Categorized | Articles

Michael Dean’s Emotional Hit Piece

Posted on June 28th, 2012 by Marc Stevens

I have been attacked before, but this latest was truly unexpected; it comes from an LRN podcast host, Michael Dean.   Mike emailed this open letter to me late Wed. night and before I could respond, he had already posted it.

What is unfortunate is despite how accessible I am, by phone, email, the forum, skype and what else, yeah that’s right, a three hour live radio show, Mike never contacted me prior to posting his emotional rant about me and worse, what I think are rude, uninformed comments about the people I work with and those who follow the show.  I was surprised at the complete lack of respect and common courtesy from Mike.  I don’t like doing this; my initial impression is to just delete the email give it the same consideration Mike gave me: none.   An objective, independent investigation will prove Mike is just being emotional and is very uniformed.

“You and I have never spoken, but we have a lot of the same friends.”

That’s not a good way to start an open letter to someone you’re being critical of.  I have not had any contact with Mike before; all I have is his open letter.  I have never heard of him or his podcast.  As far as I know, he has not had any personal contact with anyone I’ve worked with.  I was under the false impression that being on the same network, Mike would have thought to call, skype or email me before posting his emotional letter.  It looks like the scope of his investigation was to email a lawyer who used to be a prosecutor.

Such emotional pieces are not worth my time; Mike’s letter  is devoid of any critical thought and analysis.  My radio show is live almost every week and dissent and vigorous challenge to all the content has always been encouraged.  Those who listen to the show know this is true.  My material is there for objective analysis, such as the Maryland tax hearing.  The forum is also available if he wanted to discuss what I do with actual clients; there’s no evidence Mike did any investigation into the facts.

But, as Mike is also on LRN, instead of my usual response: you’re free to call into the show with your evidence; I will respond publicly and also invite him to come on my show and discuss the evidence he relies on to make his claims I’m doing more harm than good.  Here we go with what I believe are the relevant parts the respond to:

“I am, like you, a fan of civil disobedience.  I believe flexing rights with cops is good, and I believe it has its place with judges.  I have respect for people who know the dangers, weigh the options and choose to do that on their own.  But advising your “clients” (your word, not mine), who just want to stay out of jail, to go piss off the judge, especially in felony cases, is not helping anyone’s personal liberty.  It’s doing quite the opposite.”

As we’ll see later, Mike does not really believe this first part about respecting people who choose to stand up for themselves in court.  And people who just want to stay out of jail also want to effectively defend themselves and limit the damage.

If Mike had done any investigation, he’d know I do not advise clients to go and piss off judges.  The only advice I give clients during consults is to make their court dates on time and always give opposing counsel copies of what they file with the clerk.  What I do is lay out the situation they are in from a factual standpoint and talk about effective ways to limit the amount of damage the bureaucrats intend on doing.  My clients (why do so many people get hung up on the word client?) are adults and decide for themselves what the best course of action is, not me as Mike accuses me of.   I’m guessing Mike did not bother to contact any of my clients and discuss this alleged legal advice.  All he had to do was get on the forum and he could speak with any number of them and find out for himself.   I guess being a lover of liberty does not include being a lover of the facts.  If you don’t have time to make some calls and investigate, then maybe accusations should be kept private.

“I know that on your website you state that you are not an attorney (though you do charge $100 an hour for phone consultations).  But people calling in on your show may not know that you are not an attorney, as you seem to present yourself as an attorney.  Therefore people may place their trust in you and act upon your advice based upon a mistaken understanding.”

I fail to see how charging $100 per hour for consults would convey the impression to anyone I’m a lawyer.  Most start at double that.   Not so subtle an insult Mike.

People who listen to the show know I’m not a lawyer; my disdain for the legal “profession” could only be described as epic.   I have constantly reminded and reinforced that I’m not a lawyer and have been attacked several times by a bar association.  Each attack was defeated though, Mike never asked about it.  Again, I do not give such advice.  I present what has been effective for me, and replicated for more than a decade in North America, parts of Europe, Australia and New Zealand and clients and listeners make an informed decision that is best for them.  What advice I do give in general is usually as acts of civil disobedience when I encourage non-violent, non-compliance.

“I’ve listened to your show before, and I listened to your talk with Jillian the other day.  I know Jillian. I posted some of her bail when she was busted in Texas recently.  I speak with her frequently.  The Freedom Feens podcast has also, for several month, given free ad time for her confectionery company on our Sunday live show, ad time that we also sell to other people.  In short, she’s a friend, and I care about her.”

Apparently Mike doesn’t pay attention to what’s being said on the show if he’s really listening.  From the emotional tone of the letter, it appears Mike has an attachment to Jillian and is taking things personally, and there is nothing for him to be upset about.  If he knows Jillian and respects her as an intelligent, autonomous adult, then he’ll leave her to make her own decisions, decisions that are hers to make, not Mike’s.  I’ll assume Jillian knows what’s best for Jillian.

“I was pretty appalled by some of your advice to her.  Some of your advice might make sense to someone who was willing to grandstand in court to make a point, didn’t mind doing some jail time, didn’t have a kid, had money for a lawyer as a backup if needed, and was only facing misdemeanor charges in their home town.  It was not helpful advice for a young mother with no money trying to stay out of prison and facing two drug felonies outside her home state.  Particularly when the charges are pending in Texas, and after Jillian told you that the judge already hates her.”

“Appalled”?  Really?  It was not advice, I did not tell her she should do anything I mentioned, I told her about what has proven to be very effective at limiting the damage the terrocrats want to inflict and she was free to think about it and contact me off air if she had questions and was interested.  I did not pressure Jillian or send her any information off-air, I treated her as an adult; if she was interested, she could get more information on the website and contact me.   I should be insulted that you think I’d expect someone who listens to a few minutes of how I do things will just run off and do it.  She never heard the material before, wow.  Mike assumes an awful lot.

And if Jillian did investigate the material and decide she may want to defend herself the way I do, who is Mike that he knows what’s best for Jillian?

Mike is saying that challenging the fictions terrocrats use to cover up their violence is not an effective way to defend oneself.  Really?  Where’s the evidence Mike?  Why give the judge and prosecutor a free pass?  It’s called defensive strategery and it’s very effective despite your opinion.

And what’s this about grandstanding anyway?  I always say we have to be calm, professional and treat them they way we want to be treated.

“By the end of your talk with Jillian, she was saying “That makes sense!” and cheerfully saying “Thank you!”  In short, she sounded like she thought you were the solution she was looking for.  She’s smart, but you confidently present yourself as having some basis for being able to give advice.”

Yes, because what I present on the show does make sense.  It’s based on observation, experience, replication and is predictive.  What part of the material in that segment doesn’t make sense Mike?  Mike does not take the time explain.  You know how much guts it takes to ask a judge who he represents Mike?  It’s a very effective method of exposing the lie the judge is a fair, impartial decision maker.   But it takes guts, defending yourself against psychopaths is no walk in the park.  I deal with psychopaths every single day, I know the type of people were dealing with in court and I don’t take that lightly as Mike implies.

Yes, she said thanks, but that doesn’t mean she’s going to just take what I mentioned in that brief segment and blindly follow.  If you do believe she’s smart, then give the woman some credit.  I explicitly tell everyone to not take anyone’s word for anything, to investigate and independently verify what I present.  I have objective examples on the website  and forum so people can decide for themselves.  If Mike listened to show he’d know that.

“You even said to Jillian on the show “We’re very confident of the material on this show.”

Of course; I investigate, I verify and I verify again.  I speak almost exclusively from personal experience.   People who have replicated my results have called the show and testified and have posted their evidence on the forum.  I can be confident because I not only have years of replication with people as far as Australia, but I can also predict results, again even in places in England where I’ve never been.  Those are pretty big scientific factors.  If Mike had done some investigation, he would know that.   I always tell people they should investigate and verify for themselves.   Also, that was part of a joke being that Jillian had never heard the show before.  At the No State Project, we’re enlarging the audience one guest at a time.

“Randy is a former prosecutor and currently a privately practicing attorney, with decades of criminal law experience, a lot of it with drug charges.  He’s also a philosophical anarchist.  He was taken aback by your advice.  He said, “I believe that required licensing for anything is tyrannical.  But this guy Marc Stevens is a poster child for everyone who believes that required licensing for lawyers is a good thing.””

Again, the advice I give to clients is to make their courts date on time and  provide opposing counsel all pleadings.   Mike provides no evidence, only an appeal to authority.  Anyone interested in the truth would not rely on an appeal to authority.   This lawyer is welcome to call the show and present evidence proving what I am doing is not effective.

“Randy said that in most states, if Jillian retains a criminal defense lawyer, or even the public defender, she’s unlikely to get jail time, since it’s her first felony and drug possession offense.  He said if Jillian takes your advice, acting pro se, and challenges the judge by asking “Where do you derive your authority?” and “Do you honestly think I can get a fair trial here?”, Jillian will almost certainly end up in a cage in Texas for a long time.”

Again, “Randy said” is an appeal to authority and offers no facts, just an opinion.  It ignores the actual evidence where people have limited the damage on their own without a lawyer.  And let’s not forget that lawyers, especially prosecutors, are known for being objective.

Also, I never said to ask: “Where do you derive your authority?”  If this is from a facebook account, it’s not mine or my response.  I don’t use facebook.  I ask the judge who they represent, what the nature of their relationship is to the prosecutor and what facts they rely on proving how and why they acquired jurisdiction over me.

A lawyer recommending another lawyer, there’s a shock.

“Yet your “knowledge” of the law is such, Marc, that you sought Jillian out, you contacted her, and offered to her: “I can help with court stuff.”

That sort of “ambulance chasing” would be considered unethical for an actual attorney.”

Wow, quotes around “knowledge”.  That’s a pretty low opinion Mike has of me.  I sought her out as a guest because of the story and to let her know, and listeners in a similar position, what has been effective to defend against such attacks.

Here Mike makes me out to be worse than an ambulance chasing attorney.  I guess to Mike offering information that has been used to stop attacks or minimize the damage, all available for free by calling the show and reading the site, forum and wiki page, is somehow “unethical”.   The information is free and we have, again for free, groups of people who have been to court who hold regular role-playing sessions on skype to help prepare people for court.  We have groups on three continents.  A great example of spontaneous order and cooperation.

“wherein she said “I am not equipped to fight this financially”, and ” I’m so frightened thinking of the violence that may come in the near future from the state against me…”

Her fears notwithstanding, you still suggested she skip the public defender and act pro se and antagonistically challenge the judge.”

I told her in my and many other people’s experience (personal first hand knowledge) that most of us do much better or just as well as having a lawyer, especially when doing plea deals, and save the huge retainers lawyers demand.  Lawyers charge for paperclips, have a violent monopoly and I’m unethical?  (Is Mike really advocating people use lawyers?)  I did not say it was the only way, I said it has been very effective and she was free to investigate and use the information if she wanted to.  I help empower people, to help lessen the fear, Mike seems to want to feed it like the lawyers.

Even when clients lose in court, they usually tell me they are glad they stood up for themselves and they are not nearly as fearful.  I see merit in that.  Doesn’t mean I think everyone should.  I leave that to each individual man and woman.  Mike seems to think he knows what’s best for people he doesn’t know.

“You went on and on with this “question and challenge the judge” defense theory for your whole long talk with Jillian.  This theory is largely what you promote on all your shows, and in your seminars, books, workshops, web forum, etc.”

It was only part of one segment, it may only have felt long because I’m from Long Island; we did discuss her business also.  Theory?  Alright, call it a “theory” instead of a method or tactic, maybe Mike doesn’t see a difference.  Either way, challenging a lawyer on his fictions, such as having jurisdiction and being fair, impartial and independent is very effective with plenty of empirical evidence supporting it.  Mike presents no evidence to the contrary and having heard the show and seen the forum he should have noticed people calling and reporting what happened when they questioned the lawyer forcing them to answer a cop’s complaint.

“I’ve heard you similarly advise other people who are not trying to “make a stand” but simply trying to serve the least amount of jail time as possible. In doing so, I feel that you are making people pawns in your plan of how to fight the system.”

Mike acts like I don’t know the difference between an activist and someone who just wants to be left alone.  This is something Mike has in common with IRS agents.  Also, I don’t advise people to do this, all I do is present the method, the model I and others have used, the rational behind it and what the results have been.  I present the facts and show how the results have been consistently replicated and people, such as Keith in Toronto, choose to call the show to report what happened.  Clients and listeners to the show then make an informed decision on their own.  It seems to bother Mike a great deal when people make informed decisions on what is best for them to minimize the damage that is at odds with what Mike thinks is best.

The last part is where we really start to see Mike’s true colors: “I feel that you are making people pawns in your plan of how to fight the system.”  Yes, Mike, you “feel”, but is your feeling based on evidence?  It’s not just an attack against me, but very revealing on Mike’s opinion of people I work with and listen to the show.

I take what I do very seriously, to be accused of using people who are in traumatic situations and intentionally make things worse for them is not only baseless, but flies in the face of readily available evidence on my website.  For a while I stopped getting personally involved with IRS attacks because agents were using me to make the client look bad and deflect attention away from their lack of evidence.  Mike claims “I am, like you, a liberty lover…” but contradicts this by claiming I’m “making people pawns”.  Not a surprise Mike never called the show or even emailed me.  I’m a liberty lover who makes “people pawns”.  Good grief; you see why I wrote there was no critical thought and analysis?

“Occasionally on your show you make self-deprecating comments like “Hey take my advice or don’t!” (usually followed by a laugh, like you’re joking).  But that’s sadly lacking as a disclaimer, in my opinion.  You make those jokes, then launch right back into pretending to know what you’re talking about, and give advice on how to “fight the man” to people who are just trying to stay out of jail. Your pet theory isn’t even particularly good advice for someone wanting to fight the man.”

Occasionally?  If you listen to the show you know it’s constantly.  Despite plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, Mike accuses me of “pretending to know what [I’m] talking about”.  If Mike feels I’m pretending, he’s free to call into the show anytime like anyone else who thinks what I’m presenting is not accurate.  He’s chosen not to call, email or skype me about what I present and doesn’t take the time to write why.  Mike also ignores the fact I always tell people to investigate and confirm what it presented, that is my disclaimer and adults understand that.

It’s not a theory or advice; it’s a method or tactic and it’s just asking questions, questions that have proven to be very effective.  Mike only offers his opinion it is not particularly good.  That’s fine, I put the material out for people to make their own decisions, if someone like Mike feels it is not good, I’m OK with that.   Apparently Mike feels it’s not a good idea to challenge fictions by asking questions and knows best what other people should do.

“I have no ethical problem with someone practicing law without a license, if they’re good at it.  But I don’t think you are good at it.  One reason licensed, practicing attorneys are often much better at it then even the good “jailhouse lawyers” is that practicing attorneys have actually spent a lot of time in courtrooms in a wide variety of cases, and that’s where a lot of knowledge of the law comes from.  They know the courts, the judges, and the (often persnickety) local rules.  You can’t get it all from books.”

Mike feels what I present is just from books; he is wrong and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.  I have been immersed in the courts and dealing with bureaucrats for more than a decade and speak from personal, first hand experience.   Mike did not take anything I present and show where I am in error, there is no objective analysis and investigation.

Is it ethical to publicly post something about me without investigating first?  To make accusations based on feelings and not facts?   I don’t care if Mike doesn’t think I’m good at what I do; I let the evidence speak for itself i.e., the replication of my results.   I’m also available for challenges to my material on my show and Mike could have asked me to be on his podcast before posting his letter.  I have never backed away from a challenge to my material.  I answer questions all day, 6 days a week; curiously, I’ve never gotten anything from Mike.

“In my opinion, you have a difficult time reconciling your vision of “how things should be in a perfect world” with how things are in reality.  Your vision of “how things should be” has parallels to mine.  You and I both believe that there should be private police and courts who actually have to earn their keep and only process real crimes, rather than the monopolistic tyrannical system of “justice” we have now.”

I don’t talk about a “perfect world”, I talk about getting to a voluntary society.  Mike and I have very little in common; I look at the facts, to get as great an understanding of reality as possible and use that as a basis to defend against terrocrat attacks.  An example is I don’t just accept the fiction a judge is a fair, impartial and independent decision maker.  The facts are they are forcing me to answer a cop’s complaint, so I ask questions to bring this out.  Unlike what Mike has done, I investigate and get the facts, I don’t go after people based on feelings and opinions.

“But by providing your “clients” with bad advice, advice that comes out of some sovereign citizen-esque fantasy of “how things should be”, and your faulty belief that magic words make tyrants melt in fear, I believe you are doing more harm than good.”

This statement reeks of emotion and bad faith to such a degree it’s not accurate to describe it as a distortion of the truth, it’s just wrong and deliberately wrong.  And like I have to say to bureaucrats: Who are you responding to Mike?  Because it certainly isn’t me or my material.  Why is clients in quotes?   Magic words?  If you have listened to the show you failed to understand or pay attention.  Your way of communicating is very similar to the way bureaucrats communicate.  If you’re going to insult me, get your facts straight.

“I’m looking at your Facebook page right now, and reading a note to you from a woman who had her 18-year-old daughter try your “legal advice” by asking the judge “Do you really believe I can get a fair trial?”  It didn’t help and the woman seemed astonished that the judge didn’t dismiss the case on the spot.”

I’ve publicly stated I don’t have a facebook, it’s not mine.  Had you called or emailed me with any interest in getting the truth, you would have known that. Someone else started a No State Project twitter, I have since taken that over.

“There is no profit to me in railing on you.  I love liberty media, and want there to be as much of it out there as possible.  I spend hours each week giving free technical advice to people wanting to start or improve their podcasts and filmmaking.  I get great joy from helping people create liberty media.  Before today I would never have considered telling anyone “You should stop doing what you’re doing.”

And there’s no profit in responding to Mike’s emotional railing, devoid of any supporting evidence.  There is profit/benefit when you show people respect and investigate prior to making accusations; it’s called credibility.

Mike may love liberty, but apparently does not have a love of investigating the facts to see if they are consistent with his feelings.  Instead of railing, why not pick up the phone, email or skype me?  Get on the forum and actually speak to a client.  Do something resembling an objective investigation of the facts.

“I feel it’s an equally unwritten rule to not speak ill of fellow liberty activists.  And your ideas about liberty are good.  But when a fellow liberty activist is doing podcasts, radio, seminars, workshops, forums and books convincing people to do things that may endanger their liberty, without sufficient disclosure, I have to speak up.”

Great, speak up, that’s encouraged.  Shouldn’t that include an objective investigation into the facts before “railing on” someone publicly?  Mike could have called and confronted me directly on my live show; he decided not call, email or skype me.  Kind of ironic Mike accuses me of not giving sufficient disclosure.

“Your legal advice would likely be solid if you were “practicing law” in a Heinlein novel.  But in our current reality, much of your advice is not solid, and is more likely to hurt than to help.  I wonder how many people are in jail or prison from following your advice.

I think your show, books, website and seminars are likely doing far more harm than good.  I wish you’d do something productive instead.  You’re a smart guy, and could certainly excel at many things that would not inadvertently harm others.”

I like the insults and then the disingenuous compliment; I can see why Mike chose not to call the show and make these accusations.  Mike’s tactic is very clear throughout his letter, he provides no evidence my material (not advice) is not “solid”, accurate or effective.  Mike has nothing but his feelings it is “more likely to hurt than help.”  This is Mike’s standard of proof?  His feelings and opinions?  It reminds me of a call with an IRS agent a few weeks ago, when she didn’t have evidence, I asked: “Do you expect me to accept this on faith?”

Wish I’d do “something productive” and not “inadvertently harm” people?  I’ve had IRS agents use this line several times.  Maybe Mike doesn’t think the Maryland tax hearing was productive, but the man who was being attacked would disagree.

“At the very minimum, I think you should add a pre-recorded disclaimer with every caller and guest on your show, something like “Marc Stevens is not an attorney.  And any advice he gives is aimed at activists who want to ‘fight the man’, not folks whose primary concern is to stay out of jail.”

At the very minimum, I think people should investigate the facts before making public accusations against someone.  Pick up the phone, email or skype; do some independent research first; don’t go by feelings and appeals to authority.  Show some minimum professionalism and get the facts straight before going public.

I’m so supposed to take advice from someone who thinks so little of me he does not investigate before he rails against me publicly, insults me and my clients?  Mike must really think I’m an idiot.  Well he’s got plenty of company there.

“People calling in to your show don’t know your whole deal.  When people are facing the horror of actual prison time, and cannot afford an attorney, they are very vulnerable.  You seem to offer a solution, but you don’t give them the full terms of what your “solution” entails.

I’m even willing to professionally record that disclaimer for you, for free, if you’d use it.”

You’re wrong Mike.  You don’t have your facts straight.  You assume people don’t know and I don’t give full disclosure.  I would say it’s bold of you to make such statements, but it’s easy to make the accusations in writing the way you did.  Bold would have been to call the show and confront me directly on live radio, something I encourage.  And I do offer a proven, effective way of defending against bureaucrat attacks and give full disclosure.  I’ve said on the radio hundreds of times asking a judge who he/she represents can cause them to come unglued, that calling them by their first names can cause them to become enraged.  Mike’s lack of evidence is breathtaking and makes him appear more of a COINTELPRO agent than a liberty lover.

To write I make “pawns” out of vulnerable people is a petty insult and shows Mike’s true colors and motives.  To think for a second I don’t care about the people I work with is evidence of just how uniformed Mike is.  Obviously I won’t be taking Mike up on his offers to do anything “professionally” as the open letter thrown serious doubt over whatever professionalism Mike may have.

“I’m going to be reading this letter next week on the Freedom Feens podcast, and will also be posting it on my blogs, LibertarianPunk.com and MichaelWDean.com, and elsewhere

Feel free to read this letter and reply on your podcast.  I’d also like to offer you the opportunity to come on my podcast and respond.  If you’d prefer to respond via e-mail I will print your response on my blogs and read your reply on the podcast.”

When you read the letter for your podcast, at least have the decency to give a disclaimer  you are presenting your opinion, feelings and an appeal to authority, not objective facts and you’ve done no investigation.  Include the fact you never called, emailed or skyped me about your concerns and feelings.  Try to include something along the line of:

“I had plenty of opportunity to confront Marc live and unrehearsed on his radio show, but I didn’t.  I also freely chose to avoid any contact with Marc and otherwise investigate to get a reasonable understanding of the facts.  Instead, I chose to accuse Marc, impugn his integrity and motives, based on feelings, opinions and an appeal to authority, a former prosecutor; prosecutors are well-known for their honesty.”

Mike is free to contact me to come on the No State Project and present his evidence; or he can call into the show and surprise me.  I don’t need advance notice to prep, the evidence is already there.  I wish Mike no ill will, only that if he wants to challenge what I do, that he do it honestly, openly and objectively.  Base criticism on facts, not feelings and an appeal to authority.

Let me finish with this: it’s my opinion based on experience, that it’s better to investigate and know the facts.  Mike apparently has such a low opinion of me he couldn’t be bothered to contact me about his concerns.  It was an objective investigation for the truth that led me to being a voluntaryist; if we’re truly interested in liberty and getting to a voluntary society, then we have to look at the facts objectively, however difficult it may be to initially accept them.  I hope those who follow Mike and his blog will see why it’s so important to research and verify the facts for themselves, hell, just pick up the phone a talk to people for a few minutes.  All this could have been avoided.

              

117 Comments For This Post

  1. bruce sloane Says:

    Hmmmnn …

    attacking another member of the Network ..??
    certainly not good Karma

    I think the name ” Libertarian Punk ”

    should be shortened to simply ” Punk ”

    enough said ….

  2. loki Says:

    it almost wasn’t worth responding to such nonsense… in bad faith just like a police officer dragging you into court on a presumption of guilt. it is very obvious this guy’s whole mindset is based on fear of authority and he’s trying to herd his fellow sheep in this illogical and groundless tirade.

  3. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Bruce, it says a lot about his professionalism and credibility to not take a few minutes to call me.

    @ Loki, as I wrote, if he was not on LRN, I would have dismissed it with an invite on the show. It does irk me when they put down people I work with though. Go ahead and attack me, but why put down people I work with and listen to the show?

  4. loki Says:

    Also just a point regarding the price you offer your time at – I charge $80/hr to fix computers, and I, like you, am generous and flexible, and honest about these rates and it took a long time to develop sufficient skill at what I do to. My clients are very loyal to me.

    My only business weakness has been in marketing – getting enough people to make that first call. I’ve been really putting the pedal to the metal on that. I have only been following your work for a little while and it does sound like you are rather busy with it but I get the feeling not enough people have actually sat down and read your book. I think it would perhaps help a lot if you could get more people to know about the full theory behind what you say on the show. Many guests don’t seem to know even the first thing about it.

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Loki, people familiar with the material don’t attack me as a scammmer who is intentionally hurting people. There’s a facebook discussion that reads more like the guys at quatloos. It’s pretty sad liberty activists are so angry about me. Mike wrote he was “incensed” about it.

    There are people, supposedly liberty activists, claiming I’ve never helped anyone get a complaint kicked out or had an IRS attack stopped.

    Yes, even liberty activists can launch into vicious personal attacks. Some are claiming he was professional despite having never trying to contact me. It’s like the Twilight Zone.

  6. Packabowlla Says:

    Well done Marc. You go. Sound’s like Mikey got a Ha– on for Jillian.

  7. Michael W. Dean Says:

    I love that Marc implied that I’m an agent of the FBI (COINTELPRO,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
    )

    That actually crossed my mind about Marc (that maybe he IS a government agent trying to get liberty people thrown in jail), but I kept it out of my letter because it’s the ultimate ad hominem in liberty and alternative media. For instance, it gets lobbed at Alex Jones all the time. But logical people dismiss all you’re saying after you pull that one out, Marc.

    I guess you’re nobody in liberty until somebody calls you a COINTELPRO agent.

    If Marc hasn’t heard my show, he doesn’t really care about LRN, I’ve heard EVERY show on there, because I actually LISTEN to the network, daily. And Marc, if you listened, you’d know I prefer “Michael” to “Mike.” My friends call me Michael. But it’s fine if you call me Mike.

    I find it telling that Marc complains that “Anyone interested in the truth would not rely on an appeal to authority” simply because I spoke to a lawyer. Note that I wasn’t speaking to a typical lawyer, I was speaking to a licensed attorney who actually thinks attorneys should not have to be licensed. He’s a liberty guy, who spends all day every day in court, and has also done that previously as a prosecutor. In other words, a guy who actually knows how the world of law works. He’s not an authority figure, he’s an expert. Saying that I’m wrong because I consulted with an expert is like a snake-oil salesman saying “If you go to a doctor to ask about my snake oil, you’re a fake!”

    There’s too much b.s. in your well-crafted reply to go through it line-by-line, and I have little to add. I’ve said my thoughts. I will address you implying that I slammed you because I have a crush on Jillian. Total b.s. She’s a friend. She’s married, I’m married, and my wife actually proofread my letter before I sent it to you.

    A lot of your advice is bad. You don’t understand the rules of evidence or much about courtroom procedure. Maybe you don’t get all your info from books, maybe you get it from watching re-runs of Perry Mason.

    You contact people and say “I can help you with court”, then tell them to do things that will get them thrown in prison. That’s a fact. The fact that you can trot out a few “victories” (who may have had things go well regardless of your help), doesn’t mean much. The proof is in your show. We don’t hear from the people it didn’t work for, because they’re in prison. Marc, you may have some people who’ve tried your methods and gotten something thrown out, a stopped clock is right twice a day. And none of your fans on here are going to be convinced with actual logic.

    Someone said it well on Facebook, “Arguing with Marc Stevens or one of his adherents is like a physicist arguing with someone who believes the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.”

    I see you’re sending your minions over to me. I’m not planning to mobilize my army against yours. That’s silly and isn’t going to change anyone’s minds. But go on my Facebook page, there are already a few dozen people basically saying you’re a snake-oil salesman.

    COINTELPRO agent. Sheesh. After the COINTELPRO agent comment, I’m done responding. So if I don’t go on your show now that I’ve seen your ad hominem hand, you’ll probably say you’ve won. You win! Wheeee! Go grandstand on your Skype group. I’ve got better things to do and have nothing to add that I didn’t say in my original letter or in this response.

    Maybe I AM a COINTELPRO agent?

    -Michael W. Dean

  8. Jameson Says:

    WOW! I’m so glad you jumped on this one quickly. All of his Facebook comments under his letter made me sick that I use to respect some of those people (Ian Freeman included- I still like FTL though). I think he will back away from a live debate (we’ll see if I’m right about this).

    There is a certain someone over in “N.C.” who was facing a long jail sentence (three felonies) but as he tells me, they backed away from that thanks to his own hard work and help from Marc and some from myself.

    I agree with Bruce on the name change!

  9. Smiler4115 Says:

    M,
    Please contact this gentleman during his next show… His accusations are COMPLETELY unfounded. Anyone with a brain in their head could see that…

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ pack, sounds like Mike has an anger issue also. I’m just surprised by the hateful personal attacks. Really disappointing. No one has yet to show where I made an inaccurate statement of fact. And with all this hate, you notice not one of them has ever called the show or emailed me to correct me.

    I’ll just keep sticking to the facts. Seems to work much better than emotional personal attacks.

  11. Packabowlla Says:

    Yo’s Marc. If Mike has poor listner ratings. Perhaps he’s useing this angermanament to help he’s ratings. What does that say about the people who listen to he’s show. But more importianly what does it say about how Mike feels about he’s listeners. Packa…..

  12. Juan jose Says:

    My Dad would say “COWARD”!!! no HEART no TRUTH

  13. Chris Says:

    I was shocked when I read that facebook page too, Marc. Hell, some of those people you spoke of I would have assumed to be your friends. One even went as far as to say this guy raised “legitimate concerns”. What? Subjective feeling, and baseless accusations are “legitimate concerns”?

    This guy is an emotional mess Marc–what a waste of time.

  14. Pete Says:

    I hope Marc replies briefly to this guy, repeats the offer to discuss/debate the issue, then drops it.

    Marc, your work is much too important to be distracted by something this silly. Anyone who has read your work and listened to your show knows that the claims of this guy are pretty ridiculous. I am on vacation right now, and re-reading Adventures in Legal Land, and I’m again blown away by the importance of this book.

    Marc, please take your own advice and IGNORE TROLLERS! Don’t let this guy cause you to waste any time or energy.

  15. Bret Says:

    Has anyone else went into court in Propri Persona, and asked the Judge for his Delegation of authority order,[county court] to see if he/she even has the Status to try the case? Since the Prosecutor is Pro se, he can’t even address someone in Pro Per until the D.O.A.O. has been produced.. That’s when I have seen it effective to ask if there is a Complaining party since Pro Se can’t speak.. If it’s county court without indictment papers, I doubt if they can produce the evidence. I haven’t done this, but I seen it done a couple of weeks ago.. Judge got pissed and threw his ass out of his court.. I had to talk to this guy.. This was the information he gave me.

  16. Bret Says:

    Sorry — Propria

  17. JT Says:

    Greetings Mike,

    Interesting post Michael, let me ask you, how many principals of libertarianism have you applied to your own life, verifiable FACTS only please?

    Given yourself professed need and desire to be validated by the “credentials” of those that operate within the “permission & validation” of the “state”, I would say NONE!

    Do you really expect to receive ANY kind of credibility by those that HAVE?!

    Warmest regards,
    JT, co-host The NO “STATE” Project”

    P.S. Feel free to vet me for my own PERSONAL & VERIFIABLE FACTS in support.

  18. Incubus Says:

    Upon exploring the two websites that Mike has posted his open letter on, I noticed a comment in which Mike has made the claim that he has tried posting a reply here on Marc’s blog, and his was comment was not approved. As I stated to Mike, I cannot personally refute nor verify that claim, but find that to be out of character for Marc, if true. Regardless, out of good faith and fairness, here is Mike’s response, as can be found at one of his sites; http://www.libertarianpunk.com/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-marc-stevens-on-why-his-no-state-project-show-probably-does-more-harm-than-good/comment-page-1/#comment-8499

    “I find it telling that Marc Stevens responded to my open letter on his blog, sent his minions over to bash me on my Facebook and blogs, invited me to respond, but didn’t approve my response on his blog. I’m even approving his fanboys’ hater comments, and he’s blocking me from responding. Here’s what I wrote that he didn’t approve, and he’s approved favorable comments since:

    I love that Marc implied that I’m an agent of the FBI (COINTELPRO,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
    )

    That actually crossed my mind about Marc (that maybe he IS a government agent trying to get liberty people thrown in jail), but I kept it out of my letter because it’s the ultimate ad hominem in liberty and alternative media. For instance, it gets lobbed at Alex Jones all the time. But logical people dismiss all you’re saying after you pull that one out, Marc.

    I guess you’re nobody in liberty until somebody calls you a COINTELPRO agent.

    If Marc hasn’t heard my show, he doesn’t really care about LRN, I’ve heard EVERY show on there, because I actually LISTEN to the network, daily. And Marc, if you listened, you’d know I prefer “Michael” to “Mike.” My friends call me Michael. But it’s fine if you call me Mike.

    I find it telling that Marc complains that “Anyone interested in the truth would not rely on an appeal to authority” simply because I spoke to a lawyer. Note that I wasn’t speaking to a typical lawyer, I was speaking to a licensed attorney who actually thinks attorneys should not have to be licensed. He’s a liberty guy, who spends all day every day in court, and has also done that previously as a prosecutor. In other words, a guy who actually knows how the world of law works. He’s not an authority figure, he’s an expert. Saying that I’m wrong because I consulted with an expert is like a snake-oil salesman saying “If you go to a doctor to ask about my snake oil, you’re a fake!”

    There’s too much b.s. in your well-crafted reply to go through it line-by-line, and I have little to add. I’ve said my thoughts. I will address you implying that I slammed you because I have a crush on Jillian. Total b.s. She’s a friend. She’s married, I’m married, and my wife actually proofread my letter before I sent it to you.

    A lot of your advice is bad. You don’t understand the rules of evidence or much about courtroom procedure. Maybe you don’t get all your info from books, maybe you get it from watching re-runs of Perry Mason.

    You contact people and say “I can help you with court”, then tell them to do things that will get them thrown in prison. That’s a fact. The fact that you can trot out a few “victories” (who may have had things go well regardless of your help), doesn’t mean much. The proof is in your show. We don’t hear from the people it didn’t work for, because they’re in prison. Marc, you may have some people who’ve tried your methods and gotten something thrown out, a stopped clock is right twice a day. And none of your fans on here are going to be convinced with actual logic.

    Someone said it well on Facebook, “Arguing with Marc Stevens or one of his adherents is like a physicist arguing with someone who believes the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.”

    I see you’re sending your minions over to me. I’m not planning to mobilize my army against yours. That’s silly and isn’t going to change anyone’s minds. But go on my Facebook page, there are already a few dozen people basically saying you’re a snake-oil salesman.

    COINTELPRO agent. Sheesh. After the COINTELPRO agent comment, I’m done responding. So if I don’t go on your show now that I’ve seen your ad hominem hand, you’ll probably say you’ve won. You win! Wheeee! Go grandstand on your Skype group. I’ve got better things to do and have nothing to add that I didn’t say in my original letter or in this response.

    Maybe I AM a COINTELPRO agent?”

  19. Packabowlla Says:

    Yo’s Mikey…. Alot of words — for someone who does’nt want to say anything…. Ohhh and Mikey — Your wife monitors your Email with Jullian HuuuuuMMMMMMM

  20. Michael W. Dean Says:

    JT wrote:
    “Given yourself professed need and desire to be validated by the “credentials” of those that operate within the “permission & validation” of the “state”, I would say NONE!”

    I addressed this in my post above with:
    Saying that I’m wrong because I consulted with an expert is like a snake-oil salesman saying “If you go to a doctor to ask about my snake oil, you’re a fake!”

    That’s justification for conspiracy theory 101: “DON’T TALK TO EXPERTS!” (as is “say they’re from the enemy!” like Marc did with his COINTELPRO comment.) Every cult says that too. When people are wrong, they want to cut you off from people who will tell you that you’re wrong.

    I didn’t talk to a lawyer about Marc because that lawyer is “of the state” or “an authority”, I talked to him because he has daily experience in court, something Marc does not have. The lawyer knows what works in court and what doesn’t. And it wasn’t a typical lawyer, it’s a guy who believes good lawyers should be able to practice without a license. How many lawyers believe tha? Not many.

    JT wrote: “Do you really expect to receive ANY kind of credibility by those that HAVE?!”

    I expect people to go listen to your back episodes and dissect them with an open mind.

    You folks are cherry-picking your evidence, with your “results”. Show me a double felony Marc has made go away, then listen to his advice to Jillian, and tell me Marc’s advice wouldn’t have put her in prison.

    Today on Free Talk Live Ian said that Marc’s advice in court didn’t help. It made for some entertaining babble from the judge, but didn’t help.

    Marc says “I do not give such advice. I present what has been effective for me”…Well, if that’s true, Marc must be in court for every crime in the book all the time, because Marc has advice for every caller, and for the people who’ve been arrested that he seeks out.

    MWD

  21. Panxer Says:

    I’m not even gonna lie, I got about 3 blocks down, and this guy doesn’t KNOW what he’s talking about… I just shut him out. Marc, you’re a good man and you’re doing more for the cause of good and righte..o..useos..ity or whatever the scholars call it than any 10 people I know. Your show has helped me grown tones in the last 6 months that I’ve been listening, not to mention the abundance of advice you’ve personally given me with my own TSA matters.

    I bought your book, your script, and your motion, and researched them myself. If you’re ever in Virginia and you need a friend, you’ve got one guy. Don’t take anything from this clown; He’s been drinking his own coolaid and is too cool for school apparently.

  22. Jerry Says:

    Michael W. Dean = #1 Asshat! Zero credibility for not having the guts to come on the show or invite Marc on his.

  23. Al Thompson Says:

    This is the same old attorney claptrap that we’ve all heard before. They are completely useless and everything they say is useless. Attorneys are all bullshit.

  24. Jon Says:

    I agree with Panxer. I would need to see verifiable facts before I would throw Marc under the bus. I personally have bought and read twice, Marc’s book, have talked to him on skype and listened to every one of his shows and have them cataloged and archived. I research what he says, as well as a hundred other people out there looking for answers. Is he perfect? Nobody is. Do I agree with everything he says? Only after I have researched it thoroughly myself. I still think they are using our birth certificates to build trusts in our name and ssn. But I have no evidence nor cusip numbers to verify any of it, so it still has to be in the hunch category to fact yet. I am pretty sure the term “UNITED STATES” is only a corporation masking as a government. I have seen alot of factual stuff and court decisions to back that up. Mike and Marc need to back off from each other, forgive, and move on. I back up Marc 100% so far and find no ill will with his intentions nor delivery. He is a very competent and skilled servent to those who need him and quite the scholar and wordsmith if i do say so. Very inspiring. . . Keep up the good work Marc, I am writing this from a place of knowing by my own hand as I did the responsible thing, I supported you and your material and still do . . .

  25. apache Says:

    Someone PLEASE make a note……….da mikey guy is, after all, getting advice from a licensed attorney…..didn’t he say that?
    Has ANYONE ever seen an attorney license??? Help me Please!

    But then again, if yo head is so far uup da rear that you do be takin advice, and listening to a ‘licensed’ attorney, not to mention believing what he says………..then you, forgive my french, just plum ate up with nothin but the dumb ass…….
    mikey…oh mikey…..where did he go……oh… mikey left to take another valium…to help him sleep….

  26. indio007 Says:

    Mike Dean you’re an idiot and talking out your ass. you don’t know the first thing about court lawyers of judges.

    Number one a lawyers first duty is not to his client it’s to the public.

    § 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
    “His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to
    his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the
    former must yield to the latter.”

    Number two pro se defendants facing felonies get acquitted more often than represented defendants.

    Defending the Right of Self-Representation: An
    Empirical Look at the Pro Se Felony Defendant

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1wtyXDQr0s-aUJOYzNmWEVzc28

    “Somewhat surprisingly the data indicate pro se felony defendants in state court are convicted at rates equivalent to or lower than the conviction rate of represented felony defendants….”

    Number three , if how you treat the judge has any role in determining guilt or innocence that’s all the more reason to get bias on the record.

    You are just another scared rabbit who’s legal advice is to be a marionette. Good luck with that.

  27. Bucky Says:

    Probably not a good idea to attack each other. I am thinking we all pretty much want the same thing. To live free or die.

  28. Calvin Says:

    @:MWD (Mass Weaponized Distraction). If you think that someone is an expert because they are a “pro-liberty” attorney; ask them “what are the essential elements of corpus delicti?”. NONE of the dozens of attorneys I’ve asked knew; so much for the ASSUMPTION that they are an “experts” on even basic legal requirements (especially elements of jurisdiction).

    I find it ironic that you accuse Marc of preying on people’s vulnerabilities when you (purposefully?) employ a low standard of facts and inquiry; you seem to be preying on those who are easily suggestible despite any of those pesky facts that you do not want to address.

    Non-responsiveness is what we [“we”: us involved in “verifying the complaint” that was filed against us, and how it may have be mistakenly misapplied] train ourselves to recognize; as its a typical attorney’s subconscious reaction to questions-of-fact. I find it VERY interesting what you choose to respond to and what you choose NOT to respond to… and I am not so blind to malicious rhetorical disruption to progressive spontaneous social collaboration, and am aware that it is black-art usually practiced by those who claim to “just know better”, know the type?

    Anyhow, this is a telling display of your STATist-like problem-solving skills. Like Marc said: “all of this could have been avoided” (for your sake) if you had the common courtesy to treat someone with the same respect that you would expect yourself. Sound familiar, fellow “libertarian”?

    @Bucky: I would rather just “live free” and leave the “or die” out of it. Hopefully in the future they will have mottos like “Live free and prosper” because dying would not be an alternative to freedom in a stateless society.

  29. Manarchist Says:

    I was really shocked to see Michael post this the other day. I dig his podcasts, films, and music – but this has really lowered my opinion of him.

    Like you say Marc, it would’ve been fine for him to disagree and challenge you, but to do it in such a rude, emotional, douche-bag manner is totally indefensible. To say that Marc Stevens or his method is causing harm is unbelievably outrageous — IT’S THE BUREAUCRATS THAT ARE DOING THE HARM! Get it right.

    Also, he is really blowing the COINTELPRO comment out of proportion, and latching on to that as an excuse to dismiss Marc. I didn’t see ANY “b.s.” in Marc’s response. It seemed perfectly polite and respectful given the level of hostility and smearing.

    I can say that I’ve used Marc’s material in court twice before, and both times it failed at getting the ticket thrown out. But I also don’t think it hurt, as these people tend to do as they wilt. Regardless, I understood what I was risking, and I totally feel better for having stood up for myself, and I’m sure that the judge, cop, and state attorneys’ egos were nicely bruised in the process.

    Certainly, if EVERYONE used Marc’s method, the state would collapse. So how can it be harmful in small doses?

  30. Chris Says:

    I listened to his call to FTL last night, and I was blown away at the treatment Marc recieved by, not only Mikey Boy here, but the hosts as well. I have a much lower opinion of Ian now, because he said that Mike’s main concern was the disclaimer. What? Ian obviously did not read Mike’s emotional, ad homenim laced, tirade. My respect for that man continues to sink lower.

    Mark Edge asked Mike why he did not attempt to contact Marc in any way, and after some stammering, Mike Blurted out, “Because I didn’t think Marc would respond to logic”. I’d like to examine this line, because it immediately struck me as odd. Here Mike assumes, without ever talking to or contacting Marc, that he will immediately not respond to logic. With this is mind, Mike immediately takes the illogical route, and dives head first into his emotional hit piece. This is the fallacy of Tu Quoque, and this is fallacy is very predominant in the Statist philosophy.
    Hmmm…

    I’d like to see if Mike can back up his baseless accusations with facts, and leave the realm of subjectivity. Maybe Mike now thinks he’s bitten off more than he can chew. It’s funny how he’s choosing to focus on this COINTELPRO thing, and not the meat of Marc’s response. It speaks volumes about his character, and anyone who does not rely solely on an appeal to emotion can see that.

    I happened to see the thread over at his Facebook site before he either made it private or deleted it. I thought it was telling of Bradley Jardis to attack Marc by calling him names, and not addressing Marc’s tactics or ideas. This also speaks volumes about his character, and it’s fitting that he is still a Statist.

    In a Stateless society, a person who makes false accusations, and engages in slanderous attacks, ought to be shamed, and shunned, which is exactly what I am going to do with all things Mike W Dean. I actually listened to his podcats fairly regularly, but no more. It’s real hard for me to believe he’s a friend of freedom when he acts like this. Actions speak louder than words, and there it is etched in electrons for all to see.

    The ignorance of Mike W Dean.

  31. Lyndon Says:

    Mike Dean: you are not going to influence many people with your caustic calumny. You are only defaming yourself. I would even say you have made a fool of yourself. Of all people to attack on sincerity and effectiveness you picked the worst possible battle. Marc’s methods work, and from everything I know of him, Marc is an honest man. You need to quit and apologize.

    Marc: you never need to defend your need to earn a living. Anyone that can’t understand your commercial needs lacks maturity.

  32. Panxer Says:

    Thanks Jon,

    I’ve been doing research along those lines for 3 years now and have come full circle. I’ve actually had my home of record vital stats people TELL ME over the phone that my birth certificate is a ‘security instrument’, and of course I didn’t have my audio recorder on me, but needless to say I was floored… However I do think it’s really really weird that my birth certificate is being housed at the county ‘assessor’s office’. Why is a record of live birth kept in the same place as car and/or boat titles? But in three years I’ve never found 100% concrete evidence which would stand up in court because Marc Stevens got it right!

    Even if you HAD the smoking gun and you could PROVE concretely and empirically that your birth certificate WAS a warehouse receipt and you had the copy with the cusip number and trade stamps on the back, do you honestly think there’s a judge in this country who would allow you to present that as evidence of a principle/agent relationship? They’d laugh you out of court and if they stopped laughing and you were still there with the piece of paper in your hand, the judge would sic his goons on you and just lock you up and throw away the key!

    Are we just human capital? YES! Oh! Definitely, yes! Can one prove it in a court of law and have it stand on the record for all the world to see and confirm with their own eyes? I think you would have a fatal ‘accident’ before that ever happened.

    So in conclusion, Marc’s got it right. “Stick to the facts.” There is no principle/agent relationship. There is no duty of protections in exchange for duty of political allegiance. They made it up. It’s just paper. Is the strawman real? Oh yeah. Can you prove it and make it stick to the record supported by facts and physical evidence? I’d like to see someone do it. Edward Mandel House basically said it in plain English, but are they going to dig him up and make him testify? Even if they did, they have the magic words ‘plausible deniability’; so in effect, I’m willing to bet (in metaphor) if someone steals your car, sells it, and transfers title, you find evidence of it, track him down and ask him, “I have a piece of paper with your name on it that says you sold this car. I KNOW you stole this car. I have the vin number. There’s a scratch behind the left mirror.” The thief will look you dead in the face (while the other hand is slowly going for his gun in the back of his waist band) and say ‘Sir, prove it.’.

    You can’t! It’s all been done through ‘law’. The title, the transfer, the exchange, the names; are all done under ‘official capacity’ and ‘lawful authority’, so you bring it up in court and ask them did you steal my natural person and lay title and generate a legal fiction based upon my name given to me at birth? They just call it ‘esoteric’ or dismiss it out of hand, or even just deny it and strike it from the record.

    Marc’s got it right. It’s all fictions. It’s all made up. Just stick to the facts. You can’t go wrong.

  33. Armando Says:

    Wow, I haven’t kept up with the show for a few months now and can see that there is a lot going on. I would like to say that I have use Marc’s snake-oil and have found it to be very successful (and no I have not gotten ever ticket throughout but it did uncover the scam every time). More important than helping me get my complaints throughout, Marc has taught me to think more clearly and to consistently look for and stick to facts.

    I would have to admit that before Marc’s teaching I would have put more weight on Mike’s letter (I was doing more opinion-base living before Marc’s teachings).

    Marc, when I am talking to other about Anarchism and Freedom I usually refer to you as my mentor, since you are the one who truly set me free or at the very least help me to see that chains that “state” had on me.

    Thanks Marc.

    Armando
    Rgv No State
    http://www.rgvnostate.com

  34. No state 585 Says:

    Limitless Arbitrary opinion from mike. It didnt take long for me to realize mike glanced over any and everything in each of his letters. He didnt like the conclusion so the information inbetween to mike was irrelevant. too hard to grasp because he doesnt listen thoroughly maybe? FTL scared me today it seemed like “attack marc live” at the end. I encourage instead of this “letter tag” have mike emote his thoughts on air like has been suggested. Its very professional of you marc to not retaliate to the written slurrs from this state lover. Id want to insul them back ya know like maybe… “Hail state i am your compliant slave please put words on paper for me to obey” paraphrased mike w dean from the actually aight movie guns & weed (he knows compliance and movies not court procedure). I wonder what hed think of Lysander Spooner. Maybe hes more concerned with the money that he points out that he did not at all need to point out(at all!)) when i do my friends favors i dont tell everyone, especially the whole internet potentially, i wouldnt want them feeling awkwards (we all know you were gonna let her keep it after so stupid me to imply your monetary concern) but yea maybe hes concerned about the $ he has in limbo with his “friends” recent attack from bureaucrats known to steal money. Does hes think that asking questions will get his bail not returned to him? I think she plans on appearing mike. Do you get points for assisting the state in its illegitimate prosecution of the defendant. My opinions or crazy rantings w.e

  35. No state 585 Says:

    That is not a quote from his movie i was summing up in my head how m. W. dean sounds in my head through his on air and blog bashing.

  36. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ no state 585, it’s ok if it’s attack Marc, the facts speak for themselves. Every time Mike misstated the facts, he was corrected by Ian or Mark and he just moved on to the next misstatement of fact. He claimed I did not link his letter. His MO is a lack of evidence, misstating facts, and emotional personal attacks. I think I’m going to get a running count on how many times Mike has gotten something wrong. He also claimed I’ve never had a client get a felony complaint kicked out http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20111210.html while claiming to listen to the show. Strong position.

    But, as we’ll see, this too will be dismissed with one of Mike’s many excuses i.e., a broken clock is right 2x a day and other platitudes. That is the same process IRS agents do after they admit there are no facts: Well, Marc I pay my fair share.

    Now he won’t do any live shows with me.

  37. Chris Says:

    “Now he won’t do any live shows with me.”

    When did he say this, Marc?

  38. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Chris, I believe it was on FTL last night and he emailed me:

    “I was willing to do either until you suggested that I’m a COINTELPRO agent. I have no faith that I’d get a fair trial in your courtroom. MWD”

    Any excuse for this guy. He’s trying to be funny mentioning the courtroom, even though I accepted his invitation to be on HIS show.

    He doesn’t seem to know and recognize the difference between a comparison to an accusation. I also compared him to an IRS agent 3x, he has not focused on that though. I thought I made it clear I was commenting on his method of communication. Oh, well, anything for him to go into another emotional rant about me.

  39. Chris Says:

    Man, that guy is something else.

    It’s going to look even worse when he won’t debate you man to man.

  40. NonE Says:

    I don’t have anything to add to this mess except to note that I have known Marc for years and have a great deal of respect for him for his honesty and his integrity. I do not know Michael at all. I listened to his show for a few sessions and found I didn’t find it of value and quit. The unfounded and spurious accusations against Marc are unworthy of even commenting upon.

    I will repeat: Even though Marc and I have a few issues we may not agree upon, I have a great deal of respect for his honesty, integrity and professionalism.

    – NonE

  41. Ivan Cole Says:

    Mike says he has better things to do? Then why all this garbage in the first place, and why is he continuing?

    2 basic points here I can see:

    1) Mike says use attorneys or whatever, just to ‘stay out of jail’, ‘stay out of jail’, ‘stay out of jail’, he must have said it a half dozen times. A lot of us don’t want to pay, and pay, and pay, and pay. My God, you can even get off from a murder rap if you can pay enough! This guy plays right into the hands of the mafia court system. There whole premise is pay instead of going to jail.

    Mike could be the poster-boy for the courts!

    2) Do, say, write anything you want Mikey, you don’t have the balls to do what is necessary to understand what Marc does by talking to him. But my guess is, even if you did, you would begin interrupting and shouting as a 3 year old defense, just like one of the ‘legal’racketeers. The whole point is not taking a position by asking incriminating questions. People who are not successful stumbled and made statements or took a stand. A stand can be knocked over… a question, never, but intelligently composed questions will ALWAYS get a perpetrator judge or Liar, sorry Lawyer to incriminate themselves.

    How amny times have you defended yourself in Court, MIKEEEEE ?

    And by the way, every attorney I ever saw said he was for his client and against the ‘statis quo’ if he could get your money.

  42. dan gould Says:

    This is a classic textbook case of S.T.S.

  43. NonE Says:

    S.T.S. ???

  44. dan gould Says:

    Statist Tendency Syndrome

  45. Brodie Says:

    Well, I have no interest in reading through Mike’s diatribe. I can tell from the first couple of comments he is clueless.

  46. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Brodie, I don’t blame you. The big clue was when he admitted we’ve never spoken. I regret taking his bait and ever responding. I should have known better. I just didn’t think anyone who knew me would agree with the guy. There are people who think what he did was professional, not even calling me about it. But when you’re only purpose is to discredit the man, not the material, you have to forgo such common courtesies.

  47. Michael W. Dean Says:

    http://www.libertarianpunk.com/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-marc-stevens-on-why-his-no-state-project-show-probably-does-more-harm-than-good/#comment-8528

  48. indio007 Says:

    Your 5 seconds of fame is over buddy.
    You taking this tactic out of the Rush Limbaugh play book?
    Say something controversial to generate publicity?
    As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

    An appeal to the mind power of Facebook? Really?
    BWAHAHAHA!

  49. Michael W. Dean Says:

    indio007….Third shift of the church of Marc checking in!. ^

    I didn’t write my open letter to Marc for publicity. I’ve lost as many listeners as I’ve gained, I figured that going in, and I’m fine with it.

    It’s not out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Rush Limbaugh would TOTALLY agree to go on Marc’s show, if I’m the Rush Limbaugh in this story. He’d want to milk it. Whereas I’ve said my thing, Marc has responded, and I’m happy to let it rest. My involvement at this point is simply addressing concerns occasionally.

    Since a main concern is “Why won’t you go on Marc’s show?” Here’s why I won’t go on Marc’s show, and why I don’t hate Marc and would actually give him a hug:

    http://www.libertarianpunk.com/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-marc-stevens-on-why-his-no-state-project-show-probably-does-more-harm-than-good/comment-page-1/#comment-8530

    MWD

  50. Simon Says:

    I listened to the audio of Marc referenced in mike’s origional post, and read his piece and Marc’s response. Mike’s got it right, Marc’s got it wrong. Marc is entertaining and I like listening to him, but I think he sometimes crosses a line. It’s fine for traffic citations, but not for really serious things. I’m sure somewhere there’s someone sitting in prison because of Marc, who would be out if they’d retained a lawyer and not pushed the judge.

    For serious offenses, I’m fine with it for people who know the risks and want to stand up to the judge, but that lady sounded like she just wanted to say out of jail.

  51. Marc Stevens Says:

    And like Mike I’m sure you have evidence of someone in jail because of me? It’s fine to disagree with me, you didn’t make a personal attack like Mike has.

  52. Lyndon Says:

    Mike Dean: You are all bluff. If you won’t go on Marc’s show, we must conclude you do not have anything substantial to debate Marc with and this characterizes you as a jealous, emotional ranter. Marc would not corner you, he would ask for evidence -like he always does- and you have none.

    As for your show, I would never listen to a show that links Liberty to punks. Kid, you have some growing up to do. Apologize to Marc now and exercise effective damage control.

  53. Michael W. Dean Says:

    Lyndon, here’s a reply. I’ll bet Marc won’t approve it, but it’s a reprint from a comment over on my blog:
    =-=-=—
    Daniel Evans says

    The “methods” of Marc Stevens only “work” in traffic court and other courts where the stakes are small and there is no written record of what actually happened, or why.

    See http://www.box.net/shared/static/4is1u8v9if.pdf for an example of what happens when Stevens makes the mistake of going into a real courtroom with a real judge who’s not willing to tolerate his sophistry. (That’s what the judge called it.) It was an action to enforce an IRS summons, and the judge flatly rejected all of the arguments about standing and jurisdiction.

    Stevens’s client (or whatever you want to call him) appealed to the 10th Circuit, and the appeals court not only rejected the appeal but fined Stevens’s client $6,000 for wasting their time with frivolous arguments. See http://www.box.net/shared/static/tjzbr0fxem.pdf for a copy of the appeals court opinion.

  54. Marc Stevens Says:

    Wrong again Mike.

    Keep hiding behind your computer and not even have me on your show.

    I wanna hug Marc, but I won’t speak to him on the phone, I just want to hug him. It’s hugs, not public discourse. I’m incensed, outraged, appalled, will spend hours writing about it, calling other radio shows, but I just won’t take a few minutes to talk to Mark, but I’d love to give him a big hug.

    Keep your hugs Mike. How about facing someone you’ve been complaining about publicly who’s on the same network?

  55. dan gould Says:

    @Micheal W. Dean, You wrote “I only did this to point out that someone in our community gives some really bad, dangerous advice”. I will overlook the collectivist nature of the that statement and address the “…really bad, dangerous” part and Jillian.

    You are very correct to use the word dangerous about Jillian’s situation but Marc is not the dangerous one here, lets agree on that please. Lets be clear who the dangerous people are meddling in Jillian’s life. It ain’t Marc Stevens. Marc’s advice has only one purpose and that is to limit the attack and damage Jillian is experiencing. I am not trying to speak for Marc here, I am speaking from experience, I know that to be the purpose.

    You are looking pretty foolish dude, you may want to think twice about it.

  56. Packabowlla Says:

    Alright Enough allready TIME FUCKING OUT
    Please tell me how all this helps too kept people out of jail.

    Jessssssuas Come back, stop first and pick up Elivs on the way.

    —— Pro. Mobutu Packabowlla —–

  57. Chris Says:

    Marc, the guy is only making excuses for his cowardice.

  58. Marc Stevens Says:

    Yes, and those who choose to look at the facts see that. It’s all about discrediting me and Mike has provided lots of evidence of it. It’s personal and he’s mad.

  59. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Chris, well he only has excuses for not calling me and doing a show with me. His podcast is now “my courtroom”.

  60. dan gould Says:

    @Micheal W. Dean, A real judge and real courtroom? What are those things? I would like you to look at those two documents and site where Marc was wrong (I know not to what extent Marc was involved with Edwards)? What are the facts? Where do the lawyers with black robes on site evidence of a valid cause of action? So you agree with the opinion of the three lawyers in black robes? Will you answer responsively or will you squirm like the statist you are revealing yourself to be?

  61. Marc Stevens Says:

    I was actually in the courtroom, not Mike or Dan Evans. I saw the judge declare the IRS agent incompetent as a witness. Mike and Dan Evans, two people who refuse to call me and discuss the facts.

  62. Lyndon Says:

    Mike Dean: “Only works in traffic court?” You must be kidding!!!! Do you seriously think questioning such fundamentals such as the elements of jurisdiction, interpretation and application of the law, validity of cause of action, elements of contract, elements of principal/agent etc., etc., etc., only works in traffic court??? Son, I have personal firts hand knowledge and years of experience that “Marc’s method” not just works but works with a vengeance! You really need to learn the fundamentals of law before you make comments like that. Wow! A “real judge” MUST follow all of these “Black letter law/Hornbook law” principles. And you think court is about not upsetting the judge??? You are sunk right from the beginning if you truly think so!!!

  63. indio007 Says:

    Some people just don’t get it.
    All you lawyer lovers (ya you Micheal) need to scroll up to my first post.
    Here, I’ll help.

    § 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.
    “His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to
    his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the
    former must yield to the latter.”

    Number two pro se defendants facing felonies get acquitted more often than represented defendants.

    Defending the Right of Self-Representation: An
    Empirical Look at the Pro Se Felony Defendant

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1wtyXDQr0s-aUJOYzNmWEVzc28

    PUT DOWN YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE READ IT ^^^^^^^^^

    “Somewhat surprisingly the data indicate pro se felony defendants in state court are convicted at rates equivalent to or lower than the conviction rate of represented felony defendants….”

    Objective evidence (as opposed to subjective conditioning)indicates pro se do the same if not better than people with lawyers.
    That is for FELONIES not tickets.
    The only thing a lawyer will do is lighten your pocket.

    The first part is from Corpus Juris Secondum. Lawyers are OATH BOUND to but other interests before their clients.

    There are zero facts to support the notion that retaining a lawyer will achieve a better outcome.
    NONE.ZERO,ZIP,NADA

    Critical thinking… try it.
    Stop parroting what the herd thinks.

  64. bruce sloane Says:

    holy crap ….!!!

    is that the QuatLOSER supreme DAN EVANS checking in …???

    waaaay too weird … what is going down here ..??

    other than a personal attack, attorney worship, and dis-info
    all from LRN

  65. Chris Says:

    @Bruce, I thought the same thing when I saw Dan’s post over at Mikey Boy’s site. It’s fitting that, Mikey–a man who refuses to talk to Marc man to man, posted a comment from another man who refuses to talk to Marc man to man. Haha! How crazy is that?

    Marc, you may have entered the twilight zone!

  66. Incubus Says:

    I wonder why it is that those of us who defend Marc are his “minions” in Michael’s words, as though we’ve been personally deployed by Marc himself? And yet the people who defend Michael are what, just “liberty-minded supporters”? Reminds me of “You’re either with us, or against us”. Any dissent from Michaels word is that of a dangerous whackjob, apparently.

    Also, I wonder, if Marc’s podcast is akin to a “courtroom”, so bias as to be incapable of any fair trial, then what about Michael’s podcast, being the Holy Shrine that it is,impartial and independent, as a proper place for debate? Or would Marc just sully that?

    And finally, I’m curious as to where Paranoid Patriot is at these days, since he has touted much success with Marc’s methods.

  67. JT Says:

    Now Mikey is referencing Daniel Evan(one eyed jack) of “quatlosers”, a man whose firm is in bed with the fascists and profits directly from the human bondage system?!

    So much for being a “libertarian”, yes Mikey words do have meanings.

    When you lay with WHORES Mikey, expect CRABS, you statist TROLL.

  68. fake_ear Says:

    lol good one JT

  69. dan gould Says:

    Mikey @Jt, No soup for you!

  70. Incubus Says:

    Michael made the comment on his page, in regards to Marc:

    “I didn’t contact him because he’s wrong, and I don’t want to go on his show because he’s wrong.”

    My thought is what is the inverse of that statement? If he were right then he would debate him?

    He’s right so I will not debate him because I’ll lose.
    He’s wrong so I will not debate him because I’ll win.

    Where is the logic in that?

  71. Lyndon Says:

    Mike Dean: And “Marc’s methods” only work in courts of no record? Really? Those are some of the worst courts to be in to ask questions because there is no record. A “minion” like me attempts to get into not just a court of record but a court of PUBLIC record where the judge’s are less likely to cheat and lie. And one does not need to be “in” a court to have success in questioning the facts and soundness of law.

    I have never heard Marc claim to have perfect success all the time? But so what? Who have you helped and how? As Incubus pointed out, if you are so right what have you to lose in debating Marc?

  72. Bucky Says:

    Paying taxes is voluntary.

    “If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you”.
    – Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd

    “Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint”.- United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States

    “Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance”.
    -Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)

    “The United States has a system of taxation by confession”.
    -Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, in U.S.A. Kahriger

    more quotes: http://www.trappedonaninsaneplanet.com/?p=2006

  73. elwood Says:

    hey how do I get a pdf copy of adventures in legal land? the link on this site is not working for me.

  74. Daniel Evans Says:

    I see lots of ad hominem attacks, but no one has “sited” any verifiable evidence that Marc Stevens has ever won a case in court, while I have “sited” a court record that mentioned him by name, rejected his arguments, and resulted in both a loss to his “client” and a $6,000 penalty for making frivolous arguments on appeal.

  75. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dan quatloos Evans, Welcome back Dan. Do you see ad hominem attacks from me? Your forum is filled with them, calling me a nut, wacko, delusional. Look on my forum you’ll see evidence (then you’ll make the excuse by “case in court” you didn’t mean traffic). Do you know how much money the IRS actually got from the “client”? Were you in court in Wyoming? I don’t remember seeing you. The act as if the published decision is the whole story, very short sighted of you.

    Again, come on the radio show and support all the personal attacks you made about me. Open forum, no excuses Dan. We’ll get you set as a guest. Maybe Wes or one of the other guys who like to refer to people as cockroaches would like to come on. You guys refer to people as cockroaches and you come here and complain about ad hominem attacks?

  76. StimuL8 Says:

    Guys Guys Guys
    Please You are all acting like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo.. and getting nowhere.
    I like both of you guys you both helped me out of the lie called statism.
    Mike I’ve read your book The Users manual and loved it man … and read through your entire website and love what you and DJD have done and found in your lives.
    Marc I love AiLL too and and have used it to great effect because I studied it and learned the basis for what Marc teaches. It is factual and truthful and shows the lies and deception all through the system.
    BUT MIKE you are wrong you obviously haven’t read or even listened to anything of Marcs or you would not have written that letter to Mark period.
    Marc has always said hes not a lawyer he makes that very clear all the time, and you went off on him without even talking to him first. Need to look at your book about serenity vampires.
    Love both of you guys to death but please stop flinging poo for nothing and talk like rational men instead of being so offended for no reason. I’ve listened to both of you for quite awhile and you both love the same things so show it guys.
    Gooooosfraaaaaba
    Peace and Love out

  77. Anti-State Says:

    The difference in the commentors on the 2 sides is pretty clear to me. One side is uninformed and ignorant, the other well informed and knowledgeable of the system and it’s laws.

    Kind of like debating democrats and republicans. Like I’ve heard it said before, the difference between libertarians and anarchists is a couple of years. Keep studying and learning Freedom Feens, you might possibly get it one day….

  78. Chris Says:

    He posted Dan Evan’s comment as the primary post on his facebook page. Here’s what it says…

    Just posted by someone as a comment on my blog: The “methods” of Marc Stevens only “work” in traffic court and other courts where the stakes are small and there is no written record of what actually happened, or why.”

    See http://www.box.net/shared/​static/4is1u8v9if.pdf for an example of what happens when Stevens makes the mistake of going into a real courtroom with a real judge who’s not willing to tolerate his sophistry. (That’s what the judge called it.) It was an action to enforce an IRS summons, and the judge flatly rejected all of the arguments about standing and jurisdiction.

    Stevens’s client (or whatever you want to call him) appealed to the 10th Circuit, and the appeals court not only rejected the appeal but fined Stevens’s client $6,000 for wasting their time with frivolous arguments. See http://www.box.net/shared/​static/tjzbr0fxem.pdf for a copy of the appeals court opinion.

    I posted this under it…

    He challenged you to a debate. Anywhere, anytime, at a public venue, or on a radio show of your choice! If you really think what you posted here is true, then debate him on it! My God, don’t talk about it, be about it….or just shut up.

    Still the disrespect continues after he turned down the debate.

    Coward.

  79. Keith Says:

    By making so many unsupported antagonistic statements against Marc, it sounds to me like Mike is attempting to provoke Marc into an on going public feud in Mike’s chosen ‘battlefields’. Mike may also be seeking publicity thru his impugning Marc’s credibility (sorry for the use of the lawyer word impugn).

    I admire Marc’s defence of Mike’s article where Marc does not attack Mike personally as Mike did of Marc, but instead examines each of Mike’s statements critically stating ‘where’s the evidence to back your claim?’

    I have come across others in different web forums who attack others directly on a forum from the safety of chair in their own home. Such people seem to thrive on antagonising others and I learned very quickly the only effective way to combat it is to ignore the provocative statements. This will initially make them upset and will cause them to spew forth more venom worse than before but when there is no reaction they give up and pick on someone else who they can feed their insecurities from. Vultures may be an adequate description of them. Mike may very well fall into this category.

    I suspect Mike is loving reading everyone of these responses and thrives on the attention he is receiving. No attention and I suspect Mike will starve for lack of attention.

    So Mike, if you have a genuine complaint against Marc, establish your claims with facts on this forum.

    In Australia, we have a saying which I will clean up for forum consumption:

    Opinions are like armpits, everybody’s got em! (armpits has been substituted for the usual word which starts with ‘a’)

    Keep up the good work Marc as I have learned so much from your shared experiences.

    Aussie Keith

  80. Jeff Evans Says:

    Hot dang Marc, this is Jeff from Brooklyn, N.Y. and one of your first supporters. I’ve been following you since 2009 and everything you have developed to now not only is effective damage control but I always ask “is this special appearence by me being recorded by a court reporter?”? I found this adds a little spice to the output by the pyscopaths and since I wrote a judge up, even though I got a B.S. reply, I don’t get bothered by the local keystone cops. I have walked out of 5 court cases and I brokedown and had the persecutor make my deal with no DMV or insurance reporting on my speeding 72 in a 55 on a country back road. I made sure I got that nothing would be reported in writing from the clerk of court and stamped with their seal!

    Marc is this guy Mike reaaly worth wasting your time with? He must be a good friend because people believe what they want to believe. If someone takes the time to pay attention by listening to the video’s 2x a week, read your scripts once a week and read some of the articles once a day, not only will they be aware of their reality better but they will some how be blessed by Jesus to be protected from these evil principalities called bureaucrats. One becomes less angry when knowledge that the pen is mightier than the sword.

    I would rather you post more appellant and supreme court citings and decisions to smack the judge and persecutor with. My son is twenty and they are trying to give him a felony super-speeder charge. My son has no eye to eye fear with these crooked cops or judges and he will stick to the script, the judge will get pissed and he(judge) will plea for him out of frustration. I love this because I get the court transcript and pick the judge apart to the judicial qualifications board. The motion to dismiss template is very crutial to use and I added someting I heard in your last video Marc. “Denial of Defense.” I added this were the request is made full full findings of facts. This is also great for an appeal if it goes that far. If one shows any sign of fear in court they are doomed to fail. If anyone deviates from the script they are doomed to fail! You have life experience in this like I have life esperience in building auto engines. If Mike is like the person who comes to get his car fixed and then tries to tell me how to fix it I would send him down the road, no arguments, no persuading, NOTHING, Just send him down the road and concentrate on us who appreciate and use your meathods to keep the evil-doers off our backs. God Bless

  81. Jeff Evans Says:

    One more thing Marc. This guy Micheal Dean is just a hater! He is another Rush “Pill Head” Limboo who attacks people because he has no credibility! A man’s word is his honor and these bureaucrats have none! I sat in court with a drug dealing criminal alien who was deported less than a year ago. The judge named ronnie lewis and sheriff benny deloach in baxley, ga knew this guy jesus castillo was a deported drug dealing fugitive from arizona. This soory slump stole my tools and I had evidence to prove it and they gave me an order of protection to stay away from him and he still drives and sells drugs as a normal business practice. I have no respect or belief in a judge, cop, prosecutor or court of clerk. these fictional characters mean nothing to me and I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six if they attempt to commit an act of violence against me.

  82. indio007 Says:

    Uhmm… I don’t think that is a technically a published decision. It says that the decision is not binding precedent. This generally means that it cant be used as citation of what the law is except in rare cases.

    Also in my experience “without merit” is code for “didn’t include an affidavit to support the cause of action”. No affidavit = no cognizable facts.

  83. Dixie Says:

    This stuff is so ridiculous.

    I’d drop it Marc. This doesn’t help your audience or your message. You’re punching down at someone who has nothing to lose.

    “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

  84. StimuL8 Says:

    I lost quite a bit of respect for Michael but we are all human and make mistakes. It’s in our nature, none of us are perfect. Marc keep on trucking buddy. I’ll believe you over any delusional, indoctrinated, statist quatloos drone, especially since a few years ago I was one of those drones. But men like you on whose shoulders I stand helped me into the light of reason and reality. Mike if you actually read and listen to Marcs stuff you’ll come further out of the delusional reality we’ve all been tricked into. Marcs video Delusions posted for all on Youtube would actually be a very good place to start. Mary needs the help of experience in her matter because she seems to scared and new to this to deal with it properly, but she is learning and trying to defend herself from these criminals, and she will never go bad doing that. Experience is the teacher.
    Love all Americans whom claim their birthright FREEDOM and stick it to the criminals claiming to be protectors one matter at a time.

    StimuL8 – Your mind everyday read, think, experience and expand your mind.

    “I don’t think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislature. You’ve got to work on his conscience. “But his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer.”
    – Will Rogers

  85. StimuL8 Says:

    Sorry bout the 2nd post so quickly but Mark you may want to google Judge Kenneth Post from Ottawa, Michigan. This guy is a literal psychopath and literally a criminal. He even locks up his own brothers (lawyers) for actually defending their clients properly and rationally. Marys pissing up a rope if she is stuck with this idiot as a so called fair and unbiased “Judge.”

    StimuL8 – Your mind everyday read, think, experience and expand your mind.

    “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”
    – Frederick Douglass

  86. NonE Says:

    “StimuL8 Says:
    Jul.”y 1st, 2012 at 3:58 am

    I lost quite a bit of respect for Michael but we are all human and make mistakes. It’s in our nature, none of us are perfect.”

    You’re right. That’s “none of us IS perfect.” 😉

    (None is a contracted word representing Not One.)

    – NonEofUs

  87. GreyBeard Says:

    Mike Dean: Defender of liberty from the primary enemy ( Marc Stevens )or Divider of the liberty minded?

  88. Jason McMahon Says:

    Everyone should look up and follow the Maxims of Law – ‘A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved of all.’ And the answer is ‘NO’ the court system does not automatically follow the Maxims and sometimes, not even when you place the judge on ‘judicial notice’.

    I will state this for the record, yes Marc Stevens does talk over the heads of most of the people he deals with, especially on his radio program, but this is from years of experience and the stating of his information on a weekly, if not daily basis. So, his method needs to be verified by those using it and more-to-the-point, it must be fully understood, with the logic and reasoning behind his conclusions. Maxim of Law – ‘No man is bound for the advice he gives.’

    With that said, no one should take what he says as true and set in stone, especially from listening of one radio program. I suggest everyone listen to the archives, and moreso, to the responses and experiences of the callers, in court, as these are my favourite. My reasoning for this suggestion is that neither Marc or I have a “Silver-bullet” wording or phrase to deal with the whole system, as Marc is in the U.S.A. and me in Canada — same English-Roman Common Law in both countries.

    Always remember, the everything you deal with and especially when it comes to the legal system as a whole, is based strictly on one word ‘presumption’. You presume the Police have the authority and jurisdiction over you, well ask some questions, have you ever asked the man dressed in a costume and tin badge – ‘Peace to you good man and to whom am I speaking?’ The cop will probably respond a Police Officer, to which you should respond – ‘Great, and of course you have your 3 pieces of identification, to prove that statement; so I need to see your badge with number and your Police Credentials and; your Business Card, along with that I require to retain your Business Card, for my records?’ You presume he is a Police Officer, while not relying on legally admissible facts and evidence. Maxim of Law – ‘He who is silent appears to consent’. Well the cop isn’t going to refute or uphold your rights for you, so prepare for the paperwork raping, you are about to receive.

    Always be aware, the current legal system isn’t just the problem, the ‘bad faith’ is perpetrated by the players, such as the Judges, Justices of the Peace, Prosecutors, Police (Policy Enforcers), Court Clerks, Bailiffs, etc. When dealing with Statutes/Acts, these are government or man-made laws, of which only apply to the government, its agents such as Public Servants and those performing a function of judgement.

    I disagree with some of what Marc states or most usually, how he states it. The whole system is based on bad faith (almost fraud), but the legal system simply functions on our ignorance and presumptions. As Marc’s approach to question those in the legal system, it is not just a tactical strategy, but is mandatory. Maxim of Law – ‘He who questions well, learns well’ and ‘You ought to know with whom you deal’ and ‘He who uses his legal rights, harms no one’.

    Example:
    •Marc would ask – ‘Judge, who do you represent here?’ and followed by ‘What is the nature of your relationship with the prosecutor?’
    •As for me, I would get straight to the point – ‘Excuse my lack of understanding, but other than the plaintiff, (the State/Crown); do you represent any other party, here today now?’

    If yes – ”Again, excuse my lack of understanding, but if you represent the plaintiff and the Prosecutor represents the plaintiff and the Court Clerk represents the plaintiff and the Bailiffs represents the plaintiff; How can I get a fair, open and unprejudiced judicial hearing?’
    If no – “Then you presume you do not have subject-matter jurisdiction, great, then grant my Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
    If more likely – he will not respond or tell you are stupid/don’t know what you are talking about or whatever. Maxim of Law – ‘In default of the law, the maxim rules’ and ‘One is not present unless he understands’. ‘So judge, I cannot be present to address anything, until I understand, so please explain how you can prejudicial, violate the intent of the law, create a fraud against me and the defendant, and then place unjust or impossible expectations on us?’

    I don’t believe you should accept the title of defendant (its a legal title), remember the plaintiff has the full burden of proof and the Prosecutor is not the plaintiff, he represents the plaintiff (the State/Crown) and he can’t given testimony, well unless you don’t object.

    Ask some questions, such as – “Is the plaintiff present in the courtroom, here today now?” If Yes – “Great, would the plaintiff step forward and please state for this court of record, whom the defendant is and to physically point to the defendant? Also, would the Court Clerk please record who the plaintiff points to, in this court of record?” If no – “Judge, I hereby demand you to issue a warrant to appear and have the Police make the plaintiff appear, here today now.” If more likely – he will not respond, then state “Great, then grant my Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, for lack of evidence of a complaining party, or valid plaintiff.

    So every time the Prosecutor speaks, state – “Objection. The Prosecutor is not a competent witness with first-hand personal knowledge of the events on the day(s) in question. Move to strike.” Then follow with, “I have not been provide full disclosure of the facts and evidence, nor have said evidence been presented into the court of record. Also, please instruct the Prosecutor to stop giving testimony, if he wishes to testify, then swear him under oath and I hereby do demand to place him under direct examination, as I believe an error or mistake has taken place here, with this matter.”

    My point is that Marc Stevens changed my view of the legal system and I continued to expand my knowledge of what it is now. The most important things Marc taught me, was to question everything and to be pre-emptive, of which is why he suggestions filing motions. What I have learnt from Dean Clifford, is start way before court of Marc tries to prepare us. Question the plaintiff, through the Prosecutor’s Office. Then place all of this information in your Motions.

    Notice of Demand and Conditional Acceptance

    I am not the government, I am not one its agents, nor did I perform a function of government on the day(s) in question, and as such I do not believe there is any competent witnesses, facts or legally admissible evidence to the contrary.

    1.”Is it the State/Crown’s position, that I am government, one of its agents and/or performed a function of government, on the day it question?”
    2.”What competent witnesses, facts or legally admissible evidence do you have in your possession and will be entered into the court of record?”
    3.Etc., etc.

    The biggest presumption taken by society is, that Statutes/Acts apply to us, but in fact, they only apply to the government and its business. I don’t want my Public Servants, such as the Police drunk on alcohol while driving on the job or Firemen hopped up on Crystal-Meth and climbing a ladder on the job.

    As for me, I didn’t consent to not Jay-walk, or moreso, I didn’t consent to pay a fine for Jay-walking. The government is under the presumption they are our masters, when in fact, they are our Public Servants, but we have fallen for the bad faith inherent within their system. The rules of my father’s house applied only to those within his house, if so by logic & reason, then the rules of the government’s house, by definition, would only apply to its house or it those who call themselves – U.S. citizens or Canadian citizens (this is a legal title administrated by the government – yes a legal trap), instead of American and Canadian Nationals – the people of the land.

    Just my arbitrary thoughts and suggestions.

    By: Jason

  89. NonE Says:

    Jason,

    Great post. I hope you will continue to contribute as it appears you’ve thought about this a lot. Keep in mind that the WIKI is available to any and all to use and to add to. And the forum is open and threaded.

    One question: what is this collection of words spozed to mean?

    “…is start way before court of Marc tries to prepare us.”

    – NonE

  90. Bucky Says:

    (I dropped my Google+ account so I am using this email instead)

    I am listening to Micheal Dean right now. He seems to be talking with two mouths. It sounds like he is for and against the state at the same time. At least when Marc speaks, he has a point to make and doesn’t talk in circles like a cop or a lawyer.

    This Mike guy needs to get off the radio. He makes no sense.

  91. indio007 Says:

    Well that’s what you get when you deal with a man without principals. We should have Jan Halfeld interview this asshat.

  92. NonE Says:

    “indio007 Says:
    July 1st, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Well that’s what you get when you deal with a man without principals. We should have Jan Halfeld interview this asshat.”

    No, no, no. You’ve got it all confused. Two negatives do NOT make a positive! What, did you go to public school???

    – NonE 😉

  93. rg Says:

    I am a fan of both shows. Hope you guys can work this out, but I have to say I favor Marc in this controversy.

    MWD does not possess as refined an anarchism as Marc. He’s relatively new to the idea and still spouts minarchistic/statist views from time to time, though those instances are becoming rarer. I think he simply doesn’t understand this method, otherwise he would be promoting it, too.

  94. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ rg – Mike has provided plenty of evidence his motive in attacking me was at the least, the product of misplaced rage. The fact he refused to call me first, then refused to do a show is evidence of bad faith. His tactics are not what you see with a liberty activist. Mike does not investigate, he rages and goes on personal attacks. Anyone interested in truth would have contacted me. What Mike doesn’t understand is how to be upfront and honest.

    If there should be a disclaimer on an LRN show, it should be on Mike’s podcasts saying: Mike Dean has an anger management problem and is prone to personal attacks with no prior investigation.

  95. Incubus Says:

    So I guess it’s over in a sense? Marc pretty well put Michael in his place on FTL. He slithered and squirmed like the coward he is and refused to acknowledge or discuss facts. Which Marc made ever so apparent to all those who care to listen.

    And I ask rhetorically if it’s “over”, not only because of how Marc triumphed over Michael, but also because towards the end the host made a comment about not knowing if it would continue and Michael responded while the music was playing that he was done with it and would not be continuing on.

    We’ll see if he at least has the integrity to issue a written apology on his blog or any sort of reasoning for his cowardice, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it. He’s been given far more attention than he deserves. Hopefully any of his audience who were listening and in his favor have gained a new perspective on both him and Marc. I’d like to see those people regard themselves as former fans of Michael.

  96. Chris Says:

    Last night Mike created a false dichotomy: there is objective, standard, legal advice, and then there’s Marc’s suggestions. This was obvious when he kept making his appeal to authority(he talked to 3 lawyers!), and when he asked Marc if it was ever a good idea to get a lawyer. I’ll bet if you asked these three lawyers what Jillian should do, they would all have differing opinins.

    What he STILL doesn’t realize is that, since the law is subjective, that is, since every stinking lawyer with a moo-moo on will have their own interpretation of the law, every opinion from any given lawyer will be different. Why not bring that up, Mike? Maybe, because you don’t grasp the depth on Marc’s work.

    What’s so interesting is that he chose to go after Marc–the one who sticks to the facts.

    If you do not go after them on the facts, you are playing their game. If you do not go after them on the facts, you have just laid a claim that their system is applicable to you. It’s the same logic as saying God must exist because of all of the churches. They are saying these laws are applicable to you, well, because we say so. If they are not challenged on this, then one engages in an exercise of begging the question, and the argument begins from there.

    Begin at the beginning.

  97. rg Says:

    @ Marc Of course it was misplaced rage… he clearly has zero understanding of your method and is not interested in learning about it.

    I find it odd to see this kind of reaction out of him based on his shows and website. He made a great contribution to the liberty movement with his “Guns & Weed” film as an entry level course.

    I’m going to listen to the FTL conversation tonight at some point… if it changes my mind, I’ll let you know. But at this point it seems like a personal-beef-gone-public that should have stayed personal and private, not that you are at fault for that. When it comes down to fans vs. fans, there is something wrong.

    I still support you in this, Marc, and hope for the best.

  98. Paranoid Says:

    SO, this is Paranoid, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse so I will keep this short and simple. I put Jillian and Marc in touch with each other. Marc has taught me a lot and i wanted Jillian to be aware of all the options available to her. I also told her in advance that I studied the crap out of Marc’s stuff and, while it usually works, it is not a guarantee that the judge will be honest and throw the case out when they should. I also do not pressure anybody to try anything they are not comfortable with. I feel a little to blame for all of this craziness as none of it would even have been an issue if I had not reached out to Marc about contacting Jillian. I have spoken with MWD and I do not think he is just trying to stir up controversy for the sake of publicity. I think he cares about Jillian and does not understand what Marc does, has little faith in its effectiveness, and therefor, made an emotional reaction that might not have been quite on target. I think that if he had any experience using what Marc teaches, he would feel differently. I don’t think the open letter was appropriate or well informed, but I have done unappropriated and ill-informed things myself, so I will reserve judgement. That being said, I still hold Marc in the highest regards. Marc has taught me much about the legal system, but more importantly, Marc has taught me even more about honesty, virtue and being a stand-up guy. Marc has my upmost respect. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion because of a lack of understanding and emotional attachment. I hope that it can be resolved with no negative repercussions to all involved.

  99. NonE Says:

    Paranoid,

    Hmm. I KNEW it was your fault all along! 😉

    – the Very Good NonE

  100. MickeyG Says:

    Don’t threaten a man’s profession that he spend a fortune for.

  101. Jason McMahon Says:

    Hey None.

    NonE Says:

    One question: what is this collection of words spozed to mean?

    “…is start way before court of Marc tries to prepare us.”
    ——-

    It should probably read – ‘it starts way before court, of which Marc tries to prepare us for.’

    Marc’s approach & info is to prepare one for court and the happenings in court, but a guy named Dean Clifford states to start dealing with all court matters before court.

    Dean’s states that many people wait for court to do things, but one should contact the Prosecutor from day 1 and try to resolve things. As Marc has said – court is limited to valid cases & controversies, well unless they trick us into consenting, that is.

    Get agreement with thy adversary – with the use of a Notice and Demand, along with notarized affidavits. Agreement through silence, is still agreement, if you have given them notice.

    Hope this helps.

    By: Jason

  102. NonE Says:

    Yes, Jason, that helps me to understand. Perhaps you may have some thoughts on a question running through my mind. What can one do in regards to regulatory issues? For example, a friend of mine was camped in the forest at a spot for over two weeks. According to some crap written on paper somewhere by a Forest Service bureaucrat, it is against their rules to stay in any one spot longer than 14 days. So he was given a “ticket” to the tune of about $250. I suppose one could attempt to deal with this in court, as Marc has described, but according to your thinking this should be nipped in the bud long before it goes through whatever process is required to force you into court on the matter. And what WOULD one do? Simply ignore the “ticket” and then wait around for a warrant to be issued? That certainly seems a risky way to approach the problem.

    It seems our lives are filled to the brim with regulatory thuggery such as this and I’m wondering if you have thoughts or experience in dealing with such.

    – the Very Good NonE

  103. Bucky Says:

    Well, whatever Mike’s issues are – I hope he realizes now that this isn’t grade school and there is no popularity contest to be won. I mean, if he wants to be Mr. Popularity – then he needs the right audience.

    Younger adults tend to be attracted to the ‘guns and weed’ stuff Mike talks about. Marc, on the other hand, tends to focus on how to stay the hell out of jail using the latest tactical means available.

    Just my 2 cents.

  104. Dave Says:

    I am not a doctor of indian philosophy but I would recommend this critic go directly to the No Agenda show and buy a de-douching. Kharma is a bridge too far.

    J

  105. tharrin Says:

    Wow. Talk about deja-vu. I feel like I have been here before but everything has changed except I have grown older. NonE you old so & so. I see you are still pontificating in your more than knowledgeable way. Always glad to see your opinions and observations. I remember the old days on the forum, fingers blazing across the keyboard in sharp response to your even sharper wit.

    Marc, as always a genuine pleasure to know you. I see some others out there in the fog. Eye2Eye also very sharp of mind and many new as well which is good. I have been away for quite some time, so long that the forum no longer recognizes me or my password. Sniff.

    Sure some blame must fall on my shoulders. I have been remiss in my posting. Busy life I might quip but who’s isn’t. Reading through the many posts I see the forum has not lost its enlightening nature.

    Glad to see all of you again. Hopefully renewing my username will come forthwith and I can drive people crazy there.

    Marc keep up the good fight. Sorry I missed you last month when I was out your way but had to fulfill my obligation to family and had so short of time. I will endeavor to catch you at one of the many functions you attend.

    I will be back, just wanted you to know you have not been forgotten.

  106. NonE Says:

    Tharrin,

    How good to see you. Lookin’ forward to locking horns with you again. Or sharing hugs, or sumthin’! 😉

    – the Very Good NotEye2

  107. tharrin Says:

    Okay,

    Went through all the postings on both sites. Michael (I use Michael because from the posts it appears he prefers it) at least made a peace offering but that hardly makes up for the attack on Marc.

    This is much of what is wrong with supposed freedom movement. Some one calls somebody else charlatan or snake oil sales person. I have been listening to Marc for some time. I have used his methods with some success. The success or failure depends solely on my understanding of his techniques and methods.

    If I had dismissed them out of hand without actually having experienced them in the court system I might have sided with Michael (primarily based on his dangerous statement).

    You can call me a Marc minion if you like but that doesn’t negate that you can have success with Marc’s methods but Michael you miss the point. Pissing off a judge? I did it in three questions and I was being humble and respectful. I never intended for the judge to get angry. He just did and all I did was ask questions he should easily have been able to answer in an even tone.

    But you have to ask yourself Michael, why did he get mad? Why did he resort to screaming? Instead of lambasting Marc shouldn’t you wonder why your supposed elected officials resort to screaming at people in the court room for asking questions like “Who do you work for?” “Is the court governed by the Constitution of the United States?” “From where do you derive your jurisdiction over me?” All non-threatening questions that for some reason sets judges on fire.

    If he cannot answer the questions then it makes me wonder if he is qualified to be a judge or better yet is he a real judge? The questions are basic. If the Judge, prosecutor, police officer & your lawyer all work and derive their income from the same entity called the state; Can you get a fair trial? Or is there a huge conflict of interest? When everyone except the defendant makes their living from the same employer and will benefit if you lose, seems pretty cut and dry to me.

    Should you go to the doctor and ask if the snake oil salesman is a cheat. What is the doctor’s interest in all this. If the snake oil salesman sells a product that works then it threatens the doctors livelihood.

    The same applies to the judge, prosecutor, police officer and your lawyer whose, by the way, first obligation is to the court system not his client (Ref. Corpus Juris Secundum).

    Why are you bashing Marc and endorsing the system that dragged your friend in for a victimless crime? She hurt no one yet the system is willing to hurt her.

    If you don’t believe you are endorsing the system why advocate she get a lawyer. To minimize the damage? Who is damaging whom?

    Will Marc’s method get a reaction in court, yes!

    Does it mean he is selling snake oil? No. He understands that they do not play by their own rules. If they do not venerate the rules that are suppose to govern them then they denigrate the entire system and it truly means nothing. It end up a conveyor belt to steal money from someone who has harmed no one.

    This did make me think about why you attacked Marc. I noticed it brought a lot of Marc’s minions to your site, albeit, not with the best of attitudes. The more interesting think you said about your letter is “I wanted it out there (on the internet) to show an opposing view.” but your name attached to it as well. Doesn’t that also advertise you as well. Controversy breeds attention. Perhaps you wanted to shore up you ratings, unfortunately the content of your letter was more of a rant than constructive but maybe you got what you were actually going after. More hits? More listeners? I don’t know.

    Maybe all of us should focus more on collaborations instead slamming each other.

  108. Lyndon Says:

    In my view(and I am no greenhorn) Michael is wrong if he thinks Marc’s methods only work to fight traffic tickets. I have found traffic court to be the venue of LEAST success and the venue of greatest effort for the LEAST gain using methods similiar to Marc’s. From years of experience, I say the traffic court mob seems to know no law, no rules, no justice, and no common sense -just nonesense. During my last visit last week, in which I was accompanied by three observers, I could not get ONE question answered. Not ONE. They prepared themselves for me and EVERY question was either “I don’t know”, or “I don’t have to answer that question,” and so on. So, again, in my view, Micheal is patently wrong.

  109. CassieG Says:

    Also, Mike misses another point. Why does Jillian get a pass in all of this. Mike seems so attached to Jillian that he wants to blame someone for her decision to possess or be around drugs when she has children and no money and she knew full well the consequences of what might happen if she possessed drugs.

    So, you either believe that the state DOES have authority over you, and if so, you should not possess drugs because you are breaking the law and you know full well in advance what the consequences might be.

    OR you believe that the state has no authority over your actions. If that is the case, then you address standing and jurisdiction.

    Mike seems to believe that the state has no authority over him, but somehow believes that addressing standing and jurisdiction is inappropriate. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe the state HAS authority over you, then don’t break ‘their’ laws- and hire a lawyer if you do.

    If you don’t believe the state has authority over you, you go in propria persona and address standing and jurisdiction. But you can’t both believe that the state has no authority over you, then hire an officer of the court to represent you since, by definition, hiring a lawyer assents to their jurisdiction.

  110. Calvin Says:

    @CassieG: That’s exactly right; you can’t have it both ways. But I think Mike is too busy chasing vulnerable libertarians to sell his videos to for him to realize that he is a textbook hypocrite.

    The question is obvious; what would motivate someone to ignore all the facts and evidence out-of-hand so that they can continue on with their embarrassing personal attack? Hmmm…. so many questions and the perpetrator is unwilling to defend his baseless allegations; reaks of statist-apologist shenanigans to me.

    By reading through the comments, I find it funny that so many people see this clown for what he is, whereas you see little in defense of him and his baseless allegations, even on his own sites.

    If he isn’t a libertarian/anarchist trojan horse, he’s close to what one would look like. Keep your eyes open for instigators, challenge them like you would any other bureaucrat, and watch them crawl back to their creep-dens; easy and funny at the same time.

  111. heath Says:

    out of money, tried to use the “script” they just gloss over what you say. what to do now? could use some help/advice asap. any liberty, freedom folks in kansas?
    heath norris

  112. Kurt Says:

    I had not heard of MWD when this heated discussion happened around 15 months ago. I have been a regular listener to his show and of course to Marc’s show. MWD is at it again as you may know, he has been talking about Marc on recent podcasts and he still is basing his criticisms on emotion. After reading Michael’s inflammatory responses to Marc’s response, I must say I’m very disappointed in him. He never addresses Marc’s requests for evidence with any evidence, rather he uses logical fallacies such as ad hominem and guilt by association. Comparing regulars (people who frequently visit) the website and the show to cult members is inaccurate and is clearly designed to provoke an emotional response. It honestly sounds to me that Michael’s ego has been hurt and he is lashing out with fine sounding, (in his mind) but fallacious attacks. I can see this now. I have to admit that his emotionally charged letter sparked worry in me. However I think that is because I feel scared at times, possibly because I feel very alone. I’m too much of an isolationist from others, that is something I have to learn how to overcome.

  113. NonE Says:

    Kurt Sed:
    I have to admit that his emotionally charged letter sparked worry in me.
    ——-
    Can you elaborate on this statement? I have no idea what you might mean by it and I’m curious. Worry about what?

    – NonE

  114. o really Says:

    Anarchy is an impossibility. Name (required) Mail(required) what kind of anarchist require anything?

  115. o really Says:

    Screening comments? WOW WHAT AN ANARCHIST YOU ARE!?

  116. Marc Stevens Says:

    Every first time poster has to be approved, it’s the program.

  117. Andy Says:

    “Anarchy is an impossibility. Name (required) Mail(required) what kind of anarchist require anything?… Screening comments? WOW WHAT AN ANARCHIST YOU ARE!?”

    Is that you Michael Dean? No research, instead, you jump to conclude that comments are screened.

11 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. The Streisand Effect and Naked Activism with mDub and gFox – Freedom Feens podcast Says:

    […] song, they (reluctantly) talk about Marc Stevens and Michael’s open letter to him and Marc’s reply, they discuss activism that involves getting arrested, and laugh at Michelle Obama Cites Jesus as […]

  2. Marc on Free Talk Live [Mike Dean's "Apology"] – Jul 2, 2012 | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Marc joins Ian, Mark, and Julia on Free Talk Live to take Mike Dean to task on his preemptive, aggressive, ad hominem personal attacks against Marc to expose his baseless accusations. […]

  3. NSP – Jun 30, 2012 – Co-host: JT and Guest: Mary | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Topics: Pro Per Edition -|- Mike’s NON-FACTUAL & emotional hit piece about replicable and effective pro per defense strategies -|- attorney disclaimers -|- update on […]

  4. NSP - Sept 28, 2013 - Guests: Jan Irvin and Adam, Plus a NSP Group Chat | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Handling pseudo-critics that refuse to examine the body of work they are criticizing but want to continue on with their baseless, emotional personal-attacks. […]

  5. Marc Stevens - NSP – Sept 28, 2013 – Guests: Jan Irvin and Adam, Plus a NSP Group Chat - Gnostic Media Says:

    […] Handling pseudo-critics that refuse to examine the body of work they are criticizing but want to continue on with their baseless, emotional personal-attacks. […]

  6. NSP – Sept 28, 2013 – Guests: Jan Irvin and Adam, Plus a NSP Group Chat - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Handling pseudo-critics that refuse to examine the body of work they are criticizing but want to continue on with their baseless, emotional personal-attacks. […]

  7. NSP - Jul 26, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [UPDATED: FULL PODCAST] | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] response to the all-too-familiar over-emotional critic spouting-off that “Marc Stevens is a COMPLETE F**KING MORON […]

  8. NSP - Dec 20, 2014 - Co-hosts: Calvin and JT - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Once again, responding to the half-baked criticisms of, seemingly, the only person who is confused in thinking that Marc puts himself out there as an legal counselor of some sort. […]

  9. NSP - Jan 10, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the emotional “Guns and Weed” host on LRN.fm has an ironic history of making accusations without first doing investigation, even when […]

  10. NSP - May 9, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] wrongfully accused of the crime of stolen valor by an over-emotional […]

  11. NSP - Jun 6, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] libertarian punk suggests using an attorney, who historically don’t challenge all of the prosecutions […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : 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 passcode is 2020#, 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 now broadcast via youtube.com. 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