Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Feb 2, 2013 – Co-host: JT and Guests: Michael Doherty & Vin James

Posted on February 2nd, 2013 by Calvin

Co-host: JT and Guests: Michael Doherty [JusticeNow.co.uk, Twitter.com/JU5TLAW] & Vin James [No-STATE-Project.co.nr, NoSTATEProject.weebly.com, AwakeRadio.co.uk].

Show Topics:

  • Michael’s back-story leading to his discovery of government corruption in legal-land.
  • Private criminal prosecutions.
  • Stitched-up in Stevenage (framed).

Caller’s Topics:

  • Michael Doherty from England: high level pedophile rings protected by government officials, Franklin and Dutroux affairs, Independent  Police Complaint Commission, matters of serious police corruption, managed police investigation, Mike’s complaint/information accepted by magistrate’s court, crown solicitor intervenes to dismiss complaint against police, judicial review, Campaign for Justice, using false prosecution to discredit Mike.
  • Vin from London: foreclosure Wednesday.
  • Bo from Austin: DUI dropped, prosecutor doesn’t have to prove law applies, presence within state, Bo disagreed and pressed for the facts, prosecutor drops complaint, why do prosecutors believe they don’t have to prove such elements?  Because the judges don’t hold them to their burden of proof.
  • Carlos from Atlanta: judge recused himself in anger, couldn’t give fair trial.

Stitch Up / Part 1 of 2 Michael Doherty gets guilty verdict at Stevenage Mags Court 24 Jan 2013.

Stitch Up / Part 2 of 2 Michael Doherty gets guilty verdict at Stevenage Mags Court 24 Jan 2013.

The “State of Texas” is apparently a woman.  Congrats to Bo for standing up to the psychopaths and getting the complaints withdrawn and kicked out.  I thank Bo for sending me the documentary evidence below:

bo_dismissal

I’ve never seen this before, a “state” described in a legal document as “her”, at least I’ve never seen it these parts.  I’m sure there will be critics who will marginalize this claiming this is no evidence it had anything to do with Bo’s paperwork and challenges to evidence.  Such criticism lacks evidence, it’s pure speculation.

The evidence we do have is Bo challenging the prosecutor on the facts and the prosecutor failing to have any.  The prosecutor claimed he didn’t need to prove the code applied.  While this is circumstantial evidence regarding why the prosecutor withdrew, it is very strong evidence.  Evidence the critics don’t have, all they have is speculation.

              

13 Comments For This Post

  1. NonE Says:

    Calvin sed: “…will be available as long as it takes to compile it…” After which you’re gonna take it back down? You gonna ask us for money to put it back up? I think I see a scam coming on. I’m gonna keep my Eye on you!

    – NonGullible

  2. indio007 Says:

    I little info on private prosecution.

    Private Prosecution: A Remedy for District Attorneys’ Unwarranted Inaction
    Source: The Yale Law Journal
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1wtyXDQr0s-NTA0YWY2NWEtZDdkZC00NzhlLThlMjctZTZhNzNlYTc0YzNl/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJb6gYsL

    THE OUTMODED CONCEPT OF
    PRIVATE PROSECUTION
    http://www.aulawreview.org/pdfs/25/25-3/Sidman.pdf

    From
    ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
    Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    PRIVATE PROSECUTORS

    For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.15 Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20

    Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication.21 Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases.22 After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant.23 Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they … repair the injury.”24

    Grand jurors often acted as the detectives of the period. They conducted their investigations in the manner of neighborhood sleuths, dispersing throughout the community to question people about their knowledge of crimes.25 They could act on the testimony of one of their own members, or even on information known to grand jurors before the grand jury convened.26 They might never have contact with a government prosecutor or any other officer of the executive branch.27

    Colonial grand juries also occasionally served an important law enforcement need by account of their sheer numbers. In the early 1700s, grand jurors were sometimes called upon to make arrests in cases where suspects were armed and in large numbers.28 A lone sheriff or deputy had reason to fear even approaching a large group “without danger of his life or having his bones broken.”29 When a sheriff was unable to execute a warrant or perform an execution, he could call upon a posse of citizens to assist him.30 The availability of the posse comitatus meant that a sheriffs resources were essentially unlimited.31
    footnotes:
    15 Originally, all criminal procedure fell under the rule of private vengeance. A victim or aggrieved party made a direct appeal to county authorities to force a defendant to face him.

    See ARTHUR TRAIN, THE PRISONER AT THE BAR 120 n. (1926). From these very early times, “grand” or “accusing” juries were formed to examine the accusations of private individuals. Id. at 121 n. Although the accusing jury frequently acted as a trial jury as well, it eventually evolved into a separate body that took on the role of accuser on behalf of aggrieved parties. It deliberated secretly, acting on its members’ own personal information and upon the application of injured parties. Id. at 124 n.

    16 In the early decades of American criminal justice, criminal cases were hardly different from civil actions, and could easily be confused for one another if “the public not being joined in it.” Clark v. Turner, 1 Root 200 (Conn. 1790) (holding action for assault and battery was no more than a civil case because the public was not joined). It was apparently not unusual for trial judges themselves to be confused about whether a case was criminal or civil, and to make judicial errors regarding procedural differences between the two types of cases. See Meacham v. Austin, 5 Day 233 (Conn. 1811) (upholding lower court’s dismissal of criminal verdict because the case’s process had been consistent with civil procedure rather than criminal procedure).

    17 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution).

    18 See, e.g., Smith v. State, 7 Tenn. 43 (1846) (using the term prosecutor to describe a private person); Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (same); Commonwealth v. Harkness, 4 Binn. 193 (Pa. 1811) (same).

    19 See Harold J. Krent, Executive Control Over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 AM. U. L. REV. 275, 281-90 (1989) (saying that any claim that criminal law enforcement is a ‘core’ or exclusive executive power is historically inaccurate and therefore the Attorney General need not be vested with authority to oversee or trigger investigations by the independent counsel).

    20 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (holding the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor).

    21 Private prosecutors generally had to pay the costs of their prosecutions, even though the state also had an interest. See Dickinson v. Potter, 4 Day 340 (Conn. 1810). Government attorneys general took over the prosecutions of only especially worthy cases and pursued such cases at public expense. See Waldron v. Turtle, 4 N.H. 149, 151 (1827) (stating if a prosecution is not adopted and pursued by the attorney general, “it will not be pursued at the public expense, although in the name of the state”).

    22 See State v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71, 73 (1844) (stating a threat by crime victim to prosecute a supposed thief is proper but extortion for pecuniary advantage is criminal).

    23 See Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (holding promissory note invalid when tendered by a criminal defendant to his private prosecutor in exchange for promise not to prosecute).

    24 Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105, 109 (1849).

    25 See In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1956).

    26 See Goodman v. United States, 108 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1939).

    27 See Krent, supra note 19, at 293.

    28 C.f. Ellen D. Larned, 1 History of Windham County, Connecticut 272-73 (1874) (recounting attempts by Windham County authorities in 1730 to arrest a large group of rioters who broke open the Hartford Jail and released a prisoner).

    29 Id. at 273.

    30 See Buckminster v. Applebee, 8 N.H. 546 (1837) (stating the sheriff has a duty to raise the posse to aid him when necessary).

    31 See Waterbury v. Lockwood, 4 Day 257, 259-60 (Conn. 1810) (citing English cases).

  3. Calvin Says:

    @NonE: Settle down, there is no evidence that I’m am a ransom-producer/scammer. That being sed, if anyNonE has seen a pot-o-gold around here, let me know. 😉

    I was able to squeeze this one out by Sunday morning since we had much less technical difficulty with this show, therefor there was less for me to “clean-up” which yielded the quicker production time. Glad to fulfill the early projection of my deadline, now for some ZZZ’s. Enjoy!

  4. Wise Ways Says:

    I would like to comment in response to Ian Freeman’s passionate rant regarding the strawman. Anyone who is following a path to freedom will learn about the strawman concept, or theory as Marc put it. I definitely believe in the existence of the strawman and admiralty law and all that legalease. Aside from lending my signature in specific ways and thoroughly revising any contract, be it gov or not, I do not attempt to prove the strawman exists in verbal dealings with bureaucrats. The lower end bureaucrats (cops) are drones and the higher end bureaucrats (judges) are sinister and anyone raising admiralty law or strawman concepts just gets disregarded – or discarded. I and my spouse have experienced jail over using these ambiguous concepts in verbal battle with bureaucrats. It doesn’t work. The ambiguity of the strawman is in and of itself a bureaucratic slight, an endless hall. I protect myself on paper, but do not use it in a “real” setting. I (nor my spouse) drive anymore. We haven’t driven for over a year and life is great. We have discovered if you are not in their jurisdiction (a car) then you are not on their radar. And yes, I have no problem admitting they’ve robbed me of my liberty. Having to register a vehicle with the State also robs me of my liberty. Thanks Marc for sharing Ian’s insight.

  5. Calvin Says:

    @Wise Ways: It is not too WISE to take a position that has little, to no, direct evidence to support it. Dean Clifford just got arrested trying to use this stuff, so obviously it doesn’t work, lets explore why.

    Those who has tried to CONvince us rather objective individuals of this has always had to admit (like the spamming commenter Karl Lentz who called into the show a few months back) it is JUST A THEORY (and that isn’t Marc or Ian’s phrase; “theory,” its what the advocates call it when they are challenged to provide facts and evidence to back up their claim. Get it right if you are going to make assertions, or take it to the baseless assertions section of the forum).

    So here we go:

    Wise: “I definitely believe in the existence of the strawman and admiralty law and all that legalease.”

    Based on what facts and evidence? Do you think beliefs should be based in facts and evidence or should one just believe whatever they feel like and act as if the belief is factually valid? “We” are willing to entertain the theory as long as the advocate can demonstrate a proof of concept. Make sense?

    Wise: “Aside from lending my signature in specific ways and thoroughly revising any contract, be it gov or not, I do not attempt to prove the strawman exists in verbal dealings with bureaucrats.”

    There is no evidence of a valid contract. I guess you missed the part in the podcast of the necessary element of the “meeting of the minds.” A little more listening and verifying of what one is saying could help you discover that.

    Wise: “The lower end bureaucrats (cops) are drones and the higher end bureaucrats (judges) are sinister and anyone raising admiralty law or strawman concepts just gets disregarded – or discarded.”

    Duh, but why is that? Because there is no evidence to support it. You should try to challenge them on the factual applicability of “the LAW” and see how effective that is compared to the “STRAWMAN” theory. I think it is ironic it is known as the strawman theory, because that is exactly what it is: a strawman logical fallacy. Moving along:

    Wise: ” I and my spouse have experienced jail over using these ambiguous concepts in verbal battle with bureaucrats. It doesn’t work. The ambiguity of the strawman is in and of itself a bureaucratic slight, an endless hall.”

    So if it doesn’t work, isn’t the very definition of insanity is trying (or believing) in the same thing expecting different results (or truth)? Maybe if you adjusted your beliefs to the facts at hand, you would have better results than being locked up for something you fail to prove… kind of like a prosecutor when you ask them for the required facts in their assertions; its a failure to prosecute.

    Wise: “I protect myself on paper, but do not use it in a “real” setting.”

    So by admission its useless protection for preserving one’s “right” to travel freely. Okay…. 😐

    Wise: “We have discovered if you are not in their jurisdiction (a car) then you are not on their radar.”

    This may be news, but proof of jurisdiction (FACTUALLY) has nothing to do with driving down the road in a car/vehicle. Proof of jurisdiction has more to do with proving one is actually within the political body of the STATE by using those pesky things called facts.

    Wise: “And yes, I have no problem admitting they’ve robbed me of my liberty. Having to register a vehicle with the State also robs me of my liberty.”

    I would say freedom rather than liberty because freedom is something you have inherently as opposed to liberty which is granted by another (which they have no authority to grant anyway). But you are right about one thing; they are using force to get people to comply, but I shouldn’t have to tell you might does not make right.

    To conclude, your assertions seem unwise (again ironically considering your handle) due to the lack of evidence to support your assertions and considering the amount of evidence to the contrary. 😳 But I will advise that if you’d like to continue to make baseless assertions, that we take this conversation to the appropriate venue and we can continue the conversation there.

    Its sad “normal” people can deal with SANTA not being real, but not the STATE. They both have an equal absence of facts and evidence to support their existence.

  6. COPAGANDA Says:

    Wow Calvin!
    You’ve got a lot of time on your hands to take Wise’s comments as seriously as you did. I think Wise was trying to say, that even though the belief is there, the application of such belief is wholly useless and just ends people up in jail. As for jurisdiction, it is in the mind of the beholder… this is easily proven in court when they cannot provide facts with regard to jurisdiction. Getting out of their jurisdiction is getting out of their minds… They(cops) focus on cars on the road, not the bus and typically not someone walking on a main road or sidewalk. This keeps you out of their jurisdiction(minds). Please don’t ask me for facts that jurisdiction is in their minds. And… Take a chill. The strawman is simply a term used to describe someones paperwork trail. The paper, which is less malleable than ones body and life, creates a “record” that is separate from oneself, but is still considered by many (bureaucrats, employers, admissions boards) to be a representation of the person. The record is magically transformed into a person in the minds of people who have been propagandized to believe such things. This is the strawman. It’s a concept, it’s a reification, it’s a fallacy, but it still is in the minds of those who choose it to be.

  7. Calvin Says:

    @COPAGANDA: Yeah, I do have some extra time on my hands. That’s where the podcast comes from every week; my volunteer labor.

    You ask that I don’t challenge the claim that “jurisdiction is in the mind,” but I will ask you; do you know where you are? That is the very basis of what we do here; challenging jurisdiction on a factual basis. You are at the wrong website to ask myself, and others, to not challenge baseless assertions, be it jurisdiction, standing, valid causes of action, corpus delecti and all the other factual elements required for the prosecution to have a case before the court.

    I got his admission that the strawman crap is useless, but he opened his comment up with “I definitely believe in the existence of the strawman and admiralty law and all that legalease.” What do you call someone who accepts a theory as valid, but acknowledges it is bogus and harmful when used at the same time? Hypocrite much? All without providing any evidence of what they believe [“I definitely believe in the existence of the strawman and admiralty law and all that legalease”] to validate such beliefs.

    And you are wrong, jurisdiction IS NOT “in the mind of the beholder.” Jurisdiction is based on specific facts, go ask a judge if you don’t believe me. Cops assume jurisdiction, they cannot prove it. Simple as that.

    I can make a paperwork trail between you and I and call it a strawman theory, does that make it valid? NO. People who advocate the strawman theory have a bad habit underscoring that
    it is just a theory and there is no evidence to validate it
    .

    And you are WRONG again by imagining that the theory is “considered by many bureaucrats, employers, admissions boards to be a representation of the person,” try to get them to confirm that. But there are people like you out there who care little about verifying such theory.

    “The record is magically transformed into a person in the minds of people who have been propagandized to believe such things. This is the strawman. It’s a concept, it’s a reification, it’s a fallacy, but it still is in the minds of those who choose it to be.” All delusions. I will offer the same advice I did to Wise; a little more listening and verifying could go a long way.

  8. JP Says:

    Calvin – OMG that was so funny! Good job catching the dual personality troll. Very entertaining too! IP’s don’t lie that’s for sure. I’m an expert hacker myself and could have caught that in a nano-second. It’s amazing to me how few know how to anonymize their surfing. I have also recently gotten a troll in my email from your forums. He was shocked that I busted him. . .

  9. NonE Says:

    Yeah Calvin, you think you’re so hot and all that, but you haven’t caught ME YET!!! (Not to even get into all of the personalities wrapped up in Eye2…)

    – NonE

  10. Calvin Says:

    Okay, I am still a bit confused on this one, but I owe Wise Ways and COPAGANDA an apology. Allow me to explain, then flame away.

    It has indirectly come to my attention that Wise Ways and COPAGANDA are, in fact, two different people; not sock-puppets. In fact, they are long time listeners to the show and have used the material discussed here to successfully exercise effective damage control for themselves, wherein lay my confusion in respect to their comments.

    I had even sent Wise Ways an email after my first response to their initial comment on the site to authenticate them as someone who is actually interested in having a constructive dialog vs. relentlessly making baseless assertions while simultaneously dismissing critique. Within my email, I stated “no hard feelings” but also “no free passes” on claims that have no evidence for support. No reply. Instead the rhetoric continued and it was explicitly stated that they were not going to discuss jurisdiction on a factual basis.

    And then there was this tired line: “As far as ‘facts’ how successful have ‘facts’ been for Mike in Idaho?” Now, anyone who has listened to the show knows that Mike’s conviction was because he was censored from raising the lack of factual evidence of applicability of the law/code, but was allowed to continue, at great length, with the legal opinion (e.g. the strawman crap). Not that he didn’t get any great points in regarding the lack of evidence; because he did, but it was overshadowed by the legal opinion he took a position on and then consequently assumed a unnecessary burden of proof. In short, there is no mistake that Mike was convicted because he took many positions he couldn’t factually defend and did not object enough when he should have. This has been discussed for more than a few shows now, so I am confused why this question would come from a regular listener to the show. 😐

    So, I do apologize for my quasi-baseless assertion in which I concluded these two as a sock-puppet account, but considering the identical IP addresses behind a VPN or IP anonymizer, lack of reply to authenticate, and nature of the rhetoric of the comments, I hope one would understand why one would be led to such a conclusion. However, my criticism of the comments still stands as I think they are issues worth addressing and exploring.

    In the future, if one of us from the website is trying to authenticate you as someone who is trying to have a serious conversation here, as opposed to the recent infamous spam-commenters, please respond so we can avoid any unnecessary exchanges. I hate to let things escalate as far as they have with the latest offenders featured in the baseless assertions section of the forum and hope to preserve this domain for meaningful and authentic discussion to help build a better resource for others to navigate through and use.

    Wise Ways and COPAGANDA, you are unblocked and free to comment, and again; sorry for the confusion.

  11. NonE Says:

    See? I told you Calvin was a good guy! (I did say that somewhere, didn’t I? I must have. I think. Maybe…)

    – NonE

  12. Israel Bureaucracy Association (NSP-IL) Says:

    “WHEREFORE, it is PRAYED that the above entitled and numbered cause be dismissed”

    Amen…

  13. Pete Says:

    Bloody bloke had a blooming stitch-up, did he, eh? That codswallop is more sixes-and-sevens than a dodgy, bladdered-up barrister!

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Feb 2, 2013 – Co-host: JT and Guests: Michael Doherty & Vin James - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

  2. NSP - Jun 14, 2014 | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Bo from TX: shared interests and past success of getting citations dismissed from court in Travis county <> the increasing frustration of dealing with bureaucrat’s opinion and precedent on the applicability of the code such as Marc’s objective questioning with Judge Buttrick <> hiding additional legislation within legislative bills sent to capitol hill <> government establishes itself and declares constitutionality under the guise of protecting the rights of the individual despite the courts repeatedly and unanimously ruling that government has no duty to protect <> the majority of people who believe the statist government is legitimate and voluntary <> the positive functions of government despite the fact that everything they do is paid for by criminal extortion <> discussing applicability of the constitution and codes based on birth certificates, UCC, admiralty law, and geolocation with an attorney friend <> and how to avoid signaling a red-flag in the line of sight of the STATE extortionists. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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