Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame, Video

Canada Revenue Agency – No Evidence of Jurisdiction or professionalism

Posted on June 30th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

This Call of Shame is from Canada.  I had a supervisor call me about a low level agent because the agent didn’t care he had no evidence of jurisdiction and was claiming the law may be magical.  Things didn’t work out any better with the supervisor, though the supervisor did recognize very quickly he was looking pretty bad and did what terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrat) do when they don’t have any evidence and good faith: they hang up the phone.

The more I deal with the Canada Revenue Agency the more evidence I get they are a ruthless criminal organization.  Almost every single man/woman I have spoken to there has exhibited a complete lack of any good faith at all.  The only ones who did were not directly involved in the attacks though.  They are just as cruel and dishonest as their American counterparts.

Here, as I always do, I get agreement on the operating presumption all “governments” operate by: if you are physically in Canada, then the laws of Canada apply to you.  We have our point of agreement and so the next logical question is: do you have any facts to prove the laws of Canada apply just because I’m physically in Canada?

He predictably answers the law.  It’s not an answer to the question though, I’m asking for facts, not circular reasoning.  I keep asking questions, to keep him on point and instead of answering the question, he has a momentary flash of honesty @ 6:05:

“I really don’t know how to answer you…”

All I wanted him to do next was clarify what he meant by this statement.  So I ask him if it’s accurate to say he is not qualified to determine the laws of Canada apply.  Then he gets upset and accuses me of trying to “rope” them into something and use his statements against him.  This man is threatening to take property by force and I’m the one doing something underhanded?  Remember what I said about statism warping your moral compass?

He hangs up, because that is the professional thing to do.  I did not get a chance to tell him that we’ve already went to parliament, they are unable to prove the laws they create apply to anyone.  I’ve spoken with the Ontario AG‘s office as well as asked the minister of revenue, they have nothing.

If it is so easy to prove the laws apply to us because we’re physically in Canada, then they would be able to prove the facts.  Instead, they hang up on me, not even good faith to say that they’ll stop the attack until they can provide the evidence.  It is a cruel man/woman who will not just attack peaceful people, but, when confronted with a complete lack of jurisdiction continue the attack.

I also want to point out that I’m not making arguments or being philosophical here; these calls are an ever growing body of evidence with the men and women actually doing the attacking.  These are objective examples of politicians and bureaucrats, from cops to prosecutors to magistrates, unable to provide one single fact to support their argument.

And there is a predictable lack of any evidence coming from any critics.  The No State Project is live every Saturday from 4-7 pm est on the Liberty Radio Network, all are welcome to present this elusive evidence.  Hopefully you will be inspired to confront these criminals and ask them yourself, I think it’s worth it.  Tell them you’d be happy to comply with their laws, you just want the evidence as you can be certain after hearing all these examples in the Call of Shame archive, the politicians stealing from you don’t have any evidence either.



82 Comments For This Post

  1. Art Says:

    Hahaha, he got very scared!!!!!!!!! At least he finally understood and ran away instead of keep saying the same thing over and over.

  2. REssex Says:

    I wonder what they would say if you asked them these 2 questions:
    1. Does your constitution your swore under oath to follow specifically state that Involuntary Servitude is forbidden? (hint: we know it does say that) Followed by (since they always seem to go back to “legislation”):
    2. If a group of people that made some “legislation” FORCE you to follow it, how is that not “Involuntary Servitude” to that legislation if you decline to consent to their legislation? Just a thought…

  3. John Black Says:

    The Best Definitions of Government:

    The obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, under color of official right.

    Any public officer unlawfully taking, by color of his office, from any person any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than his due

    Also by definition known as EXTORTION

  4. Steven Says:

    So, the only real answer is to go to court and get a judgement against the CRA right?

    They clearly won’t talk about this. I have a recording of a collections agent for CRA who I called about 2 weeks ago saying taxes are not voluntary, therefor we are slaves. And then after calling him back, telling him me and my accountant went over the recording he would not speak any more as he thought I had a recorder and would most certainly not let me talk to his supervisor. Straight refused me to speak to a supervisor lol. Then filed a garnishment of my wages for 20% saying the assessment was done for about $7800.

    They are ignorant as hell and wouldn’t work with me after he gave me until Friday of last week to call back and set up a payment plan (minimum $1000/mth) which I called back and had no choice as the garnishment goes through anyway and he straight up said garnishment has gone through and the supervisor does not wish to talk to me.

    We can call them and ask all we want but they will always force the Income Tax Act regardless.

    I’ve called my bank and they can’t even state the law that says the CRA can garnish your wages via your bank account without a court order. I assumed after talking to her that it was in the terms of use when you sign the bank account.

  5. Incubus Says:


    Where is the consent when it is taken by force?

  6. NonE Says:

    Indeed, this is a major sticky issue! If I convince you it is in your best interest to do something, and you consent to that something, is that consent? What about a girl who doesn’t really want sex but has it just to make her “boyfriend” satisfied so he’ll shut up and they can enjoy the things SHE wants to do. And is there a difference between outright coercion and fraud? If I convince you to purchase an extended warranty by using all kinds of scary statistically very improbable events, is this theft? Where is the line between theft and fraud and caveat emptor?

    Hmm. Please speak amongst yourselves regarding this matter. 😉

    – NonEnabler

  7. John Black Says:

    Thats why it ‘s called extortion, i have an offer you cant refuse, of course it’s not consent, it’s your money or your life, it’s just a protection racquet, where you are paying for the protector not to harm you. It’s as old as the hills, nothing new under the sun. Vito Corleone 101.

  8. NonEntity Says:

    So the guy at Best Buy getting your money for a service contract is guilty of extortion?

  9. steven Says:

    Why arnt my replys showing?

  10. John Black Says:

    Does he have a jail cell waiting for you if you don’t consent to his offer? If you don’t accept his offer he is SOL, with the so-called government “no” will get you time with Bubba at the near by penitentiary.

  11. Pete Says:

    A man named John Taylor Gatto has researched the origins and true intentions of public schooling and has concluded that it’s 100% about crushing individualism and rational thought to turn humans into obedient, state-worshipping worker drones and soldiers. With this in mind, these Calls of Shame sound different to me. I don’t think these tax collection employees are sociopaths; I think these are public-school “educated” people who have been conditioned to follow orders and cling to authority rather than question anything. Sadly, they are victims who have been tricked into victimizing others.

  12. Incubus Says:

    An astute observation, Pete. I’ve read some of Gatto’s work. It’s quite astonishing when you understand the history of public schooling.

  13. jim Says:

    as may know, youtube is on a mission to make it impossible to download and save youtube videos.

    But this means that your viseos which are youtube based CAN NOT BE DOWNLOADED NOR SAVED.

    So when i and my friends are off the grid we cant enjoy your anti- massa-ism ….. as in the opposite of yessuh massa…

    could you please start adding / modifying your videos and audios to include links to DOWNLOADABLE files? again youtube has shut downloading down…

    To you and all of the other gem stones ….. i would be happy to pay a small access/ download fee per unit. If you need help with that process/function I have a close and very honorable friend who can set it up.


  14. NonExclusive Says:

    Government + any government worker= fraud/extortion. NonEcon.

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Nonexclusive, your comment makes it look as if government is different from government employees.

  16. NonExclusive Says:

    @Marc Stevens, I did not fully explain my self, What I mean by “Governments” is their written legislation bull/laws. But you are right is the same.

  17. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Government is just an idea (quite a bad one).

    Ideas can only exist in people’s heads. Legislation (or any other written decree) is void and worthless, unless the ideas described therein can be cemented into other people’s heads. The idea of “government” is an attempt (and quite a successful attempt, unfortunately) to rationalize behavior that would otherwise be considered antisocial. The idea is ripe for the provoking of cognitive dissonance, and Marc is doing a mighty fine job of that.

  18. KeithOB Says:

    Well one thing that’s positive is that he did not call me a taxpayer Marc

  19. NonExclusive Says:

    He did not call you a TAXPAYER, but He treat you like one. What’s the difference?

  20. KeithOB Says:

    Lets not get caught up in the emotional moral parts and stay on point.They practice violence from behind a desk.

  21. Pete Says:

    @KeithOB: Does a judge or tax collector really practice violence?

    You reminded me of a “chicken and egg” question I sometimes think about: If a judge orders a cop to physically attack you and the cop follows this order, is the judge really guilty of any violence? He merely spoke, which means he made some vibrations from somewhere in his throat that traveled through the air and impacted the cop’s eardrum. To me, it seems that only the one committing the actual physical aggression and violence is guilty of wrongdoing. Using this same approach to warfare, the bomber pilots alone are guilty of murdering the people of Hiroshima, regardless of who built the bomb or gave the order. And Joseph Stalin and Mao probably didn’t kill tens of millions after all…the murderers can only be those who pulled the triggers.

  22. NonEntity Says:

    Pete, you pose an interesting question, one I’ve pondered before myself. Let’s make it more interesting yet… Say that I make a bomb, and I attach a detonating device to it which is activated by a cellphone. Now I hand you my cellphone and ask you to make a call for me (perhaps I pretend to be busy changing a tire or something). So you input the number I tell you into the cellphone and push the “send” button. The bomb explodes and creates mayhem. Who is the responsible party?

  23. NonExclusive Says:

    NonEntity, you should write scripts for Sylvester Stallone.

  24. Andrew from Canada Says:

    re: “chicken and egg” of violence conundrum. In the presented scenario, that is the judge orders the cop to attack people, the fault surely relies on the judge as I have reason to believe the cop would suffer consequences for disobedience. Compliance under the barrel of a gun, etc.

    Altho the injury is the direct result of an action of the cop, the fault cannot fall entirely on him unless it can be determined that he would apply violence even without an order from his master.

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Another factor to consider is that cops are recruited for their lack of mental capacities. It is harder to hold a mental incompetent responible for poor choices of philosophical or ethical nature, just as it’s hard to find fault with a rock just because it happens to fall on you.

  26. Pete Says:

    @Andrew from Canada: I don’t entirely disagree with you. Obviously the judge is a huge part of the cycle of aggression. The problem with blaming the person who “gives permission” is that the responsibility for violence never gets pinned on any individual and we’re left with a circle of people pointing fingers at each other. The victim blames the cop, the cop blames the judge, the judge blames the politician, and the politician blames the victim. Factually speaking, only the cop is committing an act of violence. (I have never seen a youtube video of a judge or politician shooting a so-called “criminal.”) When we look at it this way, it seems that the power of the thug rulers can end only when the cops stop following orders. Sorta like the fall of the soviet union, when the tanks turned around and went home.

    @NonE: Your scenario (from the script for “Diehard XIII”) is really interesting. My conclusion is that the guy who answers the phone cannot be responsible. I’m with Emmanuel Kant on this one, who rightly concluded that a man’s actions can only be judged by knowing his intentions. The evil NonE mastermind would be responsible as long as he is the only one who knew the phone was a deadly bomb.

  27. Andy Says:

    The buyer of the hitman’s service is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

    “So you input the number I tell you into the cellphone and push the “send” button. The bomb explodes and creates mayhem. Who is the responsible party?”

    Unlike the hitman, the cellphone guy is an *unwitting* accessory. It was your intent to cause/create mayhem — which I assume is human death and property destruction.

  28. NonEntity Says:

    Pete and &e, I agree with your thinking on my scenario. Regarding Pete’s analysis of the circle leading back to blaming the victim, I think that’s very sound thinking and perhaps the reason the game has been so successful for so long. I think I’m of the opinion that people need to be held responsible for their actions regardless of their excuses. A rabid dog needs to be shot, even if it is no fault of his that he’s rabid.

  29. Andy Says:

    I think it’s vile to encourage or order another person to violate the NAP. Especially vile is indoctrinating innocent children to unwittingly accept government bullies/criminals as worthy… of anything, but contempt. They (government, lame-stream media, universities) espouse peace, freedom and civility, yet they systematically undermine peace, freedom and civility. It’s no wonder so many people are indifferent to government violence and first principles.

    Pull at parent’s emotions. …Imagine teaching your child to be a bully and conman. Parent’s don’t do that — governments do. After they graduate or reach adulthood there’s plenty of indoctrinated prospects for government to recruit into its ranks.

  30. NonEntity Says:

    But, &e, there is no “government, ” there are only individual people.

  31. Andy Says:

    NonEntity, I know you know I know that.

  32. NonEntity Says:

    Then, &e, perhaps you should have spoken what you know to be true rather than lazily continuing the propagation of a maladaptive meme… (he sez, knowing full well that this criticism most assuredly applies to himself as well.) 😉

  33. Pete Says:

    @Andy: I totally follow what you’re saying about (the people pretending to be) government and all of the indoctrination and programming that goes on. I also agree that it’s despicable to encourage someone to violate the non aggression principle. But that does not make an agitator a murderer. Here’s an example: I try to persuade both you and NonE to rob a liquor store. You wisely tell me to get lost and no violation of the NAP happens. However, NonE takes my advice and robs a liquor store and kills the clerk. My actions as agitator were the same. It was the decision of NonE to be a robber/murderer that created the immoral act. It doesn’t matter if NonE was on drugs at the time, or had the I.Q. of an eight-year-old, or had an officially recognized mental disorder; he alone is the murderer and thief.

  34. NonEntity Says:

    I.Q. of an eight year old? What?! I’ll have you know that I was a pretty smart eight year old. And my drug habits are none of your buiness! Besides that clerk wasn’t very nice to me.

  35. Pete Says:

    @None: This screenplay is really moving along! I have only one question: When happy-go-lucky, street smart detective John McLane tries to disarm the phone-bomb with only 3 seconds remaining, should he cut the green wire or the red wire?

  36. Andy Says:

    Pete, I don’t blame violent movies, music or drugs for people’s actions. Why would I blame you for Non Entity’s actions? You seem to think I’d blame you. If that’s true, it’s your wrong assumption or intentional strawman. In the case of a contract hitman, both the buyer and assassin are guilty; for each one put forth consideration.

    Pete, would you blame an eight-year old that’s unfamiliar with guns yet finds his fathers and accidentally kills his brother, in your opinion is he a murderer?

  37. NonEntity Says:

    Pete, “When happy-go-lucky, street smart detective John McLane tries to disarm the phone-bomb with only 3 seconds remaining, should he cut the green wire or the red wire?”
    —-Too late! While John McUnlucky was examing the wires, the mercury trigger switch set off the bomb and … Never allow yourself to be fooled by the red and green wires!

  38. Pete Says:

    @Andy: No, accidental killings do not violate the non aggression principle.

    I wasn’t using strawman tactics. I was discussing an imaginary, hypothetical situation to make a point. I only used your name and NonE’s name for dramatic effect. I could also have said “Person A” and “Person B,” etc. Regardless, you seem to have entirely missed my point.

    I agree with you that the person who hires the assassin has committed an immoral act, but I am asserting that only the assassin can be guilty of murder and violence.

    Use the example of the recent Ferguson, Missouri shooting. Here are the facts: Police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was likely told by Judges, politicians, and other cops that it’s okay to shoot people sometimes. Officer Wilson’s salary and weaponry is paid for with money collected from the residents of Ferguson, Missouri. Some of these residents think the killing was justified, others do not.

    Based on these facts, who committed an act of violence against Michael Brown?

    A) Officer Darren Wilson
    B) Some Judge
    C) Some politician
    D) The residents of Ferguson, MO
    E) All of the above
    F) A, B, and C

    I chose “A.” You seem to choose “F.” Why?

  39. Andy Says:

    Obviously, the man, Darren Wilson. Apparently what’s not so obvious is that the officer is a fiction, not a man.

  40. NonEntity Says:

    Andy Sed: Obviously, the man, Darren Wilson. Apparently what’s not so obvious is that the officer is a fiction, not a man.
    Huh??? So Michael Brown wasn’t actually shot? Or he was shot but the bullet was fictional? Huh ???

  41. NonExclusive Says:

    The never ending Story; Who was first? the chicken or the egg, ( or the hen or the rooster) or all of the above?

  42. NonExclusive Says:

    Andy, I do understand your point, We the”regular people” are in charge of the Office of person, which is a fiction, there are other fictional offices, like the Office of the Governor, police, prosecutor, etc. I do notice that a prosecutor never charge a Police Officer with a crime, first they stripped him off the title or office of police and than they charge him with the crime, a prosecutor also never charge a “Judge” with a crime, they suspend him off his title and then in the office of person he is charged with a crime. A Police, which it is a fictional title commits a crime, he got the help of the rest of his gang; Judges, Prosecutors, etc, etc, but when the crime is so obvious and got caught on tape, they go after him or will cause a major damage to all of them, sometimes they settle on monetary damages to make it look very civil and very decent. The woman who recently got beat by one of their “fictional characters: a Police Officer” have settle with them for 1.5 Million Dlls. (She did good without going to Vegas,or playing Lotto) but although she got a happy ending, many of us are not that lucky when we deal with those fictional characters called “Police Officers ” “Judges” or “Prosecutors.”

  43. NonExclusive Says:

    The woman in question I mentioned is the one that was just walking in a highway in California and this savage animal in his fictional position of Police Officer started beating her to “protect” her according to his testimony. They are so creative when they commit their crimes that sometimes we just laugh on how retard they are when they explain their motives or causes in how they act the way they act.

  44. NonEntity Says:

    So the OFFICE is fictional, but the officer, his violence, these things are real. I just watched the second season of House of Cards yesterday and the day before. It’s a quite extraordinary fictional depiction of the dynamics of power. Highly recommended.

  45. NonExclusive Says:

    All government positions are fiction, government is fiction and the capital letters of your driver’s license and the rest of your government documents make you a PERSON, (a legal entity according to Black’s Law Dictionary) you the real flesh and blood are now the trustee of your ALL CAPITAL fictional person/corporation/ENS LEGIS or legal entity; the Office of person is represented by you and you will be subject to their codes, regulations and corporate innuendos. A Police Officer can not be in court as a defendant, they never do, first they stripped him off of the Office of “Police Officer” and then He will be charge with a crime like the rest of us as PERSON. Here in Chicago 2 years ago a Governor was charge with a number of crimes, what they did first, was to impeach him since He did not wanted to resign and then after He was no longer the Governor of the State of Illinois; charge Him with the crimes, He was sentenced to 12 years in Federal Prison or BOP

  46. NonExclusive Says:

    The capital letters of your driver’s license, I mean the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS OF YOUR NAME

  47. NonEntity Says:

    BOP? I thought that died out in the early 60s when the British invaded. I actually remember it’s death. I think you must be confused!

  48. NonExclusive Says:

    BOP, means Bureau of Prisons, and is the agency responsable to classify every convicted violator of Federal Law, in which prison the violator will do his “time” or sentence. If is a non violent with less than 10 years of sentence He will go to a Prison Camp, 10 years to 20 to a Federal Correction Institution- Low, 20 years to 30; to a Federal Correction Institution- Medium, and the last 30 years to Life; a U
    S. Prison, or High. Actually the exgovernor of Illinois is in a Low, and will be sent to a Camp pretty soon.

  49. Pete Says:

    @Andy: you said “Obviously, the man, Darren Wilson.”

    Okay, so now let’s put Darren Wilson into a hypothetical situation. Pretend Darren Wilson is given a no-knock search warrant signed by a judge to raid a suspected drug house in Ferguson, Missouri. As before, Wilson is paid by the residents of Ferguson, Missouri. He has been reassured by other cops, judges, his DA’s office, and politicians that it’s okay to kill people, even when they’ve not violated the NAP. During the serving of the no-knock warrant, Darren Wilson shoots and kills a man armed only with a teflon-safe, plastic spatula. Who committed an act of violence?

    A) Officer Darren Wilson
    B) Some Judge
    C) Some politician
    D) The residents of Ferguson, MO
    E) All of the above
    F) A, B, and C

    @NonE: I am green-lighting your screenplay!

  50. NonEntity Says:

    So you DIDN’T mean BOP, you meant BoP! I see. I guess I’ll have to put my 45s away now. Bop til you drop.

  51. NonEntity Says:

    Pete, you left out “G,” the man with the spatula. He’s an important part of the sub plot. (It’s an old diesel sub plot, not one of those new fangled newcuelar sub plots. Our screen play is more ecologically sound than the Navy’s.) (“Navy” is a code word for fictional people that kill real people on other sides of various waters, mostly not carbonated, but that seems to be changing, especially downstream from Fuckyousimi.)

  52. NonExclusive Says:

    Fictional people don’t exist, is like saying a “human robot” People are the real flesh and blood, and fiction is the title, like person, police officer, judge prosecutor, soldier, clerk, etc, etc but any way let’s work on that screenplay, who knows it can probably will be seen in a theater near you.

  53. NonEntity Says:

    “Can probably will be.” I like your attitude!

  54. NonExclusive Says:

    @NonEntity, and I like that’s “an old diesel sub-plot and not one of those new fangled newcuellar sub-plots” which to my understanding is.. a classic sub-plot ( like the good old movies that were big hits for months in the theaters and not the new garbage that play at t he theaters for 2/3 weeks

  55. NonEntity Says:

    “Theater?” Whutza theater?

  56. NonExclusive Says:

    You are correct, they are long gone, good observation.

  57. NonExclusive Says:

    Here in Chicago, We used to have big palaces for movies, as a matter of fact, the CHICAGO THEATER, was one of them, Chicago theater was saved by the city but no longer feature movies.

  58. bruce sloane Says:

    just a random question ..



  59. NonE Says:

    NonExclusive Sed:
    Here in Chicago, We used to have big palaces for movies…
    Yeah, well “we” used to have Conestoga wagons and Clipper ships, too. But then someone invented large and cheap flat screen monitors and home theater systems. 😉

    Just sayin’.

  60. NonE Says:

    BOOK? There’s a BOOK?!? What? When? Why wuzn’t I informed of this??? (This seems like deja vu all over again, don’t it? 😉 )

  61. NonExclusive Says:

    None, modernization kill a lot of traditions and move all of us into this instant Society, where every thing have to be instanly; mail, electric stairs, instant coffee, you named. But that’s life always progressive.

  62. NonE Says:

    Well, NonE(the otherOnE), I must say I think you’re maybe over reacting. 4 instance, last night I watched “Unbreakable” with Samuel L. Jackson and Bruce Willis on DVD. It’s an amazing film and then I was able to watch the second DVD in this “Collector’s Edition” which had all kinds of amazing material on the production, and philosophical discussions of the concept of the movie and so on. I’m not sure how this was a bad thing. And I didn’t have to experience people trying to step over me so they could get to the bathroom or refill their popcorn buckets.

    I wonder… are you saying something is good just because that’s the way it’s always been done? I must say that I miss having slaves pick my cotton for me… no, wait… I’m not actually sure of that. I’ll have to think on it a bit more. 😉

    I imagine that will less (NONE!) government we’d have more options for the marketplace to really provide and value those things that optimize our lives. And by that I don’t mean “instant Society.” Taxes and regulations are, I imagine, more the issue than innovation.

    Just my thinking at the moment.

    – NonE (the oriGinaL)

  63. NonExclusive Says:

    @None (the oRiginaL, I agree) What I miss from the old days, is that a cop have to chase for a ticket and be pacient in a corner waiting for you to speed or run the Stop sign, now here in Chicago ( probably all over the States) (oops there are no States) they got this state of the art tecnology and computers flash you a picture and write you a ticket.

  64. NonE Says:

    NonExclusive Sed:…now here in Chicago ( probably all over the States) (oops there are no States) they got this state of the art tecnology and computers flash you a picture and write you a ticket.
    Hey, it gets even better’n that. They now have these cool gizmos that can turn your entire wedding party into red mist, all without having to leave their air conditioned trailer 15,000 miles away or so. Ain’t technology grand?!


  65. NonExclusive Says:

    NonE, the OriGinaL (I agree) Well now you give me an exampe of how good technology can be, also on the medical field technology have been great. But now on train, buses,streets, restaurants, and everwhere all I see is zombies checking their e-mails, texting or on an internet page, that’s including me, there are no moments of introspection or simple thinking, I have to check my mails, comentaries or else, that’s good, but that’s bad because there is no more interaction between as the human race like in the past. what do you think sigh charlie Brown, I am sorry… NonE. Good grief!!

  66. NonExclusive Says:

    Correction,… between US, not as

  67. NonE Says:

    NonE (the imPoster), “all I see is zombies checking their e-mails…” You know, I hear this complaint all the time. I find it highly amusing. If these people were reading books or letters they would probably be praised for exercising their intellect and social interaction skills, but because they’re using a more modern device than dead tress this is some how evidence of the fall of humanity. WTF? 😉

  68. NonExclusive Says:

    Well some porcentage of the online users are exercising their intellects, but another porcentage are just playing games, gossiping around in the Social Networks, and another percentage like people in this group are getting an education of Who in reality is that entity called “Government” and thanks to this technology We are becoming more and more aware of ways to defend ourselves, like Marc Steven’s work. That really works.

  69. NonEntity Says:

    Damn, I’m GOOD! 😉

  70. NonExclusive Says:

    Welcome to the Show of NonE, NonEntity and NonExclusive.

  71. NonE Says:

    NonExclusionable sed: “but another porcentage are just playing games…” Talk about a Freudian slip! Oink, oink, oink! 😉

  72. NonExclusive Says:

    @NonE, .. NonE, I can see by your answers that you enjoy to satisfy your vanity or self-gratification, always trying to put people down; an Ego Disorder or Ego Trip Syndrome, adding to your problem you also suffer of a personality disorder, there is a clinical method for treating your Psychopathology and is called Psychoanalysis which can be cured by using the Psychoanalitic method of Freud. oopps sorry if I brush your little ego oink, oink, oink

  73. NonExclusive Says:

    @NonE, .. NonE, I can see by your answers that you enjoy to satisfy your vanity or self-gratification, always trying to put people down; an Ego Disorder or Ego Trip Syndrome, adding to your problem you also suffer of a personality disorder, there is a clinical method for treating your Psychopathology and is called Psychoanalysis which can be cured by using the Psychoanalitic method of Freud. oopps sorry if I brush your little ego.

  74. NonExclusive Says:

    oink, oink, oink

  75. NonEntity Says:

    NonX, if you’re being serious I’m sorry you’ve gotten that impression. My intentions have been an attempt to show a more positive view of human potential as you seemed to only see the bad. If you’ve interpreted that as an attempt to belittle then I apologize. With all the horrid crap that exists, there is also great wonder and spirit afloat as well. I find it healthy to be able to laugh at myself. I actually thought your “porc…” thing was intentional and I was celebrating it. Oink! 😉 “Life is too serious to take seriously.” I see Marc’ s whole thing as working to help strip people of all of the destructive memes most of us have been taught, thereby freeing the individual life spirit that is at the core of the life force in each of us.

  76. NonExclusive Says:

    NonEntity, you are just fine, it wasn’t you I was exercising my observation skills, it was NonE, the other NonE. You are a very respectful man with a great attitude, educated, and very creative
    I enjoy my interactions with you, about NonE; I love his incredible talents to to write in a sarcastic and educated ways, my opinion is not a complaint is just an observation like the ones he does. Thank you for your comnent you are a very classy man. ( Not person or individual)

  77. NonEntity Says:

    OMG! Have I become Dr. Heckle and Mr. Jyde? Eeeeeek!

  78. NonExclusive Says:

    That’s what life is all about, multi-colored and ready for multiple challenges and diversities. On my humble opinion because I also suffer of Ego Trips and repressed emotions, but what the hell!!

  79. stalJanski Says:

    ok, can we get back on track?…i see no one can keep the theme going and or answer let me Wilson shoots and kills a man armed only with a teflon-safe, plastic spatula. Who committed an act of violence?

    A) Officer Darren Wilson
    B) Some Judge
    C) Some politician
    D) The residents of Ferguson, MO
    E) All of the above
    F) A, B, and C

    A officer, following orders and loving it is at fault so is , B judge hes part of the same gang allowing it to happen, C lawyers in parliament/legislature for making crap bs laws that dont apply to any one cept the victims they attack, and making $hitloads of cash for you being the victim, and D the sheeple for not having all of the above locked up or better yet, humanely euthenized , for allowing more pain to innocent people. so ya all of the above would also be correct. ..what NAP?”code”, from me?(got proof it applies?tehehe)..sure but if all of the NAP is just the NAP people, and not them violent psychopaths, then there will be nothing in the world left but violent psychopaths, ya they got to go..over thousands of years, all of them killing NAP people, the ratio is now getting more like 30% NAP, and 70% psychos…thats the way i see the scales so far.sure prove me wrong.just my opinion, manh, peace out and within you…you, You,YOU nonstate ants, watch out for them grasshoppers,

    We here on the landmass canada, are also gunning to have an “pay try out” act..soon more police roadblocks, more arrests, and indefinite detentions,coming to a small town near you, cause you just wont submit to DAS MANh….how dare you? Anarchist(s).

  80. 11:11 Says:

    @stalJanksi: Just because one subscribes to the Non Aggression Principal does not mean that person cannot defend him/herself. Nor does it mean that one cannot participate in punishing (humanely euthanizing?)those who violate the NAP.

    Some proof of this can be seen by those who do fight back by going to court and ask questions and demand evidence that their laws and codes apply.

  81. NonEntity Says:

    Ineresting thinking. Let me add another category. Instead of making “D” responsible as a whole, let me suggest that only those residents who vote and otherwise support the concept that it is acceptable for some to rule over others who can be properly lumped in with “A” “B” and “C.”

    Thosd who abstain from supporting the violence and seek to simply and honestly live their lives quietly amidst the violence and hate that surrounds them should not be held accountable for the violence of others.

  82. Pat Says:

    What if we say that their code is implied and not good laws.. We do not have under standing in their language. Sorry I am uneducated, i am an idiot. A good law is always explicit. Where does it say in your law that i, is liable for someone else written paper ? Remember there is always victimless.. who is the ‘province’.. can someone point it out in the court ? What if we just simply say, i am not resident at\in Canada, though i am physically present at\in Canada. At best maybe we are simply householder in a common land ?

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Feb 14, 2015 - Co-host: JT - Says:

    […] The non-responsive “STATE-department two-step” moves recently experienced in England and British Columbia, Canada. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here