Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Aug 30, 2014 – Co-host: JT and Guests: Michael & James

Posted on August 30th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Guest: Michael from Nevada.

  • The prosecutor offered the defendant a plea bargain of $150/no-points on a $1500/+points traffic citation(s).
  • Holding the prosecutor’s feet to the fire with the discovery/full-disclosure he’s required to provide you, upon request, before you begin any hearings.
  • Persistently pursing a Brady request. [see: A Practical Guide to Brady Motions: Getting What You Want, Getting What You Need]
  • The additional confidence from the experience of defending oneself against these bureaucratic legal attacks.
  • Approaching litigation with the right attitude and mental framework.
  • The three most common outcomes of evidentiary pro se litigation: 🙂 dismissal, 😐 damage-control in the form of a plea bargain, or 🙁 the “train-wreck.”
  • Factoring in the human variables needed to calculate and measure your response when challenging the authority of a [medically defined] psychopath.
  • How to counter if the judge denies the prosecutor’s plea bargain recommendation and forces the hearing to trial.
  • Effectively questioning the evidence as exampled in the Washington DOR Call-of-Shame.
  • Questioning the personal firsthand knowledge of any and all witnesses that can competently testify on the application of the constitution and its subsequent codes.
  • The real difficulty in court is often dealing with the barrage of frivolous objections from the prosecutor rather than difficulty of proving they don’t have the evidence they need to substantiate their complaint(s).
  • Tips on impeaching the witness.
  • Brady violations are at “epidemic” proportions according to USA v Olsen.
  • If the Brady rule were evenly applied, we’d have a much easier time getting victimless-crime based complaints dismissed.

Guest: James from Alaska.

  • Mini-workshop to help prepare for litigation against the tax bureaucrats.
  • Challenging your local bureaucrats in low-risk settings, such as city hall meetings, as exampled with the SoLWT.
  • Getting Brady issues fairly heard in court.
  • 3 steps for effective litigation: 1) collaterally attack the arguments that the prosecutor relies on to make their case, 2) don’t give the prosecutor any free passes, and 3) attack the base presumption of applicability of the law based on geolocation and/or say-so.
  • The public defender is certain that the defendant “is going to prison” based on the strongly held legal-assumption that the laws of course apply to you and that others have also gone to jail.

  • Every inmate in jail is evidence the laws apply.”
  • Argumentum ad populum: appeal to the [duped] masses.
  • Argumentum ab auctoritate: appeal to authority.
  • Argumentum ad baculum: appeal to coercion.
  • The co-opted libertarian party.
  • The ridiculousness of using past court rulings to substantiate proof the law applies to you.
  • Most judges are former prosecutors; so it should be no-wonder why they’re so willing to assume the prosecutor’s burden to prove jurisdiction… oh, and the fact that the IRS collects the “funds“/blood-money that pay judge’s salaries and your forced participation may contribute to a little conflict-on-interest as well.
  • Atheist’s blind-spot to the religion of the STATE.
  • A delusion is a persistent belief in the face of evidence.
  • Connecting with the jury’s rationale by utilizing a white-board to bullet-point the requirements of the prosecution and tracking whether the requirements have been met with facts and evidence to prove their allegations [of jurisdiction/applicability of the law].
  • Violations of malum prohibitum are only applicable if it is proven that the statute applies.
  • Exposing provable mass victimization by malicious prosecutions that are at epidemic levels.
  • Connecting with the jury by the circumstances you have in common with them as far as being forced to appear to a hearing where the rules for evidence and being criminally neglected.
  • Anticipating the prosecutor’s tricks he’ll play on the naive jury and defendant.
  • Prosecutor’s that are more focused on getting a conviction than pursuing any sort of actual justice.
  • Breaking the cycle of statist Stockholm syndrome.
  • Its all about compliance when it comes to bureaucrats.
  • Describing how court is such a rigged game for so many reasons.
  • Practicing your opening, closing, cross-examination, objections, and other such statements alone and in front of a peer(s) to be prudently prepared for the courtroom.
  • Talking with a defense attorney to explain the difference of asking [effective] questions of fact versus making an argument and fully understanding the implications that come with the adherence to the presumption of innocence principal.
  • “If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, it doesn’t matter what the answers are.”
  • Deconstructing who is the real crook in STATE-sponsored legal-attacks and the general involuntary nature of the tax code.
  • Coerced testimony is not admissible.
  • Rule 602 of the federal rules for evidence is probably the most ignored court rule.
  • “Its not threat, duress, and coercion when we [the STATE] do it.”
  • Pursuing “taxable income” versus “income” arguments.
  • Turtles all the way down fallacious logic pattern.
  • The psychopathic tendency of the STATE to accuse the defendant of something they themselves are guilty of, often to a much higher degree.
  • Generally, prosecutorial misconduct is making a statement outside the facts.
  • A motion in limine is used to limit what can or cannot be heard or argued at trial.
  • Conrad Black’s thoughts on the corruption inherent within the prison-industrial-complex.
  • Citing court rulings and/or statute IS NOT PROOF.
  • Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequence are often used to [poorly] legitimize the perpetuation of the STATE.

4 Comments For This Post

  1. LC in Texas Says:

    Amen about attorney’s selling you down the river! That’s all most can do, they study Corporation law – they are not for the people.

  2. The Raw420 Says:

    Lawyers (liars) they are at the top of the food chain. Listening in from Sylmar

  3. Gary Capps Says:

    Of course the laws are “for” the people – to benefit the bureaucrat and minion people and to be imposed upon any people who can be profited from. If you want to discuss to whom they can be rightly applied, then think of your evidence on the topic and we can chat. If you wouldn’t assert that they can be rightly applied to anyone at all, then it’ll be a short chat.

  4. NonNEuremburg Says:

    Well, it’s reared (emphasis on the “reared”?) it’s ole head again (per the show notes); the “medically defined” “psychopath”. Well, first, what is a “definition”? Popular opinion aka popular usage recorded.? Whether said popularity is such amongst medical scientists, gets us to: and what is “medical”? Wasn’t “blood letting” once upon a time popular –and medical? In the “medical dictionaries” of one time you think? O-K, so what of the latest medical (see professional?) book on this? (see “ASD”?) So which does one quote from?
    This one of course may one day be recognized as error as well in yet another day. That’s not really my point here; rather, amongst all the other fallacies talk, appeal to authority gets a pass? And the emphasis on (just the) facts?
    So, you wanna call ’em (all?) psychopaths, hey, have at it. It’s popular (here). Just drop the appeal to Authority (and insistence upon facts?) when the latest of such has dropped the label, aye?
    [not to again even get into no one loving to drop this label-bomb has yet to counter the likes of propaganda indoctrination and power intoxication resulting in the same identical behavior… you know, “anti-social disorder”?]

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 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 now broadcast via 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