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.

Show Notes:

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.

Caller’s Topics:

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 [...]

Show Notes:

Motion Granted Again – Dismissal With Prejudice.

Countering pseudo-skeptics failing at basic skepticism.

Discrediting Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court.

Verifying their assertions by asking for the evidence to prove it; keep the burden-of-proof on the one making the claim.

Butch Trucks (while sustaining an I.R.S. legal attack) and Mary Tyler Moore (while battling diabetes) passed away this week.

Going to city council and laying out the fundamental questions that make up the foundation of your defense of their lack of evidence to substantiate their own claims and charges.

No STATE Project is on Facebook, Steemit and YouTube, among other social media; please share with like-minds!

The “Marcratic method” is nothing more than applying the Socratic method to the prosecutor’s claims and holding them to their burden-of-proof while not accepting & allowing any sacred cows or free passes.

Tracking and documenting appealable errors to bring up on an appeal from a misconduct-ridden railroading proceeding.

Horror stories of clients being screwed and sold-out by their own defense attorneys.

WKUK Pledge of Allegiance.

How to deal with forced pleas. (See also “Plea of Guilty – Tool For Getting Tickets Kicked Out“)

Adam Kokesh has not given us any developments or an update on his legal-attack.

Challenging the witness’s competency and credibility on cross-examination; watch out for, and document, when the judge commits misconduct by denying effective cross-examination.

Using a writ of prohibition to stop the prosecutor from putting a witness on the stand that isn’t qualified to testify.

Persistently focusing on, and verbally noting, the fact that the prosecutor has not met their burden of proof throughout the proceedings.

As part of your opening statement to the jury, explain what shenanigans you are predictably going to see the judge and prosecutor commit.

Caller’s Topics:

Pat from MA: the Marcratic method works better and makes more sense than sovereign citizen stuff tried in the past <> prosecutor after prosecutor could not provide evidence to prove jurisdiction <> success story: after the judge couldn’t do the prosecutor’s job and prove jurisdiction beyond pointing to the flag, the judge dismissed the case on grounds of “defective complaint language” <> on a separate “driving without permission” charge; the judge recused himself for his conflict-of-interest, and this complaint was eventually dismissed too! <> and another (third) complaint is being heard, pretrial coming-up this March 8th; paperwork already filed.

Jay from TX: have you ever followed-up on Pete’s tactic he mentioned in the comments section of Jamison’s dropped property tax assessment? <> preserving a recording of your own court proceedings <> how would one go about notifying a tax assessor? <> getting official admissions and positions in writing, or on the record, in some tangible form or another <> and having all your “ducks-in-a-row” to be able to effectively rebuttal their predictable NonsensE non-responses.

John from CA: would the Marcratic protocol help in a long, drawn-out child support case? <> wants to come at it from the angle of lack of standing and lack of proper notification <> and should I file a motion to ask questions, or just ask the judge directly?

Jason from CO: handling a restraining order legal-attack for enforcing “no trespassing” on a mining claim against a trespasser <> how would you build a defense when there actually is an apparent victim? <> freaked-out and hired a lawyer to handle one of the charges <> do I include my challenge to jurisdiction in my brief? <> and what happens if the transcript is untranscribable?

Michael from AZ: the judge bullied the defendant into a plea and set [...]

Fun show, lots of info again today.  I started with some really stupid criticism where I’m accused of being a “pseudolawyer” and that I use circular logic.  Yes, asking for proof of an assertion is circular logic to some people.  I’ll have a separate video about these latest false claims against me.

Spoke with Jake about pseudo-skeptics, those who refuse to apply skeptic principles to the concept of government.

Jay from Texas and I spoke about defending against property taxes.

Discussed prosecutorial misconduct with Jeff from Fremont.  He got a response from a prosecutor where the prosecutor claims he is not required to provide proof of an essential element of the charges.  He also claimed the cop is an expert in the interpretation and application of the law.  We already know this is a lie as the prosecutor himself will object on cross the witness is not qualified.

Comment here: http://www.marcstevens.net/board/thread-8820.html

The post NSP – Jan 25, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 9 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Jan 25, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 9 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

Apologies for the missed broadcasts on Jan 14 & Jan 18 as we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Addressing the keyboard-only critics that desperately want to pretend Marc is completely ignorant of the prison system (critics: see Scott Bales video for proof that he is well aware of the prison industrial complex).

We get no respect (from the critics) despite the mountain of evidence cataloged on the Success Stories section here on the website.

Denouncing the deplorable mass hero/savior worship that took place yesterday.

Responding to some “skeptic’s” arrogant–natured comments on Marc’s article “Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist” who want to criticize positions he is not taking, while ignoring the actual position, and falsely claiming they debunked and defeated the actual position (a.k.a.: straw-man).

What skepticism actually is by definition.

Skeptics that are crypto-religious zealots.

Making inferences based upon the best available evidence.

Politicians and bureaucrats are always reaching for more power by “never letting a crisis go to waste,” real or manufactured.

Walking through the ethics of veganism (notice the long pauses followed by avoiding directly answering the simple “yes-or-no” question, therefore making it necessary to return to the initial question to get a responsive answer).

Selective concern of animal abuse, some animal awareness organizations will focus on certain types of animal abuse while turning a blind eye to others.

Clever ways to answer their questions without admitting to or affirming their assertions.

Getting involved in local politics that you can actually have a tangible effect on.

Watching for, and objecting to, weasel-words used by lawyers in court when they try to divert and deceive with their non-responsive jargon.

Using direct follow-up questions after filing the Brady request, “does your witness have such personal, firsthand knowledge of this evidence?” If yes, then “exactly what evidence are you talking about?”

A prosecutor responded to a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, while ignoring the original motion to dismiss, only to (non-)respond by citing the code and never any evidence.

Positively advocating and arguing your motion to dismiss in court when the judge asks you if you “have anything to add.”

Responding to Darryl Perry’s mischaracterization of Marc’s positions and results on a nationally syndicated radio show.

The threat of contempt is constantly looming over anybody for the most petty of circumstances, like Pete Eyre not taking his hat off in court.

A caller’s recent success story completely disproving Darryl Perry’s erroneous assessment of the fruits of Marc’s work!

Meating your nutritional needs without causing any unnecessary suffering.

A few people getting hung-up on statist terminology in the Skype group-chat.

Replacing your taxpayer funded job with its free-market equivalent.

Following moral accountability.

Caller’s Topics:

Chris from OK: verifying evidence to prove an assertion <> basing your reality on sound, objective evidence <> evolutionists superimposing their “evolutionary interpretations” <> you can accept the scientific method and reject evolutionary theory at the same time <> man-made carbon dioxide pollution should be absorbed by plants <> and a disagreement with veganism: There Are No Vegans.

Gene from TX: recently received a summons for federal jury duty; “how could I defend myself from their theft of my time?”

Casey from WA: charged with a D.U.I. for failing a field test because of trauma induced from a prior police encounter <> filed the motion to dismiss paperwork the next day <> the prosecution asserted the cop witnessing the victimless defendant within the “ST[...]

Tyler from California called and we spoke about the ethics of veganism.  Tyler agreed that unnecessary harm and killing is wrong.  He stated there was no medical necessity for eating meat (harming killing animals) but didn’t think it was an ethical issue.

I disagree, to be ethically consistent, unless the harm/killing is necessary to preserve our life/health, it is unethical.  Tyler gave two examples of eating meat being ethical, he presented the situation where one has no choice but to kill and eat an animal to survive.  Yes, that is ethical and makes the point for veganism, not against.

Also spoke with Neo from Riverside, Calif.  While we have seen success with a trial by declaration, I would still want to go to court to cross-examine the police officer, if that bother to show.

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

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

Show Notes:

Marc is now on Facebook; follow, like, and share with like-minds.

Using the same issues in the motion to dismiss in a motion to quash the warrant.

The video for the article “Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist” is now posted.

“What can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” –Hitchens’s razor (thanks for the correction Andy)

Property tax assessment success story and Call-of-Shame.

The lack of media interest when we get such damning admissions from prosecutors that claim they “have jurisdiction because we say so” or “because we can put you in jail.”

Exposing the “Comply-or-Die” doctrine of government.

Why would we be considered “extremists” for believing that all interaction ought to be voluntary?

Stop Killing People, You Twats.

But for the motion to dismiss, what else best explains the mountain of success stories we’ve have in so many courtrooms in the United States and internationally?

The importance of the Brady request.

Yikes: a judge recently admitted he didn’t even know what a Brady request was!

A motion in limine is used to limit the arguments a litigant can make, like making arguments outside the facts and evidence.

Black Sabbath Live in Paris 1970. (Thanks Keith OB!)

Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar.

Never claim constitutional protections or rights, otherwise you are de facto risking reinforcing their religious belief per them believing you have signaled acceptance of their opinionated claim labeled jurisdiction. (Thanks Eye2i)

Their laws don’t legitimately apply because government are nothing more than men and women forcing us to pay them.

Caller’s Topics:

Jeff: Q: Why not be more direct by presupposing the prosecution does have prima facie evidence to prove jurisdiction, and just ask them for the evidence? A: Using the Socratic method to get the prosecution to contradict themselves and set themselves up for committing serious due-process violations when they make arguments outside the facts and evidence is more effective.

Kevin from OR: contemplating following others who have successfully removed a paid-off property off the county property tax assessor roll <> inquiring the local bureaucrats about what laws apply for personal property tax on a lien-less property <> and has the Marcratic method ever worked in backing-off the personal property tax assessor?

Ginger from TX [Soulless Productions]: making a recording of more deeply analyzing the recent ticket dismissal <> update on the kangaroo–court series in legal-land: the prosecutor claims that “the only evidence they need to come back with a guilty verdict is the fact that the officer jailed the defendant” <> Ginger makes the lucid point that since the judge has admitted that he has nothing in front of him to make a decision on, then the complaint should be dismissed for failure of the prosecutor to state a claim upon which relief can be granted <> “the Socratic method is only as effective as the person that wields the Socratic method” <> making note of the comfy relationship between the prosecutor and the judge <> the judge gets all clammy over him being called-out on his logical fallacies <> we are, in no way, antagonizing them by holding them to their burden-of-proof and calling-out their own logical fallacies <> the necessity of practicing courtroom litigation in role-playing sessions to be able to effectively operate in your proceeding <> exposing violent bureaucrats that target vulnerable victimless defendants <> and “roadside philosophy” is extremely risky.

Tom from MI: musing music banter <> clarifying the disposition of Ginger’s dismissal <> checking the court’s records on the disposition of your case to make sure that the judge h[...]

No tech issues today.  Lot’s of court procedure and how to deal with difficult clerks who refuse to accept paperwork.  Not much we can do though, get their name and file a complaint against them with the presiding judge.  I’d also file a complaint with the city council.

If prosecutors refuse to speak to you prior to trial, that is fine, they still have to give us Brady material.  They are required to disclose any information that can be used to impeach their witnesses.  Not have personal knowledge the constitution applies qualifies as impeachment material.  Prosecutor have to speak to us when we are in pretrial though.

Took calls from Tony in California and Jay in Texas.   Tony is trying to recover his vehicle that was stolen under the guise of a tax and Jay is defending against a warrant issued by a lawyer in Florida.

The post NSP – Jan 4, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 7 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Jan 4, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 7 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

No tech issues today.  Lot’s of court procedure and how to deal with difficult clerks who refuse to accept paperwork.  Not much we can do though, get their name and file a complaint against them with the presiding judge.  I’d also file a complaint with the city council.

If prosecutors refuse to speak to you prior to trial, that is fine, they still have to give us Brady material.  They are required to disclose any information that can be used to impeach their witnesses.  Not have personal knowledge the constitution applies qualifies as impeachment material.  Prosecutor have to speak to us when we are in pretrial though.

Took calls from Tony in California and Jay in Texas.   Tony is trying to recover his vehicle that was stolen under the guise of a tax and Jay is defending against a warrant issued by a lawyer in Florida.

The post NSP – Jan 4, 2016 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 7 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Jan 4, 2016 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 7 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

When prepping for courtroom litigation, it is essential to role-play and engage in some low-risk Socratic questioning of bureaucrats.

Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist.

Countering the pseudo-criticism that the Marcratic method is “doomed for failure” and the condescending, worn-out line “you don’t understand the law, do you?“

The art of noncompliance to institutionalized violence.

Joe Gets Drug Charge Kicked Out – Prosecution Could Not Prove Jurisdiction.

Commentary and opinion on CopWatching activism.

Double-standards in determining jurisdiction depending on who the defendant is.

If jurisdiction is so blatantly obvious, then why is it so hard for them to prove it with facts and evidence?

Contrary to their own codes, why are prosecutors allowed commit misconduct by making arguments outside the facts and evidence?

Filing claims with the city’s risk management/insurance when you have out of control bureaucrats that commit egregious misconduct.

For the sov-cit types: they are not trying to contract with you.

Statism is the ultimate opiate for the masses.

Unnecessary suffering and killing is wrong.

Free-market principals applied in a free society.

The magic and connection of music.

Caller’s Topics:

Dorthy from AZ: the judge is caught colluding in a real estate fraud lawsuit <> in possession of over 500 documents proving real estate fraud <> and numerous instances of escalated harassment for making legal challenges.

Robbie from OR: update on his current adventure in legal-land <> the judge refused to hold the prosecution to their burden-to-prove all their assertions; most notably evidence to prove jurisdiction <> the judge dodges a simple evidentiary ‘yes-or-no’ question by condescendingly saying that “I can’t answer your question to your satisfaction” <> jailed for a day for simply asking a tough question of evidence <> the judge has a fast and loose definition of what “facts” actually are and how they’re determined <> the judge wants to hold the defendant to the same standard as an attorney <> the judge predictably repeats the common lie that “jurisdiction is an issue for trial” <> and adventures of CopWatching in Los Angeles questioning the cop’s roadside legal determinations (that they’re “not qualified” to make).

Tom from MI: changing your plea downstream in the proceedings <> what would resolving neighborly disputes in a voluntary society look like and how could it function? <> reducing your tax burden <> anarchists that can’t quit their government jobs <> and a little music/guitar talk.

The post NSP – Dec 31, 2016 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Dec 31, 2016 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Spoke with callers James in Chicago; Yal in Dallas and Jay in Texas about court procedure.  Brady requests and why it’s important that if an attorney is forced on you, that they are standby counsel.  This is necessary so you can defend yourself, otherwise you cannot file motions or speak for yourself.

We spoke about how important the preliminary hearing is.  The cop made legal determinations, the laws applied and there was probably cause you violated the laws.  These are legal opinions/determinations, not statements of fact and must be challenged at the prelim.  Let the prosecutors impeach their own witness.

Also, we are anarchists because it’s a moral position, it is wrong to forcibly control people, wrong to force strangers to give you money.  The purpose of the show, my work, is to expose those called “government” as just men and women forcing us to pay them, not to just get tickets kicked out.  People making a principled stand against these criminals exposes them as criminals whether they dismiss or not.

If you believe their rules apply to us, that “states” can create rules that apply to everyone, then you have to have proof.  You have to prove there are “states”, and to do that you need to prove there is a body politic/corporate, an that is comprised of “citizens.”  Proving there are “citizens” requires evidence of reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.

Good luck with that.  But if you still think “states” are real, call into a live broadcast with your evidence.

The post NSP – Dec 21, 2016 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 6 – [UPDATE: PODCAST AUDIO] appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Dec 21, 2016 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 6 – [UPDATE: PODCAST AUDIO] appeared first on MarcStevens.net.