Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Oct 12, 2013 – Co-host: JT

Posted on October 12th, 2013 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Notes:

  • Government Indicted to be formally released by the end of the month now that the cover is finally photographed.
  • The recent prerecorded shows with the “domestic terrorist” you can call a hero Bernard von NotHaus and “the walking encyclopedia” Jan Irvin.
  • Marc to join Jan Irvin for an in-studio interview sometime in the near future.
  • The hostility towards critical-thought in the oppressive, monopolized STATE-government courtrooms.
  • The lack of critical-thought in modern society and Jan’s, the NSP’s, and other people’s/activists efforts to fill that gap.
  • Uncovering the true nature of the STATE-government court systems by asking questions and getting admissions from bureaucrats, who are attacking you, to later use against them.
  • Objectively describing Bill’s bureaucratic legal-attack from the NHES.
  • The silly idea of being considered a “unique form of domestic terrorist” for simply asking questions of evidence and facts.
  • Review: when dealing with dangerous psychopaths in court, 1) use a media rep to keep the psychotic rage of the judge in check, 2) be intimately familiar with the issues you plan on raising and why, 3) make time to understand the free instructive material thoroughly, 4) acknowledge and accept the risks you are taking when engaging with psychopaths, and 5) don’t wise of to the cops or other respondents to an incident.
  • Media rep needed for Vasily’s court date at 9:30am on November 18th at Maybrook County Courthouse. Address is 1500 Maybrook Drive Room 107,  Maybrook, IL.
  • STATE attorney’s are sophisticated criminals perfumed with “jasmine and incense.”
  • ~20 DOR agents trolling a coin show, harassing dealers and buyers about sales tax.
  • Dealing with baseless attacks from principally-inconsistent freedom advocates that utilize the same principally-corrupt attack methods and tactics as bureaucratic agents.
  • Building and operating on a model of reality that is objective and consistent with rational thought.
  • Asking the judge if they are submitting testimony and practicing law from the bench and asking them if they are going to be prepared for cross-examination if they do so.
  • Good faith dictates proper disclosure and notice and opportunity to be heard so that one can effectively defend themselves against the charges.
  • The ticket or complaint is not evidence.
  • Taking judicial notice that the proceeding is adversarial.
  • Discussing AiLL failures to be able to identify and correct any flaws in the working model we use to challenge bureaucratic attacks.
  • Ticket kicked-out of court this week when the cop failed to appear. Congratulations Scott!
  • Addressing Marc’s “legal expertise” and effectiveness based upon the aggregated results published on the website.
  • Self-assessing whether you have a minimal skill-set to confidently conduct yourself pro-per in a courtroom.
  • The prosecution, in naive opposition, has used some to the same rulings as used in the motions that have been filed against them.
  • Why would a supervisor have to call-back in order to confirm evidence of jurisdiction? Is it possible that they have entered a case into court without verifying the most important element; jurisdiction?
  • The historical systemic devolution of over-extended, corrupted governments.
  • There is more of a risk of being killed by a cop than by a terrorist.
  • is an excellent resource in documenting police abuse.
  • Drafting motions anticipating how, and why, they’re going to be denied. 😉
  • Courts erroneously proceeding in prosecuting cases that are absent an actual complaint.
  • Jurisdiction, once challenged, must be proven before any hearing of the merits.
  • Teaching others that those D.B.A. “the STATE” are simply a bunch of mass-murderers, grand extortionists, and habitual liars lawyers.
  • If you want to know who your rulers are, look for those whom you are not permitted to question.
  • Effective, peaceful activism by challenging bureaucratic citations based on their lack of evidence.
  • Objecting to unqualified witnesses from being allowed to testify.
  • Do you believe you have jurisdiction solely based on geographic location, and if so, what evidence have you seen to makes that true?
  • The mastery of asking leading questions to expose logical fallacies such as circular reasoning.
  • Making objections on grounds that the witness has no personal firsthand knowledge of applicability of the code/law.
  • The plaintiff, or person entering the complaint before the court, bears the burden of proving jurisdiction.
  • F**k-you, pay me” traffic law courts.
  • Correcting conflated opinions that the defendant is raising an issue of law or philosophy instead of the intended issue of fact.
  • Distinguishing between facts and evidence.
  • Proof of effective damage control in felony cases.
  • Possible threat of a psych-eval or contempt for pursuing frivolous legal defenses.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Matt from CA: dealing with a photo-radar legal attack, traffic citation victims taking the “traffic school for a reduced charge with no points on their driving record” deal, judge over-rules a request for judicial notice and a motion to dismiss and claims his grounds are “secret” when asked for the grounds of his decision, asking for discovery of the facts and evidence being used against a defendant, judge claims “the facts that the law applies is because you live within California [a legal fiction] giving the officer jurisdiction” and “because the law says so,” pointing out the logical fallacies that are being allowed in the courtroom, asking what a law is factually and if the judge’s opinion was arbitrary was deemed nonsensical by the judge, objecting to a forced plea, the judge claims he does not have to disclose relevant procedural information to the defendant, and drafting a motion to recuse and a motion to vacate based on the multitude of due process violations that have been committed thus far.
  • Jay from VA: update on a filed petition for review en banc, anyone can be an attorney, the observation that judges often rule in contradiction to higher supreme court rulings, challenging laws that are arbitrary or capricious or otherwise against the law, how the men and women (D.B.A. as government) plan on collecting their new ransom dubbed “Obamacare,” #overwhelmthesystem, the delusion that “it couldn’t happen here,” HuffPo’s “Raid of the Day” section, and a judge faces criminal charges for allegedly dismissing traffic tickets against herself.
  • Johnny from TX: advice for Matt from CA on how to proceed with the court, judicial notice to make a valid statement part of the official record is mandatory, documenting every instance of denial of due process, it is “unlawful” for a bureaucrat to impede on another’s “rights,” using their codes of criminal procedure (that they think apply to them against them) by filing complaints against them for judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, the political consequences tends to be an effective counter-measure to a localized irrational judiciary, once the issue of jurisdiction is “affirmatively challenged” the court must stop everything and resolve the issue, and building a RICO case against a corrupt judiciary.
  • Helen from London: update on the past number of hearings, filing for a dismissal for a lack of a speedy trial and lack of evidence of jurisdiction, vacating a forced plea made by the judge, “if you answer my questions responsively the first time, then I wouldn’t have to repeat them,” in-court civics lessons on jurisdiction, refocusing the burden-of-proof on the prosecution by continuing your questioning of the evidence that forms the basis of their assertion that the law applies, challenging the judge on their conflict-of-interest with the prosecution, and the court’s repeated failures to respond triggering massive rescheduling issues.
  • Eyal from Israel: update on Eyal’s traffic case where he’s trying to disqualify a judge who doesn’t hold the prosecutor of their burden of proof, there must be substantial injury or damage to have jurisdiction, stone-faced attorneys, judge forcing a plea, filing charges of prosecutorial misconduct, the judge forcing a plea upon the defendant, the judge tries to force a lawyer on a pro se defendant, the judge says “because they’re not of spiritual or philosophical authority they cannot respond” to a motion to dismiss challenging their lack of evidence of jurisdiction, the prosecutor and judge claim “evidence for jurisdiction is existence of the rules” and “presence within the courtroom is presence within the STATE,” and the prosecutor claims “the defendant has too much time on their hands” because he’s following up with the appropriate motions in response to the courthouse misconduct.
  • Jake from IL: possibly challenging an unjust wage-garnishment from a messy divorce case, Johnny’s earlier point of “politics being more powerful than law,” Chicago’s transportation department is trying to mandate an ID card system to log the whereabouts of travelers, authority-through-conformity is an absence of philosophy, tortured evasiveness from cornered bureaucrats, making court activism and reform practical for Joe Six-pack, getting cameras in every courthouse in effort to promote better transparency and accountability, and Matthew Fogg’s idea to preform equal drug law enforcement in the suburbs just as much as in poverty stricken neighborhoods.
  • Al from CA: while Al did do some time for a tax-evasion victimless crime spree; he did get an acquittal, with the help of Marc’s template, for the most serious FELONY charge. Success by remembering that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, “you’re doing it wrong if the judge is not getting mad,” psycho-analyzing the psychopath Larry Burns in Mike’s case, and the proven failure of governments.
  • Fred from ID: exercising roadside damage control by invoking rights under the condition of custodial arrest, not understanding the charges, and fighting DUI charges in court.

Meta-content Credits:


9 Comments For This Post

  1. Pete Says:

    JT: Thanks for mentioning the Holodomor. Most Americans have never heard of these 6 million Ukrainian victims of forced starvation. I was recently reading in “The Black Book of Communism” that there are documents available now that prove undeniably that this Soviet famine was intentional.

  2. NonE Says:

    Pete and J.T., Yes, I appreciated hearing this. I was vaguely aware of a bunch of farmers being starved to death by “Uncle Joe” or something, but I’d not really heard more details on how and who (the “grammar,” as Jan Irvin would put it.)

    J.T. I particularly appreciated some of the practical procedural material you provided (admittedly awesome alliteration not intended) in this show. Quite valuable. I would ask however, that you allow the caller to actually finish making his statement before you jump in and tell him what he should have done. Perhaps you might consider asking him if he’d done this or that before assuming you know exactly what he had done and then chastising him for not knowing what you know. Capish? Please understand that I think you made some very valuable contributions, but if you’re not careful you may come across as as big an ass as me. !!!

    – NonE

  3. NonE Says:

    “If the judge isn’t pissed off you’re not doing an effective job in the courtroom.” – Al

    !!! 🙂 !!! 🙂

    – NonAl

  4. Dan Says:

    What Al said is the skinny

  5. NonE Says:

    Calvin, I must say that the material you select and present after Marc’s show is over is excellent and I appreciate your criteria and tight editing. As always, thank you so much for all you contribute to this site.

    – NonSkinnyAl

  6. Calvin Says:

    Thanks NonE! But I must say; you, and others, have been most helpful with the development by suggesting better formatting for the “podcast.” I try to select meta-content that would resonate best with those of us who have dropped the violence and legal fictions from our lives. I listen to the early shows and compare them to what we have now and I am glad to be fr33 to put my skills to service here.

  7. NonE Says:

    Calvin Sed:I listen to the early shows and compare them…
    —– There is no comparison! Now that that silly host person has his “supposed book” thing sorta maybe close to being possibly done, maybe things will get even MORE interesting. 😉 (But now he’ll probably say he needz a vacation from the stress of spending all of his weekends at the beach!)

    – NonMinimum

  8. Pete Says:

    @NonE: I remember the old shows when Marc would sometimes say the words “technical difficulties” more often than the word “sociopath!”

  9. NonE Says:

    Pete, Oooooo! That was LOW, dude! – NonE

6 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Oct 12, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post NSP – Oct 12, 2013 – Co-host: JT appeared first on […]

  2. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 – [DRAFT VERSION] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Johnny’s recommendation of reminding the court that its a felony to commit a “deprivation of rights.” […]

  3. NSP - Oct 19, 2013 - [UPDATED PODCAST] | Says:

    […] Johnny’s recommendation of reminding the court that a “deprivation of rights” is a felony offense. […]

  4. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Johnny’s recommendation of reminding the court that a “deprivation of rights” is a felony offense. […]

  5. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Johnny’s recommendation of reminding the court that a “deprivation of rights” is a felony offense. […]

  6. NSP - Oct 26, 2013 - Co-host: JT - [ Broadcast Version] | Says:

    […] Jay from VA: held in contempt for missing jury duty due to a medical situation <~> and signing documents under duress when you are forced to sign despite not understanding the nature and cause of the proceedings. […]

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