Co-host: JT.
Show Topics: Mike’s conviction in Idaho federal court, Larry Burn’s Psychopath Circus, the constitution not relevant here, keeping to our objective in court, using an effective tactic or strategy, judge says morality has no place in these proceedings, element of crime is going to be presumed, never try to teach a jury, stick to what was shown and not shown during trial, our strategy is to continually challenge the facts the prosecutor’s allegations are based on, not teaching or otherwise putting a burden of proof on ourselves.
Caller’s Topics:
- Mischack from Conn: cross-examination tips, no discovery, jury trial, motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, motion change judge, code violation with no evidence code applies; no evidence witness as personal knowledge; objection prosecutor cannot connect the question/testimony to an element of the crime, denial of voir dire;
- Matt from Houston: three charges dropped, filed motion to dismiss, cop called next day and left voice mail, didn’t like getting motion, showed up to court and judge dismissed; “I want you to show up in court, cause I’m gonna beat you when you get there.”
- Mark from New Mexico: traffic hearing, forcing a plea; order to show cause for contempt; clerk lies nothing can be done without a plea, motion to quash order; motion to change judge is plea done under threat, duress and coercion;
Video of the first segment today, Larry Burn’s Psychopath Circus:
January 13th, 2013 at 6:28 am
The JUDGE executed the regulations correctly; the JURY executed ignorantly; an ignorant jury will ignorant decisions make; the man acting on the bench acted immorally and unscrupulously.
January 13th, 2013 at 6:43 am
It didn’t take long for the first psychopath apologist to show up.
January 13th, 2013 at 6:44 am
@Lyndon, “The JUDGE executed the regulations correctly..”. Really? REALLY?
face palms unbounded.
January 13th, 2013 at 6:55 am
“…It didn’t take long for the first psychopath apologist to show up.”
It did not take long for the first fool to show up.
January 13th, 2013 at 8:35 am
Lyndon says, “The JUDGE executed the regulations correctly.”
WRONG. The judge was inconsistent with following his own sacred writ, he bypassed many essential issues and made many violations of due process.
You ought to know that, but I predict you are not here to make blatant observations, rather you seem exclusively interested in redirecting and destroying the comment thread.
“It did not take long for the first fool to show up.” Are you ironically referring to the “first fool to show up” to this comment thread?
January 13th, 2013 at 9:34 am
It should be of no shock to anyone that Mike was taken into confinement. Inside their jail, Mike has limited ability to access what he needs to defend himself. I told Mike this is what they will likely do. I do not know if Mike prepared for remedy and redress from confinement.
For all of the parrots that hum the cant, those drooling guzzlers and slurpers of the froth of ignorance, I gave a GREAT deal of my time to try and direct Mike as to how to escape and stop the charges of these bullies. With the correct knowledge, and correct application of that knowledge, the IRS is proven to have no authority or power and are dismissed. Mike, to my chagrin and disappointment, CHOSE to heed the advice of those who would lead him awry. I am deeply saddened by the result of the trial. Nevertheless, though the deeds may not be undone, the decisions CAN be undone. My resolve to help Mike, a man I do not know, remains.
January 13th, 2013 at 10:15 am
I’ve run into this problem/idea recently. Prosecutor claims he is not required to prove applicability. So, let’s concentrate on that! Why is applicability not required?
January 13th, 2013 at 11:39 am
Calvin wrote: “I predict you [Lyndon] are not here to make blatant observations, rather you seem exclusively interested in redirecting and destroying the comment thread.”
I concur. He comes across like a judge that portrays himself as being fair and legitimate; professing his deep concern for Mike. Professing he has the answers/remedy/solution and Marc’s methods are doomed to fail.
Many people have successfully used the methods Marc teaches. There are many success stories on this website. I have seen none from Lyndon; just him puffing his chest spewing wind.
January 13th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Notice regarding trolls: DO NOT FEED!
- NonE
January 13th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
@Lyndon: Enough with the BS. You are not helping Mike by making baseless assertions on comment threads here. Mike tried that crap in court and IT FAILED him. Can you not process that?
If you are so concerned about helping others, why not provide them the facts and evidence to back up your claims? I think I know the answer… hint: its identical to prosecuting attorneys response to applicability (again ironically); because THERE ARE NO FACTS AND EVIDENCE to support your nonsense.
When did asking for the proof of concept become “parrots that hum the cant, those drooling guzzlers and slurpers of the froth of ignorance?”
@NonE: There are to be some troll counter-measures made to the site in the days to come, no more trolls flooding the comments with claims that they refuse to back up with evidence and/or fact.
January 13th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Quote Lyndon
” gave a GREAT deal of my time to try and direct Mike as to how to escape and stop the charges of these bullies ”
i certainly hope that you are not partly responsible for what happened to Mike
So far all i hear from Lyndon/Lentz/RobRyder/Thornton …. is obfuscation …
No ” Method ” , no Facts
just… “we all know better methods than youse guys, but we are not tellin’ ”
typical PATRIDIOT NONSENSE
January 13th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
@Lyndon, “The JUDGE executed the regulations correctly” It has been half a day and I am still hoping you would answer my question. Perhaps it was to broad of a question so allow me to rephrase it: You have to be kidding, REALLY?
January 13th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
@ Lyndon – did you send Mike paperwork? Were you recommending he close talking about US bankruptcy, the name in ALL CAPS, incomes taxes not paying for services etc? I was told Dean Clifford was helping, were you also giving him that type of help?
January 13th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Was this jackass from San Diego licensed and qualified to practice law in the state of Idaho? Was that information entered? How was he able to do this?
January 13th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
If anybody missed Marcs’s comment about the Gerry Spence cross examination go to youtube and find it and look up his other videos. I think this type of information is useful if anyone ever gets prosecuted. I think that it would also be a good idea to read his books since I’m sure there is a wealth of information in them. Audible.com has one of them on their web page.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:23 am
Marc,
I haven’t listened to the show yet and I don’t know if you’re working with Mike on this but will he be filing an appeal? What are your thoughts on his odds for success in an appeal?
January 14th, 2013 at 8:10 am
While the plaintiff (the person doing the accusing) must have evidence to support his or her claim, the defendant is responsible for proving the plaintiff’s version of events is incorrect.
The judge or jury, in turn, must then determine whose story is most likely true—in civil cases, the concept of reasonable doubt no longer applies.
Nature and Seriousness of Offense:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm
January 14th, 2013 at 9:00 am
Calvin,
@NonE: There are to be some troll counter-measures made to the site in the days to come, no more trolls flooding the comments with claims that they refuse to back up with evidence and/or fact.
—————–
DAMN. I’m gonna have to find another way to annoy people, huh?
- NonE
January 14th, 2013 at 12:06 pm
@Chex: “defendant is responsible for proving the plaintiff’s version of events is incorrect”
How can a defendant PROVE he is innocent when the Judge presumes defendant is GUILTY of one of the elements of the crime? (Jurisdiction/Applicability of the code).
January 14th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Anytime a person is accused of a crime, the state becomes responsible for proving his or her guilt in court. To do this, a prosecutor must submit evidence to support the state’s charge. As a result, the responsibility of proving the case—or in other words, the burden of proof—lies completely on the prosecution.
Along with proving that you actually committed the crime in question, the prosecution must also prove you intended to commit the offense. If the prosecution fails to prove either of these things, you cannot be convicted.
Although the concept of burden of proof is most often associated with criminal law, it is also applicable in civil cases (non-criminal cases involving two individuals, usually related to property issues, contracts, personal injuries, and other similar conflicts). Unlike criminal cases, however, the burden of proof in a civil trial lies on the defendant (the person who has been accused).
January 14th, 2013 at 1:35 pm
@Chex: I think you did a good job of describing how the system is advertised to work. For the system to work as you described, there must to be a fair and impartial Judge who presumes the defendant to be innocent of ALL elements of the crime, including jurisdiction and applicability of the code.
The problem that Marc Stevens is repeatedly describing is that in reality the Judge presumes the defendant to be GUILTY of an element of the crime! The prosecutor is given a “FREE PASS” and never required to provide facts proving that the court has jurisdiction or that the code applies to the defendant. If jurisdiction and code applicability are such an easy thing to prove, could you present some facts and evidence please?
January 15th, 2013 at 12:39 am
Lyndon’s latest comments can be viewed on the forum here, where it belongs. This is where you can find the latest malicious ideologues also, so check back often for the most recent baseless assertions.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Marc,
Mickey here, just recently been accused of my first DUI (misdemeanor) in California, I still have not received the official BAC, but I feel that I passed the field sobriety test, and when I asked the police officer what part of the test he felt I failed, he did not say. Just curious if there is any way to get the case dismissed at pre-trial, or am I going to just bite the bullet on this one.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:17 pm
apologies, I just realized I posted this comment on the wrong thread. I did not mean to disrupt your discussion.
January 16th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Excuse me our honor who the f&&k are you?
January 16th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Unrelenting online persona-trolls trying to “debunk” legitimate questions or any opposition to the establishment. Go on… [C.I.A. information/perception management, new amendments to the NDAA; no wonder why we've seen an increase of certain malicious personas around here...]
January 16th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
@ Calvin, that’s a really nice find. I first read about such operations about a year ago. I suspect some personas come with the intent to poison the well. To call them mere trolls, is what? Are there mole(s) buried deep within the website? Look for the distraction. Especially on important threads/topics/issues.
“I am not a mole”, said Nixon. Stop being a clever distraction. Perhaps they simply don’t know any better. They come claiming well meaning intent yet they mostly create diversion and distraction.
Expose the killers, thieves and liars while building the agora.
January 16th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
@ mickey, any facts the code applies? I’d file a demur to get it kicked.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:22 pm
@marc
Well the code was a cvc23152(a)(b), as for the facts the code applies, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I mean, it may be entirely possible for my BAC to be over the legal limit, and as far as probable cause goes, I did make an inadvertent illegal u-turn because the freeway on-ramp was under construction and I was confused about the detour (which was the only real reason why they could have pulled me over in the first place). I could file a demur, but with those two facts against me, would I have any wiggle room to get it kicked? Or should I just file the demur as soon as I can anyway and keep it from getting filed with the court?
January 17th, 2013 at 6:23 am
@ Mickey, in my experience and through investigation, there are no facts proving the code applies in the first place. People just assume it applies. If you ask the cop and prosecutor, they will have nothing. We had a prosecutor in San Diego respond with: “I’m not going to go there” when I asked for the facts.
January 19th, 2013 at 10:14 am
1.Draft proper pleadings with all fact elements
2.Obtain all necessary evidence before trial
3.Make effective oral motions
4.Draft effective written motions
5.Use online legal research
6.Draft compelling memoranda
7.Insure a written record of all proceedings
8.Object promptly to all errors of opponent
9.Object promptly to all errors of judge
10.Renew objections to all un-cured errors of judge
11.Keep your opponent’s evidence out
12.Get your evidence in
13.Stop opponent from proposing false orders
14.Offer to draft all orders
15.Stop opponent’s lawyer from testifying
January 19th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Marc,
What were the four elements in Mikes Idaho case? You said there was four elements but never discussed them.
Thanks
January 21st, 2013 at 10:47 pm
I have to understand people are people. WTF is so hard to understand? Marc wrote a mo66erfu44ing Script and wrote petitions for us to use against the damn evil assholes called judges cops prosecutors and irs agents. Fu( a name in all caps B.S. USE THE SCRIPT and LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST!!!!!!!!! Some of y’all need a kick in your ass by these bureaucrats to see the the material here is for responsible grown people and its serious business.
Thanks Marc, for the free education. It worked for me seven times. 4 times the persecutor called me to tell me “Don’t Worry About It” on tickets I got in Georgia. Once these local buttholes learn you can make them look like fools forcing them to comply in answering your questions or stating to them now they are being coercive, intimidating and violent in front of the whole court room and not allowing you to defend myself I am not an attorney. No reciting law or soverginty issues just MARC’S SCRIPTS
I Love You Marc and Jesus knows you are practicing rightousness. Bless you and your family. Lets all pray for Marc everyday!