Derrick J Tries Some Marc Stevens Questions At Arraignment

During an arraignment for a $5 parking ticket, Derrick J employs a few Marc Stevens questions and judge Edward Burke claims it’s possible to have a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest:

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. “I don’t represent anyone.” He’s just some guy. A regular person like anyone else.

  2. Marc Stevens is sovereign citizen lite. I’m not paying for magic paper. Please link me to the .pdf

  3. Derrick i would have asked Burke, though he didn’t give you much time, what his relation to court is…is he a employee…obviously yes? Don’t jump to the steak work on the salad first. You want to take the line of questioning to which court procedure is being used; in your case its contract law as there is no victim i.e. civil case between you and the city, a person, that claim you are in breach of contract. Burke is not a idiot he knows this game thus the reason for just entering a plea for you real fast and moving on. Most state laws require the Judge to inform the parties involved as to what court procedure is being used in the case. This is not legal advice though most Judges will try to claim it to be. If the Judge says he works for no one but himself you should ask him if he is a member of the court and is here today act on behalf of the court and if he is not a member of the court acting on its behalf today he should be removed from the court room. At this points its either contempt or the Judge will tell you its contract law now plead. Once this occurs you can then open up the line of questions about a fair trail and the parties involved. Again your still in “their” court room under “their” rules so your chances of winning against the state are very low.

  4. I LOVE the fact that all this money and time is spent over a $5 ticket. How ridiculous is that? Since you have 4 months until your trial, think of every possible question you could possibly ask to make that trial last a few hours. When you ask questions, make it painful for everybody. Search through your papers, ask the question reaaaaaal slow, and midway through the question, rephrase the question. WTF,….$5 damn dollars. LOL

  5. You have obviously never actually sat through a whole episode of his show.

  6. LoL … you have no fucking clue, do you? None of you “liberty” douchebags do.

  7. You know what, dipshit? If the judge feels the defendant is posing/asking too many irrelevant questions and after being warned continues to do so, the judge can find him in contempt and ship him off to jail. You assholes have no clue, obviously.

  8. You’re free to leave this country if you don’t agree about how we do things here, asshole. It’s really no trouble at all.

  9. Arraignment is for making sure the defendant understands the nature of the proceedings and charges against him. In order for me to understand I need to ask questions. Not allowing me to ask all my questions makes it impossible for me to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. Forcing me to enter a plea under threat of contempt is in violation of their own rules.

  10. Derrick did not do a very good job at using Marc’s method, he didn’t object to the judges lies and point them out. You cannot get a fair trial if a conflict of interest exists. Reading from a script is always a bad idea, a person needs to know how to do this without a script because things always go off script.

  11. He may believe he doesn’t represent anyone but he get’s his paycheck from the state, so how is it not a conflict of interest if the judge is getting a paycheck from the plaintiff? He assumes guilt on behalf of the plaintiff without any facts of evidence being presented to him.

  12. Going into court with an unsigned plea of guilty is key to using this method. It keeps the judge from entering a plea for you. Marc Stevens discusses this in detail. Those questions derrick asked has nothing to do with facts and evidence proving the constitution and codes apply giving the court jurisdiction. Derrick has a lot to learn about Marc’s method.

  13. Your delivery is so grown up and mature Michael. Does your Mother give you a be back time when you go out at night now that you’re living in the basement?

  14. Is there any evidence of an actual plaintiff? One of the questions he should be following up w/ in discovery. You say he works for the plaintiff? What evidence is there that there even is one?

  15. What is it you think I don’t agree with?

  16. Does your Mom know what you do down in her basement all day? I’m guessing you jerk off you pictures of small children you find on the Internet – but again, that’s just a guess.

  17. I agree that there is no evidence of a plaintiff. “The (State of New Hampshire) is merely a dba or psedonym used by lawyers and police officers” to quote Marc Stevens.

  18. I have a warning for you Mr. “Film The Police Always” against listening to this Mike guy. Mike is breaking New Hampshire State Law RSA 311 by giving legal advice, since he obviously is not licensed to practice by the Bar Association. If you feel you have been harmed by Mike’s illegal activity be aware that New Hampshire Statute RSA 311:7-b provides that, “The attorney general may investigate any complaint of unauthorized practice of the law,” and that RSA 311:7-a provides that upon your complaint, the “attorney general may maintain an action for injunctive relief in the supreme or superior court against any person who renders, offers to render, or holds himself or herself out as rendering any service which constitutes the unauthorized practice of the law.” Please note that even if “Mike” does not reside in New Hampshire, the “long arm of the law” statute, RSA 510:4 provides that “Any person who is not an inhabitant of this state and who…commits a tortious act within this state…submits himself…to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state…”

    Disqus keeps a record of the IP numbers of people like Mike who post illegally. Perhaps Mike would benefit from some education regarding the laws he feels so free to violate.

  19. One thing Marc talks about on his show is to ask questions to challenge the evidence. If you bring your own arguments, you are supposed to have evidence to support it. That is called burden of evidence. Which is distinguished from burden of proof in that burden of evidence can shift, while burden of proof remains on the plaintiff. If you bring the argument that he is paid by the state or represents the state it now becomes your burden of evidence to support the argument. While the burden of proof, that is the burden to prove the charge, remains on the prosecutor, if you make an argument you assume the burden of evidence, that is the burden to prove your argument. So I think if you use the strategy of Socratic questioning, the follow up to Burke’s assertion/legal “argument”(as distinguished from a logical argument) would be to question him along the lines of “So you are appearing in your individual capacity and not an official capacity?” or something like that. And then challenge his ability/jurisdiction. Like instead of saying “I have a few questions”, I think Derick could say “Is there someone who can competently explain the nature of these proceedings”, etc.

  20. Please enlighten us liberty lovers with the wisdom of authoritarianism. Clue us in. Please allow us the privilege of being clued in to your vast wisdom.

  21. Troll

  22. @Roger Wilson So either it’s not legal advice because he’s not talking about the law and nothing he says is true. OR he IS giving legal advice, which would mean that what he says is true and the law has no jurisdiction. One way or the other, nothing changes the fact that anything I write on a piece of toilet paper has the exact same amount of legal principals and binding authority as any of their ‘statutes’. In fact, if I have more guns than they have, anything I write on a piece of used toilet paper holds MORE authority because the law has jurisdiction on the basis that it can be enforced and it can be enforced on the basis that the the law has jurisdiction. Which boils down to “whoever has the most guns can declare anything ‘law'”. Which boils down to a really convoluted way of robbing someone like a common criminal. What a cult. Especially if you count the black robes and the religious garments their lowest initiates wear.

  23. He didn’t ask the magistrate who he works for. Of course the magistrate can say he doesn’t represent anyone because he is the referee, not a real party in interest. He is there as himself. The kangaroo court part comes in when you find out that the judge and prosecutor work for one and the same party.
    Derrick stopped asking relevant questions instead of really getting down to the intrinsic questions of not just who he is contracting with but who the people present at the courtroom are in relationship to him and one another.
    I have asked the magistrates many times if this is a lawful court of justice of the united States of America and gotten only a long moment of deafeningly obvious silence before someone breaks it by asking me a question just before I can state the obvious fact that it is not and therefore that they lack jurisdiction over me because they are unjust.


  1. Are Ugly Shirts “Hate Speech?” – Freedom Feens radio archive | FREEDOM FEENS talk radio show - […] J. Freeman and Randy England explain: Judge Burke told Derrick he can get a fair trial even if…

Care to comment?