Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 16, 2013 – Co-host: JT

Posted on February 16th, 2013 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Notes:

  • Kop-on-Cop violence and the continuation of government crack-downs against whistleblowers speaking-up about internal corruption.
  • Tony Iommi‘s following amongst the grey-haired.
  • Effective Bully-control: Marc’s response to a loud, foul-mouthed hypocrite complaining about other people’s “rudeness” and “lack of respect of other people’s spaces” who attempts to instigate a fight.
  • A big thanks to Dennis for his help with resolving Marc’s microphone issue.
  • “Due process” is a function of “equal protection;” it IS NOT synonymous with “justice.”
  • Judges commonly exercise their discretion to change the rules whenever they want via the rule of necessity.
  • EVIDENCE is most essential in effective litigation: if there is NO EVIDENCE, what relevance is intent?
  • If the CONstitution is, in fact, any sort of valid contract…
  • The court’s conflicting legal opinions on “the right to travel.”
  • Bureaucrat’s universal, non-factual, assumption of applicability of the code.
  • Reducing legal complexity by sticking to step 1 and asking for the evidence the prosecution relies on to make their charges.
  • “Taking the position”/making the observation that the prosecution has NO evidence, why the need to go further than that?
  • Objecting to baseless assertions on the fly in court.
  • Tune-in to Vin James’ No STATE Project UK following the NSP Reloaded rebroadcast; all kicking off starting at Sunday 1pm GMT on Dark City Radio.
  • Join the NSP skype chat to help prepare for court by role-playing
  • Cases” that fall into the “lack of a speedy trial” black-hole.
  • Marc’s attempt to file for a petition of writ of heabeas corpus for Mike.
  • If the officer is “not qualified to submit legal opinion,” consequently the officer cannot determine probable cause [also a legal opinion].
  • Learn to use their positions against them, because is it universally constant that statists cannot maintain a non-contradictory position.
  • What facts to look for to prove, or disprove, taxation: applicability/obligation to pay.
  • Getting a hold on an assessment while tracking down the person responsible for determining the one a “taxpayer,” then challenging them on what facts they considered to make such an [un]objective assessment.
  • Government retaliation against those [commonly, and often erroneously, referred to as “tax protesters”] who challenge the evidence used to determine one a “taxpayer.”
  • Factors that could qualify you for taxation: are you a .gov employee, taxpayer beneficiary, bankruptcy claimants, or unemployment recipient?
  • Taking an activist stand against morally unjustified taxation; purely on principal.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Matthew from Santa Cruz, CA: investigation into effectively countering “the powers that be,” refining a process of “preserving one’s rights” that makes sense to both parties (or a statist version of CopBlocking, if you will), and private prosecutors that allegedly can initiate a criminal complaint.
  • Sean from Daytona Beach, FL: dismissal with prejudice in a right to travel case, “intention” is what “counts” to determine criminal action, commercial jurisdiction, and government labeling one a “sovereign citizen.”
  • Aurthur [] from Queen Creek, AZ: people thinking too much into issues and instead just keeping it simple as a means of problem solving/conflict resolution, court hearing Tuesday February, 19th in West Mesa [media reps], challenging applicability of the code on a factual basis, and signing a plea of “not responsible.”
  • Phil from SC: when to file a motion to dismiss and revenue thirsty law enforcement.
  • Peter from MT: motion to disqualify judge granted, refiling a motion to dismiss with the new judge, and conflicts of interest in the fishing without a license “case.”
  • Richard from Chicago, IL: proceeding in a drawn-out speeding violation “case,” judge claims that they don’t have to answer a motion to dismiss (but still have a burden of proof to maintain), judge claims signing the driver’s license is proof the code applies to you, judicial/prosecutorial bullying (to the judge: “how many functions do you have here?”)
  • Richard from Austin, TX: upcoming hearing Thursday February, 21st in Austin [media reps], the prosecutor’s dismissive responses to rational questions that go to proving every element of the crime, and filing a suppression motion.
  • Vlad from Switzerland: challenging taxation in Switzerland.



14 Comments For This Post

  1. FIN Says:

    any one know anything about peoples trust 1776?

  2. Christopher Says:

    I think the better question is why would I be concerning myself with the peoples trust of 1776, since it has nothing to do with you, me or anyone else for that matter … it has to do with * people * or * persons * we are not persons or people … we are flesh and blood men or women, the peoples trust is a fiction, and flesh and blood men and women cannot deal in fictions

  3. FIN Says:

    Yes i understand that but i was looking for more of an opinion about this ucc action that was filed a couple months ago that hasn’t been rebutted,
    was hoping some one with a better understanding than i would have a look at it.

  4. Calvin Says:

    A link would be helpful. 😉

    By the way Fin, how familiar are you with the observation that the “code does NOT apply?” Just curious because this issue has been addressed at least on the past three consecutive shows and was wondering if you’ve picked-up on it and what you thought about the “factual applicability of the code” vs “UCC theories.”

    It begs the question; is it more effective to question the required facts and evidence [which is reliant on whether they actually exist] or more effective to bring a UCC theory [which is ultimately reliant on interpretation] crossing your fingers in hopes they won’t resort to the rule of necessity?

  5. FIN Says:

    I am familiar with the non applicability of the code and fully recognize that there is no law anyone can write which i am bound under,having said that its not something easy to implement as far as the courts are concerned
    this just may make it easier if we have the power to seize assets of those who seek to do us harm in the courts which seems to be implied with these fillings.

  6. Calvin Says:

    The “programming” seems to be harder for some of us to kick, as I hear in the podcast and here in the comments. 😐

    The claim that “its not something easy to implement as far as the courts are concerned,” is easily countered when you listen to every other podcast and hear people call in, who have no experience or formal training, yet successfully achieve getting “complaints” kicked out of court by simply questioning the evidence that the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to be pretty easy and practical to me, but then again that is a observation based upon results. Not so much for the UCC theory files…

    And again, the answer to this question is key: is it more effective to question the required facts and evidence [which is reliant on whether they actually exist] or more effective to bring a UCC theory [which is ultimately reliant on interpretation] crossing your fingers in hopes they won’t resort to the rule of necessity?

    Will check out the link though, thanks.

  7. Arthur Connor Says:

    Hey all, My appearance will be at the WEST Mesa ¿Justice? Court on 2050 W University Mesa. Calvin/JT/Marc please correct the location above. The building is singe story and looks kinda like a McDonalds, because it literally has a drive-through. Hopefully in the future we will be able to use that drive-through to exchange Motions for Dismissal forms. As for now, I’ll need to dance with the circus at 8:30am on Feb 19th(this Tuesday) to defend myself. Last time my questions resulted in a temper tantrum, so I expect eventfulness, however I keep in mind they can let go at any point. Fortunately this will be another judge. Come by and support if you may benefit from the learning experience. Namaste


  8. bruce sloane Says:

    @ Fin …
    looks like a “get a free graybar hotel vacation here ”
    kinda website

  9. FIN Says:

    You may be right as my experience is limited but there seems to be claims that this filing has imploded the system as we know it.
    all im looking for is some one who has experience in legal documentation give an earnest look.

  10. Pete Says:


    First: Regarding the “Six month” rule of thumb for a speedy trial…Does the six months begin on date the ticket was written, or on date that DA starts court process?

    Second: Next time you’re in a physical confrontation, try this new Aikido technique called the “Ki Blast.” You simply emit a powerful blast of inner energy, or “ki,” that safely immobilizes your opponent!

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ pete, I am sure it’s from the day the complaint is filed if you’re not in jail.

  12. Raquel Says:

    Good Morning:
    I would like to learn the process of A4V on a motosycle that I bought and now the payments aretoo big for me. I have a lot of information over the net in the same subject but no one seems to be good as yours…If you can please send me the information or let me know the process. steps I will appreciated very much. Thank you for your prompt response.

  13. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Raquel, I don’t know why there is more of this stuff in the comments lately. This is not a site where we promote such unsupported theories. Do yourself a favor, investigate and independently verify the A4V claims, you’ll see there is no evidence to support them. Do not bother with that crap, it is much more effective to just have those making accusations against you verify their accusations.

  14. NonE Says:

    Marc Stevens Says:
    @ Raquel, I don’t know why there is more of this stuff in the comments lately.
    It might be an indication that you’re being seen by more people, which would be a good thing.

    – NonE

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