A new case begins.

[-0-]

Funny you mention seminar..

I was listenting to RBN on Monday and heard about
a seminar you were about to have at an Asian food
buffet.

I happen to know the owners of a local Asian buffet,
and know that they are always looking for ways to bring
people in.

Hmmmm.... I'll talk to him tonight.

[marc stevens]

You heard the show, cool. It's always so much better to be in studio.

The room was pretty nice, and yes, the food was very good. It was interesting because a bunch of cops where there eating.

[weishaupt1776]

Marc, could we put some of your questions in negative avertment style in an affidavit w/a MtD before trial?

Or would that be letting the cat out of the bag? Do we just go in at arraignment or a motions hearing w/no paperwork & just hammer those suckers w/ questions?

Say if it goes to trial, Do we ask the same questions & start from scratch or where we left off?

Also, if it goes to trial, no filings, just box-in questions?

---Weis

[marc stevens]

I like to just go in to the initial appearance with an unsigned plea of guilty. If I do file anything before that I do lose my element of surprise. Blind siding them with questions seems to be more effective at getting a case thrown out sooner.

If they refuse to answer, either because I filed something or they catch on pretty quick, that is fine, I can't defend myself. Also, I tell them I don't care if they don't answer, I'm going to ask the cop the same questions. I start over with the questions because the cop is my accuser who is supposed to inform me of the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings. By the way, telling me the name of the charge is not the nature and cause and tells me NOTHING about the proceedings.

I do like to avoid trial though. If the judge refuses to inform me, then I may file a motion to dismiss. When denied I file a motion for the judge to recuse himself because his bias prevents a fair trial. This is purposely filed so when the putz denies it, I then have grounds for a special action (writ of mandamus) to stop the trial in the higher court.

[-0-]

Guest-marc said:

...the cop is my accuser who is supposed to inform me
of the nature and cause of the charges and
proceedings. By the way, telling me the name of the
charge is not the nature and cause and tells me
NOTHING about the proceedings.

Maybe its just me and my inability to understand anything
involved with 'court stuff', but I'm having some sort of
disconnect here.

I dont understand what a 'nature and cause' is as it
relates to court proceedings where there are no damages
or loss.

As I see it in this case, there was no contract to break,
no agreements in default, no harm to any individual, no
true complainant... on and on...

Or is that the point?

Point being that the act in itself would not be harmful to
anyone in anyway, except for the opinion by a small
group of people calling themselves the "Board of
Pharmacy" that say this act should be unlawful, without
a valid license or permit. (Licenses granted only to Medical
Doctors by the way)

Am I getting warm here?

[marc stevens]

sonargc said:

Maybe its just me and my inability to understand anything
involved with 'court stuff', but I'm having some sort of
disconnect here.

I dont understand what a 'nature and cause' is as it
relates to court proceedings where there are no damages
or loss.

As I see it in this case, there was no contract to break,
no agreements in default, no harm to any individual, no
true complainant... on and on...

Or is that the point?

Point being that the act in itself would not be harmful to
anyone in anyway, except for the opinion by a small
group of people calling themselves the "Board of
Pharmacy" that say this act should be unlawful, without
a valid license or permit. (Licenses granted only to Medical
Doctors by the way)

Am I getting warm here?

Bingo. Think of it as a game of poker. You think the other player is bluffing. How will you know if he is though? Do you argue with him and accuse him of bluffing? No, just ask to see his cards.

An example I also use is if I claim to be able to play guitar like Steve Vai. All you have to do is put a guitar in my hands and whether I was bluffing or not will be clear in about two notes ;D

Asking for the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings is my way of asking to see the cards. After all, to collect the pot he HAS to show his cards. In court, I am supposed to be informed so I can defend myself.

[weishaupt1776]

sonargc said:

I dont understand what a 'nature and cause' is as it relates to court proceedings where there are no damages or loss.

I am new at this myself. Let me give it a whack.

• Nature - Is this proceeding in the nature of a Contract or tort ?
  
  
• Causesyn. action, case - What caused THE STATE OF !@#$ to act upon me in the manner that they allege?
  
  Did I breach a duty?
  
  Was the breach contractual, statutory, or common law?
  
  Did my breach cause an injury or a loss of right or property?
  
  Whose contract did I breach?
  
  Who realized or became aware of tortious activity being inflicted on them by me?
  
  Is there evidence of a party that has complained suffering loss or damages as a result of a breach or a tort I inflicted?

[/li][/ul]

[-0-]

Ok, heres the update.


An interesting turn came about today, but I must first
relate the past 6 days to you.


My brothers [public pretender] was almost to the point
of refusing to defend him in this case other than to plea
bargain to 364 days in a county cage, big fine and 5 years
on probation.

Needless to say, he thought this was a bit harsh.

As did I.

She had been refusing to even speak to me, by her words
"because he isnt an attorney".

So with this, my brother and I decided to play a little chess
with her career in the balance.

The idea was to show that she wasnt defending him to
the best of her abilities, and were going to have a new
pretender appointed. (along with a complaint to the BAR)


Yesterday I finally had the chance to speak with him and
told him to ask her to get a little information for his defense.

1) "Can you inform me of the nature and cause...."
2) "Can you provide evidence of a complaining party.."
3) "Was a contract that I was a party to violated?"
(show me the contract with my signature)
4) "Who is the damaged party?"
5) "Am I entitled to a fair trial?"
6) "Am I presumed innocent of every element...?"
and
7) "Who do you represent in this matter?" (speaking to his PD)

The outcome of this list of questions was not really surprising,
but that it happened so quickly came as a bit
of a shock. I talked to him at 8:30 last night, and this
all came back before noon today.

The "State" has offered a new plea bargain.

In exchange for a guilty plea, they will graciously grant
him time served, 2 years probation, and no fine.

Now honestly, he's not totally convinced AILL principles
will get a dismissal, and is considering taking the plea.

I cant make that decision for him. But since he was looking
at a posibility of a max of 10 years and $6000.00 fine,
this almost seems good enough for now. We'll see.
There is still more than a week to go before trial.

Oh yeah. Now his PD WANTS me to call her and talk this over.

How's that for an Adventure?

My brother and I are still going to talk about pressing
it to a dismissal. He just isnt sure yet. I'll let you know.

[marc stevens]

Nice work so far.

[-0-]

In the final round of horse trading it came down to his
need to just get out.

He weigh'd the options carefully and came to the decision
that he just wanted it over with.

In exchange for a guilty plea, they were willing to drop one
charge (a felony) and reduce the second felony to a
gross misdemeanor. (or however you spell that.)

Time served, $300 fine, and 30 days house arrest.

He doesnt much care about the house arrest. This gives
him a lot of time to continue the study.

I think that just planting the seed that he knew the game,
was enough to make them go a bit easy.

3 other people were up on the very same charges, with
the same judge, and were nailed to the wall.

The average of the other three cases ended with up to
180 days in the county hotel, $1500 fine and 5 years on
probation.

They knew they were over a barrel. But he graciously allowed
them to keep their little system in tact. And he got to go
home.

I think the best part of this adventure, was watching the
transformation of a gubmint paid public defender.

She started out this month knowing that the sky is blue,
judges are never wrong, and the system works.

She ended the month questioning the reason the sky
is called 'sky', judgelawyers are nothing more than very
efficient office managers, and the system is fatally flawed.

I guess if anything, I can say that we now have a public
defender who sees the light, and is going to work the
AILL principles into a defensive style that will not get her
disbarred. So that we can have one on the inside that
isnt afraid to question everything.

outstanding!

She is going to take his case for free, and the appeal starts monday.

She's a little upset about being lied to for so long, and
her eyes are now wide open.

[Weis]

Definitely a success story

[KaosTheory]

I agree. Interesting turn of events.

Sonargc, what did you and the public pretender talk about?

[sagas4]

Sonargc,

While you need not anyone's approval or vote to determine the level of success, I feel compelled to concur with Weis and KT.

Yes, if you can please tell us the details.

[-0-]

The first thing I talked about was the accused's
right to be informed.

She agreed that 'rules of evidence' are pretty standard
everywhere. And that all courts are "supposed" to be
bound by 'the law of the land', which includes
supreme court decisions and treaties with foreign
nations. They call it "Laws of Nations", which constitutionally
speaking, they are to be bound by.

I asked her to speak with the persecutor, and request a few
things.
The first time she did this, they just handed her a copy of the
police report, detective report, and the complaint. I had to
explain to her that none of this was 'responsive' and didnt
answer any of the questions.

1. Evidence of a complaining party.
I had to explain to her that the 'state' is a fictional
entity, and its not possible to put 'the state' on
the stand to cross-examine. The accused has the right
to cross examine all witnesses and accusers, and for there
to be a legitimate trial, the right to confront the accuser
can not be overcome.

2. Nature and Cause of the action. The accused has the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the charges, in a language he
can comprehend, and that the case can not continue until there is an
"understanding". A so called "meeting of the minds".

Again, I had to explain to her that for there to be a legitimate
cause of action, something had to have happened. There has to be
a cause for which action is required, for there to be a remedy.

A) Breech of a contract.
(If there is one with his signature on it we want to see it.)
B) Damage. And the actual person damaged. I want the evidence
of a damaged party.

3. Who does the prosecutor represent? The Judge? The two witnesses? The PD?
And if they all represent 'the state', would that include me, and can I
choose to have the the charges dropped, since I didnt feel damaged?
And "doesnt that sound a bit like a conflict of interest?"
Can he even get a "fair trial"?


There were a few other things that we talked about, but the rest is
just basically hammering home the point that none of this is going
to be answered. I had to convince her that everything she was
taught in 'law' school is only half right. She knows everything about
policy, and nothing about real 'law'.

As an example, all court actions have to be bonded and underwritten.
With thanks to Dessie Andrews, I had found out that when a judge
asks you "Do you understand the charges?"

What he's really asking is "will you underwrite the charges, so that
I may find you guilty?"

I made sure that if at any point he felt freaked, or felt it was all
going to go badly, all he has to do is say "No, I do not understand"
and the proceedings stop. He was also prepared to fire the PD at any
moment, so that he could get a continuance, and more time to study.

From the beginning he understood that you NEVER SAY or SIGN ANYTHING.

He didnt even sign his booking sheet or fingerprint card.
There really was nothing they could do.

When you're dealing with yes and no, right and wrong, black and white,
being only half right is all wrong.

By the way, during the final hearing, at the point of actually taking the
plea, the persecutor never looked up from his papers. The judgelawyer sat
with a red face, closed mouth and arms crossed, and I had a deputy
standing over each shoulder.

He was chosen to be the last case of the afternoon.
I guess the judgelawyer didnt want anyone to see what was going on.

For a few minutes they even cleared the room. Yes, even the clerk,
court reporter and the deputies were asked to leave. There were no
witnesses.

Its not easy to boil down an entire month and hundreds
of hours of study, conversation and dealing with people
that have hard heads.... into a short paragraph. Sorry
this is so long.

such is life

[KaosTheory]

No problem, I thought that was a pretty good summary. I was mostly interested in the reactions of the PD. I was sort of wondering how deep the deception goes. I mean, at what point in a lawyer's/attorney's career does the fraud become obvious?

So you're saying she seemed pretty much unaware that the whole thing was a scam. I wonder if you could have talked her into asking the prosecutor if there was evidence of a complaining party. That woulda been hilarious. heh heh

Glad to hear your brother is out.