Co-host: JT and Guest: John Myser from MN. John, who contributed two SoLWT reports [Mar 4, 2014, Mar 18, 2014] from local public city council hearings, joins the show today to give us an update on his AiLL with the psychopath Rex Stacey presiding.
- JT’s report, as a media-rep, from Jamie’s “trial” this past Monday: the witness/cop was a no-show and the complaint was dismissed from court.
- The advantage of using NSP online workshop role-play to prepare yourself to effectively defend against bureaucratic legal attacks/assertions/complaints.
- Marc’s response to the latest critic(s) from a video Marc made congratulating Blair for standing up to the man.
- Why don’t some judges care to explore the specific grounds of WHY they are dismissing a complaint?
- How to expose the STATE’s lack of evidence to prove applicability/jurisdiction through persistent and effective questioning.
- What happens when all the available judges recuse themselves to evade dealing with a defendant that has questions of evidence of applicability.
- Getting specific grounds for a judge’s vague, blanket denial of the motion to dismiss.
- IF (they in fact have grounds)
THEN they will articulate them for you;
ELSE IF (they are claiming to be operating in good faith)
THEN are they claiming to have facts and evidence, but are not disclosing such facts and evidence to you? TRUE or FALSE?;
THEN they are committing a due process violation by denying full-disclosure;
THEN what is the facts and/or evidence they can product to prove applicability of jurisdiction?; /* excuse the crude syntax 😉 */
- The anomalies and context of Jamie’s traffic ticket being dismissed from court.
- The peaceful objectives of challenging bureaucrats on their lack of evidence in effort to bring about a voluntary society.
- April 1st update on Marc’s correspondence with Gerald Wilhelm and future plans to appeal.
- “An attorney making legal arguments without any evidence to back it up is NOT misconduct?!”
- Would it be criminal if us non-bureaucrats conducted ourselves in the same coercive manner as government?
- Exposing the STATE department double-standard of required evidence.
- “He’s heading right for us” statist defense.
- From the pre-Galialian file: the [provable] psychopath Rex Stacey labels John Myser “crazy” for asking questions of evidence.
- Strange plane landings in Denver and Iran.
- Update on James’, from Buffalo, more serious traffic complaint with the special type of “I don’t give a damn” bureaucrats.
- The psychopath ticket-fixer Rex Stacey: “You’re trying my patience by asking for evidence.”
- Evidence is “a game,” “the constitution doesn’t apply to cops,” and “jurisdiction because I say so” according to lower-level judges such as Rex Stacey.
- Procedural shenanigans from the office of the court clerk when attempting to properly file paperwork.
- Pointing out attorney’s logical fallacies to them to put them on-notice that you are wise to their desperate techniques of deception in attempt to maintain their facade of legitimacy.
- Factually determining applicability of the CONstitution and its subsequent codes and statutes.
- Avoiding the legal minutia of citing statute or code.
- William Strait’s “angry” and “shocked” reaction to John’s filed complaint of prosecutorial misconduct.
- “When a prosecutor makes arguments outside of the evidence,” you have an instance of prosecutorial misconduct.
- Its a “denial of a fair hearing” if there’s an “irrefutable presumption or argument” where you cannot subject all the prosecutor’s assertions to challenge. –Vlandis v. Kline
- The Doors’ “Soft Parade“
- The judge claims that “addressing the question applicability of jurisdiction is a ‘political question‘.”
- The hostile courtroom environment triggered by the actions of a defendant asking questions of evidence so that they can properly defend themselves and for using the process of accountability for judges who have engaged in misconduct.
- A bit of preparatory on-air role-play.
- Challenging the witnesses’ competency to testify to whether there’s evidence to prove the the constitution and codes he’s enforcing applies.
- Much of the effective damage control in legal-land is centered around going from the vague to the specific.
- Anything can be stricken if its not proper.
- Utilizing the voir dire process to weed out bias of irrefutable presumptions held by many of the jurors
- The irony of a judge including the line “you can’t just make up your own rules” as part of his ruling statement.
- “Those who attack the rationale of the game, and not the players, are its most formidable adversaries.” – James J. Martin
- A denial of the voir dire process or denial of cross-examination are both violations of due-process for lack of a fair hearing.
- The importance of developing a strong and persuasive opening for your hearings.
- Overcoming people’s indoctrination of the dogma of the STATE.
- Addressing the conflict-of-interest between the judge and prosecutor and the judge’s use of force exercised to compel the defendant to the respond to prosecutor’s complaint within the voir dire process.
- You can, and should, object to the prosecutor’s opening statement.
- The use of a whiteboard to outline and bullet-point all the facts you’ve brought forth to show that the prosecutor has failed to produce the required evidence to even bring the complaint to court.
- Because a statement sounds self-evidence, that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t, and shouldn’t, be easily articulated.
- The great advantage/leverage of being able to predict and articulate the prosecutions next [deceptive] move(s).
- You have much greater latitude to ask leading questions during cross-examination versus direct examination.
- “If the information is in the question, then its a leading question.”
- Next week’s pre-recorded show will focus on making more assertive objections and learning to recognize and counter the most common logical fallacies thrown out there by psychopath attorneys in the courtroom.