Show Notes:
Debunking Common Government Claims – Parking Edition.
Blunt admissions that “our laws apply because we put other people in our prisons,” a.k.a.: argumentum ad baculum.
The prosecution doesn’t have to put all their cards on the table, but they have to admit they have cards to play; they actually think they don’t need cards to beat you in a card game.
Making arguments outside the facts and evidence is a solid count of prosecutorial misconduct.
One of the most serious violations of judicial misconduct is for a judge to deny effective cross-examination.
“Traffic court judges can be overturned half the time and still not lose their job.” They just don’t care.
Fielding Tom’s questions on the risks of cross-examination.
Stories of rubber-necked bureaucrats.
The better success results on appeal because of the lower court’s denial of a fair hearing, with the exception of federal and tax cases.
“The applicability of the constitution and codes is an essential element of the charge because they are charging you with violating the code.”
Measuring our effectiveness by our many international success stories [Ireland, England [+1], Canada [+1], Israel, Poland, Deutschland, and Australia] and domestic success stories.
Proving the statist double-standard.
Countering the common judicial lie that “we have jurisdiction because you showed up” or “that’s an issue for trial.”
Knowing when to make your objections and coming back to your unsigned plea of guilty in the face of immense courtroom intimidation.
Why would the prosecutor need 30 days to answer whether or not they have evidence to prove the laws apply to you?
Oregon criminals Angel Lopez and Cheryl Albrecht threatening their victim with jail if he did not waive his right to counsel.
Courtroom PTSD.
All you are simply doing is holding the prosecution to their burden of proof.
The prison-industrial complex.
Stone-faced Jean Killham did not object once when she was accused of prosecutorial misconduct multiple times in Ian Freeman’s DMV Administrative Hearing.
Caller’s Topics:
Joseph from NY: what does it mean to “answer” a “summons“? <> and how should I plea during the arraignment proceeding? (A: refer to the unsigned plea of guilty)
Imran from AZ: government’s hypocrisy on violating their sovereign treaties with Native Americans to complete their pipelines <> and effectively challenging the witness’s (cop’s) legal determinations and conclusions.
Rick in MA: overzealous persecution with O.U.I. charges against the defendant <> and how to proceed with filing the motion to dismiss with a public defender that is not helping at all.
Matthew from the NSP Skype group-chat: what do you do when the judge enters a plea and a judgement when you weren’t even there?
Ginger from TX: clarifying whether the witness has personal firsthand knowledge of applicability of the code <> and how to counter when the judge claims he can’t rule on the motion to dismiss “because it would be premature.“
Robbie from OR: can we draft a ‘motion for telephonic hearing’ so to avoid the risk of being arrested for challenging jurisdiction?
DF from LA: do you have an affiliate link for Amazon.com?
Matthew from Australia: demand telephonic hearing, the grounds being duress due to their threats <> and judges are so scared that they have the technology for video during arraignments, but they can’t give their victim the option of a telephonic hearing because they cannot be as effective without intimidating their victims in person.
The post NSP – Dec 3, 2016 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.
The post NSP – Dec 3, 2016 appeared first on MarcStevens.net.
