Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jul 27, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Robert

Posted on July 27th, 2013 by Calvin

Co-host: Calvin & Guest: Robert [].

Show Notes:

  • Update from Robert about his hearing ending in mistrial Monday.
  • Contempt of court threat for raising the issue of evidence of jurisdiction.
  • Just because a judge rules on a motion; it doesn’t mean the issue is settled and shouldn’t be revisited.
  • “Would you convict someone if you knew there wasn’t a shred of evidence?” and other great voir dire questions.
  • Making objections every opportunity they give you to demonstrate their numerous due process violations to the jury.
  • The point of using an unsigned plea of guilt to initiate pretrial proceedings to find resolution before escalating it to trial.
  • Demonstrating the how the judge and prosecutor are working together to prove that there is a conflict of interest for the jury.
  • Judge rules a mistrial to avoid facing the jury’s decision that seemed to be in Robert’s favor.
  • p2p information and culture sharing and its role in developing a socially-free (unenslaved/emancipated) society, as opposed to today’s neo-slavery, prison industrial complex society.
  • Analysis of Bill’s de novo hearing with the New Hampshire Employment Security (NHES).
  • Setting a foundation based upon the prosecution’s lack of evidence to empirically prove applicability of the law/jurisdiction.
  • Addressing due process violations that prevent a fair, impartial, and independent proceeding such as:
    1. a conflict of interest,
    2. witnesses testifying absent personal firsthand knowledge,
    3. verifying evidence of jurisdiction [of the cop and the court],
    4. the court permitting hearsay/speculation in place of evidence or otherwise proceeding while assuming facts that are not entered in evidence.
    5. *note: not a complete list, can you think of any other due process violations? If so, continue the list in the comments section.
  • Bureaucrat conflates asking for witnesses as a refusal to participate.
  • NHES armed with additional counsel.
  • Weighted scale in favor of the STATE with their over-leveraged legal resources at their disposal.
  • Distinguishing between hearsay and speculation.
  • Making assertive objections every time the prosecutor and/or judge commit any due process violations.
  • Stopping the witness from taking the stand by getting the prosecutor to confirm or deny whether the witness has personal firsthand knowledge that the constitution and codes apply.
  • Making sure the previous witness(es) [and your questions] are setting the foundation for the following witness [and questions], if not; “objection, relevance.”
  • Bill exposes and questions “the gun in the room.”
  • Treating bureaucratic interactions as a cross-examination.
  • The Sandusky Effect as observed with dishonest attorneys.
  • Examining the fairness, impartiality, and independence of the judge’s role and decisions.
  • Blinker fluid” explanations from attorneys.
  • Judges willfully ignoring questions/issues of evidence brought up formally in motions.
  • Judge says he cannot accept legal opinion from unqualified witnesses despite allowing them to testify to their assertions based purely under the law.
  • The prosecutor tries to use the previous owner of Bill’s business, who was coerced/(mandated-by-law) to file a return, as the foundation of a requirement for Bill to file a return.
  • Jurisdiction because “I said so.”
  • Force of law is not freewill consent.
  • Allow the prosecution to finish before you object, respond, and/or laugh.
  • Judge attempts to replace the prosecutor’s burden to provide evidence to prove the constitution and code apply [a.k.a.: jurisdiction] by taking judicial notice of jurisdiction.
  • Judge’s reluctance to dismiss a case compared to a referee’s reluctance to cancel a game.
  • Even when going head-to-head against the prosecutor, the integrity of the questions are in your favor.
  • Collusion between judges, prosecutors, police officers, and city management to victimize innocent people by statute/law. (Statutory rape?)
  • Jean Kilham withdraws complaint after questions of evidence are submitted in the form of Marc’s motion template, reclassifying it as a DMV administrative hearing and therefore reducing the burden of proof.

Meta-content Credits:


57 Comments For This Post

  1. Wyndle Says:

    I want to know what the source of the intro audio. I simply must experience that in it’s original format.

  2. Mr. Mike Says:

    @Robert and Marc,
    Robert’s situation clearly calls out for the application of the COMMERCIAL LIEN process. WHY are you not using it!? Had it been applied at the beginning of this mess, the psychos would be in very deep Kim-chi by now…

    Furthering due process violations, see Maxims of Law:
    e.g. “An action is not given to him who has received no damages.”

    Quoting maxims also serves to further embarrass bureaucrats into backing off from attacking you…

  3. Calvin Says:

    @Mr. Mike: In the same way prosecutors will claim that evidence of jurisdiction is “so [un]obvious,” your suggestion that this “calls for an application of the commercial lien process” is equally [un]clear. Nowhere in your comment did you explain how this is so clearly an application of the commercial process. Instead you went the information overload route which we discuss in this very podcast; “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.” By simply “quoting maxims,” you will not get bureaucrats to back off you out of embarrassment.

    Yet more CONstitutionalist droning, while I am forever facepalming.

  4. Wyndle Says:

    For clarification, I am referring to the spoken audio with a kid telling off an embarrassed political figure. It sounds like it may be from a movie and I would love to see it in its entirety.

  5. Dan Says:

    @Calvin, That facepalm action seems to be a drawback to working towards a voluntary way of life.

  6. Calvin Says:

    @Dan: Just the opposite; I see facepalming as a superior method of categorizing bad statist concepts that should be abolished, similar to a standard thumbs-down. Not facepalming commercial lien theory, and the like, will prolong the journey towards a voluntary society by metaphorically providing more sand to sift through to find any golden nuggets of truth.

    @gulyguff: Thanks! I can see it is paying off to link up all the meta-content to help people find the source material for what’s been added. Also, thanks for posting a link to Ian’s DMV hearing in which Marc appeared to assist Ian that was uploaded just today in the NSP skype chat.

    @Sidewinder & Wyndle: “Attention to detail,” as they would say in the military. Aside from Marc mentioning this week’s show would not be live on his previous show, a quick listen of the podcast and reading through the show notes contain the answer to both your inquiries.

    Now where the hell is NonE? This is one of the fastest podcasts I’ve ever posted, and no commentary? 😯 😆

  7. gulyguff Says:

    @wyndle look at the show notes and click on Michael Chaplin’s Monopoly of Power scene in Charlie Chaplin’s “A King in New York.”

  8. Sidewinder Says:

    I called in to the show at about 4:15 Eastern time and the recorded message said “the host has not yet arrived.” What was going on? I haven’t listened to the show yet so that may explain it; maybe Marc wasn’t taking calls?

  9. RadicalDude Says:

    Some interesting so-called “maxims of law”:
    9. An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
    13. When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.
    25. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.
    32. An argument from the greater to the less is of no force negatively; conversely it is.
    33. An argument arising from a division is most powerful in law.
    34. An argument drawn from what is inconvenient is good in law, because the law
    will not permit any inconvenience.
    35. A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge.
    37. It is the duty of a good judge to remove the cause of litigation.
    52. Circuity is to be avoided.
    63. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
    81. The law never suffers anything contrary to truth. But sometimes it allows a
    conclusive presumption in opposition to truth.
    82. The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.
    130. A deceiver deals in generals.
    141. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
    152. Error artfully colored is in many things more probable than naked truth;
    and frequently error conquers truth and reasoning.
    153. Error of law is injurious.
    154. An error not resisted is approved.
    157. Violence may also put on the mask of law.
    161. Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.
    170. A false plea is the basest of all things.
    186. One who exercises jurisdiction out of his own is not obeyed with
    187. Facts are more powerful than words.
    214. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
    219. Laws are made to no purpose unless for those who are subject and
    342. The judge ought to decide according to the allegation and the proof.
    348. To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due.
    356. A judgment given by an improper judge is of no moment.
    402. Law is the perfection of reason, which commands what is useful and
    necessary and forbids the contrary.
    409. The law forces no one to do vain or useless things.
    410. The law does wrong to no one.
    411. The law never works an injury, or does him a wrong.
    422. The law punishes falsehood.
    423. The law rejects superfluous, contradictory and incongruous things.
    425. The law always gives a remedy.
    427. The laws succor the ignorant.
    460. Unless a mandate is gratuitous it is not a mandate.
    465. A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most
    certain, and because universally approved by all.
    466. The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong.
    500. The multitude of those who err is no excuse for error.
    501. A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court.
    614. A reason cannot always be given for the institutions of our ancestors.
    679. An equal has no power over an equal. Example: One of two judges of the
    same court cannot commit the other for contempt.
    697. Perpetuities are odious in law and equity.
    700. A pirate is an enemy of the human race.
    741. The necessity of proving lies with him who makes the charge.
    742. Proofs ought to be made evident, that is, clear and easy to be understood.
    793. He who questions well, learns well.
    794. He who distinguishes well, learns well.
    845. All men are equal before the natural law.
    854. What is inconvenient or contrary to reason, is not allowed in law.
    1032. One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.
    1061. The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.
    1063. Force is inimical to the laws.

  10. RadicalDude Says:

    Very nice show guys(as usual).

  11. bruce_sloane Says:

    Sorry …
    ” Maxims of Law ” ..

    are not admissible in a Court
    soooo …

    what is Your point …???

  12. Mr. Mike Says:

    @Calvin, many large thanks for your work on this site. There is more appreciation for what you contribute, than can be expressed by mere words here.

    Your critique of my ideas/comment are valid, at first glance. The first difficulty with your reply is that it borders on the side of an Ad hominem. A very common tactic used by the bureaucrats you oppose. The example/evidence is in the implications made by the jargon you use (i.e. CON… droning, facepalming).

    The lack of an example or evidence, in my post, was done to keep it succinct. The key word was “clearly.” As in, “it is intuitively obvious.” Thus, the reader is left to provide their own example or more basically, fill in their own blanks. To help fill in those blanks, knowledge of the situation and commercial lien process are required.

    Speaking of help, doesn’t “serve(s)” qualify as a synonym for help(s)? Therefore, the implied meaning is: quoting maxims are NOT a magical cure all; nor are they a guarantee to work everywhere and under all circumstances. In other words, they MAY only be useful in some circumstances…

    The main weakness in my post is lack of direct knowledge. Help me and others to understand. The original question still remains unanswered. Why is the commercial lien process not being used in this situation? (It may, or may not, be of great use)

  13. Calvin Says:

    @Mr. Mike: Thank you for the kind words, BUT my criticism stands. I got how you meant “it is intuitively obvious,” and you are using it in the same way prosecutors do when you question evidence of jurisdiction. They believe that its so obvious that its beyond explanation, kinda like how you say its so “clear” or “intuitive.” But there is nothing less intuitive than commercial lien law, or most laws for that matter. In fact, what makes you think that commercial lien law is intuitive to anybody? I have never met anyone that considered commercial lien law “intuitive,” but they have had other adjectives they’ve used to describe it.

    To clearly answer your question objectively; the commercial lien process is not being mentioned because there is no evidence the “commercial lien law” applies. If you got evidence that the law, code, statutes, ect. apply, and you’ll be able to do what other attorneys (judges and prosecutors especially) cannot. Do you understand the implications when there is no evidence to support an assertion? If so, then what’s the hangup?

    Lastly, pointing out that you have failed to provide an example or objective proof to support your assertion/opinion is not an ad hominem attack, nor is not avoiding the substance of your assertion. I, for some reason, felt the need to share my reaction to CONstitutionalists that drone on about constitutional issues without addressing their lack of evidence that the CONstitution actually applies, causing me to facepalm. That’s all.

    @NonE: You clearly gnu what I meant. I am a grand offender of the english language, there is an abundance of corpus delicti within any one of my posts to convict me of grammar-slaughter. 😉

  14. bruce_sloane Says:

    simply because it is a ” fast track to jail ” card
    have You been studying the teachings of Randy wtf is his name from Ohio ..?

  15. Mr. Mike Says:

    @bruce_sloane, your post @1114 looks like it could be a reply to my repeated question @1010. If so, specify “fast track to jail” and/or provide links to those with direct knowledge about commercial liens being a very bad idea.

    As to studies, I have direct empirical knowledge of our corrupt court system (my lack of know-how resulted in being railroaded and taking ill advised plea bargains for harming NO ONE). Additionally, a lot of information has come through Dean Clifford (lots of chaff to sort through) and Marc Stevens (less chaff to sort). Additionally, links from commentators, of both websites and videos produced, have been followed (tons of chaff to sort through).
    To answer the immediate question about “Randy wtf…Ohio,” no.

  16. bruce_sloane Says:

    what exactly may be the lawful ” in the Courts eyes ” basis for such Lien ..??

  17. NonE Says:

    Calvin ranted: Now where the hell is NonE? This is one of the fastest podcasts I’ve ever posted, and no commentary?
    ————- Sorry dude, I was without an internet connection for the last coupla daze. Butt I’m hear now!
    – NonElectronicallyLeashedSumthymes

  18. NonE Says:

    Calvin, By The Way, the speed of the podcast is irrelevant. In fact, if the speed of the podcast is too high then one cannot comprehend the message clearly. Especially if one has a brain as slow as mine. But the speed of POSTING the podcast is of some value, especially for those of us who have no actual lives outside of the InterWebz. – NonGrammarNazi2Eye

  19. RadicalDude Says:

    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Sorry …
    ” Maxims of Law ” ..

    are not admissible in a Court”

    Can you cite that? Where are you getting your information from?

  20. RadicalDude Says:

    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 9:25 am
    soooo …

    what is Your point …???”

    The point is to share the information…

  21. bruce_sloane Says:

    RadicalDude Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Sorry …
    ” Maxims of Law ” ..

    are not admissible in a Court”

    Can you cite that? Where are you getting your information from?

    uuuhhhh ….
    I really do not need to ” cite ” this … 🙂
    why don’t you give us Your experience in using said ” maxims “, Dude ..

  22. NonE Says:

    Cavin sed: @NonE: You clearly gnu what I meant.
    (Did you really mean, “it is intuitively obvious?”)
    Yeah, but I have a reputation to support! Bada BING. 🙂

    Speaking of witch, regarding the intro music… I liked it a lot, and it was almost loud enough. Almost loud enough but, alas, I was still able to make out the occasional word or two of Marc’s opening dialog, so you might wanna consider turning it up just a tad more next time. 😉 Now back to listen to the rest of the show.

    – NonE

    P.S. I gotta add this part: You are doing an amazing job of making these podcasts and the attendant reference commentary and links HUGELY wonderful and great as reference tools. Mega Kudos. Ekspecially good stuff! 😉

  23. RadicalDude Says:

    “RadicalDude Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Sorry …
    ” Maxims of Law ” ..

    are not admissible in a Court”

    Can you cite that? Where are you getting your information from?”

    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    RadicalDude Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Sorry …
    ” Maxims of Law ” ..

    are not admissible in a Court”

    Can you cite that? Where are you getting your information from?

    uuuhhhh ….
    I really do not need to ” cite ” this …”

    So, you are just presenting it as a baseless assertion, then ? Thank you for sharing your arbitrary opinion.

  24. RadicalDude Says:

    “bruce_sloane Says:
    July 28th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    why don’t you give us Your experience in using said ” maxims “, Dude ..”

    My experience is that I came to this site to learn something, and I came upon a discussion between Mike and Calvin, where Maxims of law were mentioned so I looked them up and the ones I thought were relevant to the NSP material, I cut and pasted them. You seem to be conflating Mike’s assertions with the contents my post. Are you under the impression that I am trying to suggest someone “admit” them as “evidence” in court?

  25. bruce_sloane Says:

    this is best served by posting on the Forum ..
    that said,” maxims”, and CJS …are of no use in a Court

  26. RadicalDude Says:

    If you keep repeating yourself, that does not make it any less fallacious.

    I am asking if this is just your opinion that you made up or if you can cite a source?

    If this is just an opinion you made up out of thin air, fine.

  27. NonE Says:

    !!!NEW WORD!!! Inspired by Calvin’s comment at about the 2 hour mark (not the two hour Marc): Logotamy – (pronounced with a soft G, like “jam”), a medical procedure performed in law school.

    – NonTwoHourEntity

  28. Mr. Mike Says:

    Interesting, I ask a question and NO ONE here has replied with a reasonable response. Kind of like the actions of the very people this site rails against. So far, I see little to no difference between your groups.

    Here’s your final chance to show there’s a difference in your thinking and their thinking. Why is the commercial lien process not being used, or considered, in Robert’s situation in Florida? If it’s a bad idea, WHY?

    @Calvin it has become obvious in the context of your comments, that you are not remotely familiar with the commercial lien process. Note the keyword “process.” Note also that it is done OUTSIDE, i.e. WITHOUT, the court system. The process is done through a Notary Public. Intro link:
    Terra Libra staff has a PDF download (186KB) that has more detail and is better suited for use in North America. (link unknown)

    Providing a link to some cheap Science Fiction 🙂 involving facepalming is not instructive. It BORDERS on an ad hominem attack.
    All I’ve seen so far is blah, blah, blah…your question is stupid (thus, it doesn’t deserve an answer).

    Stop with this “assertion,” CONstitution, etc., Bovine Scatology, and ANSWER the damned question!

  29. Calvin Says:

    Mr. Mike, lets do this one last time.

    I ask a question and NO ONE here has replied with a reasonable response.”
    I responded with what I thought was reasonable; that there was no evidence to connect Robert to commercial lien law process.

    If it’s a bad idea, WHY?”
    See above, I answered 2 of your questions with one response.

    in the context of your comments, that you are not remotely familiar with the commercial lien process.”
    Did I claim I was?

    It BORDERS on an ad hominem attack.”
    Me facepalming over your lack of evidence to support your assertion that the commercial lien process applies is not a personal attack while avoiding the topic. But I can guess why you’d like to conflate it so…

    Which leads me to my last comment. You are not going to keep comment flooding the posts here when people are responsive to you, and you then turn around and accuse them of not responding. And no one here has any “final chance” to subject themselves to another round of endless circles your Freeman on the Land rhetoric. If you have such a problem with evidence, them perhaps you are visiting the wrong website. Notice you don’t see “No Staters” comment flooding any of the FMOTL sites… WHY is that? Maybe because “No Staters” aren’t interested in inciting empty disputes on other people’s websites…


    @RadicalDude: Google is evil, but it can still pump-out one hell of a search result:

    Oh, what a surprise look at the top result…

    And regarding your comment earlier about “just sharing information.” Information sharing is appreciated, but there is a reason you don’t find certain information at this particular site. The priority at this site is to forward an investigation into the truth of the legal and political system. Truth is discovered by seeking facts and evidence. When the information that is being brought to this site is absent a factual basis, then it receives scrutiny. If it doesn’t stand to objective scrutiny, then why continue giving it attention?

    You may find Mike on the forum if he’s active there, but we will most likely not be missing Mr. Mike’s comment flooding and/or ultimatums on the front-end of the site anymore.

  30. RadicalDude Says:

    @Mr. Mike:
    Sorry, I don’t know a lot about “the commercial lien process” or how it would be applied. Can you just kind of synopsize how it would be used in this situation?
    I was looking at the site you linked to, I’ll read more of it.

  31. RadicalDude Says:

    I guess I wasn’t fully up on the history. I like to listen to the show (and once I called in); it is my favorite talk show. I comment and look at comments sometimes, but I haven’t 100% been following all the comments.

  32. Calvin Says:

    Glad to hear you have been enjoying the show, hope it helps to clear the fog a little on how bureaucrats have sought to enslave rule us and how to effectively counter.

    I too found some of the maxims of law on that list “interesting” as well. 😆

    “Facts are more powerful than words.”

    “The law always gives a remedy.”

    “The law does wrong to no one.”

    “The law forces no one to do vain or useless things.”

    Who wrote these? A comedian? That list gave me a few outbursts of laughter today.

  33. RadicalDude Says:

    I know some of them I included because they are so ironic. Yes, the info on the show has cleared up a lot of the “fog”(confusing cognitive dissonance), and helped me to realize I was a voluntaryist.

  34. virgil Says:

    Marc said “copious” again!

  35. NonE Says:

    RadicalDude sed:
    …helped me to realize I was a voluntaryist.

    When was that, and why aren’t you one now?

    – NonE

  36. RadicalDude Says:

    I mean I was one without really knowing it and still am.

  37. MickeyG Says:

    One thing I never have seen Marc question, is if the court is operating in law or equity. In equity, the judge can disregard or regard anything at all.

  38. NonE Says:

    MickeyG sed:
    One thing I never have seen Marc question, is if the court is operating in law or equity.
    ——–That’s because Marc has rationally determined that the court is operating in reality, and that reality is aggressive force. Nothing more is needed to be known.

    It’s either voluntary… or it’s not.

    – NonMagic

  39. MickeyG Says:

    Yes, NonE, force is used, but the voluntary part IMO is agency law. They are the representitive and we are the principles, we don’t like it, but we do not formally revoke the agency. So in a dispute, it becomes a trust issue and lands us in an equity court, where they still represent you as an agent. Agents can stray from what is benificial to the principle. Another name for principle is ‘constituent’. :0

  40. NonE Says:

    MickeyG sed: They are the representitive [SIC] and we are the principles [SIC]…
    And you have factual evidence of this proclaimed relationship? Signed and witnessed signatures on a contract, for instance? And I alsos presume that a relationship exists between you and the Tooth Fairy such that this agent is under obligation to purchase each tooth you deposit under your pillow and then dispose of it in an ecologically correct fashion, all permits and such complied with?

    – NonE

  41. RadicalDude Says:

    Ya, MickeyG, what evidence is there of an agent-principal relationship? What facts do you rely on to reach the legal opinion/legal conclusion that they are your “agents”?

  42. Al Thompson Says:

    @Mr. Mike,

    I suggest that you may want to try that commercial lien process, and then find yourself with a 15-20 year prison sentence. I’ve seen quite a few people try that and go to jail. I know, I know, they just didn’t do it right. There is no “right way” to do anything with the govtards because they only follow their rules when it suits their agenda; which is to completely destroy civilization…if you want to call this civilized. Obviously, the courts see things only their way because they are demonic in nature, and a demon cannot be reasoned with.

    UCC is a pantload and it is as phoney as Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

  43. Randy Jones Says:

    Marc you really need to upgrade your mike. The sound in the last podcast was terrible…just sayin.

  44. Black Says:

    The only way that anyone gets into into the court system in the United States is through commercial lien law. Start by looking up info presented by Billy Foust, Winston Shrout, and the Howard Griswold/David DeRiemer group. Check YouTube. The UCC rules in all cases. When you don’t recognize this – which is most of the time – you are throwing yourself on the mercy of the system. Sometimes it is in your favor. But more and more it seems that it is not.

  45. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Black, I’ve never seen any evidence to support this stuff.

  46. Black Says:

    I have in my paperwork from David DeRiemer, court cases that supposedly state that you are not required to make an appearance. I haven’t looked them up, and certainly have not sheppardized them, and would have to search for them in the mounds of paperwork that I have, if I had to find them right now.

    David says on his website, that in addition to sending forms back to anyone attacking you – non-acceptance thereby non-appearance – you should send similar notice to the court clerk of whatever court is listed in the paperwork. From David’s site: “9. Why must a ‘courtesy copy’ be sent to the court clerk ?

    “Purpose of the Escape (3 strategies) is to Deprive (the ENEMY) of all three ‘Due Process’ Requirements, without-which, – they can NOT PROCEED. (can NOT ‘Docket’ a Case againt you). The Court Clerk does NOT KNOW that you have successfully Escaped their deception, coercion and trickery, and Clerk will Continue-on under ‘Presumption’, until they Receive (Neutral) NOTICE from (annonymous you), (that they have been Deprived of ‘Acceptance’ of the Offer, and subsequently they (per ‘Due Process’ Requirements) Can NOT Proceed). Clerk won’t KNOW, until they receive
    (Neutral/annonymous) NOTICE copies Evidence/Proof (Neutral from you). (One can ‘Omit’ this step with IRS – No clerk involved).”

    Does this work? Nobody would know without trying it. Why? Because the paperwork will not be filed as a court case, will it? So, you can’t look it up with the other court cases. There will be no official court record of it. And even if you could find some court record, it would be unclear as to why the case was dropped. The only clear record would be unpublished with the individuals who did what they did.

    Now, if you could find someone who was willing to document his success… that’s the trick, isn’t it? Could you trust his affidavit about his experience if he provided you with one? Would the paperwork – provided he shows it to you – be enough to prove that his affidavit to you, that such and such really happened, was true? I don’t know where to go to find someone like this. Maybe David or Howard, or some of the people who knew Billy Foust, or maybe a couple of Winston Shrout’s “clients” would be willing to serve as testimonials.

    I should get into this more. Perhaps…

  47. Calvin Says:

    Notice you don’t see success stories from commercial lien law/process advocates, why is that? Misdirection to take you off the path to effectively exposing the fraud that is known as the judicial system?

    Commercial lien law, just like all laws, are subject to interpretation. The prosecution has a lower burden to prevail when it comes to matters of interpretation than they do with matters of fact and evidence, and it [commercial lien law] gives the judge the wiggle-room he needs to bail the prosecutor out.

    Notice you don’t see “no staters” (for lack of a better term) sneaking onto FMOTL/commercial lien websites with initially neutral comments, then rambling on and on about theories that they have no evidence or experience to back-up after they’ve been cleared by spam filters… why is that?

    So Black, if this is going to turn into commercial lien comment flooding without bringing forth any evidence, please refer to the fate of Mr. Mike as a friendly warning.

  48. RadicalDude Says:

    Interesting, seems worth a try at least.

  49. Black Says:

    How would one use this info?

    6 C.J.S. – APPEARANCES § 18 – PAGES 22-24

  50. bruce sloane Says:

    @Mr. Black
    CJS has no actual force, or effect in a Court of Law ..
    So, what purpose does this serve ..?

    Thanks, Calvin

  51. Black Says:

    Actually, commercial lien law is what it is all about. Most of the time they fine you. It’s all about commerce. They work very hard keeping your eyes if this fact.

  52. Calvin Says:

    @Black: There is nothing “factual” about “law,” have you been listening to any of the material, or are you just here to make baseless assertions about commercial lien law?

    If you aren’t taking the content of the show and website in consideration with your comment flooding about CLL, then there’s little interest listening to the ramblings of the insane and THEIR legal opinion here. This domain is reserved for investigation into facts and evidence, and not accepting legal opinion in place of sought fact and evidence.

    There is a gent that goes by the moniker “Mr. Mike,” who I am almost sure you’ve never met, that would love to hear legal opinion (or law as its commonly referred to) about CLL all day.

    Oh, and to answer your question; “What is Mr. Mike’s fate?” If you actually read through the comments, that wouldn’t be a question; but apparently you are not here to listen to what anyone else is saying. Instead you prefer to blindly drone on about CLL without taking the subject matter of the post or the factual issues raised here on the site into consideration when you comment. That is why you won’t be missed.


  53. indio007 Says:

    Marc said,
    “I’ve never seen any evidence to support this stuff.”

    And you never will. The commercial lien/admiralty schtick is a DHS honeypot, IMHO.

  54. Calvin Says:

    Indio007 said: “commercial lien/admiralty schtick is a DHS honeypot”

    I couldn’t agree more. The people advocating it don’t seem to be interested in deescalating the aggression of the STATE by using any form of effective damage control. I have only seen where is had facilitated a quick “go to jail” card for bringing up a frivolous argument in court.

    “Honeypot” is exactly the term I was thinking. I was wanting to fit in “this is not a legal opinion honeypot,” in my reply to Black, but it didn’t make the cut. It seems there is an effort to poison the dialogue on this site by what starts as neutral comments that then turn in to CLL rambling after getting past the spam filters.

    The system would LOVE serious pro per/pro se litigants to pursue FMOTL/CLL/UCC/sovereign citizen talking points all day, as it makes it easier for them to write you off as making a frivolous argument. Notice in so many of Marc’s Calls of Shame that judges and persecutors always try to conflate questions of evidence as a “frivolous argument” because, again; “it makes it easier for them to write you off.” But don’t demonstrate that to a CLL advocate, it’ll go nowhere, as that’s exactly where they’d like to take you; to a evidentiary dead end.

  55. NonE Says:

    “Baseless Assertions” Is that what you get when you play baseball on a soccer field? I’m not really up on all the sports analogies, so this is just a guess, you understand.

    – NonCompetentToComment

  56. Dan Says:

    FMOTL/CLL/UCC/sovereign citizen. This is a guy who is a wanna-be lawyer in my opinion. They seek magical legalsleeze that is a silver bullet, yet they still retain their statist tendencies.

  57. Randy Says:

    Calvin, By The Way, the speed of the podcast is irrelevant. In fact, if the speed of the podcast is too high then one cannot comprehend the message clearly. Especially if one has a brain as slow as mine. But the speed of POSTING the podcast is of some value, especially for those of us who have no actual lives outside of the InterWebz. – NonGrammarNazi2Eye

    — LOL, nice NonE! Made my night.

    On another note:

    Calvin: FYI, I was able to use the 4th and 5th amendment as well as “hey you got an Oath there” as well as violation of due process argument for a Distraint Warrant issued by the Oregon Department of Revenue for my 2009 taxes and the had the whole issue abated. I have evidence if you want to see it. Just adding this to the mix.

1 Trackbacks For This Post


    […] NSP – Jul 27, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Robert […]

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 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 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. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here