Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Aug 2, 2014 – Guests: Keith & Bradley from England and Armando from Texas

Posted on August 3rd, 2014 by Calvin

Debut Call-of-Shame with New Hampshire Senior Deputy Attorney General Nicholas P. Cort:

  • Analysis of an all new Call-of-Shame with a NH Senior Deputy Attorney General.
  • When bureaucrats do not want to answer a tough question, they often employ diversion tactics by simply dismissing it as “meaningless” and/or conflating a question of fact as “legal advice.”
  • How to effectively cross-examine by use of good, methodical questioning.
  • Asking a question of evidence is not “asking forΒ legal advice.”
  • Countering the “you can always leave if you don’t like it” line you’ll often hear when exposing the STATE’s concealed firearm underneath all their paperwork.
  • If bureaucrats actually had legitimate answers to the questions they’re asked, they would not be hanging the phone up without providing the such “obvious” evidence they have to prove their assertions.
  • Exposing the disgusting double-standards of the STATE and their “foundational lies of violence.”
  • Asking un-spinnable questions of evidence to prove jurisdiction to the prosecutor mounting Rich Paul’s legal-attack.

Guests Keith from Australia, who’s teamed up with Bradley from England, as they tread through and report on multiple STATE-sponsored legal-attacks:

  • More success stories from Bradley: three recent parking citations withdrawn from London courts “using Marc’s material,” including documentary proof, with another 50+ cases in the folder of other dismissals from various courts over the years!
  • New precedent set by Bradley being allowed to fully represent Keith as a McKenzie friend in a family court.
  • Setting an expedited hearing for the court to consider an unless order.
  • Justice is better served in the higher courts, not so much in the lower courts.
  • Getting judges to act in a fair and impartial manner within the context of their own rules.
  • Evidentiary conversation with a judge in an informal setting. <-insert Keith’s audio at 1h 14m 10s
  • What would potentially qualify as evidence that the law applies?
  • Tangent into the exploration of international beer drinking and comedic bombs.
  • The court staff mistake legally-articulate Bradley for an actual attorney.
  • Billy’s highly anticipated upcoming hearing.
  • Keith’s ex’s lawyer is coming hard with the charges.
  • Making baby-steps in an abusive, overly-complex, and destructive family court system.
  • Stay-tuned to the YouTube channel for HD video reports from the Jackalope Freedom Festival.

AiLL update from Armando of RGVNoSTATE.com from McAllen, Texas:

  • Brief recap of all the past proceedings dating back to 2010.
  • The troublesome parts of challenging summary judgements.
  • Armando’s past string of successes in court.
  • The Micheal J. Scott Law Firm saga: either way you cut it, or however many attorneys you have sign off on the complaint; there is no contract.
  • The judge finally dismissed the complaint filed by the Micheal J. Scott Law Firm after they failed to send a lawyer to court to defend their complaint.
  • A traffic court judge claims he can just ignore admissions.
  • Attorney intimidation tactics.
  • The better value in hiring Marc Stevens to help respond to a complaint/legal-attack versus hiring an attorney.
  • Where is the benefit in hiring an attorney?
  • Asking for the evidence that the prosecutor’s arguments are based on is a proven effective strategy.
  • Demonstrating and proving how there is an unequal and unfair burden-of-proof standard held by the judge.
  • The new domestic terrorism will be defined as those extremists whom believe voluntary trade is superior to coercion.
  • Money manipulation explained.
  • The Dallas Federal Reserve sent a publication saying it “may sound strange, but the Federal Reserve creates money when they lend it.”
  • The inherently compromised ethics with violently imposed monopolies.
  • The false notion that some choice is actual freedom.
  • Cryptocurrencies operating in the open and free market are out-competing the many dogmatic, monarchic, monetary systems.
  • The beauty of refined logic.
              

16 Comments For This Post

  1. Rick Says:

    Hi Marc, on that call to Mr. Court; when you asked him for facts, he referred you to case law. Case law is not facts! I cannot believe that he didn’t know that. A fact is akin to evidence, not law.

  2. citta Says:

    Does Bradley have a group or web page/ talk show in the UK? (anyone help with a link)

  3. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Does the Long Island accent redefine the meaning of Call of Shame?

  4. citta Says:

    Marc has contacted me with the details i was looking for. Please ignore my previous post.

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ rabbit, that was good πŸ˜€

  6. indio007 Says:

    I have to disagree with the statement that the common law is the law of the realm.

    The common law is the customs of some particular community of people.

    It is really the principles of justice.

    It really isn’t what people think it is. The common law was enforced via the system of Writs.

    The dynamics of justice were very different.

    Just because a judicial proceeding “follows the course of the common law” doesn’t make the proceeding a common law action.

    In general, when it comes to freemen blathering on about using the common law, they are talking out their asses unless they are versed in Maitland on Writs and the Natura Brevium.

  7. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Indio,
    Common Law originated around the time of the Treaty of Winchester; the stalemate between Henry and Stephen. It is a political beast.

  8. indio007 Says:

    @Johnathan

    The English Common Law is not the only common law.

    The English Common Law can be traced to Charlemagne

  9. NonE Says:

    Marc, a thought, spurred by this show: You have based much of your process on effectively using “setup” questions. I think perhaps your current stance regarding “just show me the evidence” could use a setup question. Consider fashioning a setup question which will get them to commit to their legal system being based upon the accusation being supported by evidence… before you ask them for that evidence. At that point you’ve got them in a bind that will potentially be much harder for them to backpedal from or evade.

    – NonEvader

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ NonE, good point, I’ll add another question to cover that.

  11. Andy Says:

    @ Marc, NonE, Having listened to the COS/SOLWT, many of the criminals conflate opinions as/with facts/evidence. Is there a question that asks/requires the criminal to acknowledge the difference — differentiate the two–opinions vs facts/evidence?

  12. 11:11 Says:

    @ NonEvader:

    How about having it in your introductory questions? Something like this maybe?:

    Is this proceeding/hearing/trial being recorded?

    This means there will/will not be a oral/written/transcript record available?

    Am I entitled to a fair trial/hearing here today?

    Am I entitled to ask questions here today in order to better understand this proceeding?

    >>Does this court rely on facts in evidence or not in deciding what to do?<<

    Who do you represent here today?

    Objection: Conflict of interest and I object because you admitted that you represent the party attacking me to which I further object because that means I can not receive a fair trial.

    Objection: You just said so.

    lol and on and on.

    Anyway, is something like this what you meant NonE?

  13. 11:11 Says:

    Hey Marc. I replied before I saw yours.

  14. RAD Says:

    Either an assertion has evidence to support it or it doesn’t right? Or is there a third possibility where there is evidence and at the same time that there is evidence, there also is not evidence?

  15. NonE Says:

    RAD Sed:
    August 10th, 2014 at 11:53 am

    Either an assertion has evidence to support it or it doesn’t right?
    ———
    RAD, the point is to get them to state that they depend upon evidence. ->them to state<- logic is irrelevant, you need to have them on the record. If this isn't clear as to why, go read "Adventures" again! πŸ˜‰

  16. NonE Says:

    11:11 Sed:
    Hey Marc. I replied before I saw yours.
    ——
    DUDE! This is a family show! Whatever you saw… we DON’T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT!!! πŸ˜‰

    – NonEroticality

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Aug 9, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] | MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Bradley’s lengthy record of success. […]

  2. NSP - Aug 16, 2014 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] charges withdrawn! <> utilizing ‘bargaining tools,’ with the assistance of Bradley, when challenging the validity and obligations of shadowy loans <> trouble with getting the […]

  3. NSP - Apr 18, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Armando from TX: working with Jeff to achieve some effective damage control <> building autonomy by seeking permaculture solutions <>Β Back to Eden permaculture tour <> Sam’s new objective of teaching others self-defense against physical and legal attacks <> and Sam’s use of peaceful discretion with opinion/statute violators. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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