Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Mar 1, 2014 – Co-host: Genia

Posted on March 1st, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: Genia. Marc’s wife joins the show today to offer some of her firsthand experiences and critiques of Marc’s works and procedure.

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Imran from AZ: the lack of Muslim attendance at a recent 9-11Truth.org conference hosted at ASU <> general Muslim reluctance to associate with 9-11 topics of social discourse <> and the many native New Yorkers question the government’s official 9-11 theory with such unexplained phenomena like building 7 fueling suspicion.
  • Brian from VA: complements and appreciation for the work and highly refined damage-control templates <> and Max Igan‘s truth-seeking efforts.
  • Amber: how to respond to a seat-belt citation when the defendant was actually wearing the seat-belt.
  • Sandy from AZ: multiple instances of making non-violent offender defender appearances before the Scottsdale court.
  • Donald from Ontario, Canada: compliments on the efforts and results over the years <> psychopathic judges in Canada <> differentiating the real person from the legal fiction <>questioning oaths, allegiances, and obligations of court officers <> the skillful use of “requiring” a responsive answer to your inquiries <> and using the archive of free material on the website to educate oneself on how to make effective evidentiary objections and challenges to legal aggressors.
              

19 Comments For This Post

  1. citta Says:

    great show, you should ask Gena to be on more often, you make a great team

  2. KeithOB Says:

    Fantastic show Marc.You and Genia are very cute together and reflects of great your relationship is with one another.

  3. Mike Says:

    Max Egon talks a lot about ignoring the fictions…he would welcome you on his show…The Vinny Eastwood Show. He talks about making decisions at the community level without leaders. You’re kindred spirits and should get together for a talk

  4. NonE Says:

    CUTE picture of the love birds! Now off to listen. Thanks Calvin. – NonCute

  5. KeithOB Says:

    Fantastic show Marc.You and Genia are very cute together and reflects your great relationship for one another.

  6. John from Glenwood Springs CO Says:

    She is clearly your better half Marc, and she knows it.

  7. Incubus Says:

    I guess I’ll have to disagree with the concensus. I couldn’t make it more than ten minutes into the show before I stopped listening. I won’t be finishing it.

    Marc, your wife seems like a nice woman. But the whole cutesy smootsy husband-wife shtick was off-putting and got old quick.

    There’s a time and a place. On air is neither. Thanks but no thanks.

  8. Kevin McCann Says:

    Marc,
    You should have your wife on more often :}
    Here is something you might want to watch….I hear your words ringing true in this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyn8MWssWc#t=227

  9. Incubus Says:

    Mike,

    Marc was recently on The Vinny Eastwood Show. You can YouTube it or if you scroll to the top of this page you’ll see a tab that says Interviews. From there you’ll find the aforementioned interview, for August 7th, 2013.

  10. Donald Says:

    I was the last caller of the Mar 1, 2014 broadcast.

    Although I did not mention it during the show, when I received the papers from the BANK that I was being sued on a large Line of Credit, I immediately demanded PROOF OF CLAIM with Facts and Evidence and Witnesses with firsthand knowledge (your phraseology) from the BANK going through the steps (modeled after the system suggested by GetOutOfDebtFree.org) of a Notice of Conditional Agreement, a Notice of Tacit Agreement and finally a Notice of Lawful Binding Irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence, all served upon the BANK by registered letters with signature required. The failure of the BANK to provide PROOF OF CLAIM created the Estoppel by Acquiescence which the BANK accepted service of by registered delivery on January 16, 2014 requiring their signature. This was all accomplished before the deadline to deliver the Statement of Defense for the court case by January 20, 2014. The Estoppel clearly states that the BANK has agreed by acquiescence to drop all claims whatsoever against my property, including but not limited to the discharge of any lien against the property and the immediate dismissal of the legal proceeding. Just as a safeguard, I did write up and serve a Statement of Defense for the proceeding including copies of all the Notices and Proof of Signature pages. Since the Estoppel is actual EVIDENCE, there is no more controversy and thus no subject matter jurisdiction. And of course Marc, half of my Defence was based on having the Plaintiff (NOT the Judge) proving with Facts and Evidence and Witnesses with firsthand knowledge that the court itself has any jurisdiction whatsoever. A few weeks later I received the Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment from the BANK’s law firm.

    At the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice in Milton, Ontario, Canada, I signed in on the appearance sheet as Don: of the family “Name” on behalf of DONALD “NAME”.

    I then stepped out into the hallway and remained there until AFTER the court ritual of commanding everyone to “All rise” upon the judge entering the court room followed by the second command “Be seated”. In this way the judge CANNOT be under any presumption that I have given him authority over me or entered into any invisible, hidden, presumptive or adhesion contract by simply obeying commands given by the court. My Statement of Defense clearly stated that I as flesh and blood with a mind and soul would only be appearing as a Special Appearance, under threat, duress, protest, force of coercion and necessity, and that my mere presence in the court shall not be interpreted in any manner to agree to, or accept the jurisdiction of the court.

    When the case was called, the judge belligerently made several attempts to have me create joinder with the NAME which I would not accept. I said that for the record I was there as the Chief Executor for the legal PERSON known as DONALD NAME (modeled after so many people’s research such as but not limited to: Mary Elizabeth Croft (US/Canada), Jordan Maxwell (US), Rob Menard (Canada), Dean Clifford (Canada), Veronica Chapman (England), Winston Shrout (England), etc.) which the judge stubbornly refused to acknowledge. Amazingly, he then suggested that I have a chat with the lawyer for the Plaintiff in the hallway outside the courtroom which I found surprising and highly unusual for a judge to suggest in the first place. After all, why would I accept any kind of legal opinion or advice from the lawyer for the Plaintiff? While I was with the lawyer in the hallway the judge proceeded with another case. Meanwhile, in the hallway, the psychopathic lawyer for the Plaintiff made several belligerent attempts and demands to get me to answer to the NAME. I asked him if he had read all the documents I had sent to a senior partner of the law firm he is employed by, because it is all very clearly stated in the documentation exactly who I am and no one can conflate or fuse my soul embodied in a flesh and blood being with a fictional person without my consent. He said he had read it and that it was all gibberish to him. I said that may be his opinion but I was not there to follow his direction or advice. I said I was there on behalf of the legal entity. It is as simple as that. We went back into the court room and when the case that was being heard was finished, this case was called again.
    The judge said that under “the Rules” a PARTY can be represented by a lawyer or represent HIMSELF or HERSELF (more blatant attempts to create joinder). Technically he said he would need to know if I was either a lawyer or a “PERSON” that is named in the lawsuit. I asked the judge who the Plaintiff was (i.e. the BANK that is trying to take my house). The judge said the Plaintiff is a CORPORATION and it was represented by a lawyer. The judge said he was not going to worry too much about the technicalities and that he was going to assume that I am MR. NAME. He said that if I was not a PARTY named in the case that he would not hear me. I said I do not consent to create joinder between myself as flesh and blood, with the legal ENTITY of DONALD NAME. I made it clear, and on the record, that I was there to speak on behalf of the legal PERSON known as DONALD NAME and that I have every right to do that. The judge tells me I can sit down now (as if I am some kind of trained dog or slave of his. Of course most of us now realize he is trying to gain jurisdiction over me by getting me to obey his command). I said I would rather remain standing. The judge then told the lawyer for the Plaintiff to go ahead. I interrupted and stated that before we start, I would like to ask some questions. The judge said “You have an objection?” I said “Yes” and stated that I needed to ask a few questions before the case proceeds, so that I could determine what kind of court I was in. The judge kept quiet during the entire duration while I proceeded to ask the judge clearly, “Have you taken an Oath of Allegiance swearing that you will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada thus binding you to the Queen’s Coronation Oath to do right to all manner of PEOPLE after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will, so help you God?” The judge then immediately responded with “I don’t intend to answer the question.” I clearly and powerfully stated “I REQUIRE an answer, yes or no”. Astoundingly, instead of answering with a yes or no, the judge perversely proceeds to say that he was directing me to sit down (again as if I was his trained dog or slave). I said “No. I am REQUIRING a response, yes or no?” I stated that from everything I have found that he is required to take this Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. Again the judge acts perversely and belligerently said that I am either going to sit down or he will have me removed. He then says to me “Which do you want?” I asked the judge “Are you denying me my right to represent the Defendant?” He then asked the Registrar to call security. I said this case must be dismissed if he is denying me my rights. I again asked why he would not answer the question. I said to him that it is a very simple question and my understanding is that every judge has to take that Oath of Allegiance and asked him if that was correct? Instead of answering the question the judge said that he was asking security to come and remove me. I asked the judge “Under what grounds?” He said it was because I was disrupting the court. I stated that I was not disrupting anything and that I was just asking a question. I asked the judge “How is asking a question disrupting the court?” For the second time, the judge said something along the lines that he was either refusing or declining to answer the question. I again told him that I REQUIRED an answer. Instead, he stated that he was going to stand the court down for 15 minutes and have security remove me. I said I did not consent to this. The judge then left through a side door out of the court room. As he was leaving, I stated “He who leaves the battlefield loses by default. I, as the highest authority in the court declare this case dismissed.” The court recorder said she was no longer recording since the judge had left the court room. About eight policemen entered the court with about three or four immediately around me. One of the police asked, I believe it was the Registrar, if my case was done and she said “He’s done.” I then asked what happens now to this case. The lawyer for the Plaintiff said he was going to proceed. I said that I don’t allow that or consent to it. He said that he doesn’t answer to me. I then said that both he and the judge were not masters of me nor will I submit to being a slave to them.

    I then had to deal with the police officers around me. A couple of them immediately demanded that I give them my NAME and DATE OF BIRTH. I politely but steadfastly refused under the grounds that I was being peaceful and not causing any harm to anyone. I then repeatedly asked them if they were standing under their Oaths as Peace Officers which seemed to take them by surprise. One policeman who appeared to be senior to the others and in a regular uniform (as opposed to the others with body armor etc.) commendably diffused the situation by politely ASKING me to leave the court room which I willingly agreed to. After a few minutes of talking with them, I explained that I felt that I really needed to be back in the court room when the 15 minute temporary adjournment was over. They made it very clear that there was absolutely NO WAY that they would allow me to return to the court room that day and that I must leave the building. I explained that if I was not there they will probably call the case again and if I am not able to be there, that the judge will pronounce a default judgment for the Plaintiff. One of the young police officers said he didn’t think they could do that since I was obviously being prevented from being able to appear. I said that may be your opinion, but are you able to prove that for me? He said No, but in any case I would have to leave the building for the day.

    I was informed by someone who came out of the building later that the case was immediately called when the court resumed and the judge pronounced default judgment for the Plaintiff SINCE NOBODY WAS APPEARING FOR THE DEFENDANT! And apparently the judge agreed with the lawyer for the Plaintiff that my Statement of Defence was just a bunch of gibberish!

    PSYCHOPATHS forcing compliance AT THE POINT OF A GUN!!!

    I have ordered the court transcripts.

    Marc, I truly appreciate your kind offer to help me with a motion to vacate or set aside the default judgment. If you send me your phone number I will call you with further information if you like.

    Unfortunately, my old computer monitor (circa 2006) died shortly after the broadcast Saturday. When I finally got that fixed, my older computer (circa 2004) would NOT boot up. Just got that fixed last night with a newer power supply. And then it took a while to put this together for you.

  11. Sad Says:

    So sorry, here for serious content. If you want a ‘cutsie’ show, head to Hollywood……didn’t make it 5 minutes in. To bad…usually the content is serious, information packed, and valuable! The bantering is for your other time, not here……

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Sad, sorry you are one of the few who didn’t like the show. We covered some serious material, just with a lighter tone.

  13. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Donald, such long posts are more appropriate for the forum. Contact me by email for the template at marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com and please, please break up the text or it won’t be read.

  14. Donald Says:

    Hey, I liked Genia. She has a sharp mind and a quick wit.
    I think she’s a keeper!

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Donald, thanks, I appreciate that, it was a really fun show to do.

  16. mitch Says:

    so just got out of court.brout up all the stuff.got smashed in to the ground.all the jury were ether x cops ro related to or hung out with cops lol.never had a chance.knew it from the start.going to file an appeal on Monday ro tusday,maby take a few days and not think about this.not giving up thou.fite the good fite.

  17. mitch Says:

    I think all of it is on tape thou.going to get a copy.i was nerves,got tung tide,did not do that grate a job.will do better next time,i hope lol.

  18. mitch Says:

    so in a jury trial with their recorder running,i asked the prosecutor what evidence he was relying on that the plantefs laws,statuts,regulations ro rules aply to me just becous I am hear.i asked the judge if he was a lawer,no.i asked him if this was a court of law ro eqwety,law.i asked what kind of law constitutional law and American juries prudes or other.i toled him that 16 am jurer sub sec 97 sed he hade to bend the law in my faver as fare as he could without braking it,ok.he dident even know what brady metereals were.i asked the cop on the stand if he was a lawer,no.all cindes of stuff,cant remember it all.ill get the tapes and lissen to them.it should be good at the apeels hering.how do I file an apeel?

  19. menardo Says:

    Mark,

    I listened to a bit of your interview with the US Magistrate and read some of the comments…..

    Didn’t the Magistrate early on ask you if you meant “within the territory of the United States”, or something of that nature? (He was so smooth.)

    If so, might he have been speaking of the “Federal Zone”

    This may be of interest: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/fedzone11.pdf

    Seems like, that in the “Federal Zone” their laws apply, but the Federal Zone only consists of Washington DC, US Territories, and land ceded to the Federal Government by the States.

    Don’t know if it will hold, but might be worth a look.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, September 27th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be back broadcasting LIVE from deep within the 'fortified compound' for another original No STATE Project radio show. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can 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 skype 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.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here