Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville

Posted on May 4th, 2013 by Calvin

Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville [KolbyGranville.com]. Kolby is an sitting Tempe City council member and joins the show today to shed some light on the applicability of the law.

Show Notes:

  • “What facts do you have to demonstrate and submit as supportive evidence that the laws/codes apply to anybody?”
  • Bureaucratic dodging and denial of inquiry from the likes of Judith Baumann.
  • Differentiating between objective facts and legal opinion.
  • Fallacious circular reasoning of using the law [legal opinion] to factually demonstrate applicability of the law [legal opinion].
  • A layman’s ability to analyze fact.
  • Applicability based on geography.
  • The contrarian concept of “consent of the governed.”
  • Analyzing the “social contract,” factual element by factual element.
  • Government’s monopoly on the use of force to provide their products and services to citizens.
  • “Should a product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?”
  • Laws are more valuable than anarchy.” [Anarchy is without rulers (legislators), it is not without rules (laws).]
  • Is doing business in the same manner as government criminal for an individual?
  • Historically, government is forced upon populations.
  • Voluntaryism through non-compliance with the violent STATE.
  • Sociologically evolving beyond assumptious concepts of such as permanent jurisdiction.
  • The myth of “opting-in” to government.
  • When is it okay to systematically murder another member of society because they violate a legal opinion?
  • Abiding by the “rules of a house.”
  • The delusion of property rights.
  • Sacrificing some freedom’s to secure freedom.
  • The government has “no duty to protect.”
  • How do you respect someone’s life, liberty, and property when forcing them to pay for your products and services?
  • Exploring the radical idea of providing STATE monopolized products and services on a voluntary basis.
  • Opting out of government.
  • Social protection without a centralized authority.
  • Power vacuums.
  • Economic democracy vs. political democracy.
  • Ending the rational that allows for organized arbitrary coercion.
  • The use of extraordinary examples to justify the organized theft of the masses by a violent monopoly.
  • The people agreed to be forced.”
  • Where does jurisdiction come from?
  • Defining what evidence IS.
  • Jurisdiction based on “it just is.”
  • The groupthink of “we.”
  • When is it justified to provide products and services involuntarily.
  • Getting feedback from people in positions of assumed authority.
  • Society without rulers, but not without rules.
  • Examining “fairness and impartiality.”
  • Challenging “K-12 civics dogma” by examining the facts and evidence that support our assumptions.
  • Honoring the golden rule/NAP.
  • Comparing the applicability of a church to the applicability of the STATE.
  • What is “yours” [in the sense of property rights] is what you are willing to use force to keep.
  • The myth of a principal-agent relationship between a citizen and a STATE.
  • The lack of choice of government is never addressed in the mainstream.
  • Marc’s interview on The Edge AM after the NSP broadcast.
  • Arbitrary and illegitimate government.
  • Carl Sagan’s use of cannabis.
  • The lack of logic in law school curriculum.
  • Persuading bureaucrats to pursue work on a voluntary basis.
  • Cops committing felonious perjury with their citations.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Jay from Richmond, VA: 51% mob violence, and parties that can respond to a motion to challenge jurisdiction.
  • Basador from NY: the fallacy of “agreeing to the constitution” by simple being born within a certain geographic location, militaristic foundation of government, claims of ownership of property and labor, is taxation really something being stolen?, the freedom to use vacant property, acting in the name of another, how can a claim be brought against you if you don’t own anything?
  • Scott from Long Island, NY: we really have a 1% ruling class not a democratic 51%, recommended NY legal research groups, and thoughts on today’s guest.
  • Tim from North Port, WA: helping medical cannabis patients interface with the system, legal ambiguity, the violence of the law, 3-year personal investigation into what grants jurisdiction resulting in police harassment that eventually led to a raid, if the government doesn’t follow the constitution then it is not binding, the legitimate use of cannabis, mastering the art of pro per, and New Mexico’s deregulation of cannabis.
  • Chris from TX: interview invitation, questioning the evidence and putting bureaucrats on the spot, questioning the presumption of innocence, examining all the elements of the charge, the litigation black hole, and addressing non-responsive and opinionated bureaucrats.
  • James from SLC, UT: “we” didn’t sign the constitution, if it were proven to bureaucrats that a voluntary system could work would they be in favor of it?, the involuntary nature of representation in court, and continuing to engage politicians.
              

71 Comments For This Post

  1. Crazy Says:

    Listened to the show and wished you were taking calls or had a way that I could have asked questions. Based upon his statement that the mere fact that we are here, our location and also 51% makes it OK and gives them jurisdiction. I would have responded with, If you come over to my property and I create the rules and regulations for my property, then you must fall under my jurisdiction, and I now have the right to force you to comply because of your location, and if there is more then two people there who agree, then I guess you are definitely screwed, and you have no problem with this?

    I’m sorry, but his supposed logic is illogical, he’s nuts.

    I guess. I’m still crazy in crazy land.

  2. Andy Says:

    According to politicians and bureaucrats, the legal/law stuff is for the experts, lawyers and attorneys — the common man doesn’t understand/comprehend it.

    They claim their system and their codes/statutes/laws are applicable to us who don’t understand/comprehend. Even without their guns pointed at us, we’re screwed. Their motto is, “Just trust us because we understand and you don’t”.

    What we do understand and have understood since the age of five is it’s wrong to use violence/guns to get your way.

    In the realm of competing ideas, the person/side that initiates violence or threatens violence losses the debate. Rightfully so, the winner(s) are appalled and outraged that the loser(s) resorted to violence.

    Corporate media that controls the narrative is losing it’s audience. The pen is mightier than the sword. They know it. And because they know they’ve long lost the debate of ideas they chose a battlefield of violence.

  3. Andy Says:

    Us common folks don’t steal, assault and initiate violence because we have basic human decency. Call it objective morals, honest ethics, conscience if you want. It’s not because of their codes/statutes/laws prohibiting those acts that we restrain ourselves. It’s not law that safeguards us from each other.

    Their laws don’t restrain psychopaths. They don’t care about laws except how to circumvent getting caught. Psychopaths lack good morals, honest principles and lack conscience. Because of that lack they have developed cunning well beyond that of common individuals.

    The cunningest psychopaths gravitate to government where they get a legal waiver on the liability that is always attached to the person that initiates violence. That is more commonly called, government’s legal monopoly on initiation of force/violence.

    In reality, the only person that can legitimately waive liability is the victim. Certainly not the criminals. Yet, that’s the situation with government. Men and women calling themselves government are criminals giving themselves waivers on liability.

    In their land of make believe, smoke&mirror illusions, us common folks are doubly screwed.

    In reality, everyone of us individual common folk interacting voluntarily are holding a Royal Flush and those calling themselves government are totally bluffing.

  4. Andy Says:

    At 43:20 of the “FLASH PODCAST”, Colby cuts short Marc’s argument. Colby says he knows where Marc is going with it. And he does, sort of. The problem is the audience doesn’t get to hear the argument nor get to hear Marc explain it. The audience only gets to hear Colby’s argument.

  5. Andy Says:

    The foundation of society is not a constitution. It’s not their laws/codes/statutes. The foundation is basic human decency; people interacting voluntarily.

    Mafia scenario: Maia thug tells shop owner, “Pay the protection fee or Sam will trash your store and bust your kneecaps.” That’s extortion, stealing.

    Government scenario: “Pay the tax or go to jail” That’s extortion, stealing. It’s certainly not consent. If government was by consent they wouldn’t have Sam.

  6. Incubus Says:

    Cripis, how old is that kid? He sounds like a 9 year old in the middle of playing make-believe when an adult walked in to interrupt play time. “I’m Superman because I said I’m Superman! Dad!”

    I couldn’t help but notice the way he continually back handed Marc for his “incompetance”. Was that his way of trying to cover up his own intellectual ineptitude? I’ve heard of cognitive dissonance, but goddamn, that was just sheer lunacy. Either his early childhood indoctrination shaped him well, or he still has a lot of growing up to do.

  7. NonE Says:

    Incubus Says:
    Either his early childhood indoctrination shaped him well, or he still has a lot of growing up to do. —-

    “Let’s see, I’m totally incompetent at functioning peacefully with rational people on a value for value basis – what can I do??? AH, government! That’s the ticket!”

  8. Kea Says:

    Marc. I think that this was one of the best shows that I heard. MR Kolby was very appriciated and it was very refreshing. Wow. It is just so nice to hear what the other is on the other sides mind. Thank you so much for all of the hard work that you do and please let me know if there anything I can do to help you. I think that I would have no better way to thank you than giving you some of my time. I will skype you when I see you.

  9. joy Says:

    I also was listening to the show and wish I could have interjected a few times.
    I appreciate that Kolby had enough fortitude to appear on the show to discuss various issues, and the overall fine job which Marc did in his discussion with Kolby; and, it is obvious to me that Kolby has more due diligence and study to do.

    The Constitution came from people, and the government came from the Constitution (to protect and maintain individual Rights), and the laws, statutes, code, and rules came/come from government. The people are not at the bottom of the hierarchy, they are at the top.

    “Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything even without law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may look upon, in some manner, as an assistance for those who have weak perception of right and wrong in the same way that optical glasses are useful for those who are short-sighted or whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it.”
    ~John Bouvier Institutes of American Law, 1882, Vol 2, sec 3724 para 4

    This country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy (mobocracy). Article IV Section 4. of the Constitution stipulates that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Not a Democratic Form of Government. The word “Democracy” is not found in any of the founding organic law documents. A Democracy is Mobocracy, and individual unalienable Creator-endowed Rights of the people are not protected, upheld, and maintained in Democracy. There has been an enormous effort from the ‘government’ and through mass media to condition and program the people into believing the form of government for this country is a Democracy, which is propaganda.

    There is a ‘democratic PROCESS’ within the Constitutional Republic form of government, however, the form of government is, again, NOT a Democracy, which is mob rule. The Constitution serves as a RESTRICTION on government / public servants.

    The government is suppose to protect and maintain the individual unalienable Rights of the people. A good analogy (simplistic) of a Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. With no restrictions regarding the protection and maintaining of individual Rights (Democracy), do you think the sheep’s individual unalienable Rights to, including but not limited to, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness will be upheld? NO! It’s mutton for dinner! But in a Constitutional Republic, such as is founded for this country, the wolves and sheep are RESTRICTED from voting on what to have for dinner (with regard to wolves and sheep).

    The government officers/employees/agents, and such (“public servants”) must take an Oath of Office to uphold/support the Constitution(s) (United States and for their ‘state’) as a requirement to enter the duties of their office, and be bonded.
    The people do not take an Oath of Office to uphold/support the Constitution(s) (government, statutes, code, rules) to be the people, or one of the people.

    The first 10 amendments to the Constitution (misnomer “Bill of Rights”—which do not give the people any Rights, but stipulate to the public servants the already existing natural, Creator-endowed, individual, unalienable Rights of the people which the public servants must uphold and shall not infringe upon) are further “DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE” clauses which were required by a number of states upon ratification of the Constitution–key words, especially the word “restrictive”. The first 10 Amendments are RESTRICTIVE upon all public servants acting under Oath of Office (see 1 Stat. 97, 98 (1789)***) which is the First Session of Congress, pages 97 and 98). No code, no statute, no rule or the like can relieve those public servants of those restrictive burdens, and we people cannot waive those protected Rights.

    ***in part: “CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. Begun and held at the city of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th day of March, 1/89. The conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution: Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in congress assembled, two-thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be pro- posed to the legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said constitution, namely:…”

    When Kolby was asking if Marc is saying that the laws do not apply to the people, I wish it had been pointed out that the people are responsible and liable ONLY when they create or cause a damage or tort. There must be a damaged or injured party, which the parties have not been able to resolve between themselves, for there to be a justiciable controversy (reason to go to court). Someone’s Rights had to have been violated, and/or a tort/damage caused, for there to be a damaged party. The people are not subject to any victimless “crimes” (code violations) for which there is no damaged/injured party, but the public servants are, as they take Oaths to uphold the Constitution(s). The public servants are the ones who take Oaths to uphold/support the Constitution(s), and what comes after/subsequent, not the people. The Constitution(s) are a restriction on government/public servants.

    Very good points about is the Constitution a “contract” (except you left out “full disclosure” as one of the elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, full disclosure, meeting of the minds).

    I was hoping Marc would ask Kolby, “Is the Constitution a “trust”? The Preamble certainly appears to be setting up/creating a trust.

    At one point, right at a commercial break, Kolby brought up the circular argument, saying as an example, ‘the sky is blue because the sky is blue” No, the sky is not blue because the sky is blue. The sky is blue because of interference/refraction of the incoming light; sunlight reaches Earth’s atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth’s atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time. That is why the sky appears blue (presuming one is not colorblind). This is the factual reason “the sky is blue”. So how about the factual reasons the Constitution and code apply to the people?

    Kolby also said the creation of government is a one-way door, that once created, it cannot be un-created or undone. Really, he does need to read the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pusuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Marc did bring up the Declaration of Independence at that point, and Kolby actually said the Declaration of Independence isn’t a law, or one of the founding laws, which statement is again very revealing regarding Kolby’s ignorance and/or misunderstanding on the subject of the founding organic laws of the states and this country. The Declaration of Independence IS one of the founding “organic laws” of this country—the first one—as evidenced on these government webpages regarding the “organic laws”:
    http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws
    AND,
    the Declaration of Independence is the very first organic law listed in the very first session of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Washington, 1854 (haven’t researched the other states).

    see 1854 Volume 1 (at bottom of the page)
    http://www.leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/Pages/session_laws.aspx

    STATUTES OF THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON: BEING THE CODE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, AT THEIR FIRST SESSION BEGUN AND HELD AT OLYMPIA, FEBRUARY 27TH, 1854. ALSO. CONTAINING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ORGANIC ACT OF WASHINGTON TERRITORY. THE DONATION LAWS, &C., &C.
    http://www.leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1854pam1.pdf

    The government is suppose to protect and maintain the INDIVIDUAL unalienable natural Rights of the people, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence (yes, it’s an organic law), and as protected, in part, BY the declaratory and restrictive nature and character of the first 10 amendments, and the public servants’ Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution(s). The people cannot waive those Rights, and the public servants CANNOT BE RELIEVED of said RESTRICTIVE BURDENS of the first 10 Amendments (1 Stat 97, 98). Get it…this is huge!

  10. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    “The basis of our society is a logical fallacy (and a gun)” LoL!

  11. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    If most people support the government, most people will pay without question and there’s no need to use force on the few that don’t.

    The argument that the system can’t function without force is the argument that most people don’t want the government, that the government isn’t legitimate.

  12. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    If 6 out of 10 men set a rule that 1 woman has to have sex with them, it’s not rape. By being in the room with them she applies the rules upon herself. If she is in the house she has to abide by their rules. Insane! This guy is ef’ing insane!

  13. MickeyG Says:

    The codes and statutes are one thing, but the courts are quite a different thing. These are two supposed to be two separate branches of government. The courts require standing to hear a court case. Standing required a redressable injury that is directly related to an action of the defendant. The legislative branch can make all the rules they want, but the courts may not hear any cases not addressing an injury. Most state constitutions says something like “All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law”. “Him and his” refers to a man, or a woman, but most definitely not an it, as the state.

  14. Packa Says:

    wow great show

  15. NonE Says:

    Calvin… HA! “THIS IS A FLASH PODCAST POST, THE FINAL VERSION OF THE PODCAST WILL BE AVAILABLE WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER THE BROADCAST.”

    I gnu you were biting off more than you could chew! 😉

    – NonE

  16. joy Says:

    MickeyG says, “The codes and statutes are one thing, but the courts are quite a different thing. These are two supposed to be two separate branches of government….” Yes, the legislative branch and the judicial branch ARE suppose to be two separate branches of government (along with the Executive branch) under the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And here is another important point on this topic (again, this is for Washington state–check for yourselves any other state): the BAR Association is an agency of the state, created by the LEGISLATIVE branch of government (and presumably signed by EXECUTIVE branch)[ref. RCW 2.48.010; 1933 c 94 § 2]–Note of interest–the BAR Assn. was created in 1933, the year the gold was confiscated (stolen under threat and duress from most of the people, as that “statute” DOES NOT APPLY to most of the people), and the BAR Assn. is controlling the JUDICIAL branch of government. The conditions in this scenario appear to be a violation of Separation of Powers doctrine, in which one branch of government threatens the independence or integrity or invades the prerogatives of another branch of government. Something to contemplate.

  17. NonE Says:

    This is a very sick and dangerous man.

  18. Pete Says:

    His “51% majority rules” position is based on bullsh*t statistics. The estimated US population in 2012 was about 313,000,000:

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/12/30/us-population-2012-nearly-313-million-people

    In 2012 presidential election, 66,000,000 people voted for Obama:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

    That means about 21% of population decided president, not 51%. And THAT is only if you trust the government’s election statistics, which could be completely contrived for all we know.

    @Joy: Thanks for the links to spooky 1933 history of BAR association! My conspiracy theory tank had been running on fumes for a few weeks and I was beginning to worry I’d run out of creepy, devious sociopath schemes…this is just what I needed!

  19. RadicalDude Says:

    Colby uses as “evidence” the “obligation” to pay taxes? He says the “location gives jurisdiction” legal theory is a FACT, and if it wasn’t true you wouldn’t have to pay taxes. So basically he is saying you have to pay taxes, and that proves jurisdiction, a completely fallacious argument.

  20. NonE Says:

    Marc, As much as this is going to hurt me, I’m going to try to stay on the topic of the thread. I have a few issues.
    1) I’m feeling really uncomfortable with the amount that you are bending over backwards to try and twist this man’s words around so that you can say that he agrees with you on principle. He has made it VERY clear in no uncertain terms that he has no compunction whatsoever about using force to get what he wants.
    2) Small, but critical: You repeatedly talk about, ask about, the idea of using force to provide a service. I think you are making a big mistake here, which is this: the force is not about providing the service, rather the force is that you PAY for the service. They don’t care whether or not you use it or want it, the entire issue is exactly the same as paying “protection money” to the mob. So I hope you think about how you address this issue. It isn’t about the services, it’s about the payment.
    3) One issue that kept coming up in my mind is this 51 to 49% issue he harped on. You never really confronted him on the reality of what he meant. What that means is that it is perfectly okay to own black people. And perfectly okay to put homosexual people in jail. He wanted specific cases, well there are two of an unknown number of REAL historical actual brutal realities of what he stands for.
    4) I have a problem with the idea that “everyone has a right to their opinion.” When the expression of that opinion, by means of voting, for example, is that black people and homosexuals get lynched… well, I’m not sure they “have a right.” You may say I’m being hyperbolic, but I think that the idea of voting conferring life or death control over other people (which we all know is the reality), I don’t see that it should be dismissed as simply hyperbolic.

    Datz all for now. Great interview. As I said, I’m a bit disturbed by your playing politics in your bedside manner with him, but I don’t know what the proper stance is. I REALLY respect the manner in which you attempt to be respectful and fair with people. Really do. I’m just thinking you were bending over a little bit on the obsequious side of things in some places.

    With, as always, great respect,

    – NonE

  21. Fake_Ear Says:

    great presentation on theedgeam

  22. Fake_Ear Says:

    Who makes the rules of the place where I am standing? Me?

  23. NonE Says:

    Fake_Ear Says:
    great presentation on theedgeam
    ———–
    WHAT? WHERE? HOW??? You’d think (and there is your FIRST mistake) that someone might POST some information for us mere supporters of Marc. Sigh.

    – NonEvenNotifiedOfAnthingEver(andNonHyperbolicToo)

  24. Mr. Mike Says:

    Test, previous post did not appear…

  25. Mr. Mike Says:

    Several attempts have been made to respond to NonE with a link. All have failed so far. Add a “www” and “.com” to theedgeam for a link to Marc.

  26. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    I applaud this bureaucrat’s chutzpah by appearing on the show — but he has a LOT of growing up to do. Like every bureaucrat.

  27. Israel Bureaucracy Association Says:

    Statist: “You all gave us permission to punch you in the face.”

  28. NonE Says:

    THANKS Mr. Mike! (I’ll try to post it again… replace every space with a dot):

    www theedgeam com/interviews/Marc_Stevens_05 04 13 mp3

  29. Hector Says:

    Mark,

    On the subject of contract. If someone doesn’t pay you for services that you provided, and then the word gets around that no one needs to pay for services rendered because the rules don’t apply, Then how do you make a living if no one pays you? For example, Send me a copy of your book, and then I won’t pay you because the rules don’t apply. If you do that 10 times, you will go broke. Then you would have (2) options, Personally take actions against all (10) people, or go thru the courts. How would that problem be resolved? I’m trying to understand the No state Idea. I am currently reading your book and find it very interesting.

    Thank you.

  30. Hector Says:

    Another example would be a home invasion. Lets supposed, I have (3) people break into my home. My wife has the chance to call the police, but they have record of me opting out of the system. SO they don’t come and help me. Then what? Criminals will then take advantage of this. I am ok with police protection. I am not ok with the abuse of authority that the police or Government carries out. That needs to stop.

    Another example would be, we are both neighbors. We both have a swimming pool. You keep yours clean and sanitized, but I keep my dirty and mosquitos are breeding. You call code enforcement and I tell them the rules don’t apply to me. Meanwhile you can’t enjoy your swimming pool because the smell of my dirty pool and mosquitos don’t allow it. I think there should be some kind of code and rules. But the way our government and enforcers use it is illegal. For example. City imposing fines on homeowners who water their lawn on the days not specified. That I don’t agree with.

    The problem is that society is not ready for voluntarism. There are to many narcissistic people on this earth that can’t deal with that concept.

    Once again, Just trying to grasp the concept and how I can explain it to people.

    Thank you.

  31. NonE Says:

    Hector Says: …
    Once again, Just trying to grasp the concept and how I can explain it to people.
    ——–
    Hector, It appears that you think the idea is stupid and can’t work and that people are evil and must be controlled (by whom?!?) Why would you want to try and explain such an idea to others?

    – NonE

  32. Fake_Ear Says:

    I live in the space I occupy, if anyone asks.

  33. Hector Says:

    NonE,

    I cant think the idea is stupid if I don’t understand it yet. I believe for what I have read so far to be very interesting. I just need to understand how we as a society deal with people who take this concept to do harm.

    I wish the population would not have to be controlled. But unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. There are some wack jobs who want to cause harm for no reason. So again, If we don’t care about you or the whole voluntarism concept, how would you bring peace to your surroundings if there are those who will use it to cause harm. How would someone be liable for any harm if the laws don’t apply to them? Therefore, Anyone can kill anyone who just gets in their way cause the rules don’t apply?

  34. NonE Says:

    Hector Says: …
    Therefore, Anyone can kill anyone who just gets in their way cause the rules don’t apply?
    ——
    Hector, Have you been paying any attention to the world around you lately? If so, do you see these rules you seem to believe in stopping violence? And these people who have been annointed to uphold civility, like the police and the military, have you noticed the ratio of the amount of violence they initiate as compared with the amount of violence initiated by EVERYONE else? I understand your concerns, but wishes don’t make reality. Equally, fear mongering does not make the world more filled with bad people than it already is. You may want to look up a paper written by Kevin Barrett called “The Twilight of the Psychopaths” (google it or do a search in the forum for the link) and see if this is helpful in your examination of the issues which concern you.

    I do appreciate you are asking these questions.

    The key question you may want to consider is this: if people have tendencies to do bad things, and need to be controlled, who are you going to choose to do this control? Or, stated another way, who will watch the watchers?

    – NonE

  35. NonE Says:

    Hector, Another place to do some reading is Rummel’s site on the subject of “Democide.”

    – NonE

  36. NonE Says:

    Hector,

    Yet one more point. You say “we as a society.” That is like saying “black people,” or “gays,” or mounds of salt. If you will, consider that each “group” is merely an aggregation of individuals. Only each individual has the capacity to think, to pass judgements, to choose a course of action and such as that. A “group” is a mental cop out. Only individuals cause things to happen, and only individuals can make choices and be held responsible.

    “Group think” is a very easy thing to get caught up in, and it is very destructive to responsible thought.

    – NonE

  37. Hector Says:

    NonE,

    I understand and I am with you on this trust me. I dislike the way our police, military (I feel that the old school military are waking up, the young ones are being indoctrinated) and politicians are abusing the laws and using it to fit their way. I get that. and that has ti stop. On the other hand, I would like there to be some kind of protection in case some day my neighbors septic tank over floods and shit starts pouring into my yard and I call code enforcement because I asked him nicely the first time and he does not clean voluntarily because he dose not believe the rules apply to him. So instead of putting a gun to his head to force him to do it, I call code enforcement which will fine him if he does not do it. I wouldn’t want to kill someone for not cleaning his shit, but I would also not want to put up with it either. I believe there should be a happy medium. and that all Government, state and local authority respect citizens or people to the highest point until that person starts to cause trouble for the rest of us.

    That’s why I don’t want to give up my guns or rifles or any sort of weapon, because I came from a place where that happened and we had to flee for our lives and freedom. And I see how it’s happening now here but at a much slower pace.

    So I get you, what we need is rules that apply to these government officials and if they break them, they have to pay just like the rest of us. No exceptions.

  38. Hector Says:

    NonE

    you said I should ask “if people have tendencies to do bad things, and need to be controlled, who are you going to choose to do this control? Or, stated another way, who will watch the watchers?”

    I think people should not be controlled. But laws should apply to those who have tendencies to do bad things. For example, If I don’t like what you are saying, I can get rid of you? No one will control that, but there has to be something in place to keep that from happening to everyone don’t you think? or else someone an “individual” to not make it a group or society, might want to get rid of people like you. who will stop them?

    People should not be ruled by anyone, but there should be something in place to keep and maintain order from those who are too stupid to do things voluntarily.

    Who will watch the watchers? I believe all of us have a responsibility to watch the watchers.

    For example, I deal with people abusing their powers all day long. I am in the construction industry. I can’t stand when an inspector is having a bad day and fails my inspection because he can without any probable cause and then I have to pay a re-inspection fee. I hate that and there should be a watch group for this. But I also like that there’s a code that everyone in the industry must follow or else people can get hurt. I have seen work done by people who don’t follow the “CODE” and it ends up in a disaster. So codes do help. Its the people who implement it who abuse it to gain or profit from it. This scenario with the inspector made the city about $1,500 in one day. This inspector failed almost all the inspections. I called some of the others who also were failed and they all told me he had no reason to fail it. He just did. Those kind of things need to stop.

  39. NonE Says:

    Hector,

    Hector Says:
    … On the other hand, I would like there to be some kind of protection in case some day my neighbors septic tank over floods and shit starts pouring into my yard and I call code enforcement because I asked him nicely the first time and he does not clean voluntarily because he dose not believe the rules apply to him. So instead of putting a gun to his head to force him to do it, I call code enforcement which will fine him if he does not do it. I wouldn’t want to kill someone for not cleaning his shit, but I would also not want to put up with it either.
    ————

    Don’t you see that you are simply asking someone else to put the gun to his head? The situation hasn’t changed, it is simply that you don’t want to be forced to actually deal with it yourself. No offense intended, but that’s a cop out.

    The point that I think is important to grasp is this: Life is filled with conflicts. There is nothing wrong with this. Conflict is an inherent part of life, even in such mundane matters as which flavor of ice cream a couple will buy if they can only afford one flavor. Conflict is NOT a bad thing, it is a natural part of living. What is needed in a healthy lifestyle is the recognition that conflict is natural and that resolving conflict is something we all need to learn to like and to get good at. And sometimes we must concede small things in order to achieve greater harmony. Other times we need to know when it is important to draw that line in the sand, but if we are successful we should have to do so rarely if ever.

    Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, which is what laws are, will ALWAYS breed MORE conflict, not less.

    – NonE

  40. Hector Says:

    Ok NonE,

    I am that neighbor, and I don’t want to clean my shit that’s pouring into your house. Now what? Fix the problem with out calling code enforcement or the police. Why am I acting like that, because I don’t think that your rules apply to me and my septic should be left alone. Now what? This is a hypothetical scenario of course.

  41. NonE Says:

    Hector,

    you’ve created an hypothetical situation in your mind in which your hypothetical neighbor is completely unreasonable. You can create any fantasy in your head, that does not make it real. I’ve dealt with neighbors I didn’t like who were unreasonable. I was able to make it work. I don’t live in a world that is exactly the perfect world I would design if I had the power, but then I wouldn’t like that world if I was able to create it.

    Chill, baby! Don’t go looking for trouble. You don’t have a right to anything, you simply exist, along with all of the rest of us. It’s up to you to figure out how to make it work. Love and respect go a long way. Hate and contempt… not so much.

    – NonE

  42. NonE Says:

    Hector,

    Just a thought, but have you even considered going over to your neighbor and offering to help him with his septic tank problem, maybe shovel in hand?

    – NonE

  43. bruce sloane Says:

    THAT …

    Would be an awesum freakin’ job for YOU, NONE

    go get at it …:)

  44. Mr. Mike Says:

    Hector, NonE, and others;

    Marc has shown, by example, how to handle people with divergent opinions. I have about 57 years of experience and yet, still have a lot to learn from people like Marc Stevens.

    To NonE: a bit of constructive criticism is to follow Marc’s example of tolerance and patience (something I should do more often), and not call someone’s question or opinion “stupid.” Otherwise, your responses are very good to Hector’s legitimate concerns/questions. There’s a lot of good information to absorb. Everyone can benefit from reading the sources you provided, thanks.

    To Hector: your concerns/questions are valid. To every problem, real or theoretical, there are literally an infinite number of solutions. Some are more appropriate than others and, like the real world, may not work for everyone. Take the construction inspector, what are the possible solutions?

    In a bureaucracy, one of the best solutions, from personal experience, is to confront the offending inspector with contacting his supervisor. A S.W.A.G. (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) says that when someone is willing to contact a supervisor, 60%-80% of the time the problem goes away immediately. Failing that, contacting a supervisor or continuing up the ‘chain of command’ will get some, if not complete, headway (sitting down and sharing an ‘adult beverage’ also helps a lot).

    Marc’s methods come in when dealing with sociopath and psychopathic bureaucrats immune from reasoning. His methods also tend to conform to the axiom of, “pick your battles with care.”

    Corruption is everywhere. The essential point is determining where it is worth combating for you. For each individual this point varies. How much time and effort are you willing to invest? For many – not very much. It’s more ‘convenient’ to let it go or let someone else take care of it. This is where individual choices and consequences enter. What are the personal costs in confrontation? There is no right or wrong answer, just varying degrees of opinion and circumstances.

    Opinion brings us back to Marc’s philosophy (as I currently see it). The bureaucracy operates on presumptions. One of its main presumptions is that they have jurisdiction/authority over you, no matter what. Marc challenges that presumption with simple questions. The main one being, “what evidence do you have the constitution and codes apply to ____?” Since there is no evidence, there is no real authority other than resorting to violence.

    Thus, we are confronted by one of the historic human conditions: facing personal responsibility in dealing with our actions and their affect on others…

  45. NonE Says:

    Mr. Mike, Minor correction. I did not say his idea was stupid. I said it appeared that HE thought “the idea” was stupid. I then questioned him on that.

    Regarding the TheEdgeAM interview: Damn, has that man got a lot of cognitive dissonance, or what? Part of the problem, it appears to me is that he was trying too hard to be a talk show host and not actually listening to his interviewee. I thought Marc did quite well considering it was a one way “conversation.”

    – NonE

  46. Hector Says:

    To NonE: I have done that exact thing on many occasions. For example my neighbor now has his fence falling all over my yard. I understand he may not have the money to fix it. So I have offered to pay for half and over a weekend we both fix it. That’s the best case scenario. You have to keep in mind that we don’t live in Vulcan world and not everyone says live long and prosper. There will be those who just don’t care and we have to be ready to deal with those types of situation. In this case with you and I NonE, you have offered to help me, and I am just a lazy ass guy who doesn’t want to do it. Now I want you to give me a solution to this problem.

    B.T.W. All the neighbors on our block help each other out all the time. It’s called “barter” And we save alot of money doing it that way.

    Another example. This morning I served some evictions papers on an individual who hasn’t paid rent for 60 days. The owner of the property has tried to ask calmly to please pay rent or leave and the tenant refuses. Now what is he supposed to do? He has (2) options. Call the sheriff, or yank the tenant out by the hairs. Either way there is force. Police force is used but no one gets hurt if everything goes well. Tenant leaves calmly and looks for another place. If no police is used, THe owner knocks on the door and says “You have 30 seconds to leave or I will kick you out myself. Then all the hoodlums on the block will join together and gang up on the property owner. Which is exactly what Kolby was talking about. The person with the most guns wins and then the peaceful U.S. which we want will turn into Somalia.

    To Mr. Mike: Thank you for your words. I want everyone to know, I am really on the side of making this work. I’am just being the devils advocate for a second and throwing out scenarios in which I encounter on a daily basis with people so we can then try to work out the problems here on paper for when someone like Kolby asks, we then have the answers. Or like I said earlier, “explain to people who don’t understand the concept” It’s not that people are stupid or that the whole idea is stupid.

    Once again,

    Thank you

  47. NonE Says:

    Hector, “Now I want you to give me a solution to this problem.” One solution is you just accept that the situation is what the situation is. You don’t seem to be open to the idea that this man’s view of the world is perhaps just as valid as your view. Maybe he’s fine with a broken fence. Why is your view the one that must rule and your neighbor’s view the one which is worthy of using force to overcome? If the fence pieces are on your property then just remove them, burn them, whatever, just as if a limb from a tree whose main truck body was mostly on your neighbor’s land.

    As to the eviction, it appears that force is in order. You seem to be arguing that using force via the police is somehow different than using force by getting together with a bunch of your friends and neighbors and convincing the renter that he needs to leave the property. Either way it’s force. The difference is that if you and your friends get together and do it you are being responsible for your own issues and problems. If, on the other hand, you want the police to handle your problems for you, what you are doing is advocating the forceful extraction of money from ALL of your neighbors to fund the police so that they can, with stolen money, take care of YOUR problem.

    Do you see the distinction here?

    Either way you look at it there will always be conflict in the world. The difference is are you going to support violence to prevent violence, an oxymoron if that word has any meaning at all, or are you going to act in a principled manner and not initiate violence against peaceful people?

    – NonE

  48. Hector Says:

    Ok NonE, I’m starting to grasp it a little better. In this No state scenario, we shouldn’t have to pay for services we can do our own. So we are either dependent on ourselves, or someone to help us. If my house catches on fire, forget the fire departmment, Let hope I can put the fire by myself, or my neighbors help me. Lets hope that fire dont spread onto another house. Yikes! Fire Department can come and stabilize the problem from spreading. Now on the eviction scenario. Forget the police, Theres no police. Just me and my friends trying to convince this person from leaving. This person now calls and whole bunch of their friends and now we have 10 people on my side convincing her of him to leave and 10 people saying she doesn’t have to. How long before a fight breaks out. Because again, we don’t live in Vulcan world and everything is logical like you and I want it. How long before some person pulls out a bat, then a knife then a gun. And now we have the scenario that Kolby said. The person with the biggest guns wins. Wild Wild West.

    I still think it’s not soo much the laws and codes, but those who abuse it and use their powers to subdue those beneath them.

    I don’t think I need a permit to cut my tree if its on the property I bought. But I also think that people should follow code and rules. In my line of work, you dont follow code and the house can be blown away by a hurricane and land in another persons yard and probably killing someone.

    Or I also agree, why do I have to stop at a stop sign when there no cars or people anywhere around my vehicle. No ones going to get hurt. I think that is stupid. But I also agree that if there’s vehicles and pedestrians around that you should stop and be careful of those around you.

    Why do I need a permit to remodel my bathroom? Its not hurting anyone, just me. I dont agree with that. But I also do agree that if I am a business and doing plumbing work for someone else, that I should be licensed and pull a permit to make sure that the work will not harm anyone. I have seen work that have caused people problems and I have had to repair the problems.

    Enjoying the chat.

    Thank you. 🙂

  49. Andy Says:

    “Ok NonE, I’m starting to grasp it a little better. In this No state scenario, we shouldn’t have to pay for services we can do our own. If my house catches on fire, forget the fire departmment, Let hope I can put the fire by myself, or my neighbors help me. Lets hope that fire dont spread onto another house. Yikes! Fire Department can come and stabilize the problem from spreading.”

    The four towns I’ve lived most of my life have excellent volunteer fire departments. If you try you can think of solutions. You know that. You’re not as feeble-minded as you let on via some of your comments, IMO.

  50. Andy Says:

    “Now on the eviction scenario. Forget the police, Theres no police. Just me and my friends trying to convince this person from leaving. This person now calls and whole bunch of their friends and now we have 10 people on my side convincing her of him to leave and 10 people saying she doesn’t have to. How long before a fight breaks out. Because again, we don’t live in Vulcan world and everything is logical like you and I want it. How long before some person pulls out a bat, then a knife then a gun. And now we have the scenario that Kolby said. The person with the biggest guns wins. Wild Wild West.”

    In a voluntary society everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own actions. In other words, be mature adults. A landlord and tenant would have clear understanding of what’s in the rental agreement. Each would know each others obligations. Dispute resolution organizations (DRO) could be the means of settling disputes as stipulated in the rental agreement. A person that doesn’t honor their agreements finds it more costly and difficult to interact with service providers due to their tarnished veracity rating.

  51. Hector Says:

    None, You calling someone feeble-minded could cause a conflict in which your no state project tries to avoid. Maybe instead of thinking someone is feeble-minded cause of some comments, you can educate them and not be so narcissistic and assume that everyone should know the answers. Not everything is black and white.

    Yes there are volunteer fire departments. But you are just giving me a little solution to just one incident. You still haven’t given me a solution to the eviction problem.
    Now we have 20 people and each group and each group has there own belief of what should happen. Oh but wait, one of your friends is getting very upset and angry, as well as one of mine, so we are now trying to calm them down, the situation just now escalated.

    Again, this is coming from experience. I have many rental properties and deal with this kind of crap. Especially in low income neighborhoods where the people living there just dont have any respect for people.

    Thank you.

  52. Andy Says:

    “But I also think that people should follow code and rules. In my line of work, you dont follow code and the house can be blown away by a hurricane and land in another persons yard and probably killing someone.”

    Sufficient engineering is good. It’s on the honor of the builder to inform the buyer of the tolerance levels of structural elements. For example, six inch exterior walls versus eight inch. It’s in both parties best interest to be honest. The building and construction industry and its customers will be best at protecting their cooperative interests rather than government violently imposing on that cooperative builder/buyer relationship.

    onIn a voluntary society there’s the opposite of what happens in many if not most or all police departments — in general the poilice

  53. NonE Says:

    Hector, where did I call anyone feeble minded?

    – NonE

  54. Andy Says:

    Hey Hector, slow down and read, NonE didn’t write this, I did: “None, You calling someone feeble-minded could cause a conflict in which your no state project tries to avoid. Maybe instead of thinking someone is feeble-minded cause of some comments, you can educate them and not be so narcissistic and assume that everyone should know the answers. Not everything is black and white.”

    I said: You’re not as feeble-minded as you let on via some of your comments, IMO.” I didn’t say/write that you are feeble-minded. Pardon me, I should have omitted the first “as”. More accurately: IMO, you’re not feeble-minded as you let on via some of your comments.

    “Again, this is coming from experience. I have many rental properties and deal with this kind of crap. Especially in low income neighborhoods where the people living there just dont have any respect for people.”

    People will have to think for themselves rather than have politicians and corporate media do their thinking for them. If government has a valuable service to offer it can offer it on a voluntary basis rather than telling the public to not worry about things because government’s got it all under control.

    In a voluntary society you’ll have more and better information to base your decisions and agreements on. Also, poverty declines when money/currency are free to compete absent government initiating violence against competition.

  55. Marc Stevens Says:

    Let’s take these type of discussions to the forum.

  56. NonE Says:

    Marc Stevens Says:
    Let’s take these type of discussions to the forum.
    —-

    Uh. Err… If this isn’t pertinent to the … well, what ARE we allowed to discuss here? And, oh by the way, howza bout responding to the direct questions regarding the phone call? (As soon as you’re finished with the book, of course!)

    – NonE

  57. Incubus Says:

    “…what ARE we allowed to discuss here?”

    You’re allowed to berate statists and genuflect Marc. Don’t you know that by now?!

  58. Andy Says:

    Suggestion: have someone (Calvin?) move inappropriate article comments/discussions to the forum. Leave a notice in it’s place that it has been moved to the forum and a link to it. Designate one person to decide what “these type of discussions” are and act on them. Because, I’m losing sight of what “these type discussions” are, if I ever had them in sight in the first place.

  59. Mike Says:

    I hope some of the people who voted for this clown are listening

  60. Marc Stevens Says:

    Just ignore what I posted, it looked like this was descending into personal attacks.

  61. NonE Says:

    Marc Stevens sed:
    Just ignore what I posted…
    ————
    Is that, like, an open ended thing? Or is there some kind of qualification in the fine print that we agreed to someplace else?

    – NonE 😉

  62. Paul Says:

    The impression I got from listening to Kolby Granville was that he enjoys being on the “winning team”. Like so many men and women who thrive on competition and beating the crap out of their opponents, this is a real life game and he probably finds it quite exciting to be part of the victory that was won in the civil war. It may be that sense of “winning” that keeps statists in their mind set; it’s an “us against them” game and they know the side with the most guns will win. After all, who wants to be a “loser”?

  63. NonE Says:

    For those who may be interested, Ian of FreeTalkLive gave Marc big kudos on last night’s radio call in show (right near the beginning of the show) for Marc’s discussion with Kolby. You can download it here (replace all of the spaces with dots) www freetalklive com/files/FTLLQ2013-05-07 mp3 (about 14.5 meg download)

    – NonE

  64. indio007 Says:

    Colby did not represent the sheeple well.
    He didn’t really know what he was talking about. I would say he was a C average law student.

  65. bruce sloane Says:

    Simply another fast talkin’ dum chit
    there is Jurisdiction, because You ” are in the City ”

    hmmmnnnn ….

  66. bruce sloane Says:

    Actually….
    At time = 53 minutes, you can hear the stress in friend Colby’s voice …
    He is cracking under pressure …

  67. Whammo Says:

    Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t

    this is his sorry point

  68. Pete Says:

    Just listened a second time…truly amazing. Wonderful, wonderful show!

    Not that it matters, but the real cause of the so-called American civil war was a corporate welfare scheme for northern manufacturers called protective tariffs. The Confederate constitution was nearly identical to the US one, with the main difference being the clear abolition of import tariffs. 600,000 men died (and another million plus maimed), so that the profits of a few northern dudes could be protected from market competition.

  69. indio007 Says:

    The Uncivil war started over a court case involving a boat not “black” slaves. Slavery does not hinge on race. There were 100K “white” slaves when the war ended.Slaves are people whose fore bearers pledged themselves and their issue into slavery.

    “n the case of the United
    States V. Sanders ) the court held that the quantum of Indian
    blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the com-
    mon law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection
    between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the
    Roman civil law, that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her
    brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common
    law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their
    offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur
    patrem prevails in determining their status. (1 Bouvier’s Institutes, 198, sec.
    502 ; 31 Barb., 486 ; 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 147 ; ShanlvS v. Dupont, 3 Pet,
    242.) This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
    as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom, the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.”

    As per the usual, it’s about the money.

  70. Packa Says:

    Pete is right. THe south was paying more in taxes.

  71. eye2i Says:

    @Pete, @indio: agreed. Ole “Honest Abe” played the slave card just like ole W Bush played the WMDs card with Iraq. And apparently ole Lincoln set up Fort Sumter about like ole FDR set up Pearl Harbor…?! As far as “The American Revolution”, new boss same as the old boss; as far as Politics, yada yada, blah blah, same old same old. Obey and pay, one way or another.

12 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville appeared first on […]

  2. NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville – [UPDATED PODCAST] appeared first on […]

  3. NSP - May 11, 2013 - Co-host: JT - [UPDATED PODCAST] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] imposition,” “good government” limited by a corrupt system, afterthoughts of Marc’s interview with Kolby Granville, Doug Stanhope’s “F**k the French” bit, what happened in Larken Rose’s tax […]

  4. NSP – May 11, 2013 – Co-host: JT – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] imposition,” “good government” limited by a corrupt system, afterthoughts of Marc’s interview with Kolby Granville, Doug Stanhope’s “F**k the French” bit, what happened in Larken Rose’s tax […]

  5. in freedom's cause » The Anarchist vs The Bureaucrat Says:

    […] article: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20130504.html Local […]

  6. NSP - Feb 1, 2014 - Guest: Alex Knight III | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Irrational defenses of government as heard on Marc’s interview with Tempe city council member Kolby Granville. […]

  7. NSP - Jun 14, 2014 | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] about the courtesy that’s extended by coming on the NSP as a politician or critic; refer to Kolby Granville’s appearance from last […]

  8. NSP - Jul 5, 2014 - [DRAFT VERSION] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] The reluctance of politicians or bureaucrats to come on the NSP radio show, despite the fair and friendly past code-of-conduct. […]

  9. NSP - Sept 6, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] historical reaches attorneys make to derive applicability of their code to people […]

  10. NSP - Apr 4, 2015 - Guest: Matt Papke - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] city council member Kolby Granville asserts he, and his fellow lawyer associates, have jurisdiction “because we say […]

  11. NSP - Jun 6, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] judges and attorneys have admitted that they can cite evidence to prove the laws […]

  12. NSP - July 4, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Maricopa county attorney: “Our law apply because we put other people in prison.” […]

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