Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jun 30, 2012 – Co-host: JT and Guest: Mary

Posted on July 4th, 2012 by Calvin

Co-host: JT and Guest: Mary.

Show Topics: Pro Per Edition -|- Mike’s NON-FACTUAL & emotional hit piece about replicable and effective pro per defense strategies -|- attorney disclaimers -|- update on Mary’s “case” -|- it is impossible to get an objectively “fair and impartial hearing” if there is a conflict of interest between the judge and the prosecutor -|- lack of integrity or standards of professional code-of-conduct from self-proclaimed anarchists -|- striking testimony when a witness’s competency and credibility is disqualified and knowing when to make objections when the judge rules in error -|- firing a public pretender -|- how to counter the “that doesn’t apply” line effectively by adapting it for your defense -|- asking if an objective standard of proof is being used in the proceedings -|- using verifiable information and experience to expose the fact that a monopoly is claiming to be able to provide you with a fair and impartial feeling, despite the compulsion -|- bureaucrats using “faith” as an objective standard of proof for evidence -|- keeping the burden of proof on the prosecutor -|- listeners phone-in with questions and comments regarding responding to bureaucrats claiming their own legal standards “don’t apply” when the facts don’t work in their favor, practicing voluntaryism by voluntarily trading, non-responsive judges on motions-to-vacate, the whole court unaware of “what a valid cause of action” is, assumed jurisdiction (“you just are”), judges forcing attorneys on pro per defendants, the non-authority of the bar association, challenging the charges on a factual basis in adversarial proceedings, blanket-denial procedural railroading, filing a motion to dismiss depending on whether the hearing is administrative or criminal/civil, and people’s offensive presumption that Marc is a monopoly-hugging attorney.


25 Comments For This Post

  1. Karen Says:

    Hey Marc, I wanted to mention just a couple things about last nites’show. It was sooo annoying (if I’m being honest). Emotions may have taken over. It was just a contrast to your other vids/podcasts and I know how much you appreciate honesty. And just curious, was some of that (hostility) directed at the channel? Did they stress the disclaimers? If not, you gave Mike way too much power by being so incessant with it (and shifting it from the usual content). “Beating a dead dog” comes to mind. Being right should be enough, no need for the ongoing tantrum. I just hope you’re over it now, but between that and audio issues, IMO, it didn’t compare to your other shows. And it wasn’t really fair to your callers either, although no one else has commented (that I saw). As a truth seeker and corruption exposer, it’s just not about us. I say this out of respect for you and keeping it real.

    I have some issues I may want to talk to you about (re:adverse possession/AZ) if you’re not mad at me.

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    I do apologize for the hostile tone and we’re back on track this week. The bad faith behind the attack and the lack of support made it more irritating than usual. The network is supporting this guy and the disclaimers despite the fact he has lied almost 100% of the time and there have been no listeners who have complained.

    It was tough to have to defend my material from someone who doesn’t know me or the material.

    And I’m not mad, I appreciate the comments and always welcome criticism. We should be able to take calls this weekend.

  3. NonE Says:

    “and I’m not mad…”

    HAH! That’s a good one, Marc! 😉 Love it. You should get an entire act together. 😉

    – the Very Good NonE

  4. Chris Says:

    “the Very Good NonE”

    NonE, have you turned a new leaf? =-)

    I remember having a chat with you about property on the forum, and you damn near bit my head off!


  5. Leonard Says:

    Marc…do you have handy any SCOTUS cites that state that there is no duty of the State to protect the citizen? I’ve got a Statist on the line who would like to see what the supreme men (and women) in black robes of the false priesthood have said.


  6. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Lenard – DeShaney v. County of Winnebago, is one of hundreds, do a search for “no duty to protect” and you’ll find lots more.

    @ NonE, you’re even closer to getting banned

  7. Leonard Says:

    Thanks Marc…appreciate all you do for the cause of Liberty

  8. StimuL8 Says:

    Are you an Attorney? Can you answer some legal questions for me? Will you represent my interests first over the courts? Are you a rabid dog? I loved Old Yeller :). Nothing more loyal than the good old American Mutt dude and you’re our mutt Marc. I also like honest, truthful, nice, schmucks from Long Island.

    Stay True Schmuck

    The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
    – George Orwell

  9. bruce sloane Says:

    Marc, I have to say that this MWD crap seems to actually have gotten to You ..

    Clearly there was stress in Your voice on the LRN show ..
    Very unlike you …

    blow it off ..

    there are people that take the time to research, verify, understand the concepts presented on the No State Project … YOUR Listeners

    certainly not MWD, maybe not Ian …
    I have to say, I do not get the whole ” Free Keene ” thing ….
    is it a badge of Valor to get Incarcerated, rather than defeat the Court …???

    You certainly have been a guidepost to me, as how to deal with the stress of Family Court, and CPS … not that it gets easier, but… Perspective ..Perspective ….

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Bruce, yes, when people who actually know me, throw me under the bus for someone who doesn’t, who launched a baseless personal attack, it tends to get to me.

    I expect it from those who don’t know me, but not those who do, and to have someone on the same network attack me publicly was more than just unexpected. I had to grow up a little this past week; realizing self-professed liberty activists are not always people interested in the truth. They can engage in personal attacks just as any statist can. You can certainly separate those who are anarchists because they respect personal autonomy, from others who don’t and are anarchists for other reasons.

    Monday ended it and we’re back on track.

  11. NonE Says:

    Marc Not-A-Lawyer Stevens said: “@ NonE, you’re even closer to getting banned”

    DUDE! That’s MR. Very Good NonE to you!


    – the Very Good NonLawyer NonEntity

  12. NonE Says:

    @ Chris, No new leaves. I’m just playing with notavoter who called me Very Good NonE inadvertently by being sloppy. So I’m using it to my advantage. When you’re as big a cretin as I, you need all the help you can get!

    – the Very Good NonE

  13. dan gould Says:

    @the Very Good NonE, I really stepped into it this time eh? I did try to correct myself.

  14. Sarah Says:

    I had to stop listening to this after the first hour. I’m sorry, but the continued sarcasm and references to the pathetic ‘attack’ by MWDean is wearing thin.

    Marc, if you had just ignored Mike W Dean in the first place, I for one would never have heard of him. I do look forward to your podcast each and every week, but the tone of this one is just unbearable!

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Sarah, I apologized about the last show, it won’t happen again. I responded because he was lying publicly and was on the same network. He trashed me on FTL and was effecting my show, I could not ignore an attack effecting my show.

  16. Karen Says:

    Hi Marc,

    Are you familiar with Adverse Possession (or Bob Hurt who has a blog dedicated to it: He spoke to me over 2 hours yesterday on the phone, which I did get recorded. It contains TONS of info. I am actually creating a website and facebook supporting AP. Please let me know if this is an area your familiar with. Arizona has the 2nd highest foreclosure rate, and millions of homes are sitting vacant across the “states”, unused, unmaintained and unenjoyed. Reference AZ Ch 5 Article 2 12-521 – 527. Anyone interested in saving your community from the damage mostly created by the Lenders, Assessors and even Realtors, check back with me @ or on Facebook and you can hear our conversation. I may call in to get your take (if you have one) but otherwise I won’t take up your radio time, as I know there are other callers who also have important issues. To be clear, I am the AP.
    Thanks Marc!

  17. Karen Says:

    He would make an awesome guest by the way; Bob Hurt that is. His numbers on his blog (if you’re interested).

  18. NonE Says:

    @ Karen, “To be clear, I am the AP.” What is that spozed to mean? Is this “Adverse Possession” thing something about being able to take over abandoned property or something like that? The whole issue of “property rights” is fraught with problems, to my mind. Well, so are any “rights.” The claim of “rights” seems to me to be a unilateral claim. I agree that it has a lot of benefits and helps to resolve some problems, but I don’t think it’s the be-all end-all that most libertarian types think it is.

    – the Very Good NonE

  19. Karen Says:

    There are more benefits then you can imagine, and to the owner in foreclosure as well. He’s not aware these options even exist. And what’s so wrong if the banks are held accountable in the end. I am referencing property in foreclosure.

    Bob would be a great guest. My mind is still reeling from our conversation. Just curious, did you check out the blog I linked to? And what is wrong about the guy who may not have the money and ignorance the owners displayed when they purchased their property, but we got a mind and this is something that only makes sense … to everyone.

    I guess we could just let them sit and rot, getting worse, further deteriorating and bringing down values more, that’s gonna happen anyway, since we still have a ways to go, let’s just throw up our hands and don’t even bother to try.

    “I am the AP”, I thought made it clear what side of the issue I was on. And what’s a “libertarian type”? I really haven’t called myself one, nor does that come to mind, when I think of myself. I am more of a truth seeker and exposure of corruption and tend (have tended anyway) to have an aversion to law in general, after keeping up with legislation a little while after 9/11.

    With the level of abandoned property, some good property with the potential to be enjoyed and taken care of, put to it’s highest best use, and the level of displaced families and homeless have an option; I say let’s do it!

    To those that can’t get over working and overpaying for their American Dream and seeing someone come into their neighborhoods, who didn’t chose to do that, get over it, I am doing you a favor. This includes cops and courts as well. You know those with a political agenda. If that property meant so much to the owner, he shouldn’t have abandoned it. In case of foreclosure, you’re defending the banks? The media would love that, message received, loud and clear. Maybe we could start by eliminating “squatter” talk. It’s time to stand up.

    The banks can eat crow (not my first choice of words btw)! I would’t mind being a big part of that kharma. Let the cookie crumble.

    And there sure isn’t anything wrong with networking, getting informed and if someone is gonna do it, they can do it right, and that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to put yourself in harms way.

    Thanks for the response!


  20. NonE Says:

    @ Karen, So when you say “I am the AP,” are you saying that you are supportive of the concept of Adverse Possession, or what?

    What is a “libertarian type?” Well, to my mind it means one who adheres to the concept that one should never initial force against another. But a lot of the libertarian community has some doctrinaire ideology, self ownership being the primary idea and private ownership of all, and by all I mean ALL, all things, all ideas, all land, all water, all air, I guess. I find this a bit rabid and unworkable, while recognizing that “the commons” presents equally troublesome issues.

    – the Very Good NonE

  21. NonE Says:

    “initial” should be “initiate”

  22. Karen Says:

    Yeh, as far as AP, I’m specifically concerned about putting wasted land to it’s highest best use. As far as legal/equitable ownership, that may not be what it’s all cracked up to be. Possessory rights would provide homes (however temporary or long term). Problems could be solved here reasonably and lawfully. And if banks don’t “legally” own property (due to their corrupt practices), they should lose it. Owners in foreclosures have more options (and obligations) they’re not aware of. I thought it was obvious I AM in support of AP.

  23. NonE Says:

    @ Karen, Yes, “I thought it was obvious I AM in support of AP,” that is obvious. I just didn’t know what you meant when you claimed to BE AP.

    I’m not so sure about putting land to its “highest best use” though, that being such a subjective thing. I think the issue is voluntary interaction where each person is left to himself to decide his or her own “highest best use” rather than having that dictated from “above.”

    – the Very Good NonE

  24. Karen Says:

    I am referring to abandoned property, so any usage is better than that. Right? Just check out the blog if you really care about it.

  25. Karen Says:

    It gets really frustrating trying to convince people of the obvious, many who don’t even care to dig. This is a solution and lawful. Any other ideas?

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Interesting ownes the IRS!!! Says:

    […] the case. It's kind of interesting, though probably risky. Judging from a quick glance of his site (check this pic) Stevens is probably trying to kill IRS standing by saying his client didn't have to file a return. […]

  2. NSP - Oct 4, 2014 - Co-host: JT - Says:

    […] Mary, who was assaulted by her local legal-opinion enforcers, has recently had her felony conviction reversed and it is now ordered back to the court for a trial de novo. […]

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