Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Oct 4, 2014 – Co-host: JT

Posted on October 5th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Notes:

  • Mary, who was assaulted by her local legal-opinion enforcers, has recently had her felony conviction reversed and it is now ordered back to the court for a trial de novo.
  • Cop who shot and killed a homeless man camping in New Mexico jokes about shooting his victim’s penis 2 hours before killing him.
  • “There is no hunting like the hunting of a man” quote on the back of a U.S. Marshall business card.
  • Psychopaths who seek sanction for their anti-social behavior seek out jobs in government where they are not subject of any real form of accountability.
  • Anatomy of a Inquisitorial Tax Assessment Prosecution: breaking down the tragic, speedy persecution of James from Alaska for his use of the “Hendrickson return.”
  • What is meant by the term “psychopath” when we refer to bureaucrats.
  • The judge denied James the use of simple defense tools, such as a whiteboard, on very trivial grounds at a huge disadvantage for his defense.
  • The “jovial” attitude of the judge in the face of such serious and consequential matters before him.
  • The underlying coercion with most of the participants in any given court proceeding.
  • The heavy pro-taxation bias among the jury.
  • The indictment OR any and all legal-opinion IS NOT evidence of jurisdiction.
  • The almost complete neglect for the rules of evidence.
  • The lack of presentation skills IS NOT evidence the CONstitution and codes apply.
  • If you take a stand against government taxation/organized theft, you cannot do so by using, participating, or benefiting from such an organization.
  • Documents can and will be used against you as evidence that you are a citizen, despite whether or not they actually support and prove such conclusion.
  • Attorneys hammer away at convenient subjective elements of a case and completely ignore less-convenient objective elements.
  • Reframing the prosecutor’s arguments and assertions more objectively.
  • Why Marc will not be doing any more “Cracking the Code” cleanups.
  • How can you claim you are appearing “freely” while compelled by subpoena?
  • More of the statist double-standard: James was convicted of perjury, yet every non-IRS witness against him perjured them-self.
  • James never raised the issue of the witnesses being coached by the prosecution.
  • Raising the issue of Stockholm Syndrome in the opening statement.
  • Agent claims that the legal designation “taxpayer is just a word” that “doesn’t mean anything” on the stand.
  • Marc’s missed opportunity to point out the prejudice of the judge when the judge allowed the prosecution to continue to call the defendant a “tax cheat,” and the public defenders want to criticize Marc for ineffective counsel.
  • Ogdan IRS henchman Shauna Henline‘s mischaracterization of the IRS and her inability to provide any facts of the essential element of applicability of the constitution and its subsequent codes.
  • The abundant & systemic conflict-of-interest.
  • The Lois Lerner/John Koskinen style of testifying.
  • Predatory public defenders that criticize people for challenging any and all of the prosecutions arguments and assertions.
  • After a public defender failed to argue his case that citizenship was the factual basis for applicability of the constitution and codes, he then goes on with the go-to line “no amount of evidence would satisfy you.”
  • “You can not have a good faith belief that you owe taxes because they never give you the chance to form one.”
  • Perjury usually disqualifies a witness, but not if you’re a government witness.
  • Witnesses feeding the jury appeal-to-authority logical fallacies.
  • ‘Reclaiming your stolen taxes’ schemes often serve as a honey-pot trap for IRS agents.
  • The perverse incentives to convict.
  • None of the public defenders thought it was significant that the tax experts admitted that “none of the evidence presented proved the defendant had a liability and was required to file.”
  • Marc’s 2009 interview of Pete Hendrickson.

              

24 Comments For This Post

  1. Andy Says:

    “They will destroy your life and smile while doing it.” Yep, that’s a psychopath.

  2. citta Says:

    Zero return filing … why file at all? Tell them you are unqualified and need them to pay you for training.

  3. 11:11 Says:

    Marc, do you think it might be better to decline a jury trial in favor of a bench trial?

  4. bruce sloane Says:

    really …???
    why accept certain conviction, rather than a chance of a hung jury ..??

  5. Steve Says:

    Marc,
    Is this why you have stopped with the CtC support?
    http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/WaltnerMemo.Buch.TCM.WPD.pdf
    Or is there no effective rebuttal to this document.
    Are you effectively abandoning the principles behind Ctc.
    Steve

  6. ZenArchy Says:

    “If you play by the rules we have a rule that allows us to change the rules.” – The state.

  7. Boxer Says:

    @11:11

    “Marc, do you think it might be better to decline a jury trial in favor of a bench trial?”

    I didn’t get this impression at all from Marc. Do you see this is being some sort of benefit?

  8. Andy Says:

    @Steve, I’m of the impression that Marc never did support Cracking the Code. I don’t think Marc ever supported the principles behind CtC. He said on the NSP broadcast that he stopped taking clients that used it and subsequently got attacked by the IRS.

  9. bruce sloane Says:

    from what I have observed, why waste your time in a federal court ..??
    the outcome is fairly certain, given a +/- .00000001% of error
    hell, lookit Wesley …

    at age 60, if James gets 13 years, he may die in prison, if not, there will be little left of his life at 73

    prolly far better not to participate voluntarily
    tell .Gove to bring the MRAP

  10. Another Steve Says:

    I have been studying the income tax for about 4 years now. I believe the premise of Cracking the Code is essentially correct. The Constitution never intended for every person to be taxed on their labor (capitation) and made it difficult by stipulating the apportionment clause. The right to bear the fruit of your labor is a natural right, and the government does not have the authority to turn a natural right into a legal right. That is why the income tax is an excise, based on certain activities, not all activities. The Supreme Court has ruled that if legislation were to effectively change the indirect/excisable activity into a direct tax, then it would be unconstitutional unless apportioned. If the 16th Amendment was to change the direct taxation provisions of the Constitution, it would have done so directly by repealing the original language. It does not do that…therefore, the apportionment clause still stands. In other words, the 16th Amendment does not conflict with the original language…it is complimentary.

    The real problem is the courts. James, no matter how in-eloquent he was, made the case that no testimony or documentation proved that he was liable for the tax. They have no facts or evidence that a private sector worker is liable under the code or constitution. How did he lose?

    Number 1…you are playing on their field and you have to expose the fact that certain documents, even without your knowledge, have essentially admitted that you are a taxpayer who has not complied with their rules. I believe this is contract law and would have to be fought on a lack of full disclosure basis.

    Number 2…who is the harmed party? Let that person stand and make their claim. Under common law, there may be a violation of a code or regulation, but unless there is a harmed party or damaged property, there is no valid cause of action. Without a valid cause of action, there is no claim for which relief can granted.

    So your honor, while I may have violated their code, what evidence is there that I engaged in an unlawful activity?

    As long as you stay in their statutory/code/regulation playing field, you are going to lose unless they make a huge and obvious error that the court cannot ignore. The courts will inexplicably side with them, and assist them, because all of the livelihoods depend on it. However, if you can flip them into common law, where claims of unlawful activity are made, and there is no evidence (and there isn’t) of a harmed person or property, you have a better than average chance of prevailing.

  11. Andy Says:

    They have no evidence their code and constitution apply to anyone. I don’t see the logic of pretending they apply. That’s how it has always been, pretending the constitution and code apply to everyone within borders (geographic location.)

  12. indio007 Says:

    Once he took a lawyer, he was toast. The lawyers job is to make sure there are no appealable issues. Failure to timely object = mission accomplished.

  13. RAD Says:

    Definitions[edit]

    According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics:[24]
    A preference for useless speculation
    It appeals merely to human authority
    It appeals to tradition instead to reason
    It syncretises philosophy with superstition
    It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism
    It is immoral

    According to Oakeshot, pseudo-philosophy

    …is theorizing that proceeds partly within and partly outside a given mode of inquiry.[

  14. RAD Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy
    Nicholas Rescher, in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, describes pseudo-philosophy as

    …deliberations that masquerade as philosophical but are inept, incompetent, deficient in intellectual seriousness, and reflective of an insufficient commitment to the pursuit of truth.

    Rescher adds that the term is particularly appropriate when applied to

    …those who use the resources of reason to substantiate the claim that rationality is unachievable in matters of inquiry.

  15. RAD Says:

    I think the above pretty much encapsulates the “that’s a MEANINGLESS QUESTION” objection. The authoritarians want you to accept their speculative pseudophilosophy. They want to dodge the issue of whether their assertions are factual or evidence based, and insist their sacred cows are simply beyond the scope of inquiry into the actual evidence. They will even say it is “Meaningless” to question whether their sacred cows have any factual basis, in effect claiming that rationality is unachievable as to that matter of inquiry.

  16. Wise One Says:

    Steve Says:
    October 6th, 2014 at 8:34 am
    Marc,

    Is this why you have stopped with the CtC support?
    http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/WaltnerMemo.Buch.TCM.WPD.pdf

    Did anyone read this document??! It reads like a soap opera. The judge actually used the word “acrimony.” IRS counsel sent a 939 page request for admissions to the petitioner!

  17. NonE Says:

    I’m gonna take a stab at this, since Marc’s not responded yet. I think the reason he will not deal with CtC people is because it runs totally in conflict with his position that there is no evidence that a relationship exists between those calling themselves “the state” and those who are being threatened by them. By taking the positions espoused in the CtC paradigm you are effectively conceding that “the state” does exist and has a valid relationship that you agree to participate in. So in taking the CtC position one cannot then also take the position that there is no evidence that a valid relationship exists. You can’t have it both ways. If you are to agree that the laws of the tyrants apply to you, then you must also be agreeing to be bound by them. Why (I think is Marc’s thinking) would you want to concede to a fiction for which no one has been able to provide ANY evidence? If one is to take a position of integrity then one cannot also take a position of expedience. It’s either one or the other.

    I hope that makes some sense and also that it reflects Marc’s thinking somewhat accurately.

    – NonE

  18. mike Says:

    “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),

  19. Andy Says:

    The Penhallow “quote” is bogus — not documented.

  20. mike Says:

    really….Proof?

  21. Andy Says:

    Myself and other people have looked for the “quote” in the court’s opinion; it’s not there. If you can find it you’ll prove the “quote” is authentic. Where’s your proof?

  22. Andy Says:

    The alleged quote was discussed here on marcstevens.net two years ago: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20120901.html

  23. eye2i2oodummE Says:

    “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.” ~Abraham Lincoln, Founding Father, in a facebook tweet and followup podcast on his website.

  24. eye2i2oodummE Says:

    @&E
    Dude! DUDE! i nominate you for Official Keeper of The Archives aka Tripping The Forum History Fantastic.

    Seriously, tho, i appreciate your ability to recall, connect, then search out, information within the forum & website, and i appreciate as well, your taking the time to link-post it up, e.g. like here with this quote.

    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_louyorHJ1I1qba508.gif (we’re not)

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Consultations - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Notice: If you have done Pete Hendrickson zero returns and are being investigated by the criminal investigation division (CID) of the IRS, I am not available to help any longer.  I talk about this on the No State Project. […]

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 now broadcast via youtube.com. 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