Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Dec 10, 2011 – Co-host: JT

Posted on December 10th, 2011 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Topics: #AiLL Success Stories and Questioning the MSM -|- YouTube channel back up with new video on the CAFTB “Call-of-Shame” -|- Marc’s take on the evidence and conclusions of Ed’s work on Exposing the Truth -|- Virginia Tech-Fort Hood connection -|- provabledirectedmedia events -|- verifying your own reality -|- listeners phone-in questions and comments regarding Ed Chiarini’s research of faked media events.


10 Comments For This Post

  1. Incubus Says:

    Oh boy! Another one of those Freetards. Janis and the rest of her cult members are absolutely ridiculous. There is no point in trying to reason with those people. They’re lost causes.

  2. Pete Says:

    The Idaho guy seemed really well prepared. I think he got lucky by having a Judge who actually let him ask the tough questions to the witness. From what I’ve heard from Marc and read in his book, they don’t usually allow this. Maybe this was because of all the media reps in the courtroom?

    The Canadian guy was hard to follow at times, but the most fascinating part was how he was ordered to switch Judges for no apparent reason, and then ended up in a 3rd floor court where his case was quietly tossed out. Was this to keep other sheeple from seeing his victory?

    The Janis call reminded me of trying to have a political discussion with a drunken stranger in a bar. Marc has amazing patience and manners with his callers.

  3. John Says:

    So Marc what do you think of the NDAA?

  4. Marc Stevens Says:

    More of the same anti-social behavior from the criminal cartel called the US government

  5. Ben Says:

    I live in VA a few hours away from blacksburg where VT is. And it was in the local news for a loooong time!

  6. janice Says:

    to any of you that think i’m a “freetard” please read “invisible contracts” Most of you have never done any research. They make the laws that we supposedly have to abide by. How much research does it take every time we have to jump through another of their man made hoops and how long do you think you can keep this up? They will only create another law and then another and another. Don’t contract with them in exchange for “benefits” It’s that simple. Read the bible too..maybe you’ll really learn something.

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    The insults are not necessary everyone. Stick the issues and facts.

    As far the invisible contracts and other writings, I am familiar with them. As mentioned on the show, the simple fact all support is compulsory rules out any citizens, residents and states. What you are referring to are not contracts.

  8. Incubus Says:

    Janice I am the one who used “Freetard”. You can address me directly. I apologize if you feel insulted. Allow me to extend an olive branch and a warm welcome.

    “Most of you have never done any research”. Yes, as a matter of fact “we” have. Which is why I and others’ laugh at the freeman nonsense. As Marc stated, what you are referring to are not contracts. You’re still caught up in a delusion.

    And to reiterate what Marc said, “stick to the facts”! In all fairness though Janice, I too was wrapped in the same rantings circling your mind right now. I started down the free-man road before I was thankfully derailed shortly after by stumbling upon Marc. But had I not been on that path to begin with I may never have found him. So the fact that you’ve made it this far is an accomplishment and I’m glad you have. Study his material and I assure you the last of your bondage in this free-man crap will be broken.

    If I came off as harsh before it’s because-like I stated-I was in your shoes once. And looking back now I can’t help but laugh at myself for where I stood and the junk I believed. Sometimes I find myself doing the same when I see others there too, and forget a little sympathy can go a long way. Trust me though, you’ll be able to laugh at yourself too in time! 🙂

  9. damon Says:

    Hello and God bless!

    At around 10:00 to 12:457 the man tells the truth. Stop asking for free crap!

    Proverbs 22:7
    The rich ruleth over the poor, and the BORROWER IS SERVANT to the lender.

    One need look no further than the Living Word to realize..

    Romans 13:8
    Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

    This is sound.

    There seems to be a lot of confusion and partial truths about Janice and the ‘freeman movement’. Much of it deals with the U.C.C. which for the most part governs negotiable intruments, notes, and the like. it is ‘banker’ law or merchant law. Law for thieves.

    There is however, a direct connection between the use of a slave number and ‘taxpayer’ status. One cannot honestly expect to use a privilege of the government and not pay for it. See, there are ,again, TWO kinds of CONSENT. Express and implied. If NO ONE has EVER read the Social Scurity Act how can one possibly know what they are agreeing too by continued use and/or participation in such a scheme? The ‘evidence’ has ALWAYS been public record! Implied consent.

    If we look in TITLE 5 U.S.C.—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES § 552a. Records maintained on individuals;

    The first thing I want you to notice here is that the title itself tells you WHO exactly this applies to. Employees of the government, right? Also who they can keep ‘record’ of.

    Then we find in that Title under Sec. 552a. some definitions to wit;

    (12) the term ‘‘Federal benefit program’’ means !ANY PROGRAM! administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government, providing cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan guarantees to individuals; and

    (13) the term [[[‘‘Federal personnel’’]]] means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components),


    of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits). [This means socialist insecurity “benefits” also called “Old Age Survivor Disability Insurance]

    One may think they do not consider you ‘federal personnel’ by use of the slave number? What if they just get your ‘implied consent’ to act in this capacity because of the use of such a ‘benefit’? What if you are not even ELLIGABLE because you are NOT the entity described above?

    No less than the Supreme Court tells ya..

    ” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

    It is also written in their ‘civil laws’…

    Section 1589
    section 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a CONSENT to all the OBLIGATIONS arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

    What else is implied by the use of the number that one may not know about? Can one receive any ‘benefit’ WITHOUT said slave number? Will they even ‘deal’ with ‘you’ if ‘you’ are not one of ‘thier’ own? I wonder how the I.R.S (INTERNAL) keeps tract of the transactions of ‘federal personnel’?

  10. damon Says:

    What if lies were told since our birth about who we are in relation to the ‘government’?.

    What if the ‘government’ never had legislative jurisdiction within the ‘states’?

    “It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation…
    [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

    What if the ‘United States’ had THREE distinct and mutually exclusive definitions?

    Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, (1945)

    “The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses.

    (1)It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

    (2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends,

    (3)or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

    What if only ONE of these ‘United States’ was identified in the constitution?

    The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy ONLY ARE THE STATES CONTEMPLATED IN THE CONSTITUTION , . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.’ This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that ‘neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.’

    [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

    What if because ‘they’ had no legislative jurisdiction within said ‘states’ that they could not even define the ‘citizenship’ status of people within said ‘states’?

    U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 5

    Nationalities, etc.

    5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.

    5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the following forms will be used.












    Hmmmm. This is interesting. What if they defined these people as something different than ‘U.S.citizen’ (Title 8 sec. 1401).

    “national” defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)

    (a) (21) The term ”national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

    What if this was exactly someone not subject to the Internal Revenue Code?

    26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident alien

    An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).

    What if they told you what a ‘nonresident alien’ was NOT but NOT what it is?

    What if context ALWAYS proceeded the meaning in whichUnited states’ was being referred to on thier government forms?

    What if the words ‘includes’ and ‘including’ were words of LIMITATION in thier decedptive regulation language and ‘codes’?

    “…The court also considered that the word ‘including’ was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the dictionaries and cases indicate. [Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452 (1911)]

    “(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

    [Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65]

    What if they redefine words to decieve you into signing their forms even though you are at no time during the ‘taxable year’ engaged in such an activity?

    26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26)
    “The term ‘trade or business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Marc on Free Talk Live [Michael W. Dean's "Apology"] – Jul 2, 2012 | Says:

    […] name, they’ll have this *other opinion*” -|- Mike’s deliberate refusal to review REAL cases where felony drug possession charges have been dismissed in court by questioning the exis… -|- ”guarantees” and “promises” of what will happen in court […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: 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 he can 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 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. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here