NSP – Jan 4, 2014 – Guests: Sean and Keith from Canada & Dan from AZ

Posted on January 4th, 2014 by Calvin

Guests: Sean and Keith from Canada & Dan from AZ.

Show Notes:

  • Sean’s AiLL as part of the intercontinental NSP Traffic Study.
  • The addition of raising the fraudulent nature of an injusticaible case or controversy.
  • The differences between the Canadian judicial framework compared to other country’s.
  • Simply questioning the evidence conflated as “arguing constitutionality” by deceptive bureaucrats and attorneys.
  • The nature of adversarial proceedings.

Below is the stay letter Sean received from the prosecution.  Again, Sean stuck to challenging the prosecutor’s assertion there was jurisdiction and the laws applied, offering to pay the fine if there was evidence.  Of course, there is no evidence the laws apply.  There are opinions, assertions and arguments the laws apply, but no actual evidence.  Call the No State Project if you disagree and can do what yet another prosecutor could not do.

Congrats Sean and thanks for participating in the study and providing this evidence.

Stay Letter

              

47 Comments For This Post

  1. William JE Irwin Says:

    So what was their reason for not allowing you to present your motion? I believe it is an Injustice of Court if you are Biastly treated before a trial or at all…

  2. Mike Says:

    a stay only means they can come back and recharge you again….the charge was not dropped…it might bite back at a later date

  3. bruce sloane Says:

    SOMEONE said ” we are live most every Saturday ”

    they…must have been kidding … :)

  4. NonE Says:

    every fourth and thirty-second Saturday of each year. You gotta problem wit dat??? ;)

  5. Wise One Says:

    Marc,

    Is this a new NSP Radio logo? I like it!

    On another point, I’ve discovered an airtight response to your question “do you have evidence that the constitution and code applies to me (my client)?” This would be a response from a member of that website which begins with a “Q;” I do not want to mention this website even on the 1 in a million chance that it might increase their web traffic. So, here’s the exchange between “Q” Member (QM) and you:

    Marc: What evidence do you have that the constitution and code applies?
    QM: Is it true that two of your favorite movies are Braveheart and the Matrix?
    Marc: Well yes, but…
    QM: There’s your evidence! You’re guilty! Everything you say is frivolous! You want people to starve in the street! You’re in contempt!

  6. Ben Says:

    @Marc

    Just curious, what taxes do you pay and/or do not pay?

  7. NonE Says:

    Ben, Just curious, what laws do you obey and/or not obey? ;)

  8. Dan Says:

    I obey the law of gravity, does that help?

  9. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    First of all my question was directed towards Marc, not you NonE, and it has to do with taxes not laws.

    But to answer your question, yes, I am a law abiding person. Because I do believe we need some kind of “Law & Order”. (CHUNG-CHUNG!):-P

  10. NonE Says:

    Ben, I didn’t ask you if you are a law abiding person, because it is obvious that you’re not – NO ONE can abide by all of the conflicting laws that currently are “on the books.” Aside from that, what gives anyone a right to dictate behavior to any other person? And if such a right can be presumed to exist, does it somehow negate the right of the victim to defend himself against the aggression of the dictator? Further, can there be taxes without laws? – NonE

  11. NonE Says:

    Dan, Yes, that helps a lot. Where would we be if people just flaunted the laws willy-nilly? Huh? I ask you, WHERE WOULD WE BE?!?!? I thank you for your service!

  12. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    Because like you I live by good principles, ethics, and morals. We are ALWAYS going to have those people that don’t live by these same principles, ethics, and morals. When you say a “free and voluntary society” what do you think the first thing those kinds of people are going to try do someone like you and I? And what do you think we are going to do in response to them?

  13. NonE Says:

    Ben Sed:
    @NonE
    When you say a “free and voluntary society” what do you think the first thing those kinds of people are going to try do someone like you and I?
    ——–
    Especially when you give them guns, badges and nuclear weapons!
    - NonE

  14. NonE Says:

    Ben, let me add that, when you say “Because like you I live by good principles, ethics, and morals,” you are speaking an untruth as people with good principles, ethics and morals don’t use force to dictate to other peaceable people what they must do, nor take others’ money by threat of force. THAT is not moral or ethical, or principled. Unlike you profess as your principles, I choose to treat others with respect, I only engage in voluntary interactions with others.

    - NonE

  15. Ben Says:

    NonE, once again, you are completely missing my point. Until you understand, know, recognize, and see that there is “EVIL” in this world we, the good morals, ethics, and principle people, NEED law and order to protect ourselves from that “EVIL”.

  16. Dan Says:

    @Ben, It seems the good morals, ethics, and principle people, NEEDING law and order to protect THEMSELVES, introduces violent third party thugs into my life. I keep pushing this damn button but nothing is not happening!

  17. Ben Says:

    Let me also add that I do believe in a free and voluntary society too so long as that society has people like you, me, Marc, ect. in it. :-)

  18. Ben Says:

    We are ALWAYS going to have people who think they are more free and more voluntary then us.

  19. Ben Says:

    @Dan

    LOL! I wish there was a magic button too!

  20. NonE Says:

    Ben, Yep. I got it. We need to be evil before the other guys do it first.

  21. Dan Says:

    Ben, I was referring to my rothbardian button to instantly do away with that so called law and order you insist everyone have.

  22. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    Your STILL missing the point. People like us believe in our fundamental rights. The right to life, freedom, defense, religion, property ect. okay? and also good morals, beliefs, principles ect. right? Now in a free and voluntary society what do you think those people who don’t believe that you are entitled to these rights and have no morals, principles ect.?

  23. Ben Says:

    @Dan

    So you believe in fundamental rights?

  24. Trivium Says:

    Reminds me of a truism. Relating to attorneys not understanding how their not having any evidence is relevant at all. Good show on the parking ticket and standing up with confidence.

    Upton Sinclair
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
    ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

  25. NonE Says:

    Marc, Listening to the show I have this idea: regarding stacking the room with activists at the city council or whatever, what if you were to coordinate a script, of sorts, so that you have a full agenda that you want to get through, and when each activist runs out of time or gets shut down or whatever, the next activist is able to pick up the ball, so to say, and continue on for his alloted time with the same agenda, and then the next activist, and so on… so that you effectively can deal with a much larger and comprehensive speaking and questioning agenda than one individual would have the alloted time to accomplish by himself? (Do I get a length-of-sentence award for that?) – NonE

  26. NonE Says:

    Ben, I don’t have a still. I buy my hard liquor at a store. As to “rights,” I don’t think that any “rights” I might have would grant me the “right” to stomp on the same “rights” of others. And as far as “rights,” all they are is a unilateral claim one person makes against one or more others unless they are the result of a contractual meeting of the minds. You don’t have any “rights.” Or at least I don’t find any evidence of such a thing. If you want to claim that you have rights I’d ask that you provide some evidence of such things. – NonE

  27. Dan Says:

    @Ben, No, I believe in staying out of other people’s business. As far as Rothbard and the whole rights thing, I have seen no evidence any such rights exist.

  28. NonE Says:

    Dan, We don’t like your kind! You’re messin’ with our special magic, and we have ways of dealing with people like you. – NonE ;)

  29. Ben Says:

    @Dan & NonE

    Seeing how you both don’t believe in fundamental rights and it is true that there is no evidence prove this I guess that means your no different than the psychopaths.

  30. Dan Says:

    NonE if you do not leave me alone I am calling Jackie Chiles

  31. NonE Says:

    Ben, you seem to believe that it is okay to attack innocent people because you’re afraid that there is a possibility that something bad might happen to you. So because you are afraid, you are perfectly okay with destroying the lives of others who have done nothing to harm you. And you are calling ME a psychopath, or equivalent to one? That’s rich, dude. Rich.

    - NonE

  32. NonE Says:

    Dan, Is Jackie any relation to Hatch Chiles? Hotter? Not as hot? You gotta help me out here soze I can know if I want to have you call her for me, okay? – NonE

  33. Dan Says:

    NonE, Jackie Chiles is Cosmo Kramer’s lawyer :)

  34. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    AGAIN you are missing the point. And DON”T put words in my mouth! I never said or believe that it is right to harm innocent people. I have good morals, ethics, and principles that I live by and I believe we all have the fundamental right to defend ourselves and that is what separates me from those evil people and because of that I will never harm another innocent person. But you don’t believe in any of that nor do you believe that there is evil in this world.

  35. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    Because you don’t believe in evil and you don’t believe in defending yourself good luck with that free and voluntary society.

  36. NonE Says:

    I just love dealing with rational people! }:-O Especially those moral, ethical, principled and loving ones.

  37. Ben Says:

    @NonE

    When someone starts using sarcasm it usually means that they have no more logical information to contribute to the argument.

  38. Dan Says:

    Mr.Stevens
    Would like to consult with you in regard to a red light camera ticket. Not sure how to contact you. We need to contest the ticket by 1-29-14 just got it today.
    Thank you

  39. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Dan, email is marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

  40. NonE Says:

    Marc, This is a recurring issue. People continue to make posts asking how to contact you. I just spend some time looking over the site trying to find your contact information and really could not find it. I finally clicked on “ABOUT” in the top bar and there is all of your contact information nicely laid out for people. Here’s a suggestion: how about replacing “ABOUT” with “CONTACT INFO,” (or “CONTACT MARC”) and, while you’re at it, on that same page (Contact Info) you should make a prominent link to the “STORE” page so people can easily find out how to get in touch with you and acquire the materials you make available without having to pull out most of their hair in the process. :-) – NonE

  41. Dan Says:

    Mr. Stevens

    Just sent email regarding issue. thank you sir for you timely response

  42. Steve Gilfedder Says:

    Marc love all you do with the ponzi scheme legal system,if the judge and prosecutor work for the same team wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest,and aren’t most laws null and void because they violate our constituonal rights,that are not privileges under Our God given rights.Am Juris volume 16 section 2 clause 177 read that and tell me they are fully responsible to follow their own constitution first as it is the supreme law of the land.

  43. Trivium Says:

    It appears that they can’t provide ANY actual evidence that the code or constitution applies. Ever.

    If there WERE such (imaginary) applicability evidence would it be a written contract? An oral contract? A testimony from a witness with first hand personal knowledge who claims that it applies? A judge telling you that it applies?

    In absence of any of it, it seems that the main scam is they presume (with guns and theater) applicability and if their presumption is not challenged, you have then agreed to hand them jurisdiction and are found guilty. Cool.

    The other big key I see is that if you hire a BAR approved attorney, they will ALWAYS presume that the code applies. (Since their traitorous income depends on it.) They might challenge jurisdiction, feebly, but seldom if ever raise the applicability of code. Attorneys are not your friend, they work for the court.

    Has anyone ever heard of an attorney challenging applicability of the code or constitution? Would they be disbarred if they did?

  44. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Steve, political laws are the ramblings of predators, there is no evidence they apply. It’s not that they violate our “rights” (there are no constitutional rights) they are predators who use fraud and coercion to get compliance. The constitution is a few pieces of paper from 1787, nothing more, nothing less.

  45. Jack Ross Says:

    What does it mean when the swear an oath to protect the constitution?

  46. AL Says:

    Calif of Course:
    Wife got a ticket for holding a cell phone and looking at a GPS map on the phone. Was not texting or talking, just viewing the screen.

    1. Requested trial by declaration.
    2. Through registered mail Requested discovery from LEA and court but did not receive anything back.
    3. Filed a motion to dismiss, through registered mail, based on non response to discovery, no verified valid cause of action, no injured party, damage or infringement on another’s rights, and that failure to provide discovery would hinder a proper defense.Motion to dismiss sent to both court locations.
    Received the initial notice from Los Angeles Superior Court but was redirected to El Monte Court to send the Trial by declaration.
    27 days and no response from court.

    So

  47. Arvid Says:

    Meads case… is this a court of opinion or fact?… Meads is all opinion

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, August 23rd 4-7pm EST: Marc will be broadcasting LIVE from the 'fortified compound.' If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP group chat where you can engage in some role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

------------------------PAYMENT NOTICE------------------------

I'm working on getting a paypal alternative, for now, you can use Dwolla for payments, use marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

WeAcceptBitcoin

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6









Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here