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.
- Thanks to all for the continued support for the big show, especially Joe from Tempe. 🙂
- Becoming tired of the petty bickering in the social media channels.
- Pseudo-Skeptics Fail Basic Skepticism.
- Working on a way of getting approval to act as assistance of counsel for a defendant.
- Pointing-out prosecutorial and judicial misconduct when they suggest that Brady requirements don’t apply in their court.
- Under what circumstances it may be a good idea to use a lawyer for standby counsel.
- Anticipating the unnecessary free-passes any defense lawyer will give a prosecutor when it comes to the essential, factual elements to establish jurisdiction.
- Contrary to Darryl Perry’s mischaracterization of Marc’s work, we have long-understood what we do here as effective damage-control, never have we claimed it is something that “works every time.”
- Building-up your Socratic reasoning to the level of being able to call-out logically-fallacious non-responses on-the-fly.
- Arguing outside the facts and evidence is a textbook misconduct violation.
- Disqualifying the witness.
- Pro-tip: the only way for the prosecution to overcome a motion to dismiss based on their lack of evidence is for the prosecution to actually produce the evidence in question.
- Countering the assertion of jurisdiction based upon your compulsory driver’s license.
- Following chains-of-causality in logic.
- Determining an adversarial proceeding.
- Engaging in low-risk Socratic questioning at city council meetings.
- 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?