|
|
Post by gonopodium on Feb 5, 2005 6:50:54 GMT -5
I had lunch yesterday with a lawyer friend. After giving some examples of Marc's questions to the ticketing officer. He indicated that although the points were kinda interesting, they would never 'fly' in any traffic court he experienced. This person is highly respected and his opinion really counted around the table. My comments looked foolish to say the least.
These were some of my examples:
Are you an expert in tax law?
What is the State?
Do you have written evidence of calibrations of the radar prior to and after the citation?
(To this he commented that in many cases that he witnessed, the officer had their 'notebooks' with them that 'prooved' the cablibrations.
I don't wish to argue with this guy. Is there anything else that I could say that would sway him a tiny bit?
What is the strongest example of a question I could have used?
Are there any audio recordings available from Traffic Court? That would be great!
BTW He agreed that the IRS could not order books and records without a Court Order signed by a Federal Judge.
Gonopodium
|
|
|
|
Post by Lookin4Help on Feb 5, 2005 8:33:27 GMT -5
 I am having major troubles with a lawyer that I did not hire, the judge signed the petion for court appointed lawyer where I should sign "Sworn under Oath". How do I get rid of him? the judge will not answer any of my papers I have filed and are in default and are still moving forward! I produced an affidavit to the lawyer stating that he will protect my rights as his client and he refused to sign it, I told the judge that he was not able to represent me and the judge told me he way anyways and to continue.... I am having lots of issues and if anyone could give some advise it would be helpful... Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Feb 5, 2005 9:54:32 GMT -5
I had lunch yesterday with a lawyer friend. After giving some examples of Marc's questions to the ticketing officer. He indicated that although the points were kinda interesting, they would never 'fly' in any traffic court he experienced. This person is highly respected and his opinion really counted around the table. My comments looked foolish to say the least. These were some of my examples: Are you an expert in tax law? What is the State? Do you have written evidence of calibrations of the radar prior to and after the citation? (To this he commented that in many cases that he witnessed, the officer had their 'notebooks' with them that 'prooved' the cablibrations. I don't wish to argue with this guy. Is there anything else that I could say that would sway him a tiny bit? What is the strongest example of a question I could have used? Are there any audio recordings available from Traffic Court? That would be great! BTW He agreed that the IRS could not order books and records without a Court Order signed by a Federal Judge. Gonopodium Why do you want to sway him? Seems to me it is a waste of time. I have read Mr. Stevens book several times and I have not seen anywhere in his book the questions you have listed to ask cops. No matter how "professional" or "well respected" he claims or others claim for him to be, he is a lawyer and therfore a professional liar. |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Feb 5, 2005 11:50:27 GMT -5
Asking a lawyer any questions about the legal system is like asking Mr. Bush how his "war on terror" is going. You're always going to get the same answer.
The same with trying to "prove" they are wrong.
Do you really think a prostitute is going to quit their "profession" when they don't know another way to make the same amount of money quickly, especially when they hold all the guns and have their putative "clients" captive, i.e., if you don't patronize them, you're going to be forced to patronize one of their fellow w-h-o-r-e-s? What do you think the purpose of a state "bar" is?
|
|
|
|
Post by learnin2 on Feb 5, 2005 12:42:18 GMT -5
I find that when people vary from Marc's lines of questioning, they tend to get themselves into trouble.
Lookin4help, I'm pretty sure that you can fire the court appointed attourney. Tell the judge that you would be willing to plead guilty, but that you don't understand the natue of the charges, nor the rules of these procedings. Ask the judge whether or not you are entitled to a fair hearing. Ask the judge if he equates force with fairness, since the court is forceing their attourney upon you. Ask the judge whether or not you are entitled to represent yourself. Ask the judge if you are entitled to be fully informed as to the full nature of this alleged offence. IF, the judge answers no to any of these questions, ask him if the rules of civil procedure apply to these procedeings.
Now, ask the attourney represent the complaining party, if there is EVIDENCE of a complaining party. If the judge tries to answer for the attourney, object, remind him that section 605 of the rules of evidence, doesn't allow him to testify on behalf of the complainant, or their attourney.
Never start your questions with "Do I have a right". Allways start your questioning with "Am I entitled"
|
|
|
|
Post by gonopodium on Feb 5, 2005 13:05:23 GMT -5
You are correct about you reasoning with an attorney. However, I did not make my case clear. There were other people around the table, people like us. How can you convince them that asking certain questions will revealthe central truth? A video, a sound recording, that would convince the average person that such a thing is possible. In this day and age, why don't we have a web site with 'recordings' instead of tales? Gonopodium. Asking a lawyer any questions about the legal system is like asking Mr. Bush how his "war on terror" is going. You're always going to get the same answer. The same with trying to "prove" they are wrong. Do you really think a prostitute is going to quit their "profession" when they don't know another way to make the same amount of money quickly, especially when they hold all the guns and have their putative "clients" captive, i.e., if you don't patronize them, you're going to be forced to patronize one of their fellow w-h-o-r-e? What do you think the purpose of a state "bar" is? |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Feb 5, 2005 13:07:54 GMT -5
Intentionall y get a ticket, buy marc's scripts, & invite them to court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Feb 5, 2005 14:56:26 GMT -5
In this day and age, why don't we have a web site with 'recordings' instead of tales?
Answer: In the future, such a website may exist.
The AILL.com website is also full of video and audio recordings, for those who feel it's enough to hear Marc.
Lookin4Help, please modify your message to delete all of the blank space beneath (which are probably invisible paragraph marks on your word processor's screen).
G, are you really just an agent trolling this board? I ask because either you are or you haven't done your homework, like all those responding to you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonopodium on Feb 5, 2005 18:08:00 GMT -5
Marc's recordings are fine for us 'believers' who have read his book and who will listen to hours of his interviews. A 5 minute Court appearance would be 1,000 times more effective to any newbie IMHO. The newbie will say that Marc is just tooting his horn, etc. If Marc had those 5 minutes and kept the Court identity anonymous, he would get more credibility on radio interviews IMHO. Gonopodium. \ In this day and age, why don't we have a web site with 'recordings' instead of tales? Answer: In the not too distant future, just such a website will exist, with the Oracle as my witness ... Great!!! Looking forward 2it. The AILL.com website is also full of video and audio recordings, for those who feel it's enough to hear Marc. AGREE. Lookin4Help, please modify your message to delete all of the blank space beneath (which are probably invisible paragraph marks on your word processor's screen). G, are you really just an agent trolling this board? I ask b/c either you are or you haven't done your homework, like all those responding to you have. |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Feb 5, 2005 18:52:30 GMT -5
Intentionall y get a ticket, buy marc's scripts, & invite them to court. I hope your are joking. This would be a terrible idea to deliberately invite trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Feb 5, 2005 19:09:20 GMT -5
I am puzzled by what some of you say "people like us" or "believers". Are you starting the "church of Marc Stevens"? Is he you guru or rabbi or savior? Or are you still uneducated "patriots" who sign their names with "without prejudice" or "under duress".
I went to Mr. Stevens seminar in Tacoma Washington and spoke with him and his wife at great length. He is neither "wacked" or a "patriot", but a normal libertarian. One of the subjects we spoke privately about was why the so called "patriot" community is so interested in him and at the same time so unwilling to change and become normal. There was one man at the seminar who stormed out because he did not like what Mr. Stevens had to say. I guess he wanted to hear the usual angry "patriot" schtick, and he was not hearing it. In fact he heard the opposite.
Mr. Stevens, I enjoyed hearing the libertarian platform at your seminar, and I am going to try to attend the next one in Northern California. A bit further to travel, but well worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Feb 5, 2005 19:53:35 GMT -5
G,
In a sense you are right that seeing is believing and can lead to greater comprehension, over mere reading, but that may be the reason that the people who recognize the AILL book is accurate, read it more than once, so it will sink in, so to speak, rather than seeking out trouble.
Keep in mind, it is next to impossible to get your own video camera into "your" courts, and while the court may video tape the proceedings, the moment they know that you can or will use that recording against them, guess what will happen to that video tape.
|
|
|
|
Post by weis on Feb 5, 2005 20:15:52 GMT -5
I hope your are joking. This would be a terrible idea to deliberately invite trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Feb 5, 2005 22:44:13 GMT -5
Lookin4Help,
You've come to the wrong place if you're looking for legal advise. Go talk to a lawyer, if you can afford them.
Gonopodium,
Why did you choose such an extraordinarily sexual name? It was so usual, I put it in google.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Feb 5, 2005 23:39:13 GMT -5
I am puzzled by what some of you say "people like us" or "believers". Are you starting the "church of Marc Stevens"? Is he you guru or rabbi or savior? Thanks Rizz. and interesting observation; and would like to further add There is not much to "believe" about what Marc has written. In science one has a question, then you design experiments, observe results, and ask questions to determine facts, so that one may reach a logical conclusion. Government classes in school are called political science; however, I question whether there is any real science behind it. When one asks factually what is the constitution or a state and one replys with only facts, there is nothing to "believe", it should be obvious. It is a piece of paper It has ink on it It was written by people long dead blah blah blah . . . We can go on making more factual observations, but please, what is there to believe? Belief does not require facts. I think the question this thread deals with should be; how do we help people see reality when they are living in a fantasy world of belief and "faith in the system?". When we learn something new that contradicts ideas and "belief" we have held to be true in the past, there is a thing called cognitave dissonance. It is a state of imbalance between an attitude, emotion, belief, value, etc. called cognitions. Cognitive science holds that the mind tends to adopt thoughts or "beliefs" to "organize the world or thoughts" and minimize the ammount of conflict between cognitions. (It is a fine line between sanity and insanity). Now it depends upon how strongly a belief is held by a particular individual as to whether any ammount of factual evidence will help change a belief. It is likely that since a lawyers livelyhood and whole existence is so deeply involved in the system, that it would be very difficult for them to see anything that contradicts their world view. i.e. A belief is so strongly held that it blinds one to facts or evidence that would disprove the belief. It's like "knowing" you put your car keys on the table and looking for them for a half an hour, just to find them on top of the microwave although you looked there 10 times before you realize that they are there. Your mind belived so much that you put them on the table, that you know they must be tthere somewhere even though you look other places. It is also like what BoyntonStu said on another thread something like its the difference between being on the outside looking in and observing, as opposed as to being on the inside looking around. Personally I have a belief, that if there is something that is logical, reasonable, factual, etc. that conflicts with something I believe, I want to learn more about it. I like the weird, feeling I get in my head whin I realize I have 2 conflicting points of view. You never know when you might just have a revolution in thought that brings about an epiphany of reality. The problem is that all of us tend to stick with what we know because it gives us a sense of security in our thoughts and the world around us. |
|
