Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Apr 19, 2017 – Bonus Wednesday Edition: Episode 17

Posted on April 24th, 2017 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Dale from IN: what is the intended objective of asking leading questions? <> how to best structure your defensive litigation strategy in a way to be able to more easily share with others <> how much, if any, Latin legal phrases would it benefit a pro-per defendant to learn? <> and the effective unilateral application of effective Socratic questioning, on most types of cases, in any government court regardless of locality.
  • Alan from LA: how do you overcome a judge that claims “jurisdiction is not an element of the crime and does not violate the presumption of innocence“? <> the judge continually tried to represent the defendant to enter a plea upon their behalf <> police escort the defendant out of the courthouse <> the judge denied the motion to dismiss because it did not have an order attached <> how to Socraticly debunk the assertion that “the citation is the evidence of jurisdiction” <> and statists repackaging their blunt coercion as the “greater good.”


2 Comments For This Post

  1. i.n.rem Says:

    An internal affairs office at the Justice Department has found that, over the last decade, hundreds of federal prosecutors and other Justice employees violated rules, laws, or ethical standards governing their work.

    The violations include instances in which attorneys who have a duty to uphold justice have, according to the internal affairs office, misled courts, withheld evidence that could have helped defendants, abused prosecutorial and investigative power, and violated constitutional rights.

    From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2013, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) documented more than 650 infractions, according to a Project On Government Oversight review of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and from OPR reports.
    Infraction Severity

    (from most to least serious)

    1. Intentionally violated a clear and unambiguous obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional conduct, or DOJ regulation or policy

    2. Recklessly disregarded an obligation to comply with that obligation or standard

    3. Exercised poor judgment

    4. Made a mistake [does not lead to disciplinary action]

    The Justice Department does not officially consider the last two to constitute misconduct.

    Source: U.S. Justice Department, Office of Professional Responsibility, “Analytical Framework,” July 6, 2005, pp. 2-4.
    In the majority of the matters—more than 400—OPR categorized the violations as being at the more severe end of the scale: recklessness or intentional misconduct, as distinct from error or poor judgment.

    The information the Justice Department has disclosed is only part of the story.

  2. NonEntity Says:

    Well… DUH! 🙂

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