Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

050625 – Randy Yarbrough Interviews Marc Stevens

Expand Messages
  • TBI 1929
    050625 – Randy Yarbrough Interviews Marc Stevens (author of Adventures in Legal Land) www.wwfar.com www.americanewsnet.com 1-970-689-8255 Saturdays 12 noon
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 26 3:18 PM

      050625 – Randy Yarbrough Interviews Marc Stevens

      (author of Adventures in Legal Land)




      Saturdays12 noon to 2 pm , Eastern Time

      9am to 11 am , Pacific Time


      [Randy] Randy Yarbrough here with you on the American Freedom Network. The show to free America —I don’t know if it’ll ever happen, but we kind of keep trying. Today, we’re going to talk with Marc Stevens. Marc was on a little over a month ago. We’re going to explore those Adventures in Legal Land . Marc will be in Denver July 9th, 2005 at the Red Lion Inn, that’s 4040 Quebec Street . I think that’s down there by the old Stapleton. Anyway, he’ll be there July 9th; you can sign up for the seminar on the website at www.adventuresinlegalland.com . So Marc, how goes the Adventures in Legal Land out there?


      [Marc] Pretty good and good morning.


      [Randy] Well, it’s a wonderful day in our global neighborhood.


      [Marc] Yeah, it’s beautiful out here.


      [Randy] So since you’ve written this book, Adventures in Legal Land, and your whole premise of dealing with the beast is constantly asking them questions.


      [Marc] Yeah, it’s not arguing, not fighting, not being argumentative, not taking a position, just asking the right questions. All they have is a perception of legitimacy because all they are, are a bunch of killers, thieves and liars whether they’re aware of it or not.


      [Randy] Oh, not in America .


      [Marc] So, what I do is I just ask the right questions and make them contradict themselves and just start knocking down the false wall of perception that they maintain because all they’re supposed to do, anyway, if you read their cases is not to administer justice which, of course, is impossible to them, but they’re to give the appearance of justice which is they’re supposed to put on a show. So, I knock that down and make it impossible for them to maintain the perception of legitimacy.


      [Randy] You’ve had—Well, the seminar coming up here, folks can come listen to you for a day, there, from 9 to 4, what are they going to learn?


      [Marc] They’ll learn what the problem is, the real nature of the problem, and the practical application of that information—I mean, it doesn’t help somebody at all to just know what the problem is or the nature of the problem. Then there’s a script that I sell for usually about $50 that everyone’s going to get and we’re going to go through that question by question and kind of role play what it would be like to go in court because one of the most intimidating things, obviously; well, the worse part about going to court is anxiety, I think, it’s just being so nervous because here you got a guy with the robes, some lawyer with a robe who couldn’t get a real job who has for the time being complete control over your life. You may not walk out of there under your own power; this guy could have you thrown in jail for the rest of your life. There’s that anxiety and role playing in going through a lot of questions helps ease the anxiety plus it helps to know that the judge is just a lawyer.


      [Randy] Well, and the anxiety is fear because that’s how they operate.


      [Marc] Sure, fear, control and guilt—that’s the MO. So it helps ease the anxiety and fear when you have confidence knowing what’s going on, the type of individuals you’re dealing with and it helps me, anyway, knowing that I’m going to get a certain result if I ask a certain set of questions. I’m probably not going to ask all the questions, because you usually don’t; that’s not the point. The point is to get them to start contradicting themselves as soon as possible so that the guy with the robe on cannot maintain his perception of legitimacy; he can’t make it look like he’s administering justice because he’s contradicting himself over and over and over again or he starts screaming like a madman. And the people watching, even though they may not think that what’s going on is illegitimate but they realize there’s a problem that all of a sudden this mild-mannered, calm, rational, otherwise rational man is now up there screaming like a nut case which is what’s happened to me a number of times where security comes in and they don’t know what to do. I’m standing there just maybe with one book and a notebook and the judge is up there where his face is beet-red, screaming, the security doesn’t know what to do.


      [Randy] What kind of response have you gotten through your cases, like this, once the judge settles down from his tantrum?


      [Marc] I have someone beeping; could you repeat that?


      [Randy] What outcome of these cases, once the judge overcomes their tantrum, do they want to get rid of you as quickly as they can or do they want to proceed on and persecute you to the fullest extent of the law?


      [Marc] It depends on the individual; most of the time they just want me out of there because I’m infecting all the other people.


      [Randy] Ah, infecting the people.


      [Marc] They don’t want the people in the back to hear these questions. They may not understand why I’m asking certain questions but they know I’m getting a real profound response from this guy. So, I had a case where I helped a friend in Scottsdale with photo radar case and we had the case thrown out, but there was somebody—we had quite a line get behind us at the clerks because usually with the photo radar you don’t even see the judge and you just go and you—people just go and pay. Well, we were asking the clerk certain questions and so she had to get a supervisor out there and quite a line got behind us. So, these people that were behind me were listening to what I was saying and they opened up a second window while they were helping me and the rest of the line went over there. Well, when they get over there they start going after the clerk which, of course, is not the right thing to do but they were pretty upset seeing after what I was doing and I was getting the case thrown out. So, the woman would ask the guy, ‘well, how do you want to pay for this, sir?’ He says, ‘I don’t want to pay for this.’ Oh, ….Thomas Malloy is, I never met this guy; so they start going after the standing of the so-called plaintiff and this is something that I would imagine they want to avoid. They don’t want people in the background walking up and asking the judge who he represents—big trouble.


      [Randy] We’ll be right back—stay tuned.




      [Randy] And we’re back; Randy Yarbrough with you; my guest, today, Marc Stevens, author of Adventures in Legal Land and that’s www.adventuresinlegalland.com on the web. You can sign up there for the seminar coming up July the ninth at the Red Lion Inn and that’s at 4040 Quebec in Denver and the hotel number is 303-321-6666 or you can write to Marc. Send him a money order for the seminar; it’s $100 to P.O. Box 31258 , Mesa , Arizona 85275 . Sounds like we’ve got a caller on line; who we got?


      [Joe] Yes, good morning, gentlemen, how are you?


      [Randy] Ok, who’s this?


      [Joe] This is Joe.


      [Randy] Hello, Joe.


      [Joe] How have you been?


      [Randy] Ok.


      [Joe] Good. Marc, a couple of questions for you, my friend.


      [Marc] Sure.


      [Joe] First of all, is the seminar going to be taped, video or audio where we could buy that?


      [Marc] Well, that depends; I need to get a certain amount of pre-registrations to be able to take care of that because of the hotel policy and because I have to pre-pay for the equipment. So if we get enough pre-bookings then we’ll be taped.


      [Joe] Ok, second question, did you get my pre-booking because I sent it in as a money order.


      [Marc] Yeah, don’t say your last name over the –yeah, I did get it.


      [Joe] Ok, great. Alright, we’ll see you there.


      [Marc] Great, looking forward to it.


      [Joe] Me, too; thank you.


      [Randy] Well, there’s one going to be there—that’s good.


      [Marc] Yeah.


      [Randy] The two things they’re going to deal with, the stinking lawyers and the judges and the supposed justice system in the courts are going to be traffic and IRS. Is there a solution out there; I mean, there’s court cases all over the place that say, ‘yeah, you got the free right of travel.’


      [Marc] Sure.


      [Randy] But you bring that up in a court or to a jack-booted thug that’s standing there beside your car with a gun on; you bring that up to him and it’s just like you could get killed.


      [Marc] Sure, that’s why we never bring it up on the traffic stop.


      [Randy] Ok.


      [Marc] My objective is to get out of there alive because we’ve got reports almost on a regular basis, now, of people being killed with Tasers.


      [Randy] Yes.


      [Marc] There was that incident with the woman in Florida that she didn’t—I don’t believe she died—but they’re tasing you. If I can’t drive away without a ticket, I still want to drive away. I can take care of it in court. I’d prefer to do it in court when the cop is less likely to unholster his weapon. I don’t think it’s the coward’s way, it’s easier for me to just take the ticket and go to court. I’ve been able to impeach every witness they’ve brought against me because they can never bring a case and it is very easy to impeach a witness.


      [Randy] Do you question the cop; do you question them as far as what happens if I don’t sign this?


      [Marc] Well, I may say, ‘do I have to sign this?’ I don’t want to phrase it, ‘well, what would happen if I didn’t?’ I don’t want to come off as a wise guy because he may just snap, ‘you know what, you don’t have to sign it; get out of the car and let’s go; you could talk to the judge in the morning, maybe he’ll release you or not.’ So, I would say, ‘am I required to sign this,’ just so it doesn’t come off argumentative or combative. But it’s very easy to impeach a police officer because they usually do it for you because it’s all weighed against you and they’re so zealous to just get you through and get your money, they don’t realize what they’re doing.


      [Randy] Well, most people just, ‘how much?’ I mean, that’s the question, ‘how much, how much do I owe?’


      [Marc] How much. And if people do challenge it they’re always looking at just asking the police officer questions based on how fast they were going or did they have the radar gun, was it properly tuned or whatnot or was it properly calibrated, which, in my opinion, in my experience, is to miss the whole point. I would rather go in and like I did with that photo radar case and other cases where it says, ‘civil traffic,’ I would rather go in and just ask two questions which a friend of mine did recently and that’s all he was allowed to do. And ask, ‘is this a civil action;’ and they’ll say, ‘yes.’ ‘So, ok, that’s cool.’ ‘Well, is this civil action in the nature of a contract dispute or a tort?’ And they won’t be able to answer the question and that’s exactly what a friend of mine asked this police officer and the judge completely cut him off. So the entire cross examination consisted of two questions, only one of which was answered. And was it relevant? Yes. The police officer just testified and it’s on the ticket, it’s a civil action. So it’s relevant as to what type of civil action because if you don’t know what type it is you can’t have a responsive answer. Just like when the IRS files, let’s say any kind of civil action against me, I don’t know what type it is so that I can respond. And that’s a very quick way to either get the police officer impeached or if the judge is—the lawyer sitting there with that silly black robe on—if he’s astute enough and realizes what you’re doing and he’s smart enough to figure it out, he’ll just stop the cross examination. He won’t say the typical line that the officer is incompetent to testify or that he’s unable to testify because he’s impeaching the very witness against me. So the really smart ones just cut off the cross examination. But how smart that is, is debatable; it’s smarter than just impeaching the witness, but it is also committing the worse error, supposedly—a Constitutional error of the first magnitude. So denying cross examination is about the worst they can do, so that’s what part of my object is to get this guy to stop the cross examination as quick as possible so that I can either get the case thrown out or I can just get this reversed on appeal which most of the time, it is.


      [Randy] We’ve got another caller—who we…


      [Bobby] This is Bobby.


      [Randy] Hello, Bobby.


      [Bobby] Yeah. Will that question work on a property tax case; is it a civil…

      [Marc] Well, I would imagine any civil action that a government entity brought against me. Now, it’s a property tax case and they file against me in court, what kind of action is it?


      [Bobby] That would be a civil action.


      [Marc] Well, if it’s a civil action, civil cases, in my experience—and I’ve spoken to quite a few lawyers and done quite a bit of research and anybody can verify this, you don’t have to take my word for it—American civil law breaks down into two classes and two classes, only—contract or tort. And the tort is really any cause of action not involving a contract. And if anyone doubts this, you could just go down to court, federal or county, whatever, get a civil cover sheet and you’ll see on the civil cover sheet the different types of civil actions that you can file—contract... You have many different types of contract and tort cases; I’m not saying that there’s only two, but the number of cases that could be filed under the heading, tort, are quite a few, but it’s got to be one of the two.


      [Bobby] Would it stop the property tax case as easily and it seemed to have stopped the traffic case?


      [Marc] It depends on the individuals involved.


      [Bobby] I understand that, but…


      [Marc] Well, if you look at the individual with the robe, the one who has the power to end the case, I look at it—see, because people ask me all the time about the IRS, ‘what about…if I go in and say?  Well, the agents you fall down into two different categories, like most people, you have somebody who the job is just a job; he’s gotten really no emotional attachment to the outcome, he doesn’t care, whatever and he’s more likely to drop the case. If you get one of these people where the job is their life, they tend of take it very personally when you come in and do something like that—it’s a personal affront against them and their person—they tend to hold on a little bit more. The ones who are really attached to it, there’s probably no chance this individual’s going to stop unless someone higher up on the political pecking order orders him to. So, it just depends on the psychological make-up of the one with the robe.


      [Bobby] Well then, too, the property tax is a pretty big issue.


      [Marc] I do things the way I do because I know I’m not going to get a decision that says I do not have to pay property taxes. That’s why I make it strictly an issue of evidence or standing so that it’s not a tax case like the recent case that went through with the eminent domain that the Supreme Court had an opportunity…  It’s like the wrong question. They brought the wrong question. They’re asking a political question; they’re asking the wrong question. And if they had made it an issue of evidence and not an eminent domain case or let’s say, in this case, a property tax case; if you don’t make it a property tax case, it’s just an issue of evidence, then there’s a far greater chance of getting a decision because they don’t have to write a decision that I’m not required to pay property taxes or I’m not required to get a driver’s license. I’ve helped people win dozens of cases where they didn’t have driver’s licenses. Not one of them had a decision that’s written, they’re not required to have a driver’s license. In any of the decisions it’s always been there was insufficient evidence to prove the case.


      [Bobby] What would be some of the questions in—evidently, they wouldn’t be about property taxes, they would be about the general prosecution of the case.


      [Marc] Right. There’s no real reason to focus—in my opinion—there’s no real reason to focus on the so-called merits of the case because there’s no way they can get past the issues of standing. Now, if someone, if they bring up a property tax case against me, I could just ask, ‘does this complaint present a valid cause of action?’ ‘Look, I just want to pay this and get this over with but I’m not a lawyer to understand these things, so does this complaint present a valid cause of action?’ And they say, ‘oh, yeah, of course it’s going to.’ ‘Oh, I’m not debating with you,’ and I never disagree. If he says, ‘this has a valid cause of action, he’s got a valid cause of action.’ But, you know what, not being a lawyer I don’t even know what a cause of action is, so I’m just going to ask him a question, ‘well how many elements are in a valid cause of action, sir?’


      [Bobby] Say that, again.


      [Marc] How many elements are in a valid cause of action? Now, I know there’s two—I know that because I’ve done the research and I’ve been in court enough and anybody who’s done any research can tell you and you just look up in Ballantines or Blacks Law Dictionary—it’ll tell you what a cause of action is. Now, if they can’t tell me—and imagine having a police officer and you’ve got the tax assessor or the tax agent on the stand—who filed this against you—he’s really the accuser. Imagine, you asked that question and he can’t answer it. I mean, typical what will happen with a police officer is the judge and the prosecutor will say, ‘call’s for a legal conclusion, the witness can’t testify,’ which is their way of saying, ‘he is impeached as a witness.’ Now, that’s a beautiful place to be because now all his testimony has to be thrown out including the one that there’s a tax liability because that is a legal opinion. So I would do it the same way as a traffic case— it’s really no different. Show me the two elements of the cause of action—well, first tell me there is two—and if you could tell me that, I want to know what they are—well, identify them. Give number one and then give me number two. I don’t know of any police officer alive, unless they’ve listened to the show or they’ve been a witness against me, that could answer that question.


      [Cause of Action.  The fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another.  The legal effect of an occurrence in terms of redress to a party to the occurrence.  A situation or state of facts which would entitle party to sustain action and give him right to seek a judicial remedy in his behalf.  Thompson v. Zurich Ins. Co, D.C.Minn., 309 F.Supp. 1178, 1181. Fact or a state of facts, to which law sought to be enforced against a person or thing applies. Facts which give rise to one or more relations of right-duty between two or more persons.  Failure to perform legal obligation to do, or refrain from performance of some act. Matter for which action may be maintained. Unlawful violation or invasion of right.  The right which a party has to institute a judicial proceeding.  See also Case; Claim; Failure to state cause of action; Justiciable controversy; Right of action; Severance of actions; Splitting cause of action; Suit. –Blacks 6th ed.]

      [Failure to state cause of action.  Failure of the plaintiff to allege sufficient facts in the complaint to maintain action. In other words, even if the plaintiff proved all the facts alleged in the complaint, the facts would not establish a cause of action entitling the plaintiff to recover against the defendant.  The motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is sometimes referred to as (a) a demurrer (e.g. California) or (b) a failure to state a claim upon which relilef can be granted Fed.RCiv.P. 12(b) See also Directed verdict; Summary judgment.  – Blacks 6th ed.]

      [Directed Verdict.   In a case in which the party with the burden of proof has failed to present a prima facie case for jury consideration, the trial judge may order the entry of a verdict without allowing the jury to consider it, because as a matter of law, there can be only one such verdict.  Fed.RCivil P. 50(a) In a criminal case, in federal court, the judge may render a judgment of acquittal in favor of defendant (in place of a motion for directed verdict, what has been abolished). Fed.RCrim.P.29.  A directed verdict may be granted either on the court’s own initiative or on the motion of a party. See also verdict.  ---Blacks 6th ed.]

      [Summary Judgment. Procedural device available for prompt and expeditious disposition of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to either material fact or inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if only question of law is involved.  American State Bank Of Killdeer v. Hewson, N.D. 411 N.W2d 57, 60. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 permits any party to a civil action to move for a summary judgment on a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim when he believes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.  The motion may be directed toward all or part of a claim or defense and it may be made on the basis of the pleadings or other portions of the record in the case or it may be supported by affidavits and a variety of outside material.  See also  Genuine issue; Material fact.   – Black’s sixth ed.  ]


      [Bobby] And also, that would apply to the elements in the property tax.


      [Marc]  Well, of course, any cause of action that has to be the two elements and I know  most people concentrate on the second element being the damage. I like to concentrate more on the first one; I’m not saying I don’t concentrate on the second one, I think it’s more important to focus my attention on the first one. Just like the traffic case, they can’t show the violation of a legal right. I mean, just go back and if you have any paperwork on, let’s say you get a complaint about the property tax. It’s probably very similar to the complaints that they file against people in court, the IRS does. It’s long on legal opinion on the facts. They’ve never alleged anything; think back to a traffic ticket, there’s no allegations that any legal right was violated. So how could it possibly be a cause of action.


      [Bobby] Well, you’ve been pretty successful with this and always beat them on appeal, don’t you?


      [Randy] You want to stay with us, Bobby? Stay with us, Bobby. I’ll be right back after the brief messages. Stay tuned, you’re on the American Freedom Network.


      {break} In America , we value our Liberty . But there’s a new movement quietly being pursued by politicians that will take away our precious freedoms. It’s been deceptively named the Free Trade Area of the Americas or FTAA. Proponents claim that their objective is to promote trade by removing barriers between the countries of North and South America . In reality, the FTAA is a raw power grab. It will lead to a new government over the entire Western Hemisphere . This super-government will steadily take away America ’s rights, our Constitution, even the freedoms that we love so dearly. Protect your freedoms, go to www.stoptheftaa.org then let Congress know that the FTAA is not an option for America . www.stoptheftaa.org and keep America free.

      {end of break}


      [Randy]  My guest, today, Marc Stevens, Adventures in Legal Land is the book. The website is www.adventuresinlegalland.com . Seminar coming up, here, Saturday, July 9th at the Red Lion Inn and that’s at 4040 Quebec Street in Denver. It’s $100 pre-registration; you can send that to Marc Stevens, P.O. Box 31258, Mesa, Arizona 85275 or you can pre-register on the website and pay through paypal.  Bobby, from Texas, you still on?


      [Bobby] Yeah. One of my questions would be, would you use the discovery process in asking these questions? But to me, that seems like that would be giving them a warning other than asking them while they’re on the stand, would be kind of catching them off-guard, wouldn’t it? Would you use discovery?


      [Marc] I would in most situations. When I get into a criminal traffic I always do a deposition on the police officer depending on my time and how much money it’s going to cost me. I do that—I would definitely do it if I had the money to pay the court reporter in a property tax case. I don’t mind about giving them the heads-up. I have some people who bought the script, it was three people on some minor criminal charges and they were all going to court the same day. And they said, ‘well, do you think it’s going to be bad if all three of us are using the script; I mean, what’s it going to be like with the second and third guy now that they know what we’re asking? I said, ‘well, the ploy is to get them to contradict themselves and make it so that they don’t inform you or inform me.’ So, if I’m up on the criminal charge whether I’m second or third and they don’t want to answer my questions, allow me to plead guilty, I’m not being informed, I can’t defend myself and that’s what I’m going to use to stop the trials, stop the case and possibly get it thrown out. So while, in some cases it’s best to—it may work out best—to blindside the witness on the stand and in other cases it may not be.


      [Bobby] Well, I’ve always felt the surprise for these guys seemed to always work out better for me. Are you coming to the Dallas area?


      [Marc] I am. I’m going to be in Irving on July 16th.


      [Bobby] The 16th?


      [Marc] Yeah.


      [Bobby] Ok. Ok, I’ll get you some money, then. On the script for this particular property tax issue, wouldn’t that script be a little different than for the traffic cases?


      [Marc] No, because the traffic cases do not—very, very little of the script actually addresses the merits of the case because you typically don’t get that far—you don’t need to.


      [Bobby] Well, see, that’s what bothers me about discovery. When you say you don’t get that far they’re not going to stop discovery, are they?


      [Marc] Well, they can and they do. If you’re in an IRS case, let’s say in the tax court, you’re not getting discovery which is one of the things that I use to help get the case thrown out. I can tell you, in my experience, you’ll never get discovery in a tax court case. We had one tax court judge who thought I was crazy. I did a telephonic conference on the issue of subpoenas for depositions on three IRS agents. Then, the judge says, ‘well, Marc, why do you want to depose these three IRS employees. I said, ‘well, they’re the ones who did the Notice of Deficiency; agent so-and-so did the investigation and then the district director and the subordinate, they did the Notice of Deficiency. Look at it, it’s an exhibit with their names signed to it; they’re witnesses so we want to depose them to possibly avoid having a trial. And he says, ‘oh, you’re gone; I don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re speaking gibberish.’ And I had to say, ‘sir, what’s wrong with you, don’t you understand basic discovery?’ Their witness and he tried to say that they’re neither witnesses for nor against this guy even they wrote the Notice of Deficiency. And I drew an analogy and he thought I was even crazier. I said, ‘let’s look at it this way, the Notice of Deficiency is a traffic ticket, the agent who signed it, the district director is the cop and even though on a $50 traffic ticket, if the cop does not show up to be cross examined the judge, regardless of his bias, his prejudice, or whatever he has against me has no choice. If I don’t get to cross examine the cop who’s the witness, the case has to be thrown out. ‘Oh, Lord, you’re gone. I say, you’re more out there than I thought, you make no sense, I can’t understand a word you’re saying.’ I thought the guy was either on drugs or just a flat-out liar.


      [Bobby] What did they do with that case?


      [Marc] What they did with that case is it went to trial and the guy lost and they stopped –there was no collection action after that—for whatever reason, they stopped. It may have been because…


      [Bobby] Here in Texas we have naturally, discovery and I don’t know if it’s like this in every state but we have our own discovery as long as we got our own court reporter or stenographer or whatever and it’s our case and usually the judge isn’t there.


      [Marc] Well, right, and the tax court’s probably a bad example because in a tax court you don’t just issue subpoenas. You have to go through a procedure to get the subpoenas. It’s not like in a regular court like you’re talking about. In every other court that I’m aware of you just issue the subpoena. If they want to—you talk to the lawyer, if they don’t agree to show up then you have the subpoena issued and they have the option of filing a motion to quash. But you’re right, you just get your court reporter, set things up, if they don’t show up then you have to get the subpoena.


      [Bobby] Hey, Randy, I’m fixing to go see Tinker; you know Tinker, don’t you?


      [Randy] Oh, yes. Tell him I said, ‘hi.’


      [Bobby] They’re down here in Dallas at the Indian meeting.


      [Randy] Ok.


      [Bobby] Ok, guys, thank you, I appreciate you very much.


      [Marc] You’re welcome.


      [Randy] Thanks for calling, Bobby. www.adventuresinlegalland.com What’s some other questions? Well, here, what’s a question that the judge will never answer?


      [Marc] Well, I mentioned it before we went to break the first time and why they don’t me to infect all the people that are watching. One of the questions the judge will never answer responsibly—well, I can’t say that anymore, they have answered some people recently and they did it responsibly and it breaks down the entire perception of legitimacy and that is to ask the judge or the prosecutor or the cop, for that matter, who the judge represents. Typically, because someone in Illinois , the judge thought he could out-fox this guy who was doing this. ‘No, no, no, no, no, I know exactly where you’re going with this and you’re not going to trap me; I’m not going to play your game. I work for the state, I hear these cases on behalf of the state that the prosecutor brings.’


      [Randy] I represent the state.


      [Marc] Yeah. So then he realized what he did and said, ‘we’re going to adjourn this and we’ll come back on another day.’ The actually had, at last count, three arraignments because the judge wouldn’t take a plea which was good. But as a rule I have personally never had a judge answer that question and all the other people that I’ve helped have never got a responsive answer to that question. He’s the only one in Illinois , recently, that got that answer.


      [Randy] And with that, we’re up on our next break; we’ll be right back, question or comment. Phone lines are open, 1-970-689-8255. We’ll be right back.


      {break} In 1928 Germany required its citizens to register their firearms making possible Hitler’s 1938 Nazi weapons act disarming all Jews. {a few words of Hitler making a speech} Now, ask yourself, what is the real consequence of registration? All in favor of gun control raise your right hand. {Crowd: Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!} Brought to you by Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership— America ’s aggressive civil rights organization— www.jpfo.org .


      If you read the history books the most often asked question of Southerners was this, why did you fight? And the most often given answer is, because you’re here. In other words, the South did not invade the North; the North invaded the South.

      Was it the Civil War or War of the Federal Aggression? John Weaver sets the record straight in this DVD series on the Civil War and the right of secession—from the Old Paths Christian History Conference. Was there a war to set the slaves free or was it a war to enslave us all? [yes]  Get this DVD and judge for yourself—War of Federal Aggression. Get this DVD presentation for a donation of $25 from www.firstamendmentradio.com . Order on-line, today at www.firstamendmentradio.com . Call 1-559-781-3773. The truth seems strange only because we’ve been indoctrinated with a fiction. War of Federal Aggression—get it, today.


      {end of break}


      [Randy]  And we’re back; Randy Yarbrough with you—my guest, today, Marc Stevens—his book, Adventures in Legal Land available for $25. That’s post paid, right?


      [Marc] Yes, that’s including the postage.


      [Randy] Post paid; you can send that to Marc Stevens, P.O. Box 31258 , Mesa , Arizona 85275 ; you can order it on the website at www.adventuresinlegalland.com . July 9th, mark it on your calendar right now. Mark will be at the Red Lion Inn at 4040 Quebec St. , in Denver and you will be learning more of how to deal with the beast. Do you have any clients or have you gotten to the point there, locally, where they just now leave you alone?


      [Marc] I have gotten that way with the Arizona Department of Public Safety.


      [Randy] The highway patrol.


      [Marc] Right, the state patrol, where an agent named Mike told his—when he was in traffic; he’s in narcotics, now—he had told his division to leave me alone, it wasn’t worth what I would do in court. Unfortunately, we had some hotshots with the police department in one of the local cities, here, they didn’t care. But there was a prosecutor in Scottsdale —because I had people winning so many cases there that when he was the chief prosecutor in traffic, he told me, personally, right there at the Phoenix Superior Court, he told me he wouldn’t prosecute cases against me, anymore. So that was nice, so there was a number of cases where all I had to do was put in the initial paperwork and the case was thrown out. Unfortunately, he’s not a prosecutor there, anymore.


      [Randy] So you got to train a whole new bunch of bureaucrats, huh?


      [Marc] Yeah. It’s been so long since I’ve had anything. I’ve been pretty l---y that way, just traveling in with the crowd and not drawing any attention to myself so having to avoid that.


      [Randy] IRS— Joe Banister just won a case; you’re aware of that?


      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.