NSP – Dec 31, 2011 – #NSPTrafficStudy with Guests: Calvin DeWitt, Keith Dudley, & Jake Witmer

Posted on December 31st, 2011 by Calvin

Guests: Calvin DeWitt, Keith Dudley [CLRG.info], and Jake Witmer [FIJA.org].

Show Topics:

  • #NSPTrafficStudy Special.
  • New Call of Shame where an IRS agent is confused by the mention of “witnesses” and “evidence.”
  • The silly presumption that tax compliance out of threat, duress, and coercion is somehow reliable.
  • Agents carelessly giving conflicting testimony under penalty of perjury.
  • Threats of use of force is usually considered criminal, unless its in the name of the fictitious STATE.
  • How to effectively handle a narcissist.
  • STATE non-compliance with FOI requests.
  • Ghost-warrant extortion scheme in Australia.
  • Getting erroneous assessments abated and stopping the form-letter attack process.
  • The “state-department two-step” from unresponsive compartmentalized bureaucratic offices.
  • How to use the mail system to file paperwork surely and properly.
  • Australian commissioners claim to have “the legal authority to have positive and negative hallucinations.”
  • The failure of the unexamined STATE facades of freedom and protection.
  • Minimizing the bureaucratic risk for those who desire to live as a free individual.
  • Judges shifting the nature of the charge(s) from criminal to civil to help the persecutor by lessening his burden of proof.
  • Swindled consent.
  • Contacting the judge for the #NSPTrafficStudy and effectively using the element of surprise.
  • Maintaining civil & calm behavior in court.
  • Challenging “the STATE” by calling and asking them “what support do they really have when they steal every dime they spend?”
  • Projects spear-headed by CLRG.info (aka Community Law Resource Association).
  • Conflicting dual-interpretive nature of STATE law.
  • The importance of cross-examination and evidence in discovering the essential facts in a case.
  • Rosa Parks and civil disobedience.
  • The Save-a-Bureaucrat approach to persuade statists to do their work honestly and voluntarily in the free-market.
  • How to use effective jury-rights advocacy.
  • Cruel and unusual punishment: any punishment that doesn’t fit the crime; meaning it is cruel and unusual to punish someone, no matter how small, for a non-crime.
  • Challenging a voir dire by asking potential jurors tough qualifying questions.
  • STATE legitimacy hinges on the blind Stockholm-support of the masses.
  • Making yourself a hard target by challenging the presumptuous allegations of the STATE in court every time by EXPOSING they have no evidence or proof to support their case.
  • EXPOSING extreme court bias and prejudice.
  • Using media reps, and other psychological leverage, to keep hot-headed judges civil and sane.
  • Denial of a voir dire is automatic grounds for reversal without prejudice.
  • Understanding the corrupted neurology of sociopathic statists.
  • Judges granting jury dismissals to the prosecution while inconsistently denying legitimate requests for dismissal from the defendant.
              

33 Comments For This Post

  1. randy Says:

    Great show as always, Marc. You mention cops being convinced to become productive humans with the promise of prosperity. I am not happy to report that the cops here are compensated far in excess of the rest of us. Their betrayal is well funded, and changing their minds based on monetary rewards, is a tough sell.

  2. Keith Baber Says:

    Yo’s when setting the jury, If the judges stop you from asking certen quitions, ask the judge is the first amendment is now in efect in this court room at this time, or somthing like that. Pardon the speeling

  3. Mr. Holipsism Says:

    Marc:

    Isn’t it possible to preface your conversation with an IRS agent by simply asking them, “What is the definition of an argument?”

    If they give you the definition then they are setting themselves up when you start asking them questions. It goes along with your technique of set up questions in the court room but I’ve never heard you preface your audio conversations with these agents on the phone with that set up question. Is there is a reason you haven’t? Thank you in advance.

    Holip

  4. NonE Says:

    I like Holip’s thinking, but I imagine (as I don’t have the personal experience Marc has) that there are only so many “set up” questions you can ask before you cause them to shut down the process in frustration. As Marc has pointed out repeatedly regarding courtroom situations, you only have a very limited amount of time to accomplish your goal.

    – NonE

  5. NonE Says:

    Hey Calvin (and Marc, too or three),

    Just a bit of information here. I listened to part of this show “live” on the LRN.FM feed -> the 16k feed. It was perfectly clean and clear and I had no trouble understanding it. What this tells me is that it is not the 16k or larger feed that is the issue so much as the quality of the source material. You can take a crappy cellphone connection and put it through Digital Light and Magic’s mainframe and you still have a crappy cellphone connection. 😉

    I am currently listening to the 24k feed of this show and it (well the Aussie so far, I haven’t listened further) is as clear as a bell.)

    For anyone who cares to be clearly understood, high frequency sound is very directional. Low frequency sound is not. That’s why you always hear the loud bass in the car next to you while you can’t hear any of the tune. So when you do not speak with the microphone pointed towards your mouth what you get is lots of vowel sounds and no consonant sounds. Other people can hear you, but they cannot clearly make out the actual words – you can’t hear the tune.

    – NonE

  6. Lyndon Says:

    It is a usefull strategy to demand a jury trial and then methodically use voir dire obstructions to prevent a jury from seating. But it must be noted that this is a worse case scenario option. Damage control is still best done by paper work long before even a hearing takes place. Put your questions to the persecutor in registered mail months before the hearing. It is good if the persecutor does not answer. Give the persecutor three strikes and then default him/her. Get your documents onto the court file and get a signed and witnessed certificate of service from the clerk’s office. If you do that you have already won before the hearing ever gets going. If the psycho judge ignores and convicts you will win the appeal and can sue the whole gang of psychos and lien that imaginary “court”.

  7. NonE Says:

    In response to what Lyndon says above, and I am not arguing with his points, this just helps to confirm what Marc has said about how if you are in court you have already lost, you are now simply trying to limit your damages.

    – NonE

  8. indio007 Says:

    Figure this one out from the Supreme Court

    “An officer who orders one particular car to pull
    over acts with an implicit claim of right based on fault of
    some sort”

  9. bruce sloane Says:

    @ lyndon

    common law default will not be recognized by most Courts

  10. Ben Says:

    You understand that many laws are there to PREVENT loss, injury, harm, like speeding, and some traffic laws. There is nothing wrong with that.

  11. Zonsb Says:

    Laws are opinions backed by guns. They call them laws but in reality speed limits are suggestions. Exceeding a posted speed limit doesn’t violate anyone’s legal right or injure them.

  12. Ben Says:

    No, but if there is no speed limit and you go 100 and hit and kill somebody then what? Well it’s too late then. Most would have enough sense to drive safe but some don’t. Holding others accountable in order to prevent harm is perfectly fine.

  13. Lyndon Says:

    Bruce Sloan: Common Law default works in Canada because we who are not “agents of the government” can appeal statutory judgements to Queen’s Bench. In Canada it is much easier for those who know how to exercise their inherent rights because the Consitution of CANADA makes this very clear and simple. Unfortunately for my U.S. friends, it seems no one really knows or is telling what primary document the UNITED STATES CORP. follows and uses to claim authority over you in the U.S.

  14. Zonsb Says:

    If there is no speed limit and you go 30 and hit and kill somebody then what? Well it’s too late then. Most would have enough sense to drive safe but some don’t. Let’s just lower the speed limit to 5mph. Or how about outlaw cars altogether.

    While you’re at it you could declare getting drunk illegal and impose fines at the barrel of a gun because it would prevent domestic violence.

    How about instead, make it unlawful for any person, group or government to initiate force, threat of force and fraud against any individual’s self, property or contract. Initiatory force, threat of force and fraud violates an individual’s rights and causes him/her injury. Thus constitutes a valid cause of action.

    By an astronomically large margin the government — which is men and women attempting to provide services at the barrel of a gun — are the biggest violators of individual rights and violators of peace, freedom and civility.

    Government has no voluntary support. Pay the tax or go to jail. Taxes are “paid” under threat duress and coercion. Pay the mafia protection money or Guido will break your legs.

    If you’re here at this website in search of facts and evidence read, watch and listen to the information Marc has posted to it. Life is too precious and short. Most everybody wants to improve society. Do it with ideas, information and education — not guns, fines, threats of jail and violence. For the later is testament to having lost the battle of ideas. It amounts to rule of the jungle where might makes right rather than peace, freedom and civility via voluntary associations.

  15. Ben Says:

    You’re missing the point. ON an average highway driving 60-65 is not unreasonable and is safe, driving 65 down mainstreet in a local town is not. Driving 120 on an average highway IS unreasonable. The point is to prevent harm to others within reason, I certainly believe having speed limits is perfectly reasonable (for the most part).

    Telling ppl what to consume is crossing the line. While I think getting drunk is stupid and has no point to it, I would never impose a law that says one can’t. IN a way i wish we could out law alcohol because it’s nothing but trouble (yes ppl abuse it, but it really serves no positive purpose).

    I agree for the most part with much of what Marc says, like seat belt laws, helmet laws, paying an income tax. I also think there should be laws to prevent harm to others (within reason of course).

    This is why i’m voting RON PAUL!

  16. Zonsb Says:

    Has posted speed limits backed by men and women providing service at the barrel of guns stopped people from speeding? No. Read information on this website. I’m not going to duplicate here for you what you need do for yourself. Do your “homework”.

  17. Ben Says:

    It does help though. It also helps with preventing accidents. I have, and like I said I agree with a lot of it.

  18. Zonsb Says:

    No service should be provided at the barrel of a gun? Do you agree with that?

  19. Calvin Says:

    Ben, don’t you understand that by saying you are “for” certain laws to be enforced through the DBA of the STATE factually equates to letting people who have the least amount of reasoning to go off solving potential problems with LIVE weapons? Does that sound sane to you? I would also point you to my last comment here.

  20. Ben Says:

    @zonsb if that service is protecting (which includes preventing to a degree) others rights then I don’t have a problem with it.

    Well they don’t go around shooting people, you have bad cops, bad judges, etc. most are good. Yes, they follow many laws that are not right, but that simply means the stupid laws need to be gotten rid of.

    I’m about to graduate in may with a B.S in Criminal Justice, I probably will be a cop for a short time in order to achieve my long term goal. I certainly will conduct myself professionally and morally if/when I am one.

  21. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Ben, you should call the show about this.

    For now, you have no issue with coercing people to pay for protection from coercing?

  22. Ben Says:

    Ok. I’d love to call and talk about it. What time does the show start?

  23. Marc Stevens Says:

    NSP live every Saturday 4-7pm est

  24. Ben Says:

    Awesome. I’ll call in this Sat.

  25. Incubus Says:

    B.S. meaning Bull Sh!t, right? Hahaha 😀

  26. Ben Says:

    LoL. So some think 😀

  27. indio007 Says:

    The legal rationale that the State can “enforce a speed limit” is this. The right to travel on the roads belong to everyone and creating a dangerous condition interferes with other people’s quiet enjoyment.A speeding ticket is basically pecuniary money damages for a common law nuisance claim.

    In a nutshell, the State is claiming the violation of legal right. They are using trickery though because 9 time out of 10 there is no injury IN FACT. i.e. no party is claiming the act of speeding caused a nuisance. They just ride the presumption wagon to a payday.

  28. Lyndon Says:

    “Driving fast” unto itself does not create a harm. Driving faster than someone’s subjective idea of what a “limit” should be does not create a harm. If a harm is caused by someone “driving fast” than one always has the inherent right to bring a claim before the appointed. Taking money from someone by force in claiming they MAY cause a harm is robbery. Highway robbery.

  29. Jake Witmer Says:

    I’m sure that Ben would never personally demand that someone pull his car over under the threat of force, for speeding. Let’s say I’m going 78 on a portion of highway labeled as 65 mph. There’s similar highway up ahead labeled with “speed limits” at 75mph. The driving is just as safe on the portion labeled 75mph, but in the 65mph area, it allows the police to pull me over under threat of violence, and rob me. If I can see where I’m driving, my vision of where I’m going is not occluded, and I’m not driving unsafely.

    Speed alone, in a vehicle and conditions designed to withstand it, is not unsafe. Only cowardly and unskilled dipshits believe it is, and the evidence is against them. The vast majority of people on a highway at any given time are speeding. Those doing more than ten over are often targeted for state robbery.

    Tailgating is much less safe, much more common, but much more difficult to prove in court. Largely, the standard for tailgating is that it was safe if it didn’t result in an accident. This is the standard for all actual “mala in se” crimes. Those who favor the additional category of “mala prohibita” being included in western law, are against enlightenment values, and un-American to the core.

    In proper western civilization, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no “injury” and no “intent to injure” if I am taking responsibility for the safety of my driving. You don’t have to be the judge of the safety of my driving, if my actions do not impinge upon you in any way, which they don’t.

    So, because cowardly dipshits like Ben don’t have any comprehension of moral law, we all have to be unfree. A pox on you, Ben, you’re a blithering idiot, who isn’t even brave enough to initiate the violence he espouses himself. If you were at least man enough to pull people over and rob them, I could admire the skill and determination in your sociopathy. …Especially if you did so without hiding behind a badge.

    And tell me this: what if I’m speeding and noone else on the road is even remotely close to me (as is usually the case), and I slow down to within 5mph of the speed limit for each vehicle I pass? In that case I’ve clearly violated noone’s rights, but you still think that armed thugs should be able to arbitrarily steal from me at will.

    Again: a pox on your house, Ben, since you are a pox on mine.

  30. Marc Stevens Says:

    Seriously Jake? I disagree with your personal attacks, the guy came on the show and appears to be genuinely interested in questioning/examining the issues we discuss here. This is over the top, save this for those lawyers at that other website.

  31. Ben Says:

    Firstly, I said that for the most part I think speeding, that is driving at a very unsafe speed (an unreasonable speed) is not a good idea. I never said going 10 miles over the speed limit was dangerous. Secondly, I called into the show about this, check out the most recent one. Thirdly, I’m not sure how you get I’m a “cowardly dipshit” when you don’t even know me, and all i’ve said is I believe the roads should be safe and people should drive safely. I won’t be immature and call you any names. I think you’re kinda overreacting here about what I said.

  32. Calvin Says:

    @Ben: I love you, man. For two reasons at the moment… first, I am high as an U-2 during the Cold War and secondly because you are willing to inject rationality before committing to ANY conclusion. Even if you don’t change your [legal] opinions, you have proven yourself superior to even the most ardent STATists; oh, the panache.

  33. Ben Says:

    @Calvin Lol…@ the high part. Thank you Calvin, that’s appreciated.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Mar 28, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Jake Witmer from AK: talking with and debating local bureaucrats as they are available <> the most convincing cybernetic power will dominate society <> proving the non-applicability of the law from multiple angles <> common law and modified social contracts <> the ease of psychopathy as demonstrated in Milgram’s agentic state theory <> using arguments that are most effective with brainwashed people, just as Lysander Spooner and Fredric Douglas had <> the individual and shared interests in defending yourself against arbitrary authoritarians <> and stories of jury myths and misconceptions: can jurors be punished for jury nullification verdicts? […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

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





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

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






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here