Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jan 18, 2014

Posted on January 18th, 2014 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Robert from CA: paid a federal-park ticket that was given the legal designation of “forfeiture of collateral” <~> and aggressive park cops attempted to steal bike via forfeiture-law enforcement.
  • Helen, Fabrice and Peter from England: local workshop for challenging victimless crime today in England <~> Peter’s speeding crime spree, the STATE-dept two-step when seeking disclosure <~> court officers mocking and intimidating inquisitive defendants <~> Judge says “if you object to anything, I’ll throw you out of the court” <~> and tracking the multiple abuses of process,
  • Kevin from CA: reviewing a recent photo-citation AiLL <~> the law requires proof of jurisdiction <~> the prosecution moving forward without providing required evidence <~> and claiming sovereign jurisdiction on Native-American land.
  • Eyal from Israel: motorcycle citation kicked from traffic court by asking for evidence to prove jurisdiction <~> audience’s shocking reaction to questioning courtroom dogma <~> judge appreciates being challenged <~> selective judicial notice <~> rumor of acquittal <~> and getting cases heard in the supreme court.
  • Steven from CA: filing motion to disqualify and complaint paperwork with the court clerk.
  • Jay from VA: just received his copy of Government: Indicted <~> Jay’s thoughts on Marc’s call to criminals of the Washington DOR <~> and how to respond when someone claims “you are within the STATE.”
  • James from AK: overcoming the prosecutor’s motion to exclude all mention of applicability of the code.


10 Comments For This Post

  1. Le Comte de Monte-Cristo Says:


    I’ve only just recently learned about you and what you do, via a family member who is using your techniques to fight a foreclosure. He informed me about Nathan Fraser, who referenced you, and thus, here I am.

    I am very intrigued and impressed with your strategies, but I have a few general questions that I’m sure everyone could benefit from. Namely:

    1) Your methods seem to primary strategies; challenge jurisdiction, question corpus delicti, and attempt to disqualify the judge for for conflict of interest. Are there any additional strategies to use in the even that these fail?

    2) Currently there seems to be a strong emphases on using your strategy for traffic violation. Has any of this strategy been tested against more serious crimes? For example, Attempted Murder or Terroristic Threatening? And if so, what would you estimate the success rate as?

    3) Could you methods still be employed Post-arraignment & Plea?

    4) Can motions be filed while the accused is a fugitive?

    I’m thankful for your response in advance, and looking forward to reading your books.

    Le Comte de Monte-Cristo 🙂

  2. BryanD Says:

    Le Comte de Monte-Cristo,

    Buy Mr Stevens’ books. There are many examples of all kinds of defenses for all kinds of charges. Murder and other crimes where harm has been done are considered to be real crimes though. Victimless crimes are not really crimes but the out-of-control govt goes after people for them anyways. It is impossible for a govt bureaucrat to show/prove jurisdiction with victimless crimes. That’s my take…..

  3. JP Says:

    E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book?

  4. NonE Says:

    JP Sed:E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book? E_book?
    It only took about 6 or 20 years to get the paper version, so REAL SOON NOW! 😉

    – NonE

  5. A Says:

    Technically, one could still challenge the jurisdiction and right to prosecute a murder case. The only valid proceeding in a murder case is victims demanding compensation for the loss, the alleged aggressor disputes that, and now a court is needed to resolve the dispute. The problem is that prosecutors and judges are less willing to just let it go for murder, whereas a traffic ticket, its more hassle to deal with us than its worth.

  6. Hugh Mann Says:

    Thanks Marc for all that you do! Watching your videos has really opened my eyes to how corrupt our legal system really is. The game is rigged in favor of the state. It’s not just about jurisdiction. How can one expect to get a fair an impartial trial when all the players are paid by the state? Isn’t that a major conflict of interest? I mean the state pays the cops, prosecutor, judge, jury and public defender? Even If I do hire my own lawyer, he/she is belongs to the same union as the judge (Bar Assoc).


  7. Robert Says:

    I found a good web page with jurisdiction cases

  8. Robert Says:

    Kevin from San Diego @ 1:03:00 into the show cites quotes from the following two cases:

    1) Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. – Joyce v United States 474 F. 2d 215

    2) The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” – Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 528

    Unfortunately for the second case if you look it up and try to find that quote it’s not in the case. That’s a problem that I had with a lot of the patriot type writing that I used to research. Please get you case quotes correct before you cite them. Thanks.

  9. NonE Says:

    Robert Sed:
    I found a good web page with jurisdiction cases

    Oh yeah, Irwin. He’s the guy who’s going to die in prison because he pointed out what the law sez. — Just sayin’. Just sayin’. Remember, ONLY ask questions, it’s dangerous to point out what “their” “laws” actually say, doncha know? (Ask Larken Rose about his experiences.)

    – NonE

  10. qwerty Says:

    I want to learn smt about the validity of law Marc (2009) speech. But I have a language problem. is there anybody who can help me?

2 Trackbacks For This Post


    […] NSP Radio Archive, NSP – Jan 18, 2014 […]

  2. NSP - Dec 12, 2015 - Says:

    […] Jay from VA/TX: threatening someone with extortion if they don’t comply with your demands is considered “not a threat,” but rather “just a policy” by a police officer during a traffic stop <> the concerning number of cases of cops shooting people in wheelchairs <> I.Q. standards of decision-making level bureaucrats <> prepping for an upcoming hearing <> and disqualifying a witness. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here