditinal acceptances that relate to traffic tickets – theres a number of them on google. You will need to take a position on a particular point(s) and have them prove it. For example to resolve an issue here in Australia, local councils are not recognised under the constitution, they are effectively registered companies making a profit. Hence one can conditionlly accept their offer to contract on proof of claim they have the authority to do so, address it to the CEO/CFO and have them respond under their full commerical liablity and under penalty of perjury.

    For me personally, I would resovle the issue in the private and do a setoff on the original charging instrument, or AFV the ticket. I would also consider whether it’s worth my time if it’s only a few $$.

    The key is not to argue but always be trying to resolve the issue. The judge can only step in when there’s a controversy eg an arguement. A conditional acceptance is a counter offer to their offer, hence you are remianing in honor.

    If you go to court, you will want to have already resolved the situation by your paperwork. This will be 3 steps, Conditional Acceptance, Notice of Default, then a Consent to Judgement. To meet the exception to the hearsay rule, you will want a 3rd party witness to be your acceptor and presenter of records and every communication must go thru that party. That party will sign a Certificate of Service when sending out your Notices, and sign a Certificate of non-response when the respondent does not respond.

    If you goto court, you will Conditionally Accept the Hearing to the plantiff and the Court on proof of claim that the hearing isn’t merely to enforce the record between the parties and to publically ratify the agreement. This is all the judge can do, they cannot become entangled in the agreement you have. Although, they will try their hardest to get you to argue and step off point. You conditionlly accept anything the judge says on proof of claim there isn’t a record established between the parties and the judge’s job is simply to enforce it and dismiss the case.

    I’ve simplified the above – but the key is you must run due process and give your opposing party every chance to respond, whilst you are always willing and able to agree to pay to resolve the situation.

    Marc has discussed this on his show, eg arriving in court with an unsigned admission and you conditionally accept to sign and pay on proof of claim of “….. … …. “. However, I sense that many are thrown off by the judge when they try to divert you and get you to argue instead – just stay on point, don’t let them throw you off.

    In my recent court case, it was a little more interesting, the paperwork took care of itself, and when I got to court I said absolutley nothing except what capacity I was there as. The issue was already resolved and I had already given the court Notice that I did not want them to trespass on my record.

  20. AL Says:

    Andrew: thanks for providing your approach.
    Have you visited this website? http://republickeepers.squarespace.com ?
    It is geared to USA and it makes the point that many laws,statues lack an enabling clause which nullifies/voids the law. It is a thorough (70 pages) of history and citations demonstrating a constitutional requirement of the enabling clause requirement.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jul 19, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [UPDATED: FULL PODCAST] | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Delilah’s experience with getting confirmation or denial on what evidence the prosecution has to prove the constitution and codes apply on the phone or in writing before any of the court hearings. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, December 13th, 4-7pm EST: The show will be prerecorded, so please do not call-in. We will return the following week taking your calls on tickets, tyrants, assessments, anarchy, agorism, and action.

If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the LIVE show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. 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 role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here