A new case begins.

[-0-]

Marc,

Thank you for this board, and I would also like to thank
you for your years of service to mankind.




To everyone,

Late thrusday a new case began with my brother, and
both he and I decided that this would be a perfect test
case for the full effectiveness of the revelations found
in the works of Mr Stevens.

I will attempt to make periodic updates as we progress
through this dog and pony show. Of course any and all
tips or experiences will be greatly appreciated.



The abridged version of the story starts with a man
who believes he was falsely arrested, and even possibly
'set up' by others just trying to pull their own bacon out
of the fire.

Being a criminal case there is much more to it of course.

But since nobody was harmed in any way, he feels that
he is not in the wrong.

He had every right to be walking down the street after
dark without being hassled by a couple guys 'keeping
the streets safe' from night time pedestrians.

Could you imagine the kind of chaos we'd have on our
hands if people started walking down the street in
every neighborhood across the land?

What a grim world that would be.

He had a bail hearing yesterday afternoon, and we
just don't have the means to have him released.

But this gives him a huge amount of time to study and
learn all there is to know about the history of mankind
and the 'laws' that are used to keep people from being
free.

His trial has been set for November 29th.

More later.

[-0-]

Its been 72 hours now, and I have a question for anyone
with experience in a criminal case.

Would it be possible (or wise) to personally contact
the prosecution to hammer out a deal (dismissal), since
I'm no lawyer and only acting on behalf of the defendant
as assistance of counsel?

The idea was to help him see that any time spent in
a court room would lead only to media coverage of a
defense that they would not want people to see.

At this time we are looking at a few different angles in
an attempt to open their eyes to the fact that they are
going to step right into a no-win situation.

And that they are going to lose the case in a very public
way, which they may never recover from.

These are a few of the angles we are looking at:

1. Cause of action.
2. Incompetent witnesses. (no witness)
3. Complaining party.
4. Jurisdiction.
5. No fair trial based on a conflict of interest.
6. And much much more. ;D

Our intention is to get them to admit that the whole
thing is a sham, or allow them the chance to back out
quietly.

My question is, is it a bad idea to even consider working
this out outside the courtroom? After all, all my brother
really wants is just to be left alone.

[KaosTheory]

Why wouldn't you want to embarrass them in front of the media? If it's not a matter of money, I would think that you would want this fraud exposed to the public.

Do you have your case planned out? Do you know that you will win? Or at least get it thrown out?

If you could get video in that court room that would be even better. We need to start compiling video of judicial misconduct ASAP and make it available to the public to wake people up.

Just my thoughts.......

[-0-]

The case isnt fully planned out, but I have no doubt in
my mind that this can only go one way.

The issue my brother has, is that he's sitting in a cage
and wants only two things at this point.

He wants to go home, and he wants to be left alone.

With respect to you, and to everyone else out there
fighting the good fight, if it were me in his shoes I'd
like nothing more than to get this ALL on the record in
an open court with videos a'blazin.

But he has no interest in becoming a martyr for anyone's
cause. And I have no right to ask him to be one. This is
what he wants.

He wants out, and we just dont have the means of
providing bail. He doesnt want to spend one night in a
cage, let alone a whole month.

[KaosTheory]

Have you thought about filing a Habeas Corpus? I wish I had more to offer but that should do something to affect a release if it can be determined that there is no cause to hold him. Did he have an arraignment at all? I thought they couldn't hold him for any longer than 72 before bringing him before a magistrate.

You are saying that the alleged crime is simply being out after curfew? That is a misdemeanor at the worst. How did crime come into the picture?

I would agree that the main objective would be to get him out a jail. We don't really need martyrs.

[-0-]

Ok here it is without trying to be too explicit.

Basically he was found to be in possession of a controlled substance.

He and his girlfriend were walking to a local convenience
store around 11:00 pm.

They were stopped and asked to identify themselves, and
the reason they were out walking after dark.

My brother wanted to know the reasons for such a
request, which basically put him into a form of custody.

I think they call it a Terry Stop, or something similar.

One of the costumed individuals asked if he had anything
sharp in his pockets because he didnt want to be poked
by anything. My brother told him he had one of those
tooth pick/ floss things.

Looking for this 'weapon' the guy found a baggie which
contained a product deemed "unlawful" by some
'Board of Pharmacy'. (before yesterday I'd never even
heard of that)


As of right now he's had a chance to hear the charges
against him and have bail set.

Other than that, I'm unsure. I'm a complete novice
when it comes to legal procedure.

This afternoon it started to get a bit sticky. The whole
jail is constantly being on 'lock-down' for one reason or
another with no visitors. And in those times when visitors
are allowed, I'm at work just to keep my own bills paid.

Its getting pretty difficult to even talk to him. We can
not afford any professional legal counsel, he doesnt
have any faith in a public 'defender' (pretender), and
I have now been informed that I can not act as his
assistance of counsel unless I can proove to the court
that I can provide an adequate legal defense.

Honestly, I do not yet know how to begin.

Since my last post, earlier this morning, my confidence
level has dropped dramatically.

We are completely convinced that if we were able to
apply a few of the principles found in 'Legal Land' he
would be a free man in no time.

But it has become almost a second full time job just to
try and find a way to communicate with each other,
and a third full-time job working out a strategy.

I find myself having to cram 8 years of lawschool into
my head in just a few weeks. It wont be easy.

[tru2form]

Hi there sonargc,
Have you read, or do you have a copy of Marcs' book handy?
Checked out P149 & P150 (especially the 2nd paragraph).
I hope this helps lifts your chin up.
When you get to the end of this mess, you will be empowered in a way no one can ever take away from you. I understand that words mightn't help much - that's because the power is in you. Reach to it and you will receive!
tru

[KaosTheory]

I'm thinking Marc's approach won't come into play until he actually gets into court. Hopfully he hasn't made a plea yet.
If they ask him to plea at a hearing or anything, I think the best thing to do would be to say that he doesn't have enough information to make a plea at that time.

You may get some helpful suggestions at SuiJuris.net.

[-0-]

tru2form said:

Hi there sonargc,
Have you read, or do you have a copy of Marcs' book handy?
Checked out P149 & P150 (especially the 2nd paragraph).
I hope this helps lifts your chin up.
When you get to the end of this mess, you will be empowered in a way no one can ever take away from you. I understand that words mightn't help much - that's because the power is in you. Reach to it and you will receive!
tru

I appreciate the words of encouragement. I'm sure he
would thank you as well.

I've had the book for about two weeks now. I've read
it twice, and now am reading it for a third time. I want to
make sure I have the information fully integrated into
my own 'body of knowledge'. And I'm trying to get a
copy to him as well.

Thanks again.

[-0-]

KaosTheory said:

I'm thinking Marc's approach won't come into play until he actually gets into court. Hopfully he hasn't made a plea yet.
If they ask him to plea at a hearing or anything, I think the best thing to do would be to say that he doesn't have enough information to make a plea at that time.

You may get some helpful suggestions at SuiJuris.net.

"I can not proceed without the assistance of counsel"

I know he's using that one, that was the first thing I
told him to say, and keep saying until I can get to him.

SuiJuris is a great source of information, unfortunately
most of the info there would require putting forth an
argument which can be disregarded by the 'judge'.

I'm not sure if he had to enter a plea at the bail hearing.

I was working at the time and wasnt able to get there.

That was friday afternoon, and I havent been able to contact
him pretty much since then. Our only contact came through
a bailbond company who wouldnt allow us to talk about
the case. Only the bail.

I honestly do not know the point he's at right now.
I'm going to be taking a few hours off of work to go
visit sometime soon. I'll be finding out more at that time.

Thank you for your input. I'll let you know.

[marc stevens]

I actually go in to speak with the lawyer pretending to represent the "state" before going into a "hearing."

I tape the conversation. If he/she speaks, I can usually get enough out of him to have grounds for a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, then I file a motion for the judge to disqualify himself because of bias so bad I can't get a fair trial. When that is denied (that is the point) I can then file an action into the higher court to review the denial and most important, get an injunction against the trial court.

The Habeas is a good idea. Was your brother indicted or was a complaint filed? If there was a complaint, then he is supposed to get a prelim. hearing to determine probable cause. I would put the cop on the stop and ask:

Would there be a crime if I was not with the state on (date)?

No.

Was I within the state on (date)?

Yes.

Is that an arbitrary opinion?

No.

So it's based on facts currently within your knowledge?

Yes.

Factually, what is the state?

This will cause the lawyer pretending to represent the "state" to object on the grounds it calls for a legal conclusion and the witness (cop) is not competent to testify. The judge will sustain it. Mr. Rocket Scientist has just impeached the witness.

How can there be probable cause?

[-0-]

marc said:

I actually go in to speak with the lawyer pretending to represent the "state"
before going into a "hearing."

I tape the conversation. If he/she speaks, I can usually
get enough out of him to have grounds for a motion
to dismiss. If the motion is denied, then I file a motion
for the judge to disqualify himself because of bias so
bad I can't get a fair trial. When that is denied (that is
the point) I can then file an action into the higher court
to review the denial and most important, get an
injunction against the trial court.

The Habeas is a good idea. Was your brother indicted
or was a complaint filed? If there was a complaint, then
he is supposed to get a prelim. hearing to determine
probable cause.

I have just received a copy of the complaint about two
hours ago. No indictment. But it appears to be worse
than I thought. He left a few things out.

He had a warrant in another county for failure to appear.
This is the reason they say they originally "arrested" and
searched him. I know it isnt good, but I dont know how
much this changes things. If at all.


There were two cops present.

I see how that line of questions would work against one
'witness', but what are the odds the judge would let it
happen twice within a few minutes?

(That was the line that hooked me into buying the book
by the way.)


The Complainant / plaintiff is "State of" Blah Blah Blah
--no surprises there--

The fields marked "Complainants Name" and "Signature"
were left blank.
--again, no surprises there either--

Now to speak with the (public savior) prosecuter, would
I just have to set up a meeting with him?

Or even better, could I wait until there is a public (pretender)
defender assigned and tag along, only to
sneak in a few questions during the boring parts?

I cant think of a better way than that to use the showbiz
against itself.




PS. He is receiving that copy I wrote you about, but its
slow going being only a few pages at a time.

[marc stevens]

No, the judge probably won't allow the questions to the second witness; that is part of the plan, it is by design. Let him impeach the first witness and not permit cross-examination of the second.

I just call the lawyer pretending to represent the "state" to speak about a settlement. They want it off the docket. I have never had a public defender assigned, though I have worked with people who were stuck with one. You may be able to ask questions, but all paperwork would have to be signed by the public defender. It can be a mess.

[-0-]

marc said:

No, the judge probably won't allow the questions to the second witness; that is part of the plan, it is by design. Let him impeach the first witness and not permit cross-examination of the second.

I just call the lawyer pretending to represent the "state" to speak about a settlement. They want it off the docket.

Ah yes, protectionism=no fair trial.

Without having a right to cross, would be
'an error of the first magnitude'
Pure genius. The works of an inspired mind.

I have much to learn.

Thats why you get the big money, and I'm just a novice.

We're going to have to get a bunch of donations together
and open up a 'non-profit' Marc Stevens University of
factual Un-Law.

[marc stevens]

I am available for seminars