Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – May 3, 2014 – Co-host: Calvin

Posted on May 4th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: Calvin.

Show Notes:

  • The past week of “surviving the psychopath circus.”

  • Has any election brought about or preserved freedom?
  • Despite the well-documented evidence that proves STATES and CITIZENS do not exist, how can a science fanatic like Bill Nye so faithfully subscribe to and support the fiction of the STATE? [Perhaps his time within the military-industrial complex has had an effect on the selectively objective Bill Nye…]
  • Paul Gibbon’s standing $5,000 prize for anyone who can prove the existence of a “STATE” or “CITIZEN” with empirical evidence.
  • A fair and impartial hearing requires proper notice and opportunity to be heard on all fundamental and relevant issues; especially issues that are a lack of essential evidence.
  • Filing to have a municipal hearing reheard on account of the fallacious and absurd standard of evidence from the lower court’s previous ruling.
  • The significance of proving the law applies before enforcement and interpretation of said “law.”
  • Exposing the arbitrary nature of constitution and codes in the courtroom through effective questioning.
  • Challenging irrefutable opinions and presumptions which are considered “violations of due process.”
  • The significance of documenting due process violations and how to work such violations to exercise effective damage control.
  • Setting up your dialogue to make it conductive for the judge to do the right thing by judging the evidence [of jurisdiction] by an empirical standard of proof.
  • A big thanks to all the affiliates carrying the No STATE Project LIVE broadcast and weekly replays!
  • When litigating with debt-sharks, its helpful to get clarification on 1) are they soliciting you to give an opinion on the collector’s legal rights? [which is a crime under their law], and 2) did the creditor create the credit with the lender’s signature?
  • For financial disputes, the courtroom should be a last resort for dispute resolution as suggested in the Clean Hands Doctrine.
  • Did the judge address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss directly?
  • Non-compliance with fraud once its discovered.
  • A “payment history” is not evidence that the contract is, in fact, valid.
  • There is no standing because the plaintiff lacks a valid contract dispute because the essential contractual element known as the “meeting of the mindsis largely assumed.
  • Deciphering conclusory statements and complaints made by aggressive plaintiffs.
  • The complaint cannot just be a recitation of the elements of a cause for action, you actually have to have some facts.” ~ Ashcroft v. Iqbal
  • Paper-for-paper: 2 five dollar-bills for a ten dollar-bill is not a loan!
  • Getting disclosure on the facts of the nature of these so-called “loans” and “debts.”
  • There shall not be any pending disputes of fact before a summery judgement is granted.
  • The dubious track records of IRS courts.
  • ACLU vs. NSA dismissed from court for lack of standing to complain.
  • When a note changes hands, the original documents must be produced for discovery.
  • Determining the judge’s predictable bias by examining their willingness to accept the prosecution’s logical fallacies and other infamous nonsense.
  • Why, when you stand in court, with a guilty plea in hand, would they refuse to accept your plea of guilt if they do in fact have all the evidence they are supposed to have anyway?
  • Critics who claim that “Marc’s theory sounds good but would not work in court in their STATE” often ignore any and all of the instances there’s been a past success story in those very STATES.
  • Steps you can take to lessen the hostility between you and the statist bullies.
  • Rory Gallagher LIVE at the Marquee, 1972.
  • Preparing for court by bouncing around ideas and role-playing in the NSP skyper chat.
  • When successfully helping clients with tax issues, what are the statistics that the government will or will-not remount another legal-attack down the road?
  • Responding to a website commenter/critic that requests we prove “our assertions.”

Caller’s Topics:

  • Richard from TX: challenging the evidence of jurisdiction of a traffic citation on an appeal hearing <> the reverse-nature of Austin municipal courts that instead of presuming innocence like they say they are supposed to, they turn common-practice one-hundred and eighty degrees and unfairly put a burden to prove innocence on the defendant <> court attorneys claim “jurisdiction is just there” and that its “not an evidentiary issue” <> and the complete jettison of the sacred presumption of innocence legal-principal in [too] many municipal city courtrooms.
  • Mike and Steve from Legal Land: challenging the actual debt in a complaint/legal-attack mounted by a third-party debt collector <> after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed, two amended complaints were subsequently filed to amplify the plaintiff’s legal-attack <> no response from the judge on the part of the motion to dismiss that details ‘there is no evidence presented to prove the laws apply’ <> what assets did Chase put up for their supposed “loan?” <> and formulating a strategy to challenge the factual basis of which the loan was created.
  • Diane from NC: update on a recent local cattle-call court-docket of rampant traffic extortion <> how and why does the court submit a plea on your behalf I.A.W. fairness and impartiality? <> how to effectively and assertively object to a railroading <> additional fees to get a document from the court verifying your court date <> the cop wrote “VERY UNCOOPERATIVE” only on the court’s copy of the ticket <> the lack of critical thought and the abundance of stonewalling from the office of the court clerk <> sequencing priority of questions to ask when in court <> and the cop orders his victim to stay inside the car for HIS safety, despite him using the threat of deadly force to file an extortion bill for violating some bureaucrat’s legal opinion.

22 Comments For This Post

  1. citta Says:

    date shows March 3 instead of May.

  2. izzi Says:

    Hi Mark

    In the recording at 1:12. Can you please quote the supreme court case of “Ascroth” in regards to valid cause action? Do please Pardon the misspelling of this name as I could not make out the proper pronunciation.

    Thanking you in advance.

  3. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ izzi, sure it’s Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

  4. SovereignDirt Says:

    I wonder how Martin Luther King would feel about his likeness being used in combination with a swastika logo on his lapel…

  5. Anti Says:

    Only listened to the first 20 minutes and the mindset of ‘freeman’ was a topic.

    I come across these freeman types quite often on youtube and in real life. One friend I got to quit alex jones and turned him onto Marc. After a few years he has now switched over to the freeman side. He still listens to the show but gets upset because Marc is sometimes quick to dismiss the ‘freeman’ types when they call in. He was especially upset when the trivium guy was on. The trivium guy made some ‘freeman’ type remarks and Marc was dismissive of them and said he’d come back to that. Then never brought it back up. That got him upset. I talked to him about how these topics always come up and Marc talks about them and that the trivium guy was so good and Marc probably didnt want to waste time talking that stuff. He didn’t care.

    Everytime we talk I’m trying to figure out what is so appealing of the ‘freeman’ and why he went to the other side. One thing is that he saw some videos on youtube. One where a guy reads some freeman stuff and the judge throws up his arms and leaves the court and one where some guy does a citizens arrest on the prosecutor in court. Those videos are what hooked him. It also sounded to me that my friend is highly resentful and wants revenge on authority or something like that. Like the justice system should be fair and legitimate and if it was fair then all these people in authority today would be brought up on charges and held accountable by the new fair and honest people.

    He likes their lingo. He likes all the talk about contracts and how everything is an implied contract and that stuff. I also pick up that he thinks if you can speak the right lingo/legalese with the police then they will leave you alone if you don’t ‘contract’ with them. The example he uses all the time when police say “operating motor vehicle” instead of “traveling.”

    He thinks everything is a contract. Even simple non-verbal actions like walking into a store he thinks is some contract. The ‘freeman’ people are working with a very different definition of the word ‘contract’ as to what Marc is using. Sitting down with a guy and having a meeting of the minds is only one type of contract to them. Making eye contact with a passing motorist at 60 mph would be considered a contract to some of them.

    They got their own lingo and their own definitions for words…. whaddayagunnado?

  6. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Anti, it’s tough to deal with the “everything is a contract” people. For some reason they think there is a contract when there is coercion. Have him call the show, we can dedicate an entire show to the freeman stuff again.

  7. Andy Says:

    @SovereignDirt, Are you serious!? It’s not a swastika and it’s not on his lapel.

  8. BO Says:

    @sovereign dirt, it’s a Basque Cross. Even if it were a swastika, do you know the origin of such a symbol? Research baby…research

  9. JP Says:

    Marc – Do you think that because people are so manipulated their whole life about the use of force and governments and religions being ok, that most of the general population now see coercion as a contract? And perhaps that is why the Freeman movement is seizing this phenomenon as a tool to manipulate things in their favor, still over looking the fact coercion is simply manipulating someone to do their bidding? Contract or no Contract, coercion is coercion as you have stated many times. Evidence is evidence when mutual sensory organs can validate it. I listen to you and Stefan Molyneaux alot and still get confused about things, but one thing remains always clear, force is force. I think based on experience that I have had, that at least 75% of the population is now slipping deep into some sort of sociopathy and everyone is pushing to be some kind of rock star with little focus on others. It is scaring me more each day and whittling away my resolve with each experience. I am fading into darkness with each breath . . .

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ JP, sociopathy explains the force=contract only in that they are lying, which of course is to manipulate. I don’t know if having institutionalized violence explains why some people think everything is a contract. Maybe it’s just ignorance or refusal to just look at the facts. All governments are people, people forcing others to pay them. It’s that simple.

  11. Calvin Says:

    I know it drives NonE crazy when I update the full podcast version of the No STATE Project after Survivor, but better late than never. 😛

    Great show full of excellent tips on keeping bureaucrats on point to what the issues and challenges are! Hope to hear some good news from this batch of adventures in legal-land, good luck and happy prepping!

  12. Bangalore Says:

    Q: Can a jurisdictional challenge of applicability work if your case is on appeal?

    Q: Does applicability apply if their is a “corpus delicti” / victim? E.g. in a 4th degree “assault”.

  13. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    I believe that ‘degrees’ of murder, assault etc are codified in statute, so yes, applicability would be pertinent in such cases. However, if there’s evidence of corpus delicti, you’ve not been a very good voluntaryist, eh?

    …or you’re being framed.

    Besides, they could get you under common law murder, assault etc. Harder to question jurisdiction.

    The other element of criminal causation also requires proof.

    I do wonder if you could question whether the victim was owed a duty of protection from the state though, which would be turning the ‘no duty to protect’ thing on its head.

    But Jeez, if you’re looking down the barrel of those sort of charges, you might need Gerry Spence, not Marc Stevens

  14. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Follow up: I’ve heard Marc often say that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. Not sure whether anything specific would be necessary to preserve the issue through to appeal though.

    Just my two cents worth. You get what you pay for.

  15. NonE Says:

    Calvin Sed:
    I know it drives NonE crazy when I …
    ——– Don’t worry, Cal, it’s just a short commute.

  16. Bangalore Says:

    @Jonathon Rabbitt. Thanks! FYI, Out here in the NW sticks/woods, this case involve s a legally blind young “Cat lady” who stood in the forest path of a lumberjack twice her size, with his 3′ long, idling chainsaw. He shoved her off the trail to get at the trees on the nearby greenbelt he was about to clear cut. Cops were called, she is hauled off to jail. A “Judge” ruled that chainsaw man was “assaulted” by the legally blind young lady, in the 4th degree. She is appealing but doesn’t readily believe in challenging jurisdiction, post conviction. I suggested it is at least worth a try, once challenged the prosecutor has to put something on the record regarding applicability of the code, rather than an unstated presumption, right?

  17. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Bangalore, what is the state? The definition of fourth degree assault seem to be inconsistent. Definitely statutory. All seem to have the element of mens rea, directly or indirectly.

  18. Andy Says:

    Us innocents attacked by “government” psychopaths are collateral damage. The victims are the collateral that pays for the damages government inflicts on people and society. Are we collateral damage in their quest for total global control?

    Why else do you think “judges” are steadfast in not saying the “defendant’s” MTD is accepted for this reason(s)? They don’t want to jeopardize their **_appearance_** of being fair and in legitimate/valid control; legitimate control meaning, absence of coercion and violence. It’s similar to when there’s a trial with a person using Marc’s methods, they designate a time for the trial when it’s most likely to have an empty gallery.

    “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”~ Steven Biko

    “It’s impossible to defeat an enemy who has an outpost in your head.” ~ Sally Kempton

    “Government” is loosing, at an increasing rate, the hearts and MINDS of people. Watch how they react.

  19. Boxer Says:

    Why the long face, Bill?

  20. NonE Says:

    Calvin, I’m just now listening to the show and around the end of the first hour (in the 47th minute) you said something about which I must take you to task. You denigrated the concept of concept. I think you may want to reassess your thinking on this point. For instance, “innocence” is simply a concept, as is “freedom” and “respect.” In reality, the entire purpose of this show and what we strive for here is clarity on important concepts, and respect for same. 😉 – NonE (the godless wonder filled with bitterness)

  21. NonE Says:

    WATCH MARC’S HEAD EXPLODE! On NATIONAL, no, INTERnational Radio. And then, when he just can’t take it anymore… then he blames it on ME!!! (@ about 36:40) “Too much stupidity, too much depravity, it’s just NonEstop!” That’s a low blow Marc. Of course I realize it’s probably TRUE, but still. Moderation, my man, moderation. 😉 – NonStop

  22. Daniel Says:

    Hi, Mr Stevens, I am contacting you hoping for your expert advice and any information or help you may be able to assist me with would be greatly appreciated.

    I am filing a Petition for Writ of habeas corpus. It is a post conviction writ. And I have the proper format of writ, my questions to you are if you could give me some pointers on how to present the petition, on the grounds of Lack of jurisdiction to impose any statutes that as you know and what I have learned from your brilliant work that they CANNOT PROVIDE 🙂

    IF you would please contact me @


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