Categorized | Articles, Video

Common Judicial Lies – Yes, Judges Lie All The Time

Posted on October 13th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

One of the things we need to do to get to a voluntary society, is to relentlessly attack the false presumption of legitimacy people called “governments” still enjoy.  As long as enough people believe they are some kind of moral authority, then they will continue to exploit that and keep forcing us to give them money.  That’s why I want to address two common lies told by lawyers, judges in particular: 1. that jurisdiction is a trial issue, and 2. jurisdiction is an issue of law, not fact.  If you are attacked and have to go to court, challenge jurisdiction and you’ll hear one or both of these lies.

Liars

Now, you should immediately notice a serious contradiction with the two lies.  Yes, if jurisdiction is an issue of law, then why would it be a trial issue when trials are for issues of fact?  They are liars, just not very good liars.

So you get to court for an initial appearance, remember you’re forced to appear or a warrant for your arrest will be issued “authorizing” the use of deadly force to get you in there.  The judge is under the impression the prosecutor has already presented evidence to support his argument the court has jurisdiction.  If not, why else would they be forcing you to appear?  Why else would he give a police officer a arrest death warrant if he didn’t believe he had jurisdiction?

You challenge jurisdiction by asking: “Has the prosecution presented any facts to support his argument the court has any jurisdiction over me?  The judge refuses to answer, saying this is an arraignment, we’re only taking pleas. He may lie insisting he has jurisdiction and enter a plea for you, again lying that you are refusing to plea.  Most likely, when you ask for the facts proving jurisdiction, the judge will say:

Jurisdiction is a trial issue.

They may “good cop” you and say things like you have every right to challenge the prosecutor at trial, but when you get to trial, they will lie again saying, “Sorry, jurisdiction is a pretrial issue.”  And if you don’t like it, appeal it.  They are a funny bunch of psychopaths aren’t they?

Jurisdiction, from the moment it’s asserted against you, is subject to challenge.  That is why the unsigned plea of guilty is so effective, it cuts out the the lie that jurisdiction is a trial issue.  If there is jurisdiction to force a plea, then there must be evidence proving there is jurisdiction and that is subject to challenge.  Just because these lawyers wear black robes and call themselves “honorable” doesn’t mean they are not liars.  The fact they can lie with impunity is not lost on them, they lie constantly, as do all politicians.

To prove this is a lie, all we need to do is look at what politicians and bureaucrats do when a complaint is filed against them; I like using the ACLU v. NSA 493 F.3d 644 case as an example.  Did the NSA have to go to trial in order to challenge jurisdiction?  No, of course not and why?  Because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and should be challenged as soon as it is asserted.

Can you imagine all those complaints filed against IRS agents having to go to trial before jurisdiction could be addressed?  How about complaints against judges and prosecutors?  It would be nice if they had to also go to trial to raise jurisdiction issues, such as immunity from suit.

We can also prove it by showing demurs and motions to dismiss are pre-trial pleadings.   So when some black robed attorney snaps at you that jurisdiction is a trial issue, you snap back:

Objection, that’s not true and you know it.  If I filed a complaint against you, then you’d file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Yes, judges lie, they lie all the time.  Get used to it, it makes it easier to defend yourself when you know about everything judges say is a lie.  When any truth comes out it is usually irrelevant.

Just as important, there is the issue about the jurisdiction of the agency who did the investigation and filed the complaint.  Way before any trial, the cop on the street or the IRS agent ordering you to come to their office for interrogation, there must be jurisdiction over you.  Jurisdiction is  not just an issue for the courts, it applies to every government agency.  Ask them, they’ll tell you.

So cops and low level bureaucrats are making legal determinations there is jurisdiction over you; they are insisting the constitution and laws apply because we’re physically in Arizona.  Again, that is an argument, not a statement of fact, and is subject to challenge.

So the claim jurisdiction is a trial issue?  I think all reasonable people can see there is no merit to it.

Next, this is another big, though common lie, the standard:

Jurisdiction is an issue of law, not of fact.

This is pure garbage, it’s lawyer speak for: we can’t support the argument.  Because that’s all it is, an argument, a claim put forth by a cop and, or prosecutor.

It rests on the false argument that if you’re physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to you.  I have plenty of objective records showing they cannot provide any facts to prove their argument is true; there are no facts and no rational basis.  This is not a philosophical issue here, I’ve done a tremendous amount of investigatory work to confirm everything on three continents.  When a cop argues the court has jurisdiction, he is arguing the constitution and laws apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona and the court has jurisdiction over me.

That is an argument, a claim. As with any argument, it must be supported by facts and logic.  Otherwise, you have an unprovable, subjective claim.  There is a Latin phrase for this:

vox et preterea nihil “Voice and nothing more; that is, nothing but wind.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1354.

Or the more common “Because I said so”.    My argument is right because I said so, and other lawyers also said so. When you claim other lawyers “said so”, the technical word is “precedent.”  It makes lawyers feel superior and that they have valid arguments.  It looks like this:

The constitution and laws apply to you because you are physically in Arizona.

Why is that argument true, what facts is it based on?

No facts or logic, it’s not provable objectively, you must take our word for it, it’s true because we say so.

Just because you say so?

Well, other lawyers said so also.

Strong argument.

Judges spew this this lie to cover for the prosecutor because the prosecutor’s argument has no support, there are no facts and no logic.  Don’t buy into the double-standard fallacy either, that the argument there is jurisdiction is somehow different than other arguments, it’s not.  Look at the NSA case above, it was tossed out because the ACLU could not provide any facts to support their argument the court had jurisdiction, only a “well-founded belief”.  See only prosecutors get a free pass to use a belief instead of facts:

You’re honor of course this court has  jurisdiction, I believe the courts have already ruled on this issue.

Such dishonesty is accepted if the one making the argument is a prosecutor.  Put forth your own belief and see what happens.  Sir, I have a well-founded belief  the court does not have jurisdiction.

DENIED!  Pay the clerk on your way out you guilty bastard.

So when you hear these lies from the lawyers, object and call them on it.  Jurisdiction, once asserted against you, is just an argument and is subject to challenge, it is not only an issue for trial.  As with any argument, it must be proven with facts and logic, it’s not just an issue of subjective opinion.

If they force you into their proceedings, then expose them for the criminals they are.  Hopefully you can expose them in front of a crowded room so their would-be victims can see who the real criminals are.

[For some reason youtube is not letting me post videos over fifteen minutes, the claim is I’ve posted “spam”.  So this video had to be cut into two parts, that’s why it was not posted on Sat. after the show.]

              

43 Comments For This Post

  1. indio007 Says:

    Jurisdiction has 2 connotations. This is a lot of argument and confusion about it.

    “The sharpest distinction should be between jurisdiction and substantive merits—between rules defining a court’s adjudicative authority and rules determining the validity and success of a substantive claim of right on its merits.”

    There is a big difference between ” a court’s adjudicative authority” and “rules determining the validity and success of a substantive claim of right on its merits”.
    Both are elements of jurisdiction.

    Jurisdiction is not a trial issue. Though they like to push you to trial so they can make facts appear in the record where there previously wasn’t any. This is retroactive back-filling for the appellate court.

    Jurisdiction is a “Can the plaintiff get a foot in the door?” issue.

  2. Rob Says:

    Marc, I’ve listened to you on and off for quite some time now (as well as having one of your books). You seem like a very intelligent spirit… but, with all due respect, how long will you continue to go down this road.. so-to-speak? I get the feeling that you either haven’t really looked at the issue (I mean really looked!), or this is simple misdirection? Either ‘laws’ exist that Judges et al must follow… or it is completely ‘lawless’. If there are laws… great, maybe one needs to look ‘deeper’? If no laws exist… whats the point?! Seems you believe the latter… as you continue to look for ‘answers’? If laws exist and jurisdiction were ‘granted’, at what point? If granted… is the ‘Judge’ obligated to inform; or would that jeopardize the integrity of the system aka failing to ‘protect the public(?)’ by divulging everything??? “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Is it possible that it’s his sworn duty to ‘protect the public’? Is it possible, that once understood, opinions may change about the actual NEED for Judges to ‘lie’; without which the integrity of the ‘system’ of ‘voluntary compliance’ would possibly disintegrate? With this ‘No State Project’… are you calling for the abolition of the ‘State’? Is it possible that some ‘need’ the ‘State’? I’m reminded of what Teddy Roosevelt said at the Jamestown Exposition re: ‘government’. Peace.

  3. Andy Says:

    Rob, you’ve got one of Marc’s books. Did you read it? There are no citizens. There is no body politic. There is no State. There is no State. There is no State.

    There is a gang of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptoparasitism]intraspecific kleptoparasites[/url]. Aka, men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun.

  4. Andy Says:

    There is a gang of intraspecific kleptoparasites. Aka, men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun.

  5. Rob Says:

    I did read it. But it was several years ago and, though I found it interesting, personally I found no read ‘remedy’ contained within it’s pages. Ok… no ‘state’, got it. If there is no ‘state’… then why argue? Is fiction not simply that… fiction? Who is ‘crazier’… the crazy man or the one who argues with the crazy man (NO reference to Marc!)? If one believes that everything is at the barrell of a gun… why study, argue, search; apparently there is no real law?! Is it a fools errand to pursue that which is fictional? Just submit.. no? On the other hand… could one be missing the forest for the trees??? Are most actually war-like who BELIEVE they are coming in peace? What does the heart say? Peace.

  6. Andy Says:

    Creating a voluntary society from the ground up is happening on several fronts. Marc exposing criminals of criminal legal land for what they are, a gang of killers, thieves and liars; showing people how to minimise damage (damage control) is a valuable service as is his support and advocacy for a voluntary society — “Bring about a Voluntary Society one visitor at a time”. What remedy are you in search of? Define remedy, please.

  7. Rob Says:

    Andy, is it your claim that we ‘live’ ‘in’ a compulsory ‘society’? If so… what evidence is there of that? Are the ‘ptb’ not simply making offers? Common parlance… best outcome for all? Legally, I believe that ‘remedy’ is an equity term, possibly not the best term to use (aka legalese?)?

  8. marc stevens Says:

    @ Rob, Evidence? This could take a while, but evidence for one is the force continuum the poe-leece use. They don’t care about your political status, how you spell your name or if you have a name, if they see traveling in a conveyance, and there is no tax tag on there, they’ll assault you. Also, all support (taxation) is compulsory. Once piece of evidence is here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7201

  9. Andy Says:

    Rob, What is YOUR definition of remedy as you use the word?

  10. Rob Says:

    “Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.” Marc… to whom does the ‘us code’ apply? If it applies to ‘you’… then by all means, pay the tax!! Again… if there is no ‘law’, do you think by the ptb will allow any changes they don’t agree with?? However, if there is law and it is ‘honored’, maybe it is being misinterpreted by most? Case in point? http://www.jasonwhoyt.com/blog/2014/10/9/justiceforterry-man-appears-in-court-gets-arrested-for-failure-to-appear

  11. Rob Says:

    “Rob, What is YOUR definition of remedy as you use the word?” Maybe ‘relief’ would be a better word? Allowing for (and assist) the ‘pass through’ of those who act honorably but don’t quite ‘get’ the process (bureaucracy) in it’s entirety? Aka, assist those who have proven themselves worthy of governing themselves? Dunno… something like that, possibly?

  12. eye2i Says:

    Rob, if i may “offer”: is it possible you are confusing at least one key word here? One such word being “exists”? Where the factor with “Law” (yet another word easily confusable aka subjective) is less about whether it exists and more about what folks believe about (or as) such? And where belief shapes reality?

    What if what Marc is seeking to bring out, is relevant to beliefs? And thus, seeking how to best/optimally deal with believers that are currently shaping too much of “our” reality?
    Consider with me: when you post “if laws don’t exist”, what are you trying to get at, beliefs -or- actions? Values -or- actions based upon values?

    Also, if some within society are (merely) “making offers”, aren’t they -ultimately- of the “make you an offer you can’t refuse” variety (popularly expressed as “You were born a Citizen” and “Love it or leave it”)?

    It seems to me, due to life-long indoctrination regarding a major halluciNation, for most it’s just too easy not to see The Gun in The Room and/or under the table. The “can’t refuse” behind the “offer”? Like the air we breathe, it’s just been around us so long (all along), you just don’t notice it? (until it shapes up as a graded tornado aka a SWAT Team at your door –or Traffic Stop…?!)
    So what of my offer? Can you refuse it? May one refuse it? And Their’s (as you label such)?

  13. eye2i Says:

    @Marc: “They are liars, just not very good liars.”
    One could see Them as con artists then –if you’re looking for how They ARE very good.? 😉

  14. eye2i2oodummE Says:

    daggnabbit! i meant to include this2:
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-5042-post-47458.html#pid47458

    (it’s a short post about a “Judge” dismissing a motion, filed by the “Prosecutor”, for a “State” to “take Jurisdiction”)

  15. Rob Says:

    eye21… did I say anything about ‘refusing’ anything?! Did you read the article at the link I posted? Do you ‘see’ it?? If you are in the ‘no justice’ camp… confused about the story (as many seem to be?), then maybe time and study may reveal? “What if what Marc is seeking to bring out, is relevant to beliefs?” Is truth concerned for beliefs? “Consider with me: when you post “if laws don’t exist”, what are you trying to get at, beliefs -or- actions?” It appears many; like the guy in the article and his ‘supporters’, may ‘believe’ that the courts are ‘lawless’?? Where is the proof aside from mere beliefs to support that (if the assertion is true)??? Hell, down at the bottom of the page, one guy is holding up a sign that says “Dixie County Government is Corrupt”. Is that a claim that can be proven?! “So what of my offer? Can you refuse it? May one refuse it? And Their’s (as you label such)?” Seems one can do anything they want? But, are there consequences to peoples actions?! “Get out of the car!” How many choices does one have in this scenario? Some honorable… some not so?? I believe all too often most are led by emotion rather than by reason. Can we go wrong if we come from a position of Love for our fellow Brothers and Sisters? Violence / arguing begets the same. Why go there? If you believe their laws are compulsory, then why research? But, I choose to believe they are simply just like us… exercise the Golden Rule and one cannot go wrong… eh?

  16. Rob Says:

    Are the courts / Judges / attorneys required to divulge exactly HOW jurisdiction was obtained? It appears not! “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.” Is it possible one is ‘deemed’ to be cognizant of the ‘law’ and if one finds himself / herself under the jurisdiction of the court et al, the assumption / presumption is one agreed to be so?!

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Rob, apples and oranges, “ignorance of the law” has nothing to do with the prosecutor’s burden of proof regarding the FACTS he relies on to support his arguments. Also, prosecutors are required to support ALL arguments with facts, they bear the burden, it’s part of the adversarial proceeding.

  18. NonEntity Says:

    Well obviously you’re wro… mistaken, Marc! They don’t have to support the issue of which end of the gun points at us… thatz a given! 😉 Otherwise we’d be seeing self defense by the victims.

  19. Andy Says:

    The non aggression principle (NAP) is “law” that virtually no one is ignorant of. I think, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’, originates from the NAP.

  20. Rob Says:

    “apples and oranges, “ignorance of the law” has nothing to do with the prosecutor’s burden of proof regarding the FACTS he relies on to support his arguments.” SoMarc, when exactly is jurisdiction obtained then?! Have they EVER answered that question??

  21. NonEntity Says:

    Rob, are you familiar with the definition of a citizen? If you think about it I think you might agree that “jurisdiction” is about the same. It’s a unilateral claim that sociopathic thugs make to try and make their brutal life-threatening control over your life appear to have some sort of rational justification. It doesn’t. It’s just criminal brute force, but they REALLY don’t want people to recognize it for what it is.

  22. Rob Says:

    “are you familiar with the definition of a citizen? If you think about it I think you might agree that “jurisdiction” is about the same. It’s a unilateral claim that sociopathic thugs make to try and make their brutal life-threatening control over your life appear to have some sort of rational justification. It doesn’t. It’s just criminal brute force, but they REALLY don’t want people to recognize it for what it is.” Textbook definition of FEAR… False Evidence Appearing Real? Also brings to mind my favorite definition of ‘insanity’… doing the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result. It appears to be human nature to want to blame something / someone for ones ‘failures’? “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” If one continues to rail against the effect; will one ever consider to seek the cause? Look around, do we not live in a world where practically everyone is content (agrees aka volunteers?!) with popping ‘legal’ pills to merely treat symptoms?! How powerful does it appear that the Rx companies are?! “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” ~ Thoreau. You don’t know what you don’t know… until you know. No?? I have a great deal respect for Marc, appears to be a very intelligent guy! But, maybe this is only a piece of the puzzle?? Maybe one needs to ask oneself… is one simply seeking to understand the ‘system’ and be in harmony with it (read honor?, or is one looking to help in causing the demise of a system which one had no hand in creating?! I get the feeling some are looking to dismantle the system believing that some ‘utopia’ will rise up around around the old system? Strike the root my friends!

  23. Rob Says:

    Teddy Roosevelt 1907 Jamestown Exposition: “We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen. As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves, or submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly; in the end, they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within. A Sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures! A Sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him, and where as it is true in our Republic; the people are Sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which; as a foundation, every republic must rest!”

  24. Rob Says:

    “A man only begins to be a man when he ceases to whine and revile, and commences to search for the hidden justice which regulates his life.” ~ James Allen. Too often I fall into this ‘trap’, but daily i tread forth, seeking wisdom.
    Peace Peace Brothers and Sisters.

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Okay… I wonder if you can give me some reasonable explanation of how one person is supposed to legitimately gain control over the life of another? There are terms for this concept that show that we humans condider such control to be wrong, terms like kidnapping, slavery, and rape. But it appears you feel that “jurisdiction” is in a different category than these. Can you describe to me what it is that makes this difference, as it is not clear to me.

  26. Rob Says:

    Are you familiar with the ’13th Amendment’ to the ‘constitution’? Read it… then read it again. What does it say?! Now… flip it around. Then read the article at the link I provided. Then look in the mirror and ask “Who is the problem??” If the answer still is the nebulous ‘THEM’!… read it again! And.. again I ask; if the pro-se-cutor has the burden… when asked, has one EVER divulged where / when / how / why EXACTLY jurisdiction was attained?!?! If not… then how can one say the ‘burden’ is on the pro-se-cutor?! Is it possible he has clean hands and has already honored any ‘burden’? In ‘Law’… can silence have meaning??? Tacit procuration? I’m sure legal types make a shit-ton of money answering questions like this (yeah right!)!!

  27. Andy Says:

    Rob, the constitution is four pieces of paper and ink that no one bothered to sign. I’ve read many things and the only ones that are applicable to me are the ones I signed onto making myself a party to a contract.

    Rob wrote: “Who is the problem?”
    The problem is people who fantasizes the constitution to be something other than what it is.

  28. Rob Says:

    Well then I guess I’m talkin’ to the wind.

  29. NonEntity Says:

    Rob, did you sign the constitution? And if you did, who were the counter signatories?

  30. Rob Says:

    When did I say it had anything to do with me?

  31. Andy Says:

    Rob wrote: “Are you familiar with the ’13th Amendment’ to the ‘constitution’? Read it… then read it again. What does it say?!”

    If you’re trying to explain their “rationale” for why they do what they do, for example, they’re just doing their jobs following orders that originate from the constitution and code; as I said, the problem is people who fantasizes the constitution to be something other than what it is.

    Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. Comply or die. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum.

  32. Rob Says:

    Andy et al… “Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. Comply or die.” I can see how one may be of this opinion. Sure feels that way sometimes… at first. Stay thirsty my friends!

  33. Andy Says:

    Rob, it’s not an opinion. It’s an empirical fact that has been proven many times.

    There’s videos of cops saying to their victims, “stop resisting” even when their victim is not resisting. By saying “stop resisting,” they believe they’ve covered their ass [justified their initiation of violence] as they then proceed to pummel their victim — sometimes killing their victim. Watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU Even when complying they sometimes pummel their victims to death.

    The constitution and codes are NOT contracts. There’s four essential elements of a contract. 1) offer 2) meeting of the minds 3) consideration 4) agreement.

    I doubt anyone would pledge allegiance to a government that will kill them for noncompliance. That sort of explains why there’s no meeting of the minds — the use of force continuum.

  34. NonEntity Says:

    &e, (Disclaimer: I am not trying to sow discord here, okay?) I just listened to a really interesting podcast on the nature of understanding and truth and such stuff. You may find it… well there are a lot of adjectives I could employ! Schoolsuckspodcast # 310a.

  35. Andy Says:

    NonE, please explain what you think may be taken as discord. Nothing in your post suggests discord. That is, aside from your interjecting the issue of discord. Perhaps it’s in the podcast #310a. If so, what is in the podcast that you think may suggest discord?

  36. NonEntity Says:

    &e, it is possible that you may think I am trying to take one position or another, or judge you one way or the other, by my suggestion of this podcast and the material it discusses. I want it clear that such would be an erroneous leap. That’s all. – We’ve had some disharmony in the past and I prefer to avoid such in the future if I can.

  37. Andy Says:

    I don’t know what disharmony you’re talking about. Seems maybe a tad paranoid to me, I don’t know. “I just don’t understand how this happens.”

    Essentially everyone, when they say to a person, “leave me alone,” they mean it. Especially when they’re confronted by a person initiating force or threatening force or coercion against them.

    Leave me alone. Stop resisting!

    Comply or die… is it voluntary?

    To be continued on the forum…

  38. NonEntity Says:

    Tell ya what. Listen or don’t.

  39. Andy Says:

    That’s always the case. Why the theatrics?

  40. eye2i Says:

    Rob: “did I say anything about ‘refusing’ anything?!”
    A: Why do you ask me? Do you believe i said that you said something about ‘refusing’? (just in hopes of being clearer, the refusal i was referring to is relevant to the “Offer” of Governmentalists aka Stateists/Statheists.

    @Rob, i’ll need to request from you that you define some of your terms before i might value continuing to seek to communicate with you. Those terms being (for starters): “law” (so we can get to “lawless”), “truth”, “justice”, & “choice” ? fwiw, all but the last of those, i no longer choose to [sic], or sparingly use in conversation/communication. i would also prefer that we undertake this in the msn forum.? [one of us could come back and link that here if desired?]

    Your (grammatical) romp with the words can vs may, highlights for me the low probability of efficient communicative exchanges happening here in the Comments section i.e. i could have used italics in the forum to better signal my intent vs how you seem to have taken it.?

    Regarding the reciprocity principle (aka “the golden rule”), actually it has some serious problems, no? Have you read any evaluations/examinations of it to consider such? i’m not wishing to convey that there’s not potential value in it, rather, just that it’s not the, well, Golden Goose (or “God”given) some ‘see’.? It’s rather, one of several (i’d offer 5 fwtw) pillars for those seeking to live voluntarily –as my argument. ☮ ☯

  41. NonE Says:

    eYeTOO sed: “Your (grammatical) romp with the words can vs may”…

    ————

    OMG OMG OMG!!! Words and grammar actually count for something??? I’m verklempt! (2 steal a wonderful word from notavoter) 😉

  42. eye2i Says:

    If you’re verklempt, then i’m definitely NonvErklempt!
    (where apparently, what counts for nothing for ya is yammering/hammering on a point another hasn’t disagreed with? after all, how foolish for one2 use words and grammar to say they don’t count for something?.)
    But ♪ you can call me Betty and Betty when you call me, you can call me NonE…♬ 😉

  43. Jeff Evans Says:

    Teddy Roosevelt was a stone cold bigot! Are you kidding? F Teddy Roosevelt Damn Klansman!

6 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Oct 18, 2014 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Common Judicial Lies – Yes, Judges Lie All The Time. […]

  2. NSP - Sept 19, 2015 - Guests: Eyal and Tim - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] accept the common judicial lie that “jurisdiction is a trial […]

  3. NSP - Sept 26, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] The benefit of having recordings of prosecutors and judges committing serious due process violations, misconduct, and common judicial lies. […]

  4. NSP - Oct 3, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] to properly use the unsigned plea of guilty to catch judge’s common […]

  5. NSP - Nov 14, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the common judicial lie(s) that “territorial jurisdiction is a trial issue,” “legal […]

  6. NSP - Jan 9, 2016 - Guests: Bill Church, Eyal Lior, and Keith O'Brien - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] to counter the common judicial/prosecutorial lies that “the evidence to prove jurisdiction is on the ticket” or “we don’t […]

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 Ustream.tv. 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