Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 22, 2014 – Co-host: JT

Posted on February 27th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Notes:

  • Conveying the significance of the bureaucrat’s lack of evidence their codes and constitutions apply to the general public.
  • William Strait’s Evidence the Laws Apply? None, Just More Opinions.
  • Unexpected CoS: Marc gets a call from a FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) fundraiser.
  • The prison-industrial cornucopia that is known as the Drug War is heavily populated with non-violent legal-opinion offenders, who are never helped off their dependency by endless incarceration.
  • Judge Stacey uses brute intimidation techniques to warn John, and all others in the court, to not challenge their baseless assertions.
  • What a hearing actually is, and why most people who question the rational of the game become less likely to receive an actual hearing.
  • Response to the critics who say that we are just getting the “bad ones” or we are “selectively publishing the dumb ones.”
  • Connecting with the courtroom audience to clearly demonstrate to them that there is also no evidence in their so-called case for the same reason(s) as yours. ;)

Caller’s Topics:

  • John from MN: update on his recent kangaroo court proceeding <> the judge claims the court has jurisdiction because he “said so” <> the judge tries to conflate serious questions of evidence as “internet games” and asks JT if he is Marc Stevens <> the judge/[former prosecutor] openly relieves the prosecutor of their burden to prove jurisdiction <> the judge digs his heels in and denies a motion to change/remove which is usually granted upon first request citing that the court norms “do not apply” to him <> the judge resorts to straw-man fallacies to divert from answering tough questions of evidence <> the judge accuses the media-reps of putting the defendant in jail when the judge was the one who ordered the jail-time <> the judge denies motions without reading through the entire document <> exposing the gun in the room by stating that the only reason the defendant is present is because of the threat of force <> the judge threatens the defendant’s mother with jail-time for speaking out against his bullying <> the prosecutor tells the defendant that he can’t make up whatever rules he wants to enforce, while attorneys make up whatever rules/[constitutions] they like and arbitrarily and violently enforce it upon us (double-standard much?) <> keeping the public defenders at bay <> the judge railroads through a pre-trial that day when it was scheduled for a later date <> the judge arrogantly tries to end the proceeding early by rushing the defendant out of court <> judges seemingly don’t understand that the constitution does apply to them as consequence of their oath of office <> and filing paperwork after a railroading in court.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for your patience waiting for the full podcast. Considering the nature of the technical difficulties, it took much longer than anticipated to produce an archive quality version of the show. Finally, its compiled and ready for your educational purposes. Enjoy.

              

38 Comments For This Post

  1. NonE Says:

    Hmm. “Calvin” has been replaced by “EDITOR.” This doesn’t portend well! I tried to listen live and found mostly dead air and static. Good luck Calvin… err, EDITOR! ;)

    - NonTuesdayWelder

  2. FTJ Says:

    I asked for evidence of jurisdiction in Alachua County, FL and Judge David Kreider (Dave) sarcastically asked me if I were a “Sovereign Citizen”. After slightly raising my voice so that the people in the back could hear me say “that’s a contradictory term” I looked that **** right in the eye and said “if you mean to insult me, might I remind you that you’re supposed to be ‘acting’ honorably”. I’ve never seen someone lose a smile so quickly. If anybody has a moment to look him up he looks like the generic swine that they put in a black robe.

  3. AL Says:

    I was preparing to call in to the Sat. Show on 2/22 but the audio feed had too much interference so I had to abandon the attempt.
    I really wanted to speak with Marc as I am contesting a pending traffic ticket. I would be great if the tech problems were resolved by 2/29.

  4. indio007 Says:

    A great interview. I have to give the magistrate credit for intellectual honesty. A -1 for not applying it to his moral actions.

  5. Ben Says:

    Can’t wait to see that video with the judge! Looking forward to seeing that deer in headlights look when you ask him “THE” question. :-D and tear that city council up on Tues.!

  6. eric Says:

    Marc how does one write u I have a lot of evidence that the law actually applies to them not us; but through contract a misuse of the contract clause of the constitution they get to apply it to us.They are the ones that have sworn to uphold the constitution not us. Like he said its a presumption of law,that no one rebuts;a rebuttable presumption under UCC 1-303

  7. Ben Says:

    Can’t wait to see that video with the judge! I’m gonna love that deer in headlights look when you ask him “THE” question! :-D and tear that city council up on Tues.! Can’t wait to see that one too!

  8. Thomas Paine Says:

    Interesting conversation with the “judge”. So we should ask these people why we cannot gather together 100 of our friends, make up a document full of statutes, and start enforcing them. If their statutes apply just because they say so and are willing to lock people up, then why can’t anyone do this? They never have any evidence or justification to prove they have a monopoly on the use of force for their edicts.

  9. mitch moffett Says:

    its called transfeinc=take what you are gilty of and acuse your opponent of it.to get the heet off of you.

  10. snap Says:

    Marc:
    Regarding the Buttrick interview. I think that he really doesn’t get your point. It’s not that he gets it and disagrees. For myself, it took a while for your points to sink in. It would be much worse for someone who’s entire career is based on the applicability and relevance of the “law.”

  11. Andrew Says:

    interesting conversation with judge john. he’s not going to give the game away marc. What he says is pretty much inline with most magistrates and judges, however they will not tell you what’s really happening for the plaintiff to gain jurisdiction. He was obfuscating – hiding behind legalese.

    maxim of law: the contract is the law.

    JJ is correct in his interpretation, it’s a matter of law, or in other words the execution of contracts. Agree to be a person ( corporation) then you’re agreeing to the contract (law). Consent is given for the benefits (and liabilities).

  12. mitch Says:

    so its a presumption of jurisdiction and your argument has no waite in court.if the state is a corps and has no more wrights than us then you are back to standing again.the hole thing is one gigantic loop.i just want to win in court.

  13. Andy Says:

    @Andrew, Can you name the four elements of a valid contract? Hint: one element is a meeting of the minds.

  14. Geeves Says:

    Go to: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss

    Good article! The judge told the truth – it is a given – because they are judges.

    Excerpt; Even worse, a living Constitution is, surely, a manipulable Constitution. If the Constitution is not constant-if it changes from time to time-then someone is changing it, and doing so according to his or her own ideas about what the Constitution should look like. The “someone,” it’s usually thought, is some group of judges. So a living Constitution becomes not the Constitution at all; in fact it is not even law any more. It is just some gauzy ideas that appeal to the judges who happen to be in power at a particular time and that they impose on the rest of us.

    what is your critical thought of the argument!

  15. indio007 Says:

    I have one more comment now that I’ve listened to the entire clip.

    The judge in Minnesota are acting this way for a simple reason. He knows he can get away with it. He is gambling that John is ignorant of his remedy. It seems to me has is right.

    Without jurisdiction there is no judicial immunity.
    He had no evidence to support assumption of jurisdiction.

    Now I say,
    So What?

    It’s no different than if the judge charged John with the crimes of “Coloring with a blue crayon.”
    He doesn’t think they John is capable of enforcing the law.

    You have to be able to stop the impostor judge in another venue (Writ of Prohibition) and follow it up with a tort claim against him personally.

  16. eric Says:

    Thomas is right a document can be written to create a rebuttable presumption that they must answer or loose by default it is a process but can be done by the diligent and it can be entered as evidence to support your position you want to see a judge become deranged just do a process on his DA

  17. eric Says:

    The next time one of the DA morons ask are u a member of the bar state don`t you know the Supreme Court determination in ; Brotherhood of Trainmen v Virginia ex rel. State Bar 377 U.S. Gideon v Wainwright 372 U.S.335,Argersinger v Hamlin,Sheriff 407 U.S.pg 407″Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.”

  18. mitch Says:

    I agry lol.it has bean sed,thair are only haves and have nots.if you have you cair not about the rest lol

  19. mitch Says:

    you cat have a meeting of the minds when their is a gun involved.so how do you win a rigged game that someone is forcing you to play with your owne money,with a gun to your head.you bite the bullet and kick the game borde over lol.

  20. mitch Says:

    marc is right.thair is no resining with them.thay cant gain any thing from it.so thay will stick to their fiction even if it kills them.bewhere the man with every thing to loos,for he is truly dangers lol.

  21. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ indio, we’re already getting ready with a petition for writ of prohibition.

  22. eric Says:

    I am so tiered of people claiming that these criminals have Judicial Immunity against suite.If they would study Owens v. City of Independence 445 U.S.1980 and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 1980 and title 18 Sec 241 242 people would understand that that even under statute they must protect you from damage from their violation of the Constitution or face a fine of $10,000 and/ or up to 10 years in the same prison they send YOU

  23. NonE Says:

    YO! Calvin! err… oops… EDITOR! Izzit Tuesday yet? ;) Oh, wait, there’s another one coming up in six more days. Nevermind! – Emily (tee hee, tee hee, tee hee :)

  24. paul Says:

    One of the things that I find quite amusing and chilling at the same time regarding the interview with the judge is the question about location and jurisdiction. The fact of the matter is there are now numerous federal statutes that are now global, that is that the jurisdiction has been expanded (obviously unconstitutionally) so that an american citizen can be anywhere in the world and still be tried for a federal crime. It just goes to show how arbitrary it has become, since they violate their own rules.

  25. Calvin Says:

    @NonE: yeeah yeeah yeeah, I finally got your podcast posted. I’m sure it was rough getting through Survivor without the soft landing of the commercial-fr33, meta-content fortified, archive quality No STATE Project podcast; but an icepack a day late is still a gesture of goodwill. ;)

    Happy listening to all. I did my best to cancel the background noise without loosing too much hair off the top of the speakers.

  26. NonE Says:

    Calvin, er… EDITOR! You’ll love this. I had a chance to visit with a fellow compatriot last night and TOTALLY FORGOT (!!!!!!!!) about Survivor until this morning. GACK! But now to mollify my utter despair over this world affecting event, I have a NEW NSP show to listen to. Thanks so much. :) Looking forward to the meta-content fortification. Maybe it will make up for the Survivor debacle. No. That’s silly. But I’ll enjoy and appreciate it anywhoo. Many Grasses, Mahn! – NonSurviving

  27. NonE Says:

    Having more time to contemplate this issue, I’m now wondering … You know how they do those questions on the IQ tests? For instance Black is to Night as White is to …? You know those kinds of questions? Well, I’m picturing these guys in black dresses and I’m seeing this question: John Butterick is to Judge as Calvin is to …? And then the next thing that I’m wondering is if this Editor fellow might be thinking he has the ability to make goons put me in a cage. And then, of course, beads of sweat start to form on my forehead! Are we on the record here? Are there any tears in my anonymity cloak??? – the N person

  28. Martin Padilla Says:

    What’s a “Writ of Prohibition?”

  29. indio007 Says:

    @Martin
    A writ of prohibition lies only to an inferior court and only for a usurpation or unlawful exercise of jurisdiction. It has been held to lie to tribunals and persons that were not strictly speaking courts. The definition given In Thomson v Treacy 60 NY 31 is more nearly conformable to actual practice in the use of this proceeding. It is writ of prohibition is to prevent the exercise by a tribunal possessing judicial powers of jurisdiction over matters not within its cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance, and yet even this definition does not comprehend all the cases In which the writ has been allowed.

  30. Andy Says:

    Writ of Prohibition: “An order from a superior court to a lower court or tribunal directing the judge and the parties to cease the litigation because the lower court does not have proper jurisdiction to hear or determine the matters before it. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely used.” ~ http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/writ+of+prohibition

    Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_prohibition

  31. indio007 Says:

    Wikipedia and freedictionary.com?
    Goodness gracious …

    I hope you don’t cite them in a filing. :P

    The definition I gave is from Statutory and Judicial Words and Phrases – Wests Law Publishing.
    Here’s an index of the volumes on google books
    http://goo.gl/kQ6fr8

    The definition for Writ of Prohibition has over 20 definitions describing all sorts of nuances of the procedure.
    http://goo.gl/PF8dAv
    here’s an example
    As mandamus
    The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandamus It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal corporation board or person when such proceedings without or in excess of the Jurisdiction such tribunal corporation board or person. Rev Codes ND 1899 6123 Code Civ Proc SD 1903 777 Rev St Utah 1898 3G54 Code Civ Proc Cal 1903 g 1102

    As collateral proceeding
    The remedy by a writ of prohibition not a part or continuation of the proceeding by removing it from one court another for the purpose of adjudication the latter but It is wholly collateral to proceeding and is intended to arrest it prevent its being further prosecuted In court having no Jurisdiction of the subject.

    TPTB do not want people using any sort of Writ which is why you get neutered definitions and wikipedia entries. They want to abolish them and have equity rule all. Where they can’t abolish them , they insert petition for Writ, which is an equity action.

    The Writ the really don’t like is a Writ of Right.

  32. Andy Says:

    “Goodness gracious …”
    PFFT!!

  33. Andy Says:

    Marc and Calvin have posted links to legal explanations on Wikipedia. Do you do your “Goodness gracious …” to them too? Sorry, I just took a pee so I can’t engage you in a pi$$ing contest.

  34. indio007 Says:

    I didn’t mean to come across like that. I thought “goodness gracious” was passive enough to not offend anyone.

    The fact is though legal definitions are what the court uses. They use their own terms of art.

    The courts INTERPRET the law at the appellate levels. The lower courts are bound to those definitions.

    The problem I have is people might read that definition and think that it doesn’t encompass the action they want to take and end up doing something else that fails.

    The courts lie by omission.

    Wikipedia has seriously problems and is little more than a propaganda tool especially when it comes to legal issues.

    Their lying by omission is second to none.
    The standard for publication on wikipedia is not whether it is true. the standard is whether it was published somewhere else first.

  35. eye2i Says:

    @ind007: “The standard for publication on wikipedia is not whether it is true. the standard is whether it was published somewhere else first.”

    I’m not sure that’s true…?! ヅ
    Isn’t it more accurate to say, that to have something posted in Wikipedia articles and not have it flagged, as a caution/as questionable, the entry is required to have a reference source linked? From there, the value of ‘published’ sources remains subjective, agreed.
    And how that standard differs from say, West (and Black’s), where they “link” source: as Case Cites –isn’t their standard equally what’s published, too?

  36. Andy Says:

    @indio007, Could you please answer my question from my last post?

  37. indio007 Says:

    @Andy I haven’t seen any of what your referring to. I’ll take you word for it. I’m sure I would if someone asks specifically for the definition of a legal action and the definition comes for wikipedia or free dictionary.
    But that is speculation.

    @eye2!
    I guess your right to a point. There are significant distinctions however.
    Wikipedia has serious problems.

    Your welcome to read the comments section.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia

  38. Andy Says:

    @indio007, there’s a link in nearly every week’s NSP show notes. I click on them. Apparently you don’t.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Confronting Scottsdale City Council - Where's the Evidence Your Laws Apply? | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] mentioned on the No State Project last week, I confronted the Scottsdale city council 25 February 2014 and asked for evidence.  They declined […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturdays, 4-7pm EST: NSP radio LIVE. Tune-in as we discuss the general topics of tickets, tyrants, assessments, and bringing about a voluntary society.

Saturday, August 2nd, Marc will not be live, but we will have all new content that will be broadcast. If you are in the Northern Arizona area, join Marc, Larken Rose, 4409, Ernest Hancock, and others at the Jackalope Freedom Festival.



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