Adventures Success Stories?

[Marc Stevens]

Micah68 Wrote:Asking to prove whether someone is in "Wyoming" makes no sense to me, because the borders of Wyoming seem pretty clear. They might have been different 100 years ago, but we all know where Wyoming is now, and I don't understand why there's any question about it.

We don't ask to prove someone is in Wyoming, we ask about the State of Wyoming. They are different things, one is geographic the other political, same concept as a city being a municipal corporation being created by law. That's why cities can be dissolved <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/legislature-will-try-to-dissolve-vernon-city-leaders-call-move-illegal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... legal.html</a><!-- m --> but Wyoming can't. Get it? :frobro:

We ask it because the agents themselves tell us presence within the state is essential to their case. We then question that and it's one of the ways I and others have been able to get many prosecutors to declare their own witness incompetent. Do you think I care if you don't think presence within the state is essential when the agents/cops admit it and it's written in the statutes we're charged with? We're talking about personal experience and your opinion doesn't change it. I'm tired of you guys accusing me of making things up.

I ask good questions regarding this, such as "Do the laws of the state operate outside the state or only within?" They tell me only within the state. So if I'm not within the state there is no crime? They say yes and now they have to prove presence within the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck with that one. Making fun of me doesn't diminish how effective I am at getting witnesses declared incompetent, I'll still be able to do it with as few as 2 questions so:


What you refuse to recognize is I only take the agent's accusation and then take what he's told me and ask questions to show he doesn't know what he's talking about. It doesn't matter what you personally think of the questions, the important thing is the prosecutor objecting on grounds the witness is not competent to give legal opinions (they predictably do almost every time), such as with IRS agent Gilbert, and the judge is then in a pretty bad spot: does he strike the testimony or keep testimony from a witness he declared incompetent?

If a judge refuses to strike and insists on taking the testimony of an incompetent witness, I have a very effective way to get the judge to change his mind. Is it something a lawyer would do? Hell no, is it incredibility effective though. Usually the judge knows I just played him though and the ticket is kicked out.

You also seem to think IRS agents and cops don't make legal opinions/determinations as part of their accusations/assessments. There is a world of difference between: 1. I saw person A driving approximately 65mph in a 35 zone and 2) I hereby certify the individual named above committed the named offenses - violated Arizona revised Statutes 28-411. Apples and oranges, one is a statement of fact, the other is a legal opinion i.e., an accusation the law was violated.