Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Feb 1, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 10 – Robbie Convicted – Witnesses Not Competent to Testify

Posted on February 1st, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Only some minor tech issues today.  Spoke with Jose in New Jersey.  Judges distract from the prosecutor’s lack of evidence proving the constitution applies by claiming everyone has to have a driver’s license.  Nice presumption of innocence.

Cory in Blythe is dealing with the infraction game.  This is where the courts claim the proceedings are neither civil nor criminal.  They are still supposed to be adversarial and the rules still apply.

Robbie reported on his convicted today in Portland.  Despite the witnesses declared incompetent to give legal conclusions, they were still permitted testify. And let’s not forget how significant the objection is.

Robbie asked if the witness determined the law applied him because he was physically in Portland.  The witness says they did.  Robbie then asked what facts did they relied on to prove the laws applied because he was physically in Portland.  The prosecution objects on grounds it calls for a legal conclusion, the witness is not competent to testify.  Robbie only asked for the facts though.

Of court the judge sustains the objection and refuses to strike the witnesses legal conclusions from the record.  Kangaroo court in action.

And let’s not forget, the foundation of the prosecution’s case, the applicability of the law, a written instrument, was off limits for Robbie to challenge.  That is a rigged game.

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Jose from NJ: the judge denied two motions to dismiss out-of-hand <> the court clerk claims they “don’t dismiss drug cases and that you have to go to trial” when the defendant filed the motion to dismiss and Brady request <> the family is pushing to get a lawyer <> and participating in some role-playing before jumping into the next hearing.
  • Cory from CA: challenging a citation for failure to produce car insurance, arraignment pending <> determining whether the charge is criminal or civil in nature by asking “what’s the prosecution’s burden-of-proof?” <> focusing on their lack of a legal injury <> how to overcome when the judge claims the charge(s) aren’t either civil or criminal <> and working the docket.
  • Robbie from OR: he was convicted on his charges; sentenced to one year of bench probation, banned from the airport, and fined $100 <> the T.S.A. brought in their own attorneys to stop the witness from testifying <> the judge was denying any and all motions out of hand <> the prosecutor claimed that applicability of the law is not an issue of fact; it is a legal issue” <> attempting to appeal to the jury in the face of the judge’s “instructions” <> we are in desperate need of a decentralized justice system <> and preparing for post-conviction relief; how many points are sufficient for an effective appeal?

              

18 Comments For This Post

  1. Jack Worthington Says:

    And what is the name of the gd “judge” in this kangaroo court case in Portland? By far, the vast majority of so called “judges” in Oregon are just filthy criminals, IMHO, having lived there once upon a time.

  2. Rad Says:

    just in court today – asked “da”: “is there any evidence of a complaining party”
    “i think you’re confused. complaining party is civil.”
    “is it true that in order for there to be a case there has to be at least two parties”? lightbulb goes off
    “the complaining party is the state”
    “is there any evidence of that?”
    “the evidence is the ticket”
    “where on this piece of paper is that evidence”? points to cop’s signature
    “is that the complaining party’s signature”?
    “No”
    “How does that prove there’s a complaining party in this matter”?
    “i already explained it to you”
    “is the alleged complaining party here today?”
    “I’m right here”
    “You’re the complaining party”?
    “no”
    “is it true that a complaint is just an allegation until it’s corroborated by evidence”?
    gets impatient sends me to see the “judge”
    point blank will not answer “is the complaining party here” – this question seemed to bother her the most

    i go to judge for “arraignment” – i open with the same line of questioning
    “i can see where this is going”
    orders pre trial conference – never actually does the formalized arraignment ritual telling me i have a “right” to a lawyer etc – skips doing an actual arraignment at “arraignment” proceeding

  3. Rad Says:

    im thinking at pre trial perhaps i will tell them i will stipulate that i was going 41 in a 30 with no insurance if they will stipulate that the alleged complaining party they claim to represent is a religious delusion and only exists as a fairy tale myth. that they aren’t really representing a higher power called “the state” except in their own imaginations. otherwise, i think i will agree to stipulate i was doing 11 over the limit – – no insurance – no need to prove that – if we can put the question to the jury – what evidence is there that there even is a complaining party. if their deity is real then it should be easy enough for these cultists to prove it – i think if another da tells me they represent the state as their client i’m tempted to tell them point blank i don’t believe you
    I respect people’s faith but come on…when they use violence to coerce us to participate in their rituals — it’s insulting they actually expect us to play make believe with their imaginary friends

  4. Ronnie Says:

    Bring the English accent back Marc, it’s hilarious!

  5. NonEntity Says:

    Rad sed, “I respect people’s faith…” so you respect someone’s willingness to accept things for which there is no evidence… but you have a problem with people who have no evidence? Did I get that right?

  6. NonEntity Says:

    This material is unmarcetable!

  7. Rad Says:

    “but you have a problem with people who have no evidence?”

    when they’re making threats and the threats are rationalized with a bunch of bs with no supporting evidence

  8. NonEntity Says:

    So much for respecting their faith, huh? 😉

  9. HooliganHoodlum1904 Says:

    Courts are an extension of the Church. Statutes and Ordinances are from the Bible Numbers 19:2, which Judge and Witnesses, Cops make an Oath on Bible. Its all Religious Persecution/Prosecution.

  10. NonEntity Says:

    Oh.I see. Okay then!

  11. NonEntity Says:

    Anyone know what Bible Numbers are? Are they base 10 or maybe hexadecimal or what? Or perhaps magical, like the ones that government uses?

  12. NonEntity Says:

    Marc sez herein that the Supremes say for a case to be adversarial there must be, “an antagonistic assertion of rights.” I’m sorry but for the life of me I can’t figure that phrase out. All I can picture is someone screaming in my face, “I HAVE A RIGHT TO SCREAM IN YOUR FACE!” So what the hell does this mean? “Give me the money I claim you owe me as taxes for living where me and my gun are because I have a right to the products of your life force,” might qualify, but I just don’t think that makes any sense for the Supremes to sing. Can anyone help me out here?

  13. NonEntity Says:

    The above quote occurs at about 00:31:21. (I quietly and politely assert.)

  14. Boxer Says:

    It’s plane as day for me. It means someone who is going against your fictitious rights.

  15. NonEntity Says:

    The quote is not in reference to a person but an act. “an antagonistic assertion of rights.” The act is the assertion (of rights) and it is performed in a fashion deemed antagonistic. So it appears that either the assertion of a right or rights is somehow deemed wrong and worthy of a judicial proceeding, or the antagonistic manner of the presentation is what causes the supposed harm, or both. But if there is such a thing as a “right,” isn’t that what the judicial system is purported to be in support of? How can the assertion of a right possibly be considered a harm (if one actually believes in the concept of rights.)

    As I sed, this makes no sense to me.

  16. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, perhaps instead of a plane you might consider walking. 🙂

  17. eye2i Says:

    “plane as day” = “over someoNE’s head” ? 😉

    Meanwhile, what’s next, WE’re going to pick a verse out of another religious text– what, say “Numbers §”? –and try to apply logical consistency to it too? Yeah, that’s the ticket…

  18. eye2i Says:

    * Buybull (pronounced “bible”) Numbers § (of course)

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 youtube.com. 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