Categorized | Articles, Interviews, Video

New Hampshire Conflating – There is No State – [UPDATED WITH CALL-IN TO FTL]

Posted on April 29th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

Ian Freeman of Liberty Radio Network, Free Talk Live and Free Keene asked me for some help with a response he got from a prosecutor in New Hampshire.  His concern was how to respond when prosecutors claim you are within the state by just using your geographic location.

Like other prosecutors, Michael is conflating the geographic with the political, insisting that Ian is within the plaintiff state on nothing more than geography.  We break this by pointing out with Michael’s own response that the state is arguing.  Geographic areas don’t argue and hire attorneys.

So when we bring this out, they usually stop and make a distinction between the two by claiming Ian is “within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.”  This doesn’t help at all because there still is no evidence the code applies and there is jurisdiction.

We’ll see how Michael responds, though we already know he can’t produce any evidence.

YouTube Preview Image

*The audio below is Marc’s call into Free Talk Live on April 29, 2013.

              

54 Comments For This Post

  1. RadicalDude Says:

    Is there evidence of a complaining party?
    What are they demanding

  2. RadicalDude Says:

    Are they demanding money to be paid to the court?
    In other words, if Ian is found “guilty” would he then have to make out the check to the court or to the “state” or what entity?

    Who is the de-facto plaintiff, and are they using “the state” as a corporate fiction to represent another entity that is the true de-facto plaintiff/complaining party and if so, who would that de-facto plaintiff be? And is the court/judge engaging in judicial misconduct by colluding with the prosecutor to willfully withhold the nature of the proceedings the true adversary/plaintiff/complaining party?

    In these cases where “the people” sue you, will they accept a check made out to “the people” as payment? Or do you have to pay the court? If the only payment accepted would be a payment to the court, and they would refuse to take a check to “the people” then isn’t the court itself the de facto plaintiff suing you in its own court via the “shell” plaintiff/ d/b/a
    “the people”? Marc, have you ever raised this issue?

    I have noticed a lot of these extortionate proceedings are structured so the court is basically prosecuting you in its own court as the de facto plaintiff if you really examine it. Wondering if Marc has ever raised an objection to this?

  3. PHIL Says:

    the lesson here cant be repeated enough… have to undo the indoctrination

  4. NonE Says:

    I don’t have a lot of hope for this as my experience shows me that Ian doesn’t really have any patience for studying nor thinking through issues logically, as much as I appreciate what he does. He has poo-pooed you (Marc) many times in the past when the real issue was simply that he didn’t want to actually have to think about what you were saying.

    – NonE

    P.S. I love Radical Dude’s issues he raised above. :-) I especially like the part about making the check out to “The People.”

  5. Mike Staudacher Says:

    When on June 21 1788 New Hampshire became “the Ninth State” to ratify the Constitution of 1787 that document became known as “the Constitution of the “United States” and the STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” was born of the United States which constitutes Federal territory in that State. New Hampshire is also a member state of the United States of America, the Confederacy, a proprietary power.
    The Office of the Revisor knew full well that the third Organic Law the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 created a place called the “United States” and that this said territory was to be one district:
    An Ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio –
    section 1. That the said territory for the purpose of temporary government, be one district.”
    This fact of law required the Revisor to define the place “United States” as only embracing the District of Columbia and territories and requiring them to define a part of that place called the United States to be a “state” that also only extends to and includes the District of Columbia and the several territories. As all other property was sold by the United States of America was now private property and could no longer be considered “territory” or a place called the “United States”.
    This Organic Law fact is also very clearly reflected in both Acts of Congress establishing the Territory of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota. All language used embraces only the territory found within the exterior boundaries listed in the statute. This is because an “Act of Congress” was defined prior to 2002 in Rule 54 (c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as:
    “Act of Congress includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia,
    in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.”
    This legal fact only allowed territorial jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota to “territory” or “places called the United States” embraced within the exterior boundaries. Currently Rule 54 has been rewritten and transferred to Rule 1, the provisions in the old Rule 54 may have been rewritten or deleted but it was never repealed. Also, “State” is defined: includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
    This Organic Law fact is also very clearly reflected in the following definitions:
    18 USC sec. 5. United States defined
    The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…
    Blacks Legal Dictionary 9th ed.
    district. 1. A territorial area into which a country, state, county, municipality, or other political subdivision is divided for judicial, political, electoral, or administrative purposes.
    territorial jurisdiction. 1. Jurisdiction over cases arising in or involving persons residing within a defined territory.
    jurisdiction. 1. A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory
    state.1. “A STATE is a community of persons living within certain limits of territory.
    territory. 1 A geographical area included within a particular government’s jurisdiction; the portion of the earth’s surface that is in a state’s exclusive possession and control.
    It becomes very obvious that the word “territory” when used to describe land requires exclusive possession and control to obtain soil as jurisdiction.
    Also, please refer to the Historical and Revision Notes under Chapter 5 Title 28 – Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:
    Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions
    by counties as of January 1, 1945.
    Please note that sections 81A. Alaska, 91. Hawaii, 119. Puerto Rico were exclusively territories on January 1, 1945 and 88. District of Columbia is exclusively a district of territory. The remaining sections only show the territorial composition, ie:a place called the “United States” which is land owned and under the exclusive legislative authority of the United States of America, that still existed within the listed counties on January 1, 1945
    The derivation of 28 USC Chapter 5 leads you directly back to the original Judicial Act.
    An “Act of Congress” September 24, 1789, chap. 20, sec. 1, vol. 1, page 73.
    Districts Courts have always been required to not violate any Organic Law, this required the Judicial Districts to be only composed of “territory” that still exists within any County’s boundary lines. This “territory” is a place called the “United States” and is the total extent of all District Courts and all officers of the court, territorial jurisdiction.

  6. Andy Says:

    Mike, I think this is much easier: Mr. Prosecutor, do you have evidence the New Hampshire codes and constitution are applicable to Ian, the defendant, and a witness with first-hand knowledge of that?

  7. NonE Says:

    The codes have to be applicable to the WITNESS, too???

    – NonE

  8. Andy Says:

    Only in your convoluted way of parsing a sentence NonE, would a person ask that question.

  9. NonE Says:

    the codes and constitution are applicable to Ian (the defendant) AND a witness…

    Just reading what you wrote.

    – NonE

  10. Nikolai Says:

    I asked a judge point blank: “Am I present within the State RIGHT NOW ? Yes or No ?” …He refused to answer a simple yes or no question. Gee, i wonder why.

    I must admit that it did take me a while to fully understand this particular topic: presence within the state.

    And to respond to them saying “fool-proof”… That’s just further evidence that court is unfair: What you have is a judge, prosecutor, and cop all working together to take your money. Their job is to make it look legitimate to any witnesses there (media or public sheeple). Your job is NOT to try to teach them or the jurors… Your job is to make them look so bad, so corrupt, so unfair, that nobody in that courtroom can ignore it or justify it.

  11. Incubus Says:

    In Andy’s defense, he did use a comma before his “and”, which considering the context of his post would indicate that it was meant to separate clauses, as opposed to making a list. I don’t think his parenthetical use of “the defendant” would negate that.

  12. NonE Says:

    First, to Nikolai, I LOVE your question, but I think perhaps it is best directed towards the prosecutor, and not the judge. I’d like to hear what others might think in this regard as I do believe this might be a worthy arrow to add to our quiver. Asking the prosecutor rather than the judge gives the judge the room to toss out the case rather than inflaming him such that he might choose to find you in contempt. But please, what do y’all think on this?

    Second, Incubus sed:”In Andy’s defense, he did use a comma before his “and”, which considering the context of his post would indicate that it was meant to separate clauses,” — akshully, the comma was closing the one opened at “the defendant.”

    – NonE

  13. Andy Says:

    NonE’s failed attempt at quoting me wrote: “the codes and constitution are applicable to Ian (the defendant) AND a witness…” Just reading what you wrote.

    Read what I wrote, including the comas AND the six words after “witness”.

    “do you have evidence the New Hampshire codes and constitution are applicable to Ian, the defendant, and a witness with first-hand knowledge of that?”

    …with first-hand knowledge of that.

    Do you have narcolepsy and fell asleep before reaching the end of the sentence.

  14. Incubus Says:

    I’ll give you that point on a technicality. Grammitically you are correct, however, I would like to raise two issues:

    1) I think you very well knew what Andy was trying to get across. (Again, see context)

    2) You used double quotation marks around “and” when you quoted me, as opposed to singular quotation marks. So, how does that exalt you above Andy?

  15. Andy Says:

    NonE, the high and mighty grammar Nazi has stuck again.

  16. Andy Says:

    Nikolai wrote: I asked a judge point blank: “Am I present within the State RIGHT NOW ? Yes or No ?” …He refused to answer a simple yes or no question.”

    Did he flat out refuse to answer? Saying something like: “I’m not going to answer that.” Or did he change the subject as though the question didn’t exist?

    If it was the former, I hope there was a roomful of people to see/hear it. Perhaps thinking to themselves, it’s not likely anyone would get a fair trial with that judge.

  17. Andy Says:

    I think a person with an overly inflated ego who would intentionally write like this: …sed:… akshully…
    sed (not said) akshully (not actually) and have the audacity to jump on other people for how they write while no doubt the one with the inflated ego thinks he is being cute by spelling some words phonetically. Frankly, I’ve seen that sort of in-your-face hypocrisy from narcissists. They get a kick out of it.

    As Incubus pointed out: “I think you very well knew what Andy was trying to get across. (Again, see context)”

  18. NonE Says:

    Incubus Says:
    I’ll give you that point on a technicality. Grammitically you are correct, however,— That is the point. If you cannot or will not think clearly and express yourself correctly you have no chance and using logic and grammar to beat these people at their well honed game.

    Wanting the world to be your way regardless of reality is the problem we are fighting against. You can’t correct a problem with the same illogic or laziness which created it in the first place.

    By the rules Andy wants to play by, we’re ALL “in” the state if “the state” is whatever the speaker thinks, in his mind at that moment, that it is.

    Thanks for getting it.

    – NonE

  19. Andy Says:

    NonE wrote: “By the rules Andy wants to play by, we’re ALL “in” the state if “the state” is whatever the speaker thinks, in his mind at that moment, that it is. Thanks for getting it.”

    “Thanks for getting it” That’s mighty presumptions of you, I don’t even know what your prior sentence means. As best I can tell it’s how to pretend another post doesn’t exist.

  20. Incubus Says:

    Okay! Somebody please give this kid a medal. He just did a grandstand on his head and talked out of his rear.

    “Wanting the world to be your way regardless of reality is the problem we are fighting against.”

    Really? Given that you frequent this site often enough, I’m sure you understand the line of questioning Andy was raising, as does he. Does one grammatical error really warrant such a tasteless platitude, especially when it’s an error I imagine most glossed over?

    And while we’re on the subject, perhaps you can help me with the last sentence of your first paragraph. I’m a little confused.

    “If you cannot or will not think clearly and express yourself correctly you have no chance and using logic and grammar to beat these people at their well honed game.”

    That sentence just doesn’t quite make sense to me. Was that second “and” after the word “chance” meant to be “at”? As in, “…you have no chance AT using logic and grammar to beat these people at their well honed game.”?

    A bit of clarification would be appreciated. I can’t seem to figure out if my confusion is due to your “illogic” and “laziness”, or if my comprehension skills need to be recalibrated.

  21. NonE Says:

    You got me incubus! It should have been “at.” The thing that’s really funny about all of this is that I made a silly comment pointing out a grammatical error, not intending it to be any more than that. But Andy went all ape shit over it and it progressed from there. That’s the second time he’s gone all ape shit over some innocuous thing I’ve said. If he wants to go ballistic every time someone want to take life less than drop dead serious-as-a-heart-attack, I predict a short and unhappy life.

    My point remains. If you expect others to think clearly then you really should consider doing so yourself, otherwise you don’t have any grounds to stand on in criticizing their less than stellar logic.

    Almost all of those “Calls of Shame” sound just about like Andy replying to me. When I screw up I expect to be called on it. How else am I ever going to learn something?

    – NonE

  22. Incubus Says:

    “Only in your convulated way of parsing a sentence NonE, would a person ask that question.”

    You consider THAT ape shit? Ballistic? If your comment was meant in jest I think his repsonse was tit for tat.

    Your point on concise communication is a valid one. But I don’t see where Andy is guilty of violating that.

  23. Andy Says:

    Typical narcissist blowing wind. An inflated ego portrays himself a “victim” of “ape shit” attack. It’s always about you, isn’t it NonE?

    It began with, essentially “write this way because my authority says it should be written this way.”

    Well, I think most readers understood what I meant. The definition of words we use is a matter between the people communicating. It’s the same with grammar. We, myself and those I communicate with and they with me, will decide what grammar we use.

    So NonE, it’s not all about you.

  24. Marc Stevens Says:

    lets keep stuff like this on the forum, not here on the comments for articles.

  25. Andy Says:

    Sorry Marc. NonE started it. ;-) Will do.

  26. RadicalDude Says:

    1. Has corpus delicti been alleged?
    2. Is there evidence of corpus delicti?
    3. Specifically, is there evidence of a specific injury?
    4. What evidence, if any, is there of corpus delicti?
    5. Specifically, what evidence, if any, is there of a specific injury?

  27. surfer349 Says:

    Hey Mark,

    I sent you a copy of a DA’s response to your motion in Flagstaff, AZ. He wrote similar things. He made responses to each of the points in your motion. Seeing if you got a chance to read it.

  28. Chris Says:

    DID IAN HAVE A “DRIVER LICENSE”?

  29. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Chris, No, Ian has another recent charge about not having a driver’s license.

  30. black Says:

    I truly would like to respond to some of these ideas and questions by some of these commenters, but I can’t. Why not? Because I am not in the jurisdiction of any or these commenters. So, all I can say is, “I do not understand.”

  31. Pete Says:

    surfer349: Is there any chance you could post the DA’s response to your motions for us to see and study? You could black out all the personal info.

  32. surfer349 Says:

    I tried, but the forum is broken and won’t allow attachments…

    :(

  33. NonE Says:

    surfer349 sed:

    I tried, but the forum is broken and won’t allow attachments… :(
    ————-

    It’s Calvin’s fault. I can’t imagine how or why, but I feel a great need to blame SOMEONE! There. Now I feel better. ;-)

    – NonE

  34. Calvin Says:

    The problem with uploading attachments on the forum is that myBB is not recognizing the uploads folder on the back-end with the write permissions. I tried to fix it and I ended up knocking the board offline for a day, sorry about that. :oops:

    After a fresh install of the myBB forum software, we still have the same bug/glitch. :mad: So methinks this is a bug that the myBB developers are going to address in a future update to their forum software, we’ll just have to cross our fingers and wait & see if they get to it. (I am not sure if they are aware of the problem, I should probably email them…)

    In the meantime, I would suggest using a very simple file/image-sharing service to post your would-be attachments to Marc’s forum. It should be a matter of copy/pasting a link into your post.

    I am relieved to hear NonE’s feeling to blame has reduced any emotional discomfort caused by my negligent maintenance practices [#firstworldproblems ;)], but alas; on to more thrilling adventures… (a.k.a. new CoS)

  35. Pete Says:

    @Calvin:

    Did you just s-s-say what I th-think you just s-s-said?

    D-Did you just say you’re working on a NEW %@*#! CALL OF SHAME?

    Wa-HOO!

  36. MickeyG Says:

    I have noticed that there is a huge problem with the state being a plaintiff in any case. The judge is a judicial officer of the state. The rules of civil procedure and judicial conduct say that the judge SHALL recuse when he is an officer of a party. There is no judge within the state who can hear a case when the state is a plaintiff.

  37. Chris Says:

    Ian didn’t have a driver license.
    Did he ever have one?
    Did he “cancel” it if he did have one?
    Or did he let it “expire” and no longer used it?
    Or something other?
    … Chris

  38. Mark Says:

    Saying there is no State is ridiculous. The fact is, there is a body politic that exercises power over a geographical boundary. This is called “The State” Simple.

  39. bruce_sloane Says:

    @ Mark ….

    interesting ..
    You claim that the Dirt, is evidence of Jurisdiction ..??
    Please support this Statement with Fact

  40. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Mark, what evidence do you rely on proving there is a body politic?

  41. Dan Says:

    I am trying to channel marK and all I am getting is crickets

  42. Mark Says:

    @ Marc and others – its right there, in the declaration of independence – “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men… THAT Body politic.

    The courts have said many times that “Consent of the governed” is limited to what laws the sovereign people create to secure their happiness. In other words, there is a certain loss of freedom to trample on the rights of others. You know, to protect and maintain individual rights.

    The term “by the consent of the governed…” is not a contradiction because it is a guarantee of protecting the rights you already have. That is what you “give up”.

  43. Dan Says:

    @Mark, So all those who aspired to this body politic in 1776 are all dead now, so where is the evidence that the edicts of any other body politic applies to me or anyone else?

  44. Mark Says:

    @ bruce_sloane

    NO, I didnt say that. You are brain washed by all this no state jibberish.

    What I said is The geographic area that area that the body politic through its representatives have control over. And that control is subject to… You guessed it – protecting YOUR rights from being impinged on by others.

    I am not saying things are going right, but you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

  45. NonE Says:

    Mark Says: @ bruce_sloane

    NO, I didnt say that. You are brain washed by all this no state jibberish.

    What I said is The geographic area that area that the body politic through its representatives have control over.
    ———–
    Damn Bruce, can’t you see, it’s not the DIRT… it’s the GUNS. Sheesh, man! ;-)

    – NonDirtMakesRightRanter

  46. bruce_sloane Says:

    @Mr.Statist Mark ..
    what factual Evidence might You submit to us that a certain Attorney ” represents ” ..” this State ” ..???

  47. bruce_sloane Says:

    P.S.
    nice summation, NoNe
    next from Mark simply be comments to calumniate what we have realized as Truth

  48. Dan Says:

    NoNe, nONe, NonE, whatever his damn name is, what a rabble rouser he is. They’ll let anybody in (snicker snicker).

  49. Pete Says:

    @Mark: Please, please, pretty-please call in to Marc’s radio show!

    If you e-mail ahead a couple of days to let Marc know you’re calling and what your disagreements are, he’ll probably put you ahead of other calls. Then you can tell Marc what evidence you have that a body politic exists, that the codes apply, that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence apply to anyone, that there are citizens, etc. I can’t wait to hear him submit you to a few Socratic, “Yes or No” questions.

    (P.S. Here’s a video prediction of what I think will happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjK0g-cDJI4)

  50. pocahontas Says:

    Hello,
    I just wanted to post a win in court a dismissal of all charges regarding a traffic ticket by CHP in Alameda county court, Ca. I just got off work at 4am. And got pulled over in front of my house about 4:20am. The CHP walked up to my car with his flashlight and asked to look in my eyes to see if I was drinking or on drugs. He never asked for d.l. or reg. I said no I do not consent. I asked him to see his credentials for performing a medical exam in the field. He got very upset and wrote me a ticket for not showing him my driver s license and reg. So the day of the arraignment, I pleaded demurrer. The judge denied me about 3x’s then finally he said on what grounds. And I said for illegally forced medical eye exam performed in the field without a license……………….cont…

  51. pocahontas Says:

    And the judge said thats not a medical exam. And I said well sir how is he going to know the size of the millimeter of the pupils whether I am on drugs, been drinking, tired, or have a medical emergency. The judge got quiet and the courtroom. So now the appeal date comes and the officer is present. When I am called the judge asked me do I know why where here today. And I said yes, a forced medical eye exam. The “Business and Profession” codes section 2052-2053. States it is a felony to practice medicine in the state of Ca. without a license punishable by jail time and a fine. And also his partner who was also trying to convince me to just let him do it so I can go, for ‘aiding and abeting’. So at that time I was asked to wait outside. And the clerk comes to give me a dismissal paper of all charges. The clerk stated “I dont know what you did miss but the officer is here but he won’t testify to your case.”

  52. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ pocahontas, congrats, nice job

  53. NonE Says:

    Indeed, congratulations! I must say that it’s kinda funny that you were able to use “their” licensure laws against them. :-) – NonE

  54. Randy Says:

    @ pocahontas: Excellent, nice strategy! :)

6 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. New Hampshire Conflating – There is No State - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] Click here to view the embedded video. [...]

  2. New Hampshire Conflating – There is No State – [UPDATED WITH CALL-IN TO FTL] - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] Click here to view the embedded video. [...]

  3. THE REAL DANGER | there is no debt Says:

    [...] New Hampshire Conflating – There is No State – [UPDATED WITH CALL-IN TO FTL]http://marcstevens.net/articles/new-hampshire-conflating-there-is-no-state.html [...]

  4. NSP - Jul 20, 2013 - Co-host: JT | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] Ian Freeman’s bureaucratic legal-attack dropped and Marc’s efforts to assist Ian to engage NH bureaucrats on evidence to prove applicability of th…. [...]

  5. NSP - Sept 14, 2013 - Co-hosts: Calvin & JT and Guest: John | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Marc’s complaint against Michael Beausoleil for refusing to put up his evidence that the const…. […]

  6. NSP – Sept 14, 2013 – Co-hosts: Calvin & JT and Guest: John - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Marc’s complaint against Michael Beausoleil for refusing to put up his evidence that the const…. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, September 27th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be back broadcasting LIVE from deep within the 'fortified compound' for another original No STATE Project radio show. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. 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 role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here