- Marc’s recap of Freedom Summit 2014 and his many on-site interviews, including an interesting conversation with judge John A. Buttrick.
- The psychopath Rex Stacey‘s all-too-common opinion that the constitution and codes factually apply simply because THEY “say so.”
- Judge John Buttrick’s ironic repulsion to free-market alternatives to current STATE-monopolized products and services while participating at a libertarian/anarchist event.
- Point-by-point analysis of judge John Buttrick’s diversions and logical fallacies when questioned on the prosecutor’s burden to produce evidence of jurisdiction that proves the constitution and codes apply to the defendant.
- “The ticket is evidence of jurisdiction” fallacy.
- Judge Buttrick admits the damning truth that “all laws are arbitrary” and that jurisdiction is assumed as “a given,” thereby generously relieving the prosecutor of their burden to prove EVERY element of the crime.
- Marc’s appearance scheduled for this Tuesday with Scottsdale city council questioning what evidence they have to apply their laws upon those of us they’ve designated as their subordinates.
- Marc asks his judge friend; “what percentage of people would it take for the system to grind to a halt?” #overwhelmthesystem
- Judge Buttrick agrees that the law, factually, is simply an “opinion backed by a gun.”
- The Philosophy of Liberty: Legal Plunder.
- AiLL success stories spotlighting those who have gone to court simply asking for the prosecution to produce the evidence they are already supposed to have, and ultimately getting complaints dismissed from court and costs awarded in some cases.
- Using BTC to more voluntarily purchase products and services while remaining monetarily unmolested by other parasitic third parties.
- The “honorable” judge Rex Stacey‘s history of judicial misconduct: two more judges reprimanded in ticket-fixing cases.
- Removing/changing a judge from a case where they are clearly committing due-process violations and other deeds of misconduct.
- Identifying the red-flags of an outcome-based proceeding.
- Coping with psychologically abusive, gaslighting judges.
- Zen and the art of using an unsigned plea of guilty.
- Stone-faced prosecutors that don’t have to litigate their own cases because the judge is so willing to relieve them of their burden-of-proof or to even have to respond.
- Conveying the significance of the bureaucrat’s lack of evidence their codes and constitutions apply to the general public.
- William Strait’s Evidence the Laws Apply? None, Just More Opinions.
- Unexpected CoS: Marc gets a call from a FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) fundraiser.
- The prison-industrial cornucopia that is known as the Drug War is heavily populated with non-violent legal-opinion offenders, who are never helped off their dependency by endless incarceration.
- Judge Stacey uses brute intimidation techniques to warn John, and all others in the court, to not challenge their baseless assertions.
- What a hearing actually is, and why most people who question the rational of the game become less likely to receive an actual hearing.
- Response to the critics who say that we are just getting the “bad ones” or we are “selectively publishing the dumb ones.”
- Connecting with the courtroom audience to clearly demonstrate to them that there is also no evidence in their so-called case for the same reason(s) as yours. 😉
- John from MN: update on his recent kangaroo court proceeding <> the judge claims the court has jurisdiction because he “said so” <> the judge tries to conflate serious questions of evidence as “internet games” and asks JT if he is Marc Stevens <> the judge/[former prosecutor] openly relieves the prosecutor of their burden to prove jurisdiction <> the judge digs his heels in and denies a motion to change/remove which is usually granted upon first request citing that the court norms “do not apply” to him <> the judge resorts to straw-man fallacies to divert from answering tough questions of evidence <> the judge accuses the media-reps of putting the defendant in jail when the judge was the one who ordered the jail-time <> the judge denies motions without reading through the entire document <> exposing the gun in the room by stating that the only reason the defendant is present is because of the threat of force <> the judge threatens the defendant’s mother with jail-time for speaking out against his bullying <> the prosecutor tells the defendant that he can’t make up whatever rules he wants to enforce, while attorneys make up whatever rules/[constitutions] they like and arbitrarily and violently enforce it upon us (double-standard much?) <> keeping the public defenders at bay <> the judge railroads through a pre-trial that day when it was scheduled for a later date <> the judge arrogantly tries to end the proceeding early by rushing the defendant out of court <> judges seemingly don’t understand that the constitution does apply to them as consequence of their oath of office <> and filing paperwork after a railroading in court.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for your patience waiting for the full podcast. Considering the nature of the technical difficulties, it took much longer than anticipated to produce an archive quality version of the show. Finally, its compiled and ready for your educational purposes. Enjoy.