Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

If it doesn't appear there, that's prima facie evidence that the prosecutor did not file the complaint with the proper court

Well the motion is presenting all your evidence that you have that shows that the notice of

Thereafter, they get all the evidence with the civil,

and you can't object them to the 5th Amendment because there's no evidence of a criminal investigation yet.

And then they gather all the evidence, and then they indict you with all the evidence.

to gather up all the evidence used by the grand jury, forward it to the district attorney,

will take all of the evidence used by the grand jury and forward it to the district attorney

and the accused has had opportunity to enter exculpatory evidence into the court

then the foreman shall gather up all the evidence and send it to the prosecuting attorney

or not there's sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution why did our yes so

and demand for it to be heard one time unless you can bring additional evidence

additional evidence but you can only use it one time by force okay by force of

one time all right unless there's additional evidence so you have to be

already done but on the other hand I do know that they have evidence from the

have evidence that they misrepresented the facts to you. If they misrepresent

George's question about about them presenting evidence of interaction

have knowledge of it it's inadmissible as evidence but it's

The sixth one is motions to suppress evidence.

It shall not secret witnesses or evidence that may show the innocence of the accused

that justice is served, it shall not, secret witnesses or evidence that will mitigate the-

shall not secret evidence that may negate the innocence of the accused or- Okay, the

If they give you a ruling that, you know, in this case we would need a statute that stated that evidence gotten by a police officer on mistake is not usable.

Now I have evidence that at this point in time, the court was without jurisdiction because there was no warrant.

so you need to look to see if this board is required to govern itself under typical rules of evidence

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests

exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used, quote,

search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in

violate our rights, and, you know, it's no big deal, and it's inadmissible as evidence

This is a big problem because they're saying that they're allowed to use the evidence obtained

They may be able to use the evidence later to sustain a conviction for something else,

We'll put in a Brady motion for all the evidence that the other side has.

You see these tangible pieces of evidence being unearthed by independent investigators

So I think we've got all the factual evidence in the world.

turned state's evidence along with his wife,

So, Holland, the evidence is showing that the damage was much more extensive

There was evidence that was found a good block and a half to two blocks north of the Murr Building.

And to have particulate and granulated evidence on a building to the north,

and we've discussed some of the evidence,

because we have developed evidence.

not judging evidence,

of critical evidence in a crime scene.

So that leaves a lot of room for manhandling evidence.

with all the evidence that Chris has been mentioning above.

the arrest as evidence, and they logged it in as Yolanda Madden's methamphetamine, which

He found the videotape where it was about to be destroyed in evidence room, and he brought

The first thing the new counsel does, they file a motion to suppress all the evidence.

for trying to get all this evidence into court.

it only goes to prima facie evidence that the taking was not timely. If you don't raise an objection, then the state says, well, no harm, no foul. You waive the right to do so.

giving up evidence

Wednesday. The evidence

evidence they get. So, we need to

Evidence in the car

Evidence be heard during the trial

And unfortunately, we have evidence showing that elections have been rigged in America.

to present my evidence.

i think i can pretty conclusively prove with evidence

motions to suppress evidence

Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite

and it's like the evidence they're giving is shoddy,

a bar grievance at a later date, and you want to be able to have evidence, documents are

evidence, no documents, no evidence, that's what it comes down to as far as documents.

What they do is they circumvent the trial process, they circumvent evidence and testimony,

So the idea is the summary judgment has to be defeated by evidence and facts and arguments

evidence?

What they're here to do is hear the evidence and recognize the mistake.

or evidence, affidavits, exhibits, things of this nature.

If they contain drafts of evidence or exhibits, things that you know are timely, that are

attorneys, and what you're doing is you're setting up the evidence for the later bar

The affidavits then stand as what's called faith evidence.

It's best evidence.

That goes under the rules of evidence, which is another thing we'll have to get into.

He had no evidence they were my husband's.

And into the evidence file or no?

Civil procedure is your corporation unless you object to it and rules of evidence is

Well, the evidence is right in plain sight and we don't even see it

That's evidence, evidentiary logic

You have evidence, but from the evidence you drew the conclusion you want to do

I can come to a lot of other conclusions from the same evidence

Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite

And not have any evidence on the record or a witness

Without any kind of evidence whatsoever

Rules of evidence

On the evidence

What's the evidence

But usually evidence requires

but didn't find any actual damages because the party just failed to put on any evidence of the actual damages.

and now you have to have all your evidence to prove those elements,

one way or another, and that's going to be evidence.

But when there's actual physical evidence, written documents, photographs,

or evidence that you need in order to prove your case.

and furthering the ability to find other documents and evidence

so that you've already got the evidence you need to prove your case.

But the issue is that the more information and the more evidence you have in hand in advance of the lawsuit

because you haven't essentially contested their evidence,

their sworn statement, which stand as best evidence.

saying that you don't have any evidence or whatever.

do they allow you to proper any testimony or any evidence.

It would seem to me like they shouldn't touch them anyway if there are evidence.

Usually evidence is placed in an airtight sealed plastic container or plastic bag

So they shouldn't be, just by nature of being evidence, they shouldn't be firing them off anyway

Well, then they could be charged with tampering with evidence then.

Maybe the evidence room, too, huh?

You want to hammer the evidence room.

They don't ever find evidence of pollution, even though private soil samples and air samples and water samples

Which includes being able to present evidence

No, the one that says a citizen can't present evidence

says only a US attorney can present evidence to him.

evidence of criminal conduct directly to a grand jury of citizens. And, you know, like

He can only rule on the facts, evidence, and law put on the case, on the record.

and the rules of evidence apply.

And one of the rules of evidence is that evidence is given in court,

So if he received evidence outside a proper hearing, that's an ex parte communication,

But he can't receive evidence from one party without both parties there.

The dismissed charges, there was no evidence because they were fraudulent.

All of this has to be supported by evidence,

All of these elements are evidence to show that the accident occurred,

but at some point in the future, you may have to show evidence that you've been vaccinated

What evidence do I need to gather?

You start thinking about what evidence you need to gather to prove your case.

The other side may have a lot of that evidence, and they have to give it to you.

It doesn't mean just because they send them the documents that would be evidence in the case

The idea is to find people who are technologically savvy so when you present evidence about radar

of people that you feel are independent that are going to listen to the evidence

you need more than anecdotal evidence, meaning testimony of people.

or the other party, there was some new evidence involved in your issue.

and there isn't any substantial evidence that shows that it's part of cancer.

which is very clear evidence that these microchips are genotoxic.

and you know I mean that isn't that evidence how can they lose something like that

I'm going to have to uh hold this case because they can't provide the evidence

that you subpoenaed that it's supposed to be evidence in a court of law

and I mean it's impossible that they could really call it any evidence.

It's pre-litigation discovery to preserve evidence.

And the court's like this because you're looking to see if there's sufficient evidence

We had a woman there saying, I've read these studies and there's no evidence this causes cancer.

Well, that would be more evidence when you started your district court case as far as

And then once you win the claim, you have proved by a providence of the evidence, the

and you said, now we've proved beyond a providence of the evidence that they have committed crimes.

Send me a copy of the stamp that's got the stamp on it, because there's your evidence.

And when they're at their next meeting, why don't you get all your evidence and you go

in and you stand there at the door when they come in and you present all the evidence to

You will go through a hearing and you will be able to propose your evidence, and if your

I know in this particular situation, I saw the evidence.

For one, the grand jury, it was signed by a grand jury foreman, but there's no evidence

Now, there's your number one evidence showing that they don't own the note anymore.

signatures from the original mortgage as evidence that whoever's trying to foreclose on you

That's right, because your RESPA letter is going to be able to be evidenced into your

I hereby demand absolute first-hand evidence from you of the original uncertificated or

Absent the actual evidence of the security, I have no choice but to dispute the validity

You know, we have people say, well, Title 26 is the only prima facie evidence of the law.

But anyways, my point is that I called because I just recently got evidence that I called

what you have in your left hand is evidence of a $100 bill.

What you have in your right hand is evidence of a $100 bill and it is the $100 bill.

If you have a copy of a debt, a mortgage, a note, you have evidence of a debt.

But there's still only evidence of a debt. They are not the debt.

I have evidence that there was a note.

But I don't have any evidence that it's still in existence.

And you provide the evidence.

you know, any evidence that would be present in the CAFRA report.

his testimony will establish prima facie evidence.

any evidence that would give a reasonable person cause to believe a set of facts.

Once that evidence is in the court, now that creates prima facie.

Now the onus is on the other party to show that the evidence is not true.

at least prima facie evidence that you're guilty.

Now the onus shifts to you to refute the evidence.

It doesn't matter how the police obtained their evidence that right, respecting rights

All that matters is obtaining the evidence by whatever means.

the officer saw that I had evidence and what happened was they just- I guess they dismissed

It's prima facie evidence that he committed a crime.

knew that the evidence was inadmissible.

The judge on record violated the Michigan court rules, rules of evidence.

And here's the evidence.

rules, Michigan rules of evidence and hearsay evidence. And then after I lost that part

in an examining trial the rules of evidence apply

certify the evidence

How did you manage to get evidence against me outside a proper hearing

a neutral party so to speak, to weigh the evidence of both sides.

He won't see secret witnesses or evidence that may show the innocence of the accused

a businessman on Grow evidence with Samsung, ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

And from my more recent studies, a magistrate can find probable cause based on hearsay evidence. But he must have a criminal accusation first. It must be verified. It must be filed by some credible person, not necessarily a police officer.

If he holds the examining trial, he must take a statement from the witness, and it must be certified. The accused has opportunity to examine the evidence given to the magistrate because in an examining trial, the same rules of evidence apply as apply in a trial on the cause.

So when evidence is given to a judge, it has to be in the setting of a formal hearing. Anybody here who's ever tried to talk to a judge about his case outside the case gets a very quick rebuff.

Even if the judge were your wife or husband, they're going to tell you, can't talk about it, ex parte. So there has to convene a hearing, and before evidence is entered in the court, they have to establish standing for the evidence.

You get opportunity to object to it. That's why the statement, before it can be certified, the accused has opportunity to examine the evidence. You get it faced by accuser. You get opportunity to cross-examine your accuser.

All right, Randy, please continue. Yeah, so they don't follow the standard rules of evidence. They don't want to present the evidence in your presence in an open court hearing.

The judge can hold an ex parte hearing in order to issue a warrant. But not when they present evidence against you.

The accuser gives sufficient evidence to give reason to believe, and that's sufficient to issue a warrant.

And now we hold a full fledged examining trial. The accuser presents his evidence under the rules of evidence where the accused gets to challenge the evidence or object to the evidence.

I mean, you know, a lot of people have got evidence that they're setting up

They've already chipped your animal and you have evidence of what it does.

Okay, well, I was thinking that the plaintiff slash prosecutor should have evidence that I've done this

Let's say that they make bad decisions, not necessarily a crime, but just they don't look at the facts, they don't consider all the evidence

And that consists of hopefully, no, I'm going to treat people respectfully, I'm going to look at the evidence, I'm going to follow the law

So I could understand the charge and understand the evidence, and that was when, if you recall, Randy, a deputy had, as you say, a pistol prominently displayed on her hip

forcing them to produce the promissory note as evidence of the loan and evidence that

pretty damning article, which does provide some evidence to indicate that the lenders

Goes to evidence that cannot be presented

Any evidence generated in violation of law is forbidden to be considered by the court

Then none of the evidence that individual would bring to the court is admissible

What I wanted to do is build some evidence here for a criminal proceeding because I want

You know, Randall, about my truck, and I told you that I would go directly after the evidence,

it states that he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

and also the language surrounding he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself is all dealing with in a prosecution.

So my question is this, can that sentence stand alone and be evidence in general, or is it only specifically talking about prosecution?

When we have a conviction rate of 99.6, what do you need more evidence for?

I mean, nobody cares about the evidence anyway.

They've got enough evidence with the breathalyzers.

This has nothing to do with evidence to secure a conviction for DWI.

but I do object to them taking all of that evidence that they gathered.

Wait, destroy it, destroy evidence?

Destroy the evidence.

if indeed there were no loopholes like what Randy's saying, then you're going to have to get the evidence

It sounds like you're going to have to get some more evidence.

No, he can actually, the magistrate can find probable cause based on hearsay evidence.

because I'm trying to remember in civil cases, you have preponderance of evidence, which

And so it's 51%. It's preponderance of evidence. Well, to me, if I'm sitting there and I'm

And if Mark had refuted that, then there would not have been sufficient evidence to find

probable cause that had to say to the officer, well, right now you don't have enough evidence

to hold him. You give me some more evidence, we'll talk.

of evidence. It's like 10%.

And I'm saying that's not a 51% preponderance of evidence.

because it's not 51% preponderance of evidence though.

and the only evidence that the cop has is hearsay

And hearsay is not 51% preponderance of evidence.

That's all there is to it if hearsay is the only evidence.

Judge, I have this hearsay evidence that this person over here

Now the onus is on them to show evidence that refutes your evidence.

preponderance of evidence there.

And it is absolutely outside of the judge's discretion as to whether or not to admit that evidence.

Yeah. Article 38.23, Randy, is where that evidence may not be used, section is.

Any evidence secured in violation of law?

Yeah, and there is an accompanying section of that that specifically limits the judge to no discretion as to whether or not that evidence is admissible.

there was sufficient evidence to show a violation of civil rights of the prisoner by defendant 3902A1

Doesn't they have evidence that this vehicle was ever owned or operated on a parking facility, a toll facility?

Wait a minute. The prosecutor is only required to produce evidence he intends to use in court.

They're also required to produce any evidence they have, whether it would be exculpatory or not.

Well, potentially exculpatory evidence. I'm just saying, doesn't they have evidence that this vehicle was ever even operated on a toll facility?

Well, first of all, there's a chain of evidence on all of our evidence that we take.

it to a booking facility and books it into the evidence.

how we obtained the blood evidence, what force was used, which is going to be none, and obviously

anybody in a criminal case be compelled to give evidence against themself.

getting enough evidence.

of blood evidence in the hands of police officers, not in a very good or well-controlled environment.

that evidence to actually show that they were legally, not other than the influence, they

To me, it's not worth the time and effort to collect the blood evidence if you have

the video evidence of them being that slosh.

need more evidence to prove somebody is unsafe to drive?

up with some theory of defense, and without that blood evidence, it's a crap shoot, and

I'm saying that we want to utilize lawful means to obtain the best evidence for our

And so if it is a diabetic issue or a medical issue, that we will have evidence of the fact

weekend because he thought officers lack evidence.

sure sufficient evidence is not manipulated?

On the back end, one of the things that the anecdotal evidence is in Arizona that's happened,

with the blood evidence, with the actual BA, the opposite effect has happened.

but other cases, evidence when we need it that requires blood evidence.

My biggest problem is, that's not just drunk driving, it's blood evidence in general for

How do we obtain evidence of a crime through a blood search warrant if nobody wants to

evidence without a warrant.

to get evidence against somebody from some other jurisdiction?

evidence when he went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ended up throwing

the evidence out overturning the ruling saying that if the practice shocks the conscience

He said, well, we need the evidence in order to be able to take these to court.

All government starts at the local level as evidenced by what's here today.

have told Austin police that they no longer wish to collect blood evidence of suspects

Because remember, blood evidence isn't just about DWI.

It's about rape, child molestation, other crimes where you need that blood evidence

evidence in all instances during no-refusal initiatives when the Texas legislature specifically

We're not using force to draw the blood evidence from folks where it's non-consensual testing

It is non-consensual blood evidence that is obtained only after a probable cause of arrest

You can't tell me that we can clearly define the pathway of where that evidence starts

evidence, period, whether it's for rape or you need evidence of a rape, murder, whatever,

lawfully obtain evidence of a crime when we have probable cause, when we have a warrant.

The next time we need evidence and we have a lawful court order, and the hospital says,

originally started out as they're afraid the evidence is going to drive away, and so

You need more evidence when they convict everybody?

So poking needles in people to get more evidence when you've got 99.6% conviction rate, why?

evidence to actually nail him for drunk driving, and so we've got to have blood now in order

to have the evidence so that these cases don't get dealt down to reckless driving.

That in evidence, that's all we're talking about.

When those come into evidence without objection,

because I am going to demand he produce evidence that I was operating and that I was in a motor vehicle,

So since he can offer no evidence that you were operating or that you were in a motor vehicle,

It must be presumed he acted improperly until he shows prima facie evidence to support his position.

Now, he is speaking to the evidence, which he is forbidden to do, and he is testifying from the bench.

So we're outside, and what we're trying to do is preserve evidence,

because there's so much destruction of evidence in these cases, and there's more litigation going on.

So we're trying to preserve evidence, and here's how we're trying to preserve evidence.

We have clear evidence that U.S. attorneys keep a stamp of the foreman's signature on it.

in suppressing evidence against criminals?

Once we know evidence is found against a criminal, why are we even thinking about this?

Only the people who get to court because illegal evidence was found are the ones who get to

The evidence against me was seized illegally.

and searched and harassed and all that, but no criminal evidence was found.

are violated, and let's not suppress evidence against the criminals.

by rule six to hold the grand jury records and because they can, we have stacks of evidence

And given you 100% evidence to go against him for harassment

No evidence that he develops subsequent to that

We have a statute that absolutely forbids the use of evidence

But if he's got evidence to take from the cop's car or anything

names if they want to call me. I've got some video evidence and stuff like that. You help

Well, there are several reasons to file factually prudent causes of action. One of them is evidence.

You get to present more evidence to the jury because you have a broader spectrum of claims

But shooting at the people, you know, with most of the people who are shot, shot in the back, then that's evidence that he wasn't shooting at the crowd, but he was shooting at those people containing the crowd.

And for example, the prosecutor in Durham, North Carolina on the Duke lacrosse team withholding evidence and then making statements, et cetera, et cetera.

And there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

In such cases, the fallacy would be committed because the evidence provided

It's important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe evidence

A rational reason to believe evidence is evidence

that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.

in place of evidence for a claim.

of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim.

Flattery is used in place of evidence for accepting a claim.

in the place of evidence for accepting a claim.

evidence for a claim.

Bandwagon, peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence

substituted for evidence and argument.

rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim.

to the grand jury foreman care of the prosecutor that you have exculpatory evidence in your case.

And you need to notify them that you're willing to produce that evidence, okay,

of exculpatory evidence while he's in grand jury proceedings,

And I said well, go ahead and send the notice that you have exculpatory evidence

You need to send a letter saying that a lot of these exculpatory evidence

So they take five years of evidence and indict someone in one day.

The problem with criminal defense legal teams is they're never given all the evidence in the case

always, always, always conceals evidence.

Okay, so they, his legal team on the criminal side asked for the evidence.

Okay, the legal team on the U.S. government gave them evidence they wanted him to find

In the discovery, what they discovered and what they received as evidence

produced all the evidence showing the massive perjury involved in this case.

and not only that federal rules of evidence say that they have to have the

original paper that's that's correct federal of evidence require originals

of the accuser against the word of the accused without corroborating evidence in the United

The Texas rules of evidence do not authorize

Of evidence 614 which permits a federal court

man confirmed and then the fifth sign is evidence of supplemental explosives to

scientific evidence of other supplemental explosions on 9-eleven and

believe the man he had evidence but frankly I wouldn't believe it if I heard

that he's he's dead because McVeigh what we've seen in the evidence folks and

the physical evidence from Waco being in the in the basement and the other one

that information documentation and the contraband of physical evidence was

have the intention of taking all the evidence that we've amassed regarding

more and more evidence every day okay and says also all of professor Stephen

I want to see physical evidence.

And any forensic evidence that was at the crime scene was literally washed away.

and filled itself up with water, rendering all of the evidence completely useless.

the investigation was so sloppy on some levels that the evidence to show the blast coming

That's what filled up with water and ruined a lot of the forensic evidence.

evidence that would have exposed my brother's murderers and we believe that

2.03 Code of Criminal Procedure, 2.01 tells him that he won't secret evidence

No, you wouldn't. You can file a criminal complaint based on hearsay evidence

an objection requires a conclusion implies facts, not an evidence. And it took me a minute to understand how he got there.

The rules of evidence apply in these municipal court cases.

about what about the tapes the cops like to use to show what they were doing and as their backup evidence and so on and so forth.

But the fact of the matter is that in a criminal proceeding, including a traffic ticket, the same rules of evidence apply and the same necessity for conviction applies as if it was a case for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the officer cannot produce evidence of a motor vehicle, then his statement is inadmissible.

So if he attempts to testify to it, the object implies facts, not an evidence.

If I am in commerce, if I am a driving a motor vehicle, you must produce evidence that would lead the court to that conclusion.

You cannot come to that conclusion for the court, implies facts, not an evidence.

As you pointed out, Randy, that the secretion of evidence is a felony.

And since it is now an official part of this stop, it can be introduced as evidence in court of what transpired here.

In direct violation of the law, he's not allowed to testify to the evidence or speak to the evidence,

Well, actually one of them was they signed and swarmed to notarize negative evidence saying this little kind of formula

So if he doesn't have evidence to support the allegation, I would file against him for a malicious prosecution.

can't seem to find any evidence indicating anyone else, I become a person of interest.

genetic evidence used to convict them.

Furthermore, HDR 1003 alleges, without offering any evidence or explanation that past and

Despite the evidence, mercury is still being added to vaccines at completely unsafe levels.

of thousands of people annually around the world, but preliminary evidence from genetic

the government prosecutor in this case, to scrutinize pieces of evidence so as

If the plaintiffs then can't make their case without excluded evidence

Oh, we didn't invest in thermite because there was no evidence of any big boom sound.

We've got more than enough evidence.

We've got plenty enough evidence.

It's evidence on top of evidence, on top of evidence.

He must have articulatable facts and evidence to support probable cause.

There has to be evidence in support of the creation of the lien.

The assessment is evidence of the existence of a lien.

Absent that, they don't have evidence of the existence of a lien.

But there would have to be evidence in support.

Despite the evidence, mercury is still being added to vaccines at completely unsafe levels.

of thousands of people annually around the world, but preliminary evidence from genetic

And under what authority was evidence presented to the court?

Which it was indicated in the prosecutor's submission as what he was going to introduce as evidence

You have evidence that you took the test

The prosecutor is clearly stating that they are testifying this evidence is this man giving this test

But wait a minute, they have no evidence that you were DWI

But any evidence of slurred speech and that in admissible because you were at Miranda's?

No, there's evidence to the contrary

If you've got the evidence you say, tell them go jump

so basically you're saying that there's no evidence that this has in fact been done?

because they have to present the wet ink signature note according to the federal rules of evidence,

Now I am on a W-2, and clearly income can't be what it was when I was self-employed because now there's evidence of all my income.

information from the officer in writing, as far as any exculpatory evidence, then he just

Make sure your attorney demands all evidence the prosecution intends to use.

you have a fair to good shot of getting that evidence thrown out.

Can you give us an approximate outline of what's to happen with physical evidence?

Okay, when physical evidence, when I would do a search for it

and we would take documents as an example into evidence, okay,

And then every time that evidence is pulled from that box or envelope to be inspected,

If you go into the evidence room to get it, you sign in, you sign out.

And John from Austin, you were discussing the chain of evidence, chain of custody.

Let's say they take a packet of cigarettes out of your car as evidence and they put it in a bag.

The officer who takes that into evidence will sign, basically put it into a bag, seal it,

and there will be a sticker on it with his name or initials and date and time that this was taken into evidence.

And so basically everyone who touches that has to sign for that evidence.

based on the same available evidence, then it's not definitive.

and what is the evidence you have to support those elements?

Oh, he said it calls for a conclusion and assumes facts not in evidence.

So he presupposed, he presumed the person was in commerce without entering evidence to show that he was in commerce.

In a commercial realm, we tend to do that by setting up evidence, creating a record so we have that evidence we can present in court or out of court.

And then we file these on UCC-1 statements and create records, pull out certified copies from the county recorder, and we have different certified copies standing as records or evidence.

Most direct one. Objection assumes facts, not an evidence.

And when they say what, he can produce no evidence that I was operating a motor vehicle.

so I don't care if I have enough evidence to convict them I just want enough to kick them in the teeth

and take our leftover evidence that we didn't use and file civilly on them and tear them apart

investigations other agencies were able to use the evidence they didn't get that they gathered but didn't use to go after whoever on a civil case.

I want to see government funding for grand juries so that they can hire private investigators so that they can commission forensic laboratory analysis of evidence.

by innumerable objections and exceptions to perhaps incompetent but harmless evidence,

though subconscious influence with the jury in arriving at their evidence.

at someone else and the evidence will demonstrate that these people knew that before they arrested this child.

He can challenge the evidence and cross-examine the witness

there's evidence to show that this other kid is actually the one that's making bomb threats

Because if they have evidence that they worked with this kid

Do you understand how you get polygraph evidence on the record?

Just the polygraph test by itself is not admissible evidence.

then it becomes admissible evidence.

If you want it, it's evidence.

If you want it, it's evidence.

and all of a sudden it's admissible evidence.

And then all of a sudden it became admissible evidence because it was public knowledge.

produce the evidence they have and produce all of the evidence and don't conceal any of it.

to try a case without concealing evidence.

Okay, the federal government cannot win a case without concealing evidence.

Okay, so they always conceal evidence.

They don't know how to win a case without concealing evidence.

this major issue, the concealment evidence,

to see all the evidence presented against you or presented in your favor,

which means all the evidence related to you, related to your case,

I believe that because of all the evidence that, you know, that, I mean, they didn't even try.

Objection. Implies facts and not in evidence.

What facts and what evidence is the officer basing the idea that you were engaged in commerce?

What evidence does he have introduced that the speed limit applies to what you were in?

And number three, if it said motor vehicle, that's a commercial use vehicle, what facts and evidence is the officer relying on

If he cannot testify for the state, his evidence in the form of the ticket is also disqualified, as is his complaint.

New evidence is emerging to support claims that Dick Cheney first approved torture to

I mean, how much evidence had to be dumped on the Supreme Court and yet they have ignored

The judge has just testified to the evidence and the documentation in the trial

He's not allowed to speak to the evidence nor is he allowed to provide testimony from the bench

He has violated due process procedure by testifying from the bench and speaking to the evidence directly from the bench

Here in Texas that's a major no-no, the judge may not testify from the bench nor may the judge speak to the evidence

The only way the judge can address the evidence is to either admit it or deny its admission, that's it

and the court clerk, the district attorney sent those back with a letter saying that my three inches of exhibits and evidence that I turned in

were not sufficient evidence for them to do anything so they were finding no criminal damages, no criminal wrongdoing at that time.

and evidence for their case for custody and parenting time.

or discovery for the purpose of preserving evidence.

work with the U.S. Attorney's Office. But if inspectors should notice evidence of unrelated

Yet they have never entered that letter into evidence

Have you detected evidence of delusions of persecution?

a 99.6% conviction rate, why do you need more evidence, everybody pleads guilty, everybody

we don't seem to be able to find that, you know, evidence is funny stuff, it just comes

this was a case where the evidence the prosecution prosecutions evidence

The appeals court wasn't in the courtroom. They didn't hear the evidence presented.

Is that the question or is the question if you spoke, would that be evidence?

Yes, I'm sorry. You helped to finally define the question. Can I voluntarily give evidence

And oh, well, it's OK. It's admissible as evidence because the court appointed you counsel.

evidence. Yes, that's what Miranda tells you. But you're

because that only goes to the use of evidence. The point is they have to be read to the person

to look for evidence. Okay. Now, I'm assuming his Miranda warning was given prior to this.

front of you. They're discussing this. There's, where's the evidence? I'll take you to show,

I don't think that should be admissible as evidence it's normal and because a

if you question him anyway in badgering him into giving you evidence you can't

use it a trial but it opens doors to find evidence you can use a trial well

So what would I have to do to make the evidence not usable?

Adding, we have 700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation as a result of this evidence and the evidence in the World Trade Center that is very explosive.

Gage went on, there is chemical evidence of a special incendiary which is thermite, a high-tech incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

That was a hoot. The judge is not allowed to testify from the bench nor is the judge allowed and barred, in fact, by law from addressing and speaking to any of the evidence presented, including witness testimony.

that he mentioned that he filed some negative evidence. Yes. He's also filed some international

evidence and on these filings. And this is the judge who cited him for contempt. He is disqualified.

The evidence is so overwhelmingly insurmountable.

Well, John, why does the investigator want the person to tell them that if they did have the evidence against them?

What that does is establishes prima facie evidence that they don't have one.

and now that gives you prima facie evidence that he doesn't have one.

Basically speaking, what evidence did they produce in court to prove the facts of their case

that constitutes a conclusion on the part of the officer based on facts, not in evidence.

First off, what evidence was introduced, what is the definition of the term person,

and what evidence was introduced in your trial that made you a person that that applied to?

Polari claimed he cannot prove his innocence because the evidence is classified.

Yeah, it just shows prima facie evidence that they've made no due diligent effort.

subcommittee. And the congressional subcommittee will listen to evidence and come down basically

50 pounds goes into the evidence locker and the other 50 percent, you know, 50 pounds

and everything finding evidence of me abusing a child when I've never even had a child,

a witness, a complaining party, withstanding, and a body of evidence in support of a claim of damage or a loss of right,

He may have caught them trying to plant evidence in his house.

They come in, they plant evidence, they go back out, they go get a warrant.

as well as the stipulation that this notice is now introduced as evidence from this stop

And I've uncovered a lot of the evidence that would suggest that the American Bar Association,

And I've got quite a bit of evidence.

And I've done a lot of evidence that would support that position.

because they didn't have enough evidence to convict me.

There's a lot of evidence to that.

It's physical evidence.

I just can't put my finger on it, but we have the evidence of these governmental agencies

Yeah, now don't confuse the rules of the court with like the code of criminal procedure or the rules of evidence,

But the actual rules of evidence and such, that should not change from court to court.

evidence breached human rights legislation.

since there is nothing entered into evidence except my counterclaim.

any evidence or to testify from the bench says it does not say that after I'd already

because the evidence now has become so overwhelming that literally I want to accuse these people of murder, okay?

and you were to say, hey, check out this evidence that I have on fluoride,

And he gets an opportunity to present a culpatory evidence

where's the contract? Produce evidence that there is an agreement between you and I that I breached.

evidence do you intend to produce that I am an apple? Because they're the ones that must

produce the evidence and prove each and every element, not you.

as testimony or they're using just as statement evidence rather than physical evidence. If you

that are not actually in evidence. And if they ask the question right and don't give you referential

evidence. The other side hasn't proved that there was any pot at all. So once you learn to listen

that the court said that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence

have no right to submit new evidence, new exculpatory evidence to clear their name after

right. And that's probably true because our founders never considered DNA evidence

at the time of the constitution. But even forget the DNA evidence part. I thought that it was just

standard jurisprudence from way back that if there is new evidence that has not yet been

and reopen a trial to present exculpatory evidence as long as it's new exculpatory evidence that has

evidence if it's already been presented. But if there is new exculpatory evidence,

the thing, you know, is going to set them free. Now, if the DNA evidence shows different, then

Osborne cannot seek post-conviction access to evidence for further DNA testing under

taken away and the DNA evidence could prove that we weren't guilty, then obviously we would

have a constitutionally protected right to use that DNA evidence. But the other thing is

as opposed to look into statutory law for the DNA evidence.

Now, any evidence he may have against you since he secured

that evidence while he was violating law, well, 38.23 code of criminal procedure applies

and it says any evidence secured in violation of a law is forbidden to be used in court.

There's another requirement in the evidence as well, Amy,

of the trial then that evidence is inadmissible, they can't use it at all

They say, oh, I'm going to file this motion to get all that evidence thrown out and have

the affiant's belief that the aforesaid facts are true is based upon the following evidence

cause with zero evidence so we're going to have a party all right listen we're going

for the emergency restraining order that word got back to these folks that you were pushing for that and so in a excess of caution they canceled the sale because they could always have the sale later but if they have the sale and you come up with evidence as why to why they shouldn't have the sale they can't

Without any binding proof or evidence that there's anything owing due or otherwise contracted that gives them the authority to do that and not just the IRS but government in its entirety

And if the drone sees a boat that matches the description of a boat that's known to be smuggling something across the border, and they tell the police, the police have opportunity to go out and intercept, but they don't need to use that photograph as evidence

Okay see. They have to have supporting evidence just being sweaty and having a high heart rate and a red face is not probable cause because I know some folks who do that if they walk up three steps. Right.

At the examining trial, the rules of evidence apply.

At the examining trial, there must be competent fact witness evidence.

you move to quash the indictment for no competent fact witness evidence.

You could file an action to get discovery to preserve evidence.

You can't get evidence in discovery that you can't get in criminal.

going to file a motion to suppress the evidence against you and say, oh, yeah,

So, basically, they're completely ignoring the requirements of the rules of evidence and the rules of due process.

Now the captain knows that I'm looking for evidence of the commission of a felony.

it says in an examining trial, the Texas Rules of Evidence apply, and in a normal trial, that would be considered an ex parte communication.

So the person needs to have the opportunity to object to the evidence or rebut the evidence.

And the evidence of that is in the way they adjudicate through summary judgment.

If you hire an attorney to represent you in your case, the attorney is going to tell you, OK, we're going to go down and file this motion to express all the evidence.

We're saying that those individuals who would bring evidence to the court are not credible

witnesses and that they have secured this evidence in violation of law and therefore

the court is forbidden by law to consider any of the evidence.

Without the evidence of these witnesses, there is not sufficient evidence to invoke, there's

It's done without any introduction of evidence contradicting the officer's testimony.

And within that letter we find evidence that he's being tortured, you know,

I mean, I know I have more than enough evidence just in the – if I was to go get the court records of their own to show that the judge violated all my rights,

So he's to arrest you and take you to the nearest magistrate and explain himself. Tell that neutral magistrate his reason for arresting you, and then the magistrate asks you if you have some evidence that would overcome the evidence of the police officer.

And the courts are forbidden to consider evidence secured in violation of law.

So since he becomes a trespasser from the beginning, all his evidence is garbage.

Because it wasn't evidence.

So I think that that's good evidence that, you know, it's coming from him and not being,

You know, to include it as a piece of evidence?

Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject matter jurisdiction to the court, that the court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject matter jurisdiction.

or that's prima facie evidence of fraud.

Don't they have to have evidence to file charges against him?

But you would think they would need some evidence for that, Randy.

They have evidence of the lien.

And I just wanted to see the evidence.

At least have Eddie see the evidence against him.

She refused to let him see the evidence.

well, you're not at the top of your game because we have prima facie evidence that you've had 0.1 percent or whatever it comes out to.

to be for commercial purposes which is prima facie evidence that you intend to engage in

It's evidence that you made the purchase, and the bill of sale is proof of the transaction.

of the product, and everything that's done is prima facie evidence that your intent was

that bought evidence of debt for pennies on a dollar at an auction.

A photocopy of the wedding signature note is evidence that a wedding signature note

It's like if you want to present evidence against somebody, you have to present the

evidence.

You can't present a facsimile of evidence.

It proves it exists, but it doesn't fall under the best evidence rule.

I mean, you have to show the evidence.

The issue that I found out is that a lot of the declarations are being accepted as evidence in a lot of these motions,

and file a criminal complaint for perjury along with that declaration to get them to not accept it as evidence.

because the judge relied on the declaration as evidence to render the decision that they did in the motion.

And then after that he decided that there was substantial evidence to render a decision in the association's favor

Because I brought it in under a judicial notice and the evidence code

What I find interesting is when you put mandatory judicial notice under the evidence code

I caught the prosecutor or the city attorney who was representing them inserting false evidence.

They've actually gone in and photographed and tried to use against you the same evidence that would hang them that the repairs were never done.

That merely goes to prima facie evidence that you don't have it,

done so that all the evidence is in my is in my paperwork and everything that's

to come up with some sort of proof or evidence to show why you get to choose

That's what the lien is. The debt, the evidence of a debt owed to the secured party, that's

the evidence of the debt. The debt is the lien. The UCC-1 is the evidence of the debt

The judge also denied a motion to admit the 9-11 commission report as a whole as evidence

into evidence because then everyone would poke holes in it just like David Ray Griffin

by the Department of Justice regarding the control and access of evidence of documents

evidence and documents related to all private litigation before Hellerstein's court regarding

Okay, so they set up this guy from way back to control the evidence going into his court.

I got the police video, and I've got all sorts of evidence from the Plano Police Department,

and there is no evidence on the video footage that I made an illegal lane change.

I said, well, sir, I said, before I can answer that, I need to have some kind of evidence that there is a complaint filed.

is getting evidence is this a crucial fact in my case or should I be concerned no it's

The government Wednesday stated it would no longer rely on evidence obtained through torture

even accept that as evidence. Nothing but a computer printout.

no nothing, it is an unverified document and cannot be admitted for evidence or any other

whatever the document is into evidence. He has the police officer on there and he says

he can enter that into evidence because he had a witness verify it. So the witness is

entering that into evidence through the attorney not the attorney. The attorney can't produce

anything on his own because then he would be entering evidence and testifying and witness

be entered into evidence otherwise it lacks foundation. So that was probably the objection

into evidence and this is what Randy was saying that these kinds of things they go through

really matter where the cop saw it or when. What matters is how it was entered in evidence

And can you testify to the veracity of this? The evidence would be entered by the witness,

this the amortization you prepared? Yes, it is. Your Honor, I moved this into evidence.

before he can enter evidence. Yeah, see, that's how I'm going to use the

Now I can offer that into evidence.

exceptions to perhaps incompetent but harmless evidence, who seems to know what he is about

Highest form of evidence.

and also that the double standard, the prosecutor don't review the evidence.

I request the evidence, and the judge ordered him to hand over the evidence.

I have no evidence to indicate that it was the intent of the law.

no evidence and I told them I also demanded that they prove their claim in there as well.

To prove their claim To show me evidence that they had anything to substantiate their case

Discovery looking for the evidence that they have?

Yes. They claim that they have evidence that you copied this and sold it or whatever. You demand the evidence. This is a civil litigation. They have to give you everything

If you go into court and they ask you for a plea and take no evidence, that's not an

He has to have articulable evidence, the fact that you're armed and dangerous.

it will show bad faith on your part and prima facie evidence of your deliberate

A copy of this instrument will be prima facie evidence of your bad faith.

This died after the prosecutor presented all of his evidence.

He had no evidence.

There is so much evidence we could spend weeks on this.

I mean, the evidence goes on and on.

I mean, we don't even need to argue about the evidence that much anymore

because there's so much overwhelming evidence.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called to give evidence before a full-scale

Okay, now that just means to me that they haven't shown legitimate evidence that there

If you read the rest of the case, he's saying that Con Ed brought them no evidence of any

Well, what he really said was he had no evidence before him, and because he wasn't addressing

That is not, he's not, those particular statements have nothing to do with what evidence or lack

But they produce no evidence to that effect.

So he didn't even get there because he didn't allow them to develop the evidence.

You think that if they had some dead bang evidence linking some design structural flaw

No evidence of faulty construction would give rise to a claim.

Yeah, but he says that without any evidence.

come forward with any evidence to prove this point, okay, now either Conair didn't bring

to suppress all evidence coming forth regarding details of 9-11.

can a judge just throw stuff out, or not take evidence?

other evidence, he just ignored it.

A senior U.S. official has said there is no evidence to support keeping Sudan on its list

What obligation do they have if you go into them with evidence of an error to make you hold and repair the error?

to do under the federal rules of evidence.

Well, that's evidence that there's a good chance a contract actually exists, but it's

only evidence, prima facie.

Because the more evidence we have against them, the better.

and show evidence that they have a right to possess it, that might avoid fraud.

Well that's absolute evidence that that hundred dollar bill really does exist.

evidence in court that he has the proper certification to write you a traffic ticket.

The second thing he has not produced is any type of evidence to show that your vehicle is subject

claiming that any evidence he had was secured in violation of law.

And therefore, I think it's 3823 that forbids the court to consider any evidence secured in violation of law.

he failed to do that certain thing, in the evidence he becomes a criminal trespasser from the beginning.

I wouldn't have proof because I was arrested and they would have destroyed the evidence

Yeah, here's evidence that it exists.

Yeah, find on that ticket what company is responsible for the issuance and provisions for that ticket to appear in court as evidence.

the court is not allowed to consider evidence secured in violation of law, that's 3823.

being able to produce evidence and actually those were just my emotions and they're a

If they are attempting to produce evidence against you, oh yes you can because it's still

a criminal case and you're entitled to see the evidence against you.

If he says yes, then you turn to the court and ask that all his evidence be stricken

You get the officer to testify that this evidence was within the recording.

They preserve evidence, but they don't move the court.

vehicle, he is testifying to a conclusion because he has assumed facts, not an evidence

So therefore he testified to a fact, not an evidence.

maintain that no evidence secured by the officer can be used by the court

And 38.023 Code of Criminal Procedure says any evidence secured in violation of law

I have compelling evidence of corruption of a judge and others involving Rico.

But like in my father-in-law's case, we have evidence that one of the half sisters and stuff

but I've got fairly good evidence that the last six or seven sales

But that's – you know, I can't – I have no hard evidence of that.

That's because there is prima facie evidence that the instrument's not complete.

Do you have any kind of a depository account opened up with any kind of a court or an evidence file?

You get an evidence file opened up.

And that also works as evidence in the suit you file against them.

Yeah, the more time that goes by the more evidence is being destroyed

Damages, okay, send it send the evidence

Send the evidence to every one of your legislators

Secreting evidence of crimes by public officials from the grand jury

oh, not 1817, 1871, is just more evidence of the corruption and fraud

Here's the evidence, and we're going to show it to you a hundred times.

One, let's maybe threefold, destroy all the evidence of all these little do-gooders

who are gathering up evidence against all the money we ripped off and stole.

I mean, that's pretty much evidence right now.

Trial error occurs during the presentation of the case to the jury and is amenable to harmless error analysis because it may be quantitatively addressed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine the effect it had on the trial.

Well, under the rules of evidence, I think it's 16.04, Code of Criminal Procedure says the rules of evidence apply in an examining trial.

Under the rules of evidence, you can't enter evidence into the court, ex parte.

Evidence has to be entered into the court in a proper hearing. So the first thing you have to do is establish foundation for the evidence.

Once you've established a foundation for the evidence, then you present the evidence.

He can still object to it even if you've established foundation. And he has an opportunity to rebut the evidence.

evidence and decisions listed below.

That's about where the prosecutor suppresses evidence or doesn't produce

culpatory evidence.

And my understanding is if you don't argue the case correctly in trial and you're not raising any objection to, you know, rules of evidence or procedure

But they had no evidence

But before he gets to the Frank's hearing, he needs to develop all of the evidence that he can

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says that a court may not consider evidence secured in violation of law

It's not that he didn't give evidence and facts that would support a claim

Delay in investigation of a claim deprived the client of witnesses, evidence, and testimony

Failure to present sufficient evidence to allow the wife in a divorce case to recover a larger share of the community in separate estates

We haven't seen their evidence or we haven't had a chance

Now what you want to see is the articulatable evidence they have to give them cause to believe a felon is in your place

For the judge to examine the evidence in camera

Has the law firm produced direct evidence that it is representing the debtor or is it

The prosecutor will object, foundation, because asking him if he took me before a magistrate assumes a bunch of facts not yet in evidence.

Objection, foundation. It assumes that he had probable cause. It assumes a lot of things not yet in evidence.

But there was no follow-up, there was no evidence giving that linked them directly to Japan

And even though the evidence is already out there, people turn on the regular mainstream

and all this information and evidence to support that idea,

but whenever I research a subject matter and I find that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest

He was actually to go state's evidence on behalf of Jesse Trenedue to tell what he saw.

All of the contraband, the evidence, the documents were destroyed.

know, evidence that we can use to start closing in on these guys. Go ahead. Yeah, closing

It just slowly got worse from there. Corruption of evidence, no chain of custody, exposing the infamous crater in front of the building to torrential rains for over nine hours

and having it completely filled with water and saying, you know what, this is where we're getting our forensic evidence from.

vehicle, it assumes facts not in evidence and calls for conclusions. First he has to,

not in evidence. Now that you've heard what Eddie had to say, you should understand where I'm going.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Yeah. One of the other things I'm going to include in this is a motion for suppression of evidence,

because under Texas law rules of evidence, any statements you make that are recorded in that way,

to have brought the evidence of a debt from the original creditor.

Well, no, what we have in this case is credit card company, okay, who supposedly sold evidence of debt to third-party company, corporation, who filed the action.

Go get the person you bought this from and have them come and testify that they sold it to you, and then show us evidence of the transaction.

The ones in Florida, there were a great number of those, and they were essentially on the same issues where there was no contract or no direct evidence of contract and clear indications of improprieties in the paperwork.

And we knew, oh my gosh, all the evidence of all these financial crimes and the mismanagement

No, it's not. Yes, it is, because now there is some evidence that the police officer can see with his own eyes a puddle of blood on the ground.

Of course he can act on it. Only if he happens across the evidence of a crime and he sees the crime being committed. That's not what the law says.

She's not talking about him directly seeing the crime. She's talking about him either seeing the crime or specific evidence pointing to the probable cause to believe there is a crime.

It was not until the drug dog gave him an indication that it suspected something that the cop kicked in. And that is not evidence.

That is not evidence. No, no, no. All he could do, Randy, according to what she's saying here is guess that why the dog did what it did. That's right.

There is no evidence just because a dog is barking at a car or barking at something that is not probable cause.

There is no evidence whatsoever. OK, it's not like a bag of pot fell out of a car, Randy. It's not like you smell pot smoke.

No, I'm talking about human beings. Human beings have to see something, witness something, see some evidence come to a judgment on their own,

I'm saying that if probable cause has already been established by a human being, witnessing something or seeing some evidence or having knowledge of some evidence,

That is not what is going on here. Eddie, you're the one being irrational. Eddie, say what you said a little while ago about the evidence.

Well, as far as the evidence being visible and the ability to articulate what has been determined by the dog, he doesn't have it.

Is that a rhetorical question? Who's law? Come on. Don't play games with me. What, by law, by the rules of evidence, constitutes probable cause? Are we going by case law or are we going by black letter law?

When he was a cadaver dog. When he witnesses something or when somebody else comes to him, sayings that they witnessed something or he sees that there's evidence. Come on. This is a ridiculous argument. We're beating a dead horse here, Randy.

Hold on, Debra. Hold on. Let's take a different path here. When you go to court, do they have to prove and produce evidence that is irrefutable?

Let's just get back to the basics. We need to get back to the basics here. Did somebody witness a crime? Is there evidence that a crime has been committed? Something tangible? A dog barking is not tangible evidence. I'm sorry.

Anytime anybody wants to bring in any DNA evidence. DNA evidence is fine, Randy. I was saying, I was saying some crapola. Oh, Randy. He's so out of it.

I mean, there's enough evidence around that we can piece together archaeology,

He's the one that found the evidence of the thermates

I sit back and I watch the evidence unfold and I see justice.

good for you. I know some part of that. I know some engineers. They've seen the evidence. They know a sentence seems sweet. What's up with the blatant deception? What is the nature of what you might

This has to come from a human being that has either witnessed something or seen some evidence.

Now, if another human being wants to come with some evidence, then that's a different story, and that is the end of this conversation, okay?

because the evidence is overwhelming,

Because the thing is, the evidence is overwhelming.

I mean, it's beyond, beyond, beyond, and the evidence is stacking up more and more and more with Richard Gage's work,

The evidence is just unsurmountable.

instead of telling them evidence and talking about facts, rather ask them questions.

assigning military officials to help collect evidence and witnesses to be submitted to

badass boy we got to indict him it doesn't matter whether hell they got all the proper evidence or

of all existing evidence the only safe speed on this section of road is this many miles per hour

evidence that established evidence for instance if you manage to safely traverse the highway

i discussed today about the things that the court is required to do to show evidence of

You're presupposing that's not in evidence.

Just looking at the evidence of what happened, I mean there's no way he could have committed

Once you put the law in front of these people, you put evidence in front of these people, then they can't deny it.

Time-efficient evidence of crime and tort, enough to bring them into the state.

there was no evidence, no facts that you could put in front of them.

What we've developed right now is the fact evidence, which will hold up in court.

for withholding vital evidence, especially once the litigation has started.

you have a right to see all of the evidence that's in that case file.

I got a real good introduction into evidence, into law, into presenting a case in court,

how to get evidence into court, how to object, when to object, these sort of things.

In fact, I presented this evidence last evening to the representative of the state of Florida,

here, what I'll do is I'll walk through the evidence I have laying in front of me here,

tax, tax class two, and what I'm doing here is I'm showing you the evidence that you can

a bit of evidence on that.

And I believe that I've got sufficient evidence to convince an attorney general that an investigation at least is warranted.

And as I lay this evidence in front of him, just as I would do if I was in a courtroom, in fact about halfway through he stopped me

didn't handle the evidence properly.

He's got some very incriminating evidence in his discovery.

They've seen the evidence, they know something seems sweet.

and how to put the evidence into record and what you're doing in there,

And so your CDPH hearing is absolutely crucial that you get this evidence on

And that's what I'm proposing to do here with the evidence I have in front of me.

Dr Leonard Horowitz and investigative journalist Sherry Kane have released evidence in legal

The Horowitz-Kane documents sent to the FBI last week provide evidence of industrialists

dismiss the suit, told a government lawyer that Al Haramain had presented strong evidence

India's first lunar mission found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface.

Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite.

Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite.

Well if you have evidence that you sent it and you sent it within the 30 days whether they saw it or not is immaterial

They're not selling the debt, they're selling the evidence of debt

When they're selling evidence of debt to these wholesale houses, to the mercantile exchange in Chicago

Well they get a little bit of money for evidence of debt

But you see the difficulty there is you can't prove that that's what happened, you don't have the evidence of that

And there's no evidence on the record that the creditor is a party to that action or has any knowledge of the action at all

That's right, business records must be attested to look at your rules of evidence on that

And in order to do that he has to have either personal knowledge or firsthand evidence of the actual debt

The affidavit, which is what creates the prima facie evidence for someone to issue is really, really, it's very important and needs to be examined very closely

As far as we are concerned, it is de facto evidence that fraud has been perpetrated by the submitting attorney

Right, but are you familiar with the best evidence rule, Randy?

So there's no authenticated evidence before the court either

But there's no evidence of any of that other than they'll make the statement of he owes $7,685

If the policeman believes me, that's sufficient evidence for him to file a criminal complaint

Remember, Randy, they're not selling the debt, they're selling evidence of debt.

They're not selling the debt, they're selling evidence of the debt.

So evidence of the debt would give who standing to collect.

Just because they're selling evidence of the debt, like Jeff says, how does that give the buyer standing to try to collect on it,

just because he's got evidence that a debt exists?

You can't prove that they bought evidence of the debt, you can't prove that they sold evidence of the debt,

Jeff is saying that they're only selling the evidence of the debt.

that they're only purchasing evidence of debt, and they can't even collect one dime.

Look, see, these third-party debt collectors that pass this evidence of debt around between each other,

the parking lot is subject to flood?� �Now how do I bring that evidence into

evidence. If you bring in a newspaper article, that�s prima facie and the other side is

leading Trentadou to contend the government was hiding evidence.

led to more evidence that didn't match the official story.

But I've also heard a little bit about the best evidence rule and so on.

This thing of holding someone for five months to determine if he is competent, what authorizes them to hold you to make a competency determination? What evidence must they have?

I don't know what kind of evidence they need. Some of the statements are said in court. You really need to know that, and I'm going to suggest you could go sit in a law library for two hours and you would know that.

evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

A person is to be taken before a neutral magistrate and the magistrate makes a determination after hearing evidence from both parties, whether or not there's sufficient evidence to hold the person.

the magistrate and this court is forbidden to consider any evidence they would present to this court.

So the court has no evidence before it. It only has my not guilty plea, which is a essentially denies all of the allegations of the accuser

And any evidence gathered or offered by the officer in violation of laws forbidden to be considered by the court.

And when I saw the magistrate, the magistrate had some documents in his hand that had evidence against me in those documents.

How did he get evidence entered into the court when the accused had no opportunity to challenge the foundation of the evidence or the propriety of the evidence?

There's a whole book on that called Rules of Evidence.

Rules of Evidence, exactly. All right. Listen, we've got Gene from Wisconsin and Will from Texas on the line.

well, on the face of it, there's sufficient evidence to believe that a crime has been committed and that this person committed it.

Now, I need to hear what he has to say so that I can make a proper determination of probable cause after considering evidence from both sides.

And one of the things, they have to protect all your rights, have to give you opportunity to challenge the evidence.

Rules of evidence shall apply, right to attorney attaches, and on and on and on.

the 38.23 Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the court to consider any evidence generated in violation of law.

So they are stopped from using the evidence by the officers.

If the, did the attorney offer any evidence to the court?

Well, the attorney can't offer any kind of evidence whatsoever.

He can't end your evidence for the party.

They wanted my evidence.

bring their evidence and sit down.

what evidence do you have to believe that I am operating in commerce?

of the recording if you have a recorder is not to produce that recording as evidence,

he had seen no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

They were just, some of their copies were used as supposed evidence.

He has failed to the nth degree to produce any valid evidence of any kind that

votes in California for Mr. Obama on the grounds that he had not provided any evidence that

of historical evidence, okay but there is a point here if the opposing side is saying

Well yeah and that's why she's coming with all this evidence of past history of damage

the vaccination so now you've got historical evidence for this particular strain of flu

at this point because there is long clear history of documented scientific evidence

Yeah, I agree. I mean, it's just more evidence that shows that it's all about the big money

We the people also remind the court that the state is obligated by law to provide to the defense and to introduce to this court not only the evidence state intends to use to secure a conviction,

but also any and all exculpatory evidence, law, statements, or testimony in its possession or within its knowledge.

Then you go down to number four, to bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending to produce conviction or acquittal and to ensure in number five a fair and impartial trial.

But to ensure that justice is served he shall not secret evidence or witnesses that may show the innocence of the accused or mitigate the guilt of the accused.

If it appears from the evidence before the magistrate that the defendant has committed a criminal offense,

You have actual evidence of that.

Well, I have the evidence.

I've given the evidence over to the Ethics Commission.

I can't present evidence.

Well, they need the evidence so they can get a conviction.

I know some architects, I know some engineers, they've seen the evidence, they know a certain

to be used in evidence upon the trial of said cause,

Be it through due process, be it through rules of evidence.

You could easily take away their evidence if they even get that far.

So we'll let the prosecutor try. But prosecutors not producing any witness in any evidence.

So I would say that without any evidence that I was the actual driver that I am being presumed

There is evidence according to what I have read of the statute itself other than the

They try to introduce those into evidence.

However, according to the rules of evidence, as I've stated in previous discussions on

So we file a motion to disqualify the witness and move to strike all evidence of the witness

And as I understand, you have evidence, you have statistical evidence to show that where

They're buying the evidence of the debt.

They are selling the evidence that the debt exists.

these entities agree that they're not going to sell the evidence of this debt anymore,

within 24 hours, it's prime efficient evidence

it's prime efficient evidence that they didn't try.

Any evidence against you has to be submitted

and losing forensic evidence, amounted to a cover-up.

I'm seeing evidence.

as evidenced by the court's date stamp on this page to appear before magistrate as required by Texas Transportation Code 543.006B.

But then the complaint doesn't ever get entered as evidence in the first place.

Ta-da! Now while a hearsay evidence is sufficient to give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction

to hold the examining trial, the rules of evidence apply at the examining trial,

so therefore hearsay evidence cannot be presented to the judge at the examining trial.

They see the evidence, they know something seems queer.

And he said on the basis of the evidence so far,

but given the evidence, I have to act this way.

And I wondered, Randy, I know they come to court with insufficient evidence.

And what about the insufficient evidence?

Which is just prima facie evidence, right?

And, you know, but still, I mean, basically what Randy's talking about is, you know, if they don't prove that they have the authority to make the claim and they don't produce evidence showing that, you know, the original charge was appropriate, etc.,

The reproduction is evidence that a contract actually does exist.

It's evidence that the contract actually does exist.

and present evidence of criminal conduct, but that's a right that we should all have.

on Friday, no matter what they say and without any evidence being presented that they actually

to pay child support, you have to have some evidence showing that they have the ability

just doing this without any regard whatsoever for jurisdiction or due process or evidence

and present evidence of criminal conduct to a grand jury made up of citizens, rather than

However, based upon the information I have and the evidence I have

They can't start pulling out brand new evidence that has not been shared with your defense attorney

but we, we have it in our body because we already done did it, but there was no evidence

there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine is effective in preventing or mitigating influenza

that they didn't take it just for the, if for no other purpose than to use as evidence

the state for the collection of the evidence. I just think that's pathetic.

is no evidence that any influenza vaccine is effective in preventing or mitigating influenza

states there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine is effective in preventing or mitigating

served with a complaint and it did not have any evidence attached to it like a contract

He said, well, it helps us in our case that we have more evidence to bring.

Why would someone try to – why would someone give evidence against

They withheld exculpatory evidence.

custodian of records, well, that doesn't fit what the evidence code rule says there, because

Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation's

a whole different method of evidence presentation

that if there is a dismissal they may not reinstate the case unless they bring it with new evidence

where perhaps they lost a witness or something or lost some evidence

Or if we find evidence of fraud, then you can sue them.

So we'll get hard evidence of fraud.

The photocopy of the contract is prima facie evidence that a contract exists.

A statute is not law, it is evidence of law.

Evidence in law

And present the evidence to them

The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design that makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

but the prosecutor to the stand because it looks like she is continually withholding exculpatory evidence.

like what about all that evidence we filed the motion, you know, for you to produce,

because you never even gave us any other evidence.

Well, if you don't want to be subpoenaed, don't hide evidence.

case comes out on that very issue, on hiding and fabricating evidence.

you know, produce the evidence.

and you would show your evidence would be everything that you got from Team Law

all the evidence had in the case and forward it to the district attorney and request that

Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called to give evidence to an Iraq war inquiry in Britain early next year.

and in the civil action you can develop more evidence you need to prove the crime.

So when that gets presented in the criminal side, that these evidences are already matters of record for the state.

and you get to prove up your evidence in the criminal case as a matter of permanent record,

to be able to use as evidence is that part that says, I'm an inherent heir of this person,

Signature, that's evidence of a signature.

When you look at pen and ink on a paper, that's evidence of a signature.

The signature is the act that causes the pen to move over the paper and leave that evidence,

statement unsupported by evidence

that you had enough evidence to go forward

You made a motion for production of evidence?

evidence. If they destroyed them,

that's tampering with evidence and that's another

Okay. Because the evidence

exculpatory evidence.

documents. That's tampering with evidence.

they have no evidence

he's got no evidence in support of,

When you file this motion for the evidence

writing stating that this evidence

evidence?

it's being used as evidence in a case is

tampering with the evidence.

in as evidence, so...

They've got no evidence that

the evidence. They want to hide

evidence in the record that the transmissions of the appellant were in

fact heard outside of Nevada. The courts claimed there is evidence in the record

That is part of the rules of evidence. I don't believe who you are, and the burden of proof is on you to show who you are.

the lookout for something to soothe my soul So I sit back and I watch the evidence unfold

jurors they present false evidence they present evidence that's just sloppy and there are two

grand jury from re-inditing me if they found out that all the evidence that i brought that

A consumer credit contract defined by the Federal Trade Commission as an instrument that evidences or embodies a debt arising from a purchase money loan or a financed sale, a purchase money loan is any cash advance made by a creditor to a consumer for a finance charge

It's being booked into evidence.

This thing was never booked into evidence or anything.

Yeah. Well, and with the tampering with evidence,

with all your hard evidence,

It's called pre-litigation discovery to preserve evidence.

introduces credible evidence with respect to a factual issue relevant to ascertaining

process of law. Due process of law is hearing both sides, knowing what the evidence is,

it, listening to the evidence, instructing the jurors the proper way. And jurors should

didn't have a proponents of evidence to find you guilty. This is what's wrong in this country.

about it, in fact they tried to hide the evidence, this is intentional murder through neglect.

If I'm a judge, what I'm going to do is base my decision on the preponderance of evidence

that is presented and that evidence has to be based on the law.

They see the evidence, they know something seems queer

what evidence does he have to show that when he singled out my car,

And then you've got your evidence to go after the judge if he goes past it.

For instance, the court does not like to obey the rules of evidence.

However, the law specifically states the same rules of evidence apply in a municipal criminal case as they do in a district court murder case.

So in that case, the judge cannot deny you to have copies of the evidence prior to trial.

The judge cannot deny your right to argue against evidence, to seek the inability to admit evidence on the other side, and so on and so forth.

Because you know, when you present these documents as evidence in court, there's a little thing

or the affiant works in the wholesaler from whom he bought the evidence of debt,

and they didn't buy the debt, they bought evidence of debt.

that photocopy is evidence of a $100 bill,