We welcome back Alistair Kinnear to the show to discuss a barrage of lividly exciting topics relating to NLP (neuro linguistic programming) techniques and use-cases.

Show Notes:

Replicating the success stories by use of refining Socratic questioning to exercise effective damage-control on 3 continents [Ireland, England [+1], Canada [+1], Israel, Poland, Deutschland, and Australia] is a testament to its universally high-potency towards exposing criminals who believe it is legitimate to force other people to pay them.

We are still standing-by for an update on Jermaine from Calgary.

A brief explanation of NLP.

Speculation on tenuous links to the CIA with the development, and possibly weaponization, of NLP.

Defensively incorporating a hint of NLP in your effective Socratic questioning when actively engaged in litigation.

Targeting those whom have above-average obedience levels and high suggestibility for metal programming.

How do authoritarians not worry about the consequences of their oppression and ethical incongruity?

What is meant when we say the “true believers” are “like religious zealots.”

Slayer‘s “Christ Illuition” album.

Stanley Milgram’s famous “Obedience to Authority” experiments.

Working out inconsistencies between our guiding principals and our incongruent actions.

The challenge and art-form of synchronizing and mastering your principals to your actions.

Syncing your patterns of communications with the language patterns with who you are talking to.

Reprogramming or inducing behaviors via pattern interruptions and by offering choice instead of simply robotic responses.

Modeling positive behavior patterns and stimulus.

Deescalating stressful situations and building report.

Marc’s early days of discovering anarchy through the NLP teachings of Bandler and Grinder.

Understanding who you are achieving ‘justice’ for when you are the one being aggressed against and oppressed.

If you don’t develop your own narrative, then you will tend adopt somebody else’s, even if it conflicts your own nature and interests.

Do you have any core principals worth standing-up for and really defending?

The social consequences of losing trust and integrity of news sources, reporting services, and so-called objective journalism.

You cannot spin the fact that government are just men and women forcing us to pay them.

Government schools are designed to quell dissenting, critical thought and analysis.

Escaping the stagnantly perpetual wage-slave cycle.

Using ad-blocking tools like uBlock Origin to consume your media without corporations penetrating your psychology and behavior.

The double-standard of scientists advising people to be more objective and data-dependent, but then turn around and go advocating for a violently religious institution such as government.

The general-public’s conditioned affection for their institutional abusers and authoritarians.

Politicians breaking their promises that favor the general-public after they obtain office, then making moves to victimize those who got them there in the first place.

Circumventing systems of behavior control and oppression.

“Those who challenge the rationale of the game are its most dangerous opponents.”

The importance of trying to understand WHY people believe what they believe.

Learning to fully embrace yourself to let go of resistance from your weaknesses and blind-spots.

The popular appeal nationalism lends to the masses and ruling classes.

Derren Brown demonstrates how to hypnotize Simon Pegg.

Nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong.

Politics radicalizes people into a mutually-destructive belief system.

Statists will play off of vulnerable people’s contentions to dominate via divide and conquer.

Metallica‘s, Iron Maiden’s, Pink Floyd’s, and Megadeth‘s anti-war overtones and inspirational music.

War is a racquet.

Alistair Kinnear[...]

Show Notes:

The odd predicament of so-called ‘anarchists’ believing in the existence of states and citizens despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Dirty Prosecution Tactic – Flipping the Burden of Proof.

Marc’s response to another pseudo-critic who once again conflates stare decisis with res judicata on Steemit.

Stare decisis works on a case-by-case, fact-specific basis (e.g.: “is prosecutorial misconduct arguing without evidence?”).

If you are claiming that terms and conditions written on ‘4 pieces of paper somehow applies to somebody,’ that is not a “pure theoretical issue of law,” it is a matter of practical application of law. Similar to proving a contract applies and that all the factual elements are present and provably substantiated by facts and evidence.

Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), Page 420 U.S. 111: The standard for arrest is probable cause, defined in terms of facts and circumstances “sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.”

Call-of-Shame: IRS Agent Issued a ‘Notice of Deficiency’ Despite Being Unable to Produce Evidence to Prove Applicability.

Lon Seal, New Hampshire state attorney’s circular logic in response to a question of evidence to support his assertions: “the laws apply as a matter of law.”

You are only using their due-process clause to demonstrate that they are contradicting themselves and that they are textbook crooks running a rigged game/proceeding.

The statist double-standard on evidence to prove a plaintiff’s assertions.

Procedural pro-tip: a request for a preliminary hearing to verify the prosecutor’s prima facie burden-of-proof should already be filed before arraignment.

Arraignment is not a hearing, but we use it for the purpose of taking advantage of challenging the prosecution’s burden-of-proof.

Anarchy is fundamentally about rejecting the concept of a ruling-class.

How and why appeals to the masses is fallacious and wrong when used to prove that there is evidence to prove jurisdiction.

The many cases of functioning anarchy detailed in the book “The Voluntary City.”

Australian Solicitor Rules of Conduct 29.4 and 29.5 outline misconduct criteria when the prosecution makes arguments outside the facts and evidence.

Having a society based upon “might-makes-right” is immoral.

Getting paperwork filed directly to the presiding judge when the troublesome court clerks are stonewalling your paperwork.

Using effective Socratic questioning is just for getting complaints kicked from court, but it is mainly about exposing that men and women forcing you to pay them are nothing more than highly-organized criminals.

The severe moral corruption of statists and their apologists.

Terry from MI was jailed for simply asking questions of evidence.

How is being morally consistent “delusional?”

Do not engage in pro per litigation without a healthy amount of prepping and role-playing in the NSP Skype group-chat.

Do not engage in easily defeated “right-to-travel” legal defense tactics that have failed so many.

Caller’s Topics:

Patriot One from FL: reading the sheriff’s fictitious probable cause statement <> better understanding sworn and certified statements <> specifying nature and cause of the charges and proceedings being brought forth <> and “do you waive a probable cause hearing by bonding out of jail?”

Liam from Northern Ireland: “unsuccessful” utilization of the Marcratic method that did eventually yield a dismissal of the charges on a technical issue <> quoting the ministry of justice’s rules for challenging jurisdiction back to them to stop them from continuing to be overzealously dismissive to legitimate questions of evidence <> getting confirmation of jurisdiction for private[...]

Show Notes:

What “anarchy” means and what it actually looks like.

Dissent Welcome – Prove States/Citizens/Governments Actually Exist.

Living as morally consistent as possible, ridding oneself of egregious double-standards.

Living in accordance with the non-aggression principal, but not the non-self-defense principal.

There is no valid argument for statism that is compliant with “do no harm.”

Contemporary examples of societies without a ruling class: The Anarchist Republic of Cospaia.

Recognizing and calling-out the logical fallacy of moving the goalpost.

Following a chain of causation using the but for principal.

Every case if fact specific.

Understanding that legal citations are not evidence.

The primary objective of effective damage-control via Socratic questioning is to expose people calling themselves government as the criminal organizations they are.

Understanding the concept and consequences of the burden-of-proof and who bears it.

The effectiveness of pointing out contradictions and asking clarifying questions as part of your legal defensive strategy.

The logical contortions that bureaucrats use to evade answering questions that expose that they don’t have the evidence to support their assertions and substantiate their charges.

Saying a written instrument applies to somebody is not a “philosophical statement.”

 

Editor’s Note: included is the Wednesday broadcast that has been modified from the original to splice-in the recent Call-of-Shame that Marc is walking us through.

The post NSP – Mar 4, 2017 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Mar 4, 2017 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

New Call-of-Shame with an IRS Agent agent where we learn how deal with the dismissive, bully-type terrorcrats.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” –Hitchen’s Razor

The No STATE Project YouTube channel just past 8000 subscribers!

Why would Scar make 9 appearances before finally prevailing over the charges being levied against him?

ICBMCatcher created a new sock-puppet account to continue on with his trolling.

There is no evidence to suggest that “everyone consented to being ruled;” it has always been strictly a policy of “pay or get shot.”

Effective damage-control essentially relies on exposing the unfairness and double-standards upon which the system is dependent upon.

How to, and how not to, make objections in court.

Compliance with the tax law is not voluntary, it is because businesses and individuals are forced to comply or face risk of persecution in the form of lost money and/or serious jail-time.

Understanding appeals to tradition.

Pretrial is your opportunity to apply pressure on the prosecution by effectively leveraging their lack of required evidence against them.

Making the prosecutor aware that you are aware of the misconduct they will be committing by allowing an unqualified witness submit testimony should they go to trial.

Stories of people who are uneducated and unprepared to utilize the Marcratic method in court and complain of their failure to effectively exercise damage-control.

Understanding how to use the unsigned plea of guilty.

Using Socratic questioning against the prosecution’s burden-of-proof and to expose the statist double-standard.

Why discussing the critic’s failures to effectively set fourth valid criticism is helpful in learning how to counter it when you hear the same fallacious arguments from lawyers and bureaucrats.

Preserving a record and recording of your hearings.

Jermaine’s success with getting 5 complaints dismissed on grounds of mistrial.

Utilizing the essential preparation resources of the NSP Skype group-chat and the Same ‘ol Lie World Tour to help you counter most common judicial lies you’ll encounter in court when you hold the prosecutor to their burden-of-proof.

Caller’s Topics:

Will from MN: just became eligible for pension, the tax-man wants 20-30% right off-the-top; is there any way to mitigate this? <> previous Call-of-Shame with the Minnesota tax criminals back in 2015 <> and personal distress from seeing people being victimized and violated by the STATE.

Patriot One from FL: arrested and spent the night in jail without any complaint being filed against him <> calling-out statist witchcraft with the court clerk <> considering the lack of an adversary, should I file a motion to dismiss based on the prosecution’s lack of jurisdiction and lack of an actual, real complaining party <> the progression and purpose of the different stages of litigation: arraignment, to motions hearings, to pretrial [disclosure and production of facts and evidence against the accused], to trial <> and countering the common judicial lie that “jurisdiction is a trial issue.”

Roger from NM: 19:15 win-loss ratio <> a couple recent success stories of some complaints being dismissed after filing the motion to dismiss <> reading through the books [Adventures in Legal Land & Government: Indicted] to better prepare for the misfortune of any potential future trials <> the arresting cop is oddly also filling the role of the prosecutor <> where can I find and learn the Socratic defense strategy? A: Government: Indicted has a template <> no audio recording allowed of your own court hearings <> and conforming as an act of self-preservation in response to their threats and intimidation.

The post NSP – Mar 1, 2017 – Bonus Wednesday Edition: Episode [...]

Show Notes:

Reporting a new Success Story: after 9 appearances, Scar Gets Another Ticket Kicked Out in Tucson; that makes his record 3 for 3 now! Congratulations!

Why would a judge order a prosecutor to respond to the discovery request if the evidence we are asking for is really “completely irrelevant and not required?” [also see: Canadian Prosecutor Cannot Prove Constitution Applies]

Government are criminals for the basic fact that they force people to pay them.

Kudos to the NSP Skype group-chat for helping prep defendants that keep churning out success stories time and time again.

Critics that claim 75% of traffic tickets defaultly get tossed-out of court are delusionaly wrong.

Exploring the contradictory syntax of lawyer logic.

Countering the asinine and fallacious blaming the victim statement that “if you don’t like it here, you can just leave.”

Biting the bullet and complying with their demands for sake of quality of life.

Disproving a Common Argument – Law is Philosophical, it Requires no Evidence.

PLEASE DO NOT INITIATE A SKYPE CALL DURING THE LIVE SATURDAY BROADCAST, WE CAN CONNECT YOU DURING THE BREAK IF YOU’D LIKE TO SKYPE-IN TO THE SHOW.

The many instances of being wrongfully lumped-in with the sovereign citizen movement. How many times do we have to say there is no such thing as a citizen?

Referring to the John Buttrick and Scott Bales interviews to demonstrate jurisdiction is a matter of evidence, not philosophy.

There is no rational basis for applicability of the laws that are described as nothing less than “a blunt assertion of power“ by a Law Professor Rober Diab.

The question of “where is your proof that your rules apply to me just because I’m physically in [insert your STATE here]?” strips away all their legalese into factual terms that more accurately describe their arbitrariness and violence.

“People who are forcing you to pay them are not protecting you.”

Finding common-ground on core non-violent principals and showing how that they are inconsistent with the belief and support of statism.

Caller’s Topics:

Jermaine from the Calgary Remand Centre, Canada: we are working on getting him released from jail with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus <> the motion to dismiss and discovery request were filed and there was a fair amount of role-playing prior to prepare for effective Socratic-based litigation <> the prosecutor was so stunned with silence by the defendant’s effective questions (just like the prosecutor Jean Killham in Ian Freeman’s Administrative DMV Hearing), that the judge had to step-in and start prosecuting the case for the prosecutor [Pro-tip: that’s one count of misconduct, as you’ll want to keep track of and verbally summarize at every appropriate opportunity] <> the judge repeatedly gave the prosecutor continuances in response to multiple requests to produce the basic evidence and substantiate their case <> because the defendant was so persistent with his effective questioning, he has been denied bail for 40 consecutive days now based on the grounds of previous failures to appear <> they keep switching prosecutors nearly every hearing <> discovery consisted of nothing more than a copy of the ticket <> the Marcratic method and motion to dismiss do have real merit and teeth based on a past success story where Marc’s motion to dismiss resulted in a mistrial of 5 citations, including a drug charge! <> getting in touch with the prosecutor to get more information to formulate an effective petition for a writ of habeas corpus <> the defend was denied cross-examination of the witnesses/cops who provided inconsistent testimony <> and calling-out the judge, who was prosecuting from the bench, helped regain leverage in a hearing that was beginning to head towards a railroading.

Jay from TX: kudos to Jerm[...]

Cringe Warning: ICBMCatcher discredits himself worse than last time, even “The Infamous Witt” couldn’t stand to listen to his logic. This time he sets an all-time new record of logical fallacies for one show!

Show Notes:

Explaining the force and violence inherent with taxation, again.

Right after Marc gave two examples of people who went to jail for not paying taxes, ICBMCatcher immediately claimed that “no one goes to jail for not paying taxes.”

If you’re not being forced to pay taxes, then why do you pay the amount that you do if you believe you should pay less?

Cringing through ICBMCatcher‘s incessantly abundant appeal to tradition, appeal to the masses, straw-man, no true Scotsman, appeal to the stick, blaming the victim, reification, appeal to authority, circular logic, moving the goal-post, might makes right, appeal to futility, and appeal to statism logical fallacies.

The one making the assertion (such as ICBMCatcher claiming there are STATES and citizens) bears the burden to objectively prove their assertions.

Despite objective evidence to the contrary, ICBMCatcher claims there actually are STATES and citizens “no matter what,” but then goes on to claim Marc is the one who is resistant to changing his mind. Projection much?

ICBMCatcher does not seem to follow the logic and terminology of what the supreme court has unanimously and repeatedly defined what a citizen is.

ICBMCatcher keeps claiming Marc is wrong when he doesn’t even clearly understand the basics of what Marc is saying. (Notice how many times he erroneously summarizes Marc’s positions and Marc has to correct him, yet he’s so certain Marc is wrong when he can’t even get Marc’s positions straight.)

Again, where is the evidence that reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection were created and exist? ICBMCatcher immediately claims that simply talking about it proves they exist.

ICBMCatcher claims to Marc is “bringing a philosophical argument (note of logic: asking questions of evidence is not making an argument) to a legal question.”

ICBMCatcher constantly avoids directly answering Marc’s questions by responding with rephrasing the question into something he’d rather answer and talk about.

ICBMCatcher actually claims that “asking questions is making an argument.”

While ICBMCatcher wants to characterize asking questions of evidence as “philosophical,” he simultaneously claims that the law is purely theoretical. He’s provably wrong on both counts, but keeps carrying on as if he’s right.

ICBMCatcher claims “we decided to live under arbitrary rules.” Really? When exactly did this happen? I don’t recall deciding to such conditions… maybe he meant people 240+ years ago and misspoke (again).

ICBMCatcher again claims that “the evidence to prove the constitution applies is because it is being applied.”

ICBMCatcher has severe problems with historical fact, but accurately understands that “world history is a history of [violent] conquest.”

ICBMCatcher claims Marc is peddling BS by backdooring out of solid evidence-based conclusions by saying “in a sense” you’re right and “in a sense” you’re wrong.

Even though ICBMCatcher finds brief confirmation is his opinion that “the law is arbitrary” from the John Buttrick interview, Buttrick’s superior Scott Bales contradicts him by saying the law is based upon evidence.

ICBMCatcher claims all of Marc’s work is “baloney” because “its ineffective to a degree that anyone can point at to demonstrate it works” despite the mountain of evidence you can point to right here on the website.

In ICBMCatcher‘s world; “an opinion cannot be right or wrong.” Meanwhile in reality; statements of opinion can either be proven true or false based upon [...]

Richard in Austin called to talk about juries and inherent biases they bring to court.  All jurors are forced to participate, all believe an element of the charge is true before any evidence is presented.  They can’t be unbiased, more evidence of a rigged game.

Moses from Colorado called about criminals in Adams County in Colorado and their reliance on logical fallacies instead of evidence and sound logic.  Moses was bullied by Michael Cox, one of the judges in the county.  Cox stated that he had jurisdiction because Moses was in the court.  When Moses objected and was going to ask for a clarification that would have shown how stupid Cox’s assertion was, Cox threatened contempt.

If the court only has jurisdiction because Moses was in the court, then Cox would not have jurisdiction to issue any order/warrant if Moses stayed out to the court.  Obviously that is not how it works.

Trevor called from Oregon to report he’s been able to convince a few people how illogical their thinking is.

The post NSP – Feb 15, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 12 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Feb 15, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 12 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

Reviewing the topic of jurisdiction, and how & why it doesn’t apply.

Lump-classifying their constitutions, laws, bylaws, statutes, rules, codes, ordinances, ect.: it’s all public relations.

Distinguishing between authority figures by way of evidence and proofs (academic authorities) and others by violence and logical fallacies (bureaucratic authorities).

The ground rules for all welcome dissent on the No STATE Project broadcast: no verbal profanities, no insults in response to a question.

Which of Marc’s position(s) can ICBMCatcher validly criticize as BS: 1) there is no evidence to prove the laws apply, (and, conversely; there are ways to prove that rules do apply in the form of contracts) 2) Marc is a word-mincer (okay, maybe on a few exceptional cases), 3) Marc can never concede a fraction-of-a-point on any position, (Marc was set straight by Eyal about being inconsistent as an anarchist by not living vegan), 4) there is a lack of evidence to establish “states” and “citizens“, 5) Marc is not helping people and ripping people off, 6) Marc is operating on a false premise, 7) they base their jurisdiction on your physical location, 8) lack of a documented record to support a 70%+ success-rate in traffic court, 9) your work is never going to amount to anything, and 10) what you say is purely theoretical.

How can you call someone a “scammer” and “snake-oil salesman” without the inference of dishonesty?

“It sounds like a complement, but really it’s an insult.”

ICBMCatcher repeatedly engages in reification when trying to prove the laws do apply, then projects his logical fallacies back towards Marc accusing him of making arguments out of theoreticals.

People appear for court because they are compelled to, not because they are following-up on a voluntary invitation.

How can you have reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection when everyone is forced to pay?

Even though you may successfully execute effective damage-control, that is not a win because you have irrecoverably lost your time and money at the very least.

There is no evidence to prove the constitution applies to anybody.

People who force people to pay them involuntarily are textbook crooks and criminals.

Like veganism; the No STATE Project audience and anarchy media are steadily growing.

People are detoured from achieving personal autonomy because of social conditioning and fear.

Parents are stewards of the offspring they brought into this world until they are able to support themselves.

Caller’s Topics:

Dorthy from AZ: update on her courtroom fraud case <> requested a new trial on the basis of the prosecuting attorney’s malicious prosecution <> she was denied access to notification deadline entries <> filing complaints detailing the prosecutor’s and judge’s many counts of misconduct <> and is it a violation of due-process for a judge to make a ruling on a motion without having a trial?

ICBMCatcher from YouTube: “the laws are an idea, how can you prove an idea?” <> “there is no evidence that any law applies to anyone ever because the law is noting but a concept” <> argumentum ad baculum, straw-man, argumentum ad populum, oh my! <> calling someone a “snake-oil salesman” is not derogatory <> “you are acknowledging their jurisdiction just by walking through those doors” <> the law applies because you “avail yourself to the benefits of the constitution” <> “the law doesn’t apply to you, the law will be applied to you” <> “you agree to the constitution because you stay here and don’t leave” <> “I’m only forced if I don’t refuse” (watch your drinks ladies) <> “the fact that the cops show up is evidence that the laws [...]

A very aggressive YouTuber, ICBMCatcher, seems to be on a mission to put me out of business, he’s been posting a long copy and paste warning all over my channel.  So I invited him on a live broadcast, but he never showed up.  I’m not surprised, my critics don’t want to confront me on real time, they just want to accuse me of being a scammer without having to actually prove it.

For all those who think I’m a scammer, there’s four hours of live broadcasts every week.  You can call-in at (218) 632-9399, the code is 2020, or you can also Skype me to join the show.

Show Notes:

Apologies for the disruption in the NSP Skype group-chat, we have cleared some of those users to make the chat a little more productive towards the objectives of effective damage-control.

A big thanks to all those donating to support the production here on the website and for the broadcasts!

Responding to pseudo-critic ICBMCatcher‘s incessant, logical fallacy ridden copy–paste comments to Marc’s YouTube videos stating that holding the prosecution to their burden-of-proof “never works” contrary to the mountain of evidence here on the website.

“Fairness dictates that no one may argue without evidence and a competent witness.”

For those who think evidence to prove jurisdiction is “strictly a theoretical issue of law” see chief justice Scott Bales who never made any such silly claim.

The ethics of veganism and some exceptions.

Vox et praeterea nihil: voice and nothing more.

Caller’s Topics:

Shahid from MO: arrested a year and a half ago for traveling without permission, charges are “no driver’s license, no tags, no insurance, and resisting arrest” <> railroaded though the proceedings and denied an appeal; how can I get the judgement vacated or a petition for writ of prohibition? <> and convicted using Eddie Craig‘s material.

Cory from CA: continuing his call from last week about his “no proof of registration” ticket <> is it a advantage or disadvantage to appear in a small-town courthouse? <> is registration fraud really a misdemeanor? <> the probability of the cop driving a few hours to make multiple traffic hearings <> should I question the cop on what evidence he has before the hearings? <> and what is a motion in limine?

Jay from TX: finally got a hold of somebody at the tax assessor’s office <> potential Call-of-Shame where the agent goes right into the state-department two-step <> talking directly to Ron Wright‘s office where circular logic, among other logical fallacies, was deployed to counter the questions of evidence <> setting another time to call the tax assessor’s office to get some more questions in about what evidence to prove their laws apply <> and joining the NSP Skype group-chat.

Chris from OK: is it morally wrong to subject children to the unnecessary risk of death or injury? <> and makes an inaccurate analogy of not eating meat with traveling in cars with children.

The post NSP – Feb 8, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 11 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Feb 8, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 11 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

This is a recording from a role-playing session that took place after the January 28th Saturday broadcast. Robbie from OR needed to prepare for court by getting into the ring and spar with some Socratic questioning and litigation best-practices, so Marc, Joe from HI, Gary from MO, and Ginger from TX strike-up a role-playing session to help ready him for his upcoming trial. [UPDATE: listen to the Wednesday show and a post-trial discussion to hear how his T.S.A. adventure in legal-land concluded.]

Overcoming their outcome-based proceedings and anticipating the judge’s and prosecutor’s responses.

Knowing when to yield before things get too bad to avoid being jailed for contempt.

Pointing-out the double-standard the judge will allow the prosecutor to argue outside the facts and evidence, but will not allow you to.

Exposing the selective enforcement of the court rules, like when the judge allows the prosecutor’s incompetent witnesses to testify to something that they have no personal firsthand knowledge of, by attempting to do the same thing the judge is allowing the prosecutor to get away with.

The endless number of examples of double-standards that fly in the courtroom.

If evidence to establish jurisdiction is so obvious, why is it so hard for them to produce such easy, obvious evidence?

How to structure your opening and closing statements.

Pro-tip: any time it is demonstrated that the prosecution has insufficient evidence and cannot meat their burden-of-proof, that is always your cue to moove the court to dismiss.

Knowing how to appeal to the jury and being aware of their biases.

Overcoming strongly held appeals to tradition.

Always coming back to “all we want is the prosecution to be held to their burden-of-proof.”

The snowballing influence of compounded success stories.

What to make of the surprise D.A. visit.

Live-streaming as a defensive precaution.

Anticipating and mitigating surprises from lawyers.

Setting-up, tracking, and documenting appealable errors.

“Relevance” has the low standard of “a tendency to prove.”

JT’s idea of questioning the juror’s citizenship in the voir dire qualifying process to expose their bias, thus preventing the possibility of an objectively fair trial.

“There’s nothing you can’t object to if it is a matter of fairness.”

The jury will likely be instructed to make their decisions strictly based on the evidence, and that they may not substitute their own personal opinion in place of the prosecutions production of the evidence.

KISS: Make your point in the fewest amount of words.

Benefiting from reading through trial transcripts to learn what to expect yourself.

When the judge so badly wants a conviction; they will predictably clear the courtroom when you begin exposing the prosecution’s lack of evidence to substantiate their case to the jury.

Effectively challenging the witness’s competency and credibility to testify.

Executing your litigation strategy for maximum impact using Socratic questioning.

Why we don’t wait until cross-examination to first challenge the witness’s competency and credibility.

Litigating in a fashion that connects with the jury.

Understanding the form, function, and boundaries of leading questions.

How to counter the dismissively vague “objection; relevance” to your inquiries.

You only have to disprove one element of the prosecution’s charges to obtain the requirement for a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

The post NSP – Feb 4, 2017 – Post-broadcast Role-play Session appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Feb 4, 2017 – Post-broadcast Role-play Session appeared first on MarcStevens.net.