Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Oct 25, 2014 – Co-hosts: Calvin and JT

Posted on October 25th, 2014 by Calvin

Co-hosts: Calvin and JT.

Show Notes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

Caller’s Topics:

  • Dallas from TX: selected for the IRS’s ‘withholding compliance program’ <> vigilantly abstaining from being tricked into submitting testimony against yourself <> the veins were pulsing on a judge’s head when the defendant filed for discovery and filed motions to dismiss asking for the evidence was required to have to factually support their charges <> defining and determining property rights <> objected to the judge entering a plea on the defendant’s behalf <> and persistently requiring the prosecution provide evidence before agreeing to anything.
  • Cory from FL: the judge became upset during a hearing because he felt the defendant was being “disingenuous” when asking for the prosecutor’s evidence <> the judge is committing a due process violation by waiving the defendant’s presumption of innocence by picking up the prosecution’s burden-of-proof <> telling the judge you don’t understand the question when they ask you if you’d like to plea or go to trial <> judge complements the defendant as “smarter than most in the room” <> and staying on point while the judge and prosecutor run interference.
  • William from NJ: familiarizing oneself with the positions and questions within the paperwork.

              

45 Comments For This Post

  1. AL Says:

    Although I usually agree with Marc 100% when it comes to government abuse I do not agree that there is a valid moral equivalency in comparing Islamic radicals to true Christianity. So called Islamic jihadists are merely following whats stated in the Koran and it includes murder of non-Muslims. How can anyone with any sense compare that to the Gospel of Yeshua. The greatest commandment is to love God the Father (aka Yehovah) with all your might and then to love your neighbor as yourself. What does this have in common with murderous Islam?

  2. 11:11 Says:

    @ AL: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” ~ Jesus Christ, Luke 19:27.

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” ~ Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-36.

    “The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.” Exodus 15:3.

    Don’t kid yourself AL.

  3. Tarzan Says:

    With all do respect to you Marc you are wrong about Bush being a Christian and that what he did was Christian or of God. TRUE Christians don’t do or believe that stuff – in fact over the past 2000 years it has been the TRUE Christians that have been the victims of murder, theft, persecution, etc at the hands of falsely professing Christians such as the RC “Church” (which BTW was spawned by Satan to lead people away from TRUE Christianity). I don’t doubt that Bush heard a voice telling him to do what he did BUT it wasn’t of God -the God of the Bible, it was of god – the god of this world- Satan. BTW Islam was also spawned of Satan to wage war against God’s people- the TRUE Christians. The Bible (KJV) tells us that we are in a spiritual battle- it is the dark side (Satanic) forces – which is the sociopathic G-men, parasitic banking cartel, NWO, etc. VS. God’s side. I agree with what you are doing Marc- standing up to the sociopaths and educating people, etc. so please don’t take my post as being against you in any way. I just wanted to clarify the religious issue.

  4. Latimer the Cat Says:

    Nice to hear that your applying principle to geopolitics. From my perspective, you *unintentionally* represented the North American Zionist establishment 501c3 warmongering double-speaking Christian Zionists as Christians. You also corrected (qualified) and that’s a good thing.

  5. Steve Says:

    @ AL: A religion is a religion is a religion is a religion. I am reminded of all the atrocities that the Jews committed under the leadership of Moses, Joshua, and David, supposedly by your god’s commandment in the OT, And the millions upon millions of tortures and murders perpetrated in the name of Jesus by the True Christians and the Church. How dare you say one is better than another. The God of the Bible is very cruel.

  6. Mike Says:

    AL…do you have any facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus, Moses Joshua and David ever existed. Don’t say the bible because that would be circular logic…Jesus existed because the bible said so. It’s pure myth and a regurgitation of Egyptian, Greek,Indian and Assyrian religions/myths that came before it. The character Yahweh in the bible was the ultimate psychopathic terrorist.

  7. Latimer the Cat Says:

    @ Marc Stevens:

    Hey Marc, look into the song “If you can’t be good, be gone” by the SteelDrivers to use as an occasional NSP theme song. In principle application, it works in both the lesser and greater applications.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh0B29kjF9E

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Calvin, this is simply unacceptable. Itz early Sunday morning and you’ve forced the podcast on me when I really should be off to church with Al learning how to hate other people. Can’t you at least wait until after I’ve been serviced? I mean… after services. Huh?

  9. Randy Says:

    @NonEntity

    LOL!!! Your comical wit has no equal. (compliment)

  10. NonE Says:

    Randy Sed:
    LOL!!! Your comical wit has no equal. (compliment)
    ———-
    I’m glad you added the “(compliment)” part. If it was from &e I mighta thought he was trying to pick a fight with me! 😉 … Now I gotta go listen to the show.

  11. Randy Says:

    @NonE: 🙂

  12. eye2i Says:

    RandE is CLEARLY a sockpuppet acct of NonE. ClearlE 😉 C’mom C’note, take control here alreadE!

  13. eye2i Says:

    note: the link for “logical inconsistencies” in the show notes, currently (for me) results in:
    “404 | Page Not Found!
    Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here.”

  14. Calvin Says:

    @eye2i: Ooops, I forgot to upload the image of Marc’s email to SchoolofThough.com of him debunking some residual logical fallacies of the writers for the site, its there now. That’s what a bit of cognitive-extension/sleep-deprivation will do to you.

    @NonE/RandE: Don’t tempt me to shuffle the entertainment schedule for two personae…

    -_-

  15. Randy Says:

    @eye2i: lol, nice try. Try again. 0_0

  16. NonE Says:

    So eYeToo, you say that you looked for logical inconsistencies in the podcast and got a 404 (not found error message)? That shouldn’t surprise you. That’s what Marc is all about, remaining logically consistent. No?

  17. Anti Says:

    Marc might be losing his mind. I heard him claim there was evidence for evolution a couple of times. Blaming religion for the violent actions of people is just taking away from the violence itself. How is what marc is doing any different than when the statists pervert the definition of ‘anarchy.’ I have never cared about somebody’s religious views. As long as nobody is forcing you to believe something then who has the time to care about what other people think. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what kind of cat litter my cats like best.

  18. emilio Says:

    @mike
    it has been proven time and time again through secular archaeology that the names you mentioned have been found outside of the Blble and within context of the Bilbe. Moses for example has been mentioned in accent Chinese text. Those of you who speak ill of Jesus just show your ignorance as to what is written. This is understandable based upon the level of education the average person has today. You have failed to recognise that the original Hebrew scripts do differ in direct translation to the English scripts. You read slay and think this means to kill, but in the original Hebrew to slay was to have them fall under the spirit. In other words, Jesus said “bring them to me and I will have them fall under the spirit”. You all seem to think that a sword is just a weapon, however Jesus brings his word as his sword… not a metal dagger. The Bible is full or scripture that can easily be misunderstood if you don’t know how to read them.

    What is always very funny to us Christians is that in the OT, the coming of Christ is foretold not just “in the future” but to the very day. Even his death was foretold not just to the day but to the exact time of day. There is far more evidence of the existence of people named in the Bible, yet you all ignore your precious evidence that you cry out for when it’s placed right in your laps…. rather you than me.

    If you actually read the Bible you would see that it is not a regurgitation of any other “religion” and the vast majority of drivel that you all fall for in films like zeitgeist is not at all what is written in the Bible. Christ was not born on the 25th Dec’,this isn’t Biblical. Your failure to read the Bible makes you easily believe what you’re told (like all good serfs).

  19. Randy Says:

    @Calvin: Damn, foiled again. 🙂

  20. NonEntity Says:

    Though why there should be a school of though in the first place is still a mystery. 😉

  21. Vincent B. Says:

    Has anyone else notice the weird panning effect with this episode? The sound keeps moving from left to right, quite disorienting if you’re listening to it with headphones like me. Last episode I listened to did not have this problem…

  22. Vincent B. Says:

    Oh and by the way, gov. propaganda aside, of course there’s something wrong with you if you go and shoot someone (except in self-defense), even if the victim is a ‘gov. agent’ or in this case a reservist standing guard at a memorial… That was a weird comment you made on this tragedy.

    And apparently the killer did in fact release a video (not yet publicly available because of the investigation) explaining his motives, talking about Canada’s foreign policy.

    That being said, I do agree that the politicians were eager to make that connection beforehand and that they will try to use this to justify more military actions abroad… But still, anyone paying attention could’ve easily guessed that the two murders were linked with this recent IS affair.

  23. eye2i Says:

    @emilio: thanks for actually aiding my case –against endorsing-encouraging Godism. aka having the Ultimate Authority on your Side as to making Truth what you want it to be! Yeah, hand The God Stamp Of Approval to any and every human. After all, if you want to know what “God said”, just write a book –after all, factually, that’s what every other human has done (popular gods and otherwise). Just remember, though, if you want the best shot for it sticking, you have to speak and endorse such therein, speaking in Code aka double-speak (for double-think).

    Who stands to gain, a LORD God who has to be hidden to the extent he’s indistinguishable from nonexistence but for being revealed by special men –or the special men claiming they are those very special chosen ones, just take their word on it?

  24. eye2i Says:

    @Anti: “I have never cared about somebody’s religious views. As long as nobody is forcing you to believe something then who has the time to care about what other people think. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what kind of cat litter my cats like best.”

    First of course, is to ask what you mean when you use the term “religious”, aye? [fwiw, i value looking at it etymologically, rather than popularly]
    Next, Government being (again, etymologically speaking) a religion, then indeed, someone is forcing us –tho not necessarily to believe (that’s mostly done via forced indoctrination?), and rather those are forcing others to comply with their religious beliefs, aye?

    Thus, that’s why it matters to me what another believes –which is different from how you’ve put it, as to (merely) think? [granted, like with the term religious, so can it be quite popular to use the terms think and believe as nigh snynonyms]

    As far as your cat, what it’s thinking (litter box or otherwise) isn’t likely to result in your being indoctrinated, intimidated (well, since we’re talking cats, that one might be fuzzy?! haha), coerced, threatened and/or to have aggression initiated against you based upon beliefs, no?

    As far as the easy-out of “who has the time to care”, what probability is it that that’s a bit like the automotive ad regarding car oil & lube servicing? Circa “Pay me now, or pay me later.” Where, which time frame choice (thinking?) is the more costly?

    Lastly, as to “Marc might be losing his mind” –“MIGHT be”??
    [haha, j/k Marc]

  25. Just want to be free! Says:

    Continued paragraph #2

    That begs the question: Is your Superior Courts of Georgia Brunswick Judicial Circuit bound to the higher courts and Supreme Court rulings? FYI: Is it true: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974). A recusation is not a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, but simply to the person of the judge. It may, however, extend to all the judges, as when the party has a suit against the whole court. Poth. Proced. Civ. 1ere part., ch. 2, s. 5. It is a personal challenge of the judge for cause. You still want to purport this fallacy, that the State is sovereign from the federal government?

  26. Just want to be free! Says:

    Continued paragraph #3

    Is Appling County’s Court holding tribunals calling it a traffic court or criminal court against me? Can you support there is evidence by the plaintiff (Police Officer) given to the judge and prosecutor evidence the constitution codes or body of statutes are applicable to me based on my physical location in Baxley or anywhere else, and the court has jurisdiction to even go pass the arraignment once challenge is permitted. It’s impossible to challenge jurisdiction when being threaten by a strange man in a black robe to shut up or get put in a cage as it is factually evident in all of this court’s case transcripts. You know this answer, but you and your colleagues feel jurisdiction is a given: It is your colleague as a fair and impartial judiciary who should have demanded empirical proof of jurisdiction given to Jan Kennedy by the police officer before even hearing an indictment (a piece of paper on its face). What Judge Wilkes and Harrison done was factually take on an element of the crime for the prosecution by giving her a free pass on voiding any attempted challenge of jurisdiction by me, which is not a trial issue as most judges lie about it, and then state at trial the challenge should have took place before the trial. This action by the Court, I believe is an appeal to tradition. To prove the fallacies you have on page 3, all I need to do is look at what politicians and bureaucrats do when a complaint is filed against them; I like using the ACLU v. NSA 493 F.3d 644 case as an example. Did the NSA have to go to trial in order to challenge jurisdiction? No, of course not and why? Because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and should be challenged as soon as it is asserted.

  27. Just want to be free! Says:

    paragraph #4

    We again look at page three of your “Order,” and the conclusion that is an “Irrelevant Conclusion” (Ignorantio Elenchi) in answering the question; is there a conflict of interest between Judge Harrison and the prosecutor Jan Kennedy? As this “Order” misleads the reader into believing the defendant has made an irrational argument that “…because the State pays his salary, and since the State is trying to get the Defendant convicted, there is a conflict of interest because the judge would be inclined to make rulings favorable to his employer.” In the recusal motion the Defendant premise and conclusion factually was “…the Superior Court Judge and Prosecutor are paid by the State of Georgia and receive a supplement from the county in which they serve. This creates fiduciary and financial interest politically for both, because if the County or State became bankrupt they would not receive a salary.” The argument is not a generalization of all judges participating in all criminal trials, but the unlawful pecuniary intentions of visiting Judge Harrison and the county’s prosecutor Jan Kennedy. Another “Argument from Adverse Consequences” in this “Order” is “…the State will not be able to retaliate against him by reducing his salary.” This has nothing to do with the facts that a judge who does not allow the challenge of jurisdiction or not allow the Defendant who intends to plead guilty to be informed of the nature and charges against him in a fair and impartial manner is subject to allegations of coercing and intimidating the defendant to rush to trial for the prosecution to benefit the “State” a statutory fine, thereby creating a pecuniary interest that is direct, certain and immediate factually stealing money from the Defendant and calling it “punishment” for an alleged code violation.

  28. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #4

    We again look at page three of your “Order,” and the conclusion that is an “Irrelevant Conclusion” (Ignorantio Elenchi) in answering the question; is there a conflict of interest between Judge Harrison and the prosecutor Jan Kennedy? As this “Order” misleads the reader into believing the defendant has made an irrational argument that “…because the State pays his salary, and since the State is trying to get the Defendant convicted, there is a conflict of interest because the judge would be inclined to make rulings favorable to his employer.” In the recusal motion the Defendant premise and conclusion factually was “…the Superior Court Judge and Prosecutor are paid by the State of Georgia and receive a supplement from the county in which they serve. This creates fiduciary and financial interest politically for both, because if the County or State became bankrupt they would not receive a salary.” The argument is not a generalization of all judges participating in all criminal trials, but the unlawful pecuniary intentions of visiting Judge Harrison and the county’s prosecutor Jan Kennedy. Another “Argument from Adverse Consequences” in this “Order” is “…the State will not be able to retaliate against him by reducing his salary.” This has nothing to do with the facts that a judge who does not allow the challenge of jurisdiction or not allow the Defendant who intends to plead guilty to be informed of the nature and charges against him in a fair and impartial manner is subject to allegations of coercing and intimidating the defendant to rush to trial for the prosecution to benefit the “State” a statutory fine, thereby creating a pecuniary interest that is direct, certain and immediate factually stealing money from the Defendant and calling it “punishment” for an alleged code violation.

  29. Just want to be free! Says:

    Continued paragraph #6

    For almost 2 years I’ve been under duress and suffering through all the violent and illogical judicial formalities from Baxley, GA’s evil oppressors? Some people have common sense and do not, and will not surrender to all these unrealistic fictional games and threats of physical violence with any of you bureaucrats. Kidnapping and false imprisonment is a crime for me but for a Cop (HERO) it’s called an arrest and jail, and I am suppose to be stupid enough to argue my case in front of “who are” other officers of the “Court.” This is where I tried to plead guilty, defend myself after being threaten with physical violent by numerous judges to participate in an adversarial forum and was denied due process of the law at every step of the way. In reality I believe I will get caged for contempt by the judges if I dare to ask for legal intent notwithstanding a fair and meaningful proceeding! Great system! Judge may even represent me and plead for me too!

    Even if my affidavit wasn’t notarized and it wasn’t five days after the illegitimate calendar call (knowledge of alleged grounds and issues in fact for recusal had to be obtained by certified transcript through Barbara Court Reporting) the fact that jurisdiction was not allowed to be challenged was mere empirical proof of the lack of due process for the defendant. “Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.” Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) & “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.”
    Puckett v Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA). Are you ignoring these higher courts case law within your argument here? Is there even evidence of a case of controversy?

  30. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #7

    Submitting the motion to remove Judge Harrison was actually 8 days, in which it took several days to obtain a certified copy of the transcript from the court reporter that is employed and paid by the court. I received the transcript on the 4th of August with details of the court proceeding by email. I have the email as proof. Don’t you think a fair and impartial judiciary might look at his fellow lawyer’s opinion here; “…Accordingly, if a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations by competent proof.” McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 188, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 784, 785, 80 L.Ed. 1135; KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 278, 57 S.Ct. 197, 200, 81 L.Ed. 183. Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 72, 59 S.Ct. 725, 729, 83 L.Ed. 1111.

    I have learned factually, that officers of the court in Appling County are divisive, liars and always use intimidation and threats of physical violence to get their illogical legal opinions on record without facts or evidence to support them each time I appear. No disrespect Sir, the only thing cognizable is the logical fallacies within the police officer ticket, the prosecutor’s indictment and your “Orders.”
    Your legal opinions, which are mere facts, assumed, that are not in evidence are nothing more than personal attacks, Appeals to Authority and Tradition, Argument from Adverse Consequences and Argument from Personal Incredulity along with misconstruing my arguments as generalizations . The conflict of interest resided in this case when Judge Harrison would not allow due process of the law for the defendant, would not allow the defendant a fair and meaningful proceeding and to be informed of the nature of the charges and proceeding against him. Judge Harrison did not review previous suspect proceedings as requested by the defendant to ensure the court had evidence of jurisdiction from the police officer presenting it to the Court by the Jan Kennedy.
    The use of the Socratic Method was not allowed by the Judge Wilkes or Judge Harrison, so that the defendant could be informed as to the nature of the charges and proceeding against him with the intention of pleading guilty and paying a fine. Here are some legal opinions from some of your colleagues in the higher courts:
    Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
    “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

  31. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #8

    The aforementioned lawyer “speak” is your “Courts” basic facts and I don’t have to be a lawyer to use common sense, when threaten with violence and forced to participate in this Court’s proceedings. Another fallacy you purport on page three of your “Order” is an appeal to authority I also don’t believe I’m a “citizen” or “resident.” This is the alleged “right to define one’s own concept of existence…” A so-called “citizen” is supposed to be a member of a political body owing allegiance to the “state” in return for protection; these are allegedly “reciprocal obligations” see Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. This of course presupposes a so-called “state” which has no tangible existence. “Citizenship” is also described as a “contract” numerous times by lawyers pretending to be a “Supreme Court,” see Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat 627.
    Factually, politicians unabashedly admit they have no duty or obligation to protect anyone: “The constitution…does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616. This is only one of many cases proving this. According to the professional parasites there is no contract: “To be obligatory on either party, the contract must be mutual and reciprocal in its obligations.” Lawrence Block Co. v. Palston, 123 Cal.App.2d 300, 308 (emphasis mine).
    Without a duty to protect there is no duty of allegiance owed. Without allegiance and protection (“reciprocal obligations” per Luria) there are no “citizens.” Without “citizens” there is no “state.” Without a “state” the people who call themselves “government” is just a vicious gang of killers, thieves and liars.

  32. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #9

    Jurisdiction is impossible for any bureaucrat to prove within their own facts and furthermore, there is no logic in stating there are any protections under a social pact or constitution when people who call themselves government whole “M O” is pay me or get shot. Simple reasoning makes it a known fact that it is irrefutable to say a citizen is a member of a body politic who owes a duty of allegiance for a duty of protection, that they are reciprocal obligations one consideration for the other – Luria v US debunks your argument on page 2 about “…safeguards to protect citizens…” since factually there are no such reality in being a citizen. I have no principle agent agreement; there is no evidence I am even a citizen “All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.” This is the opinion of “Bar Attorneys.”

    So, logically, the government has no duty to protect as this maxim applies, quod non apparet non est. The Clara, 102 US 200 (1880), and once again stated, as fact, cited by the lawyers DBA the US Supreme Court in; Devito v Bowers, Deshaney v Winnebago, Warren v District of Columbia, Castle Rock v Gonzales, and Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. This statue is similar in all States; California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846, which state in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”). That’s why judges don’t punish the prosecutor or cop when a defendant is found not guilty of charges against them that involve the defendant’s productive time or his mental or physical well being. The traffic court system is a sham for fact the Court does not allow logic or reasoning as a defense. “Reason is called the soul of the law; for when the reason ceases, the law itself ceases.” Co. Litt. 97, 183; 1 Bl. Com. 70; 7 Toull. n. 566.

  33. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #10

    On page five, more word spinning and attempted word wizardry. Here “present his defense” is a misrepresentation of my attempts to defend me. What you fail to realize is the practice of bullying individuals is so embedded in Judges and prosecutor’s character and part of their decorum in court, that unless I submit fully to the nonsense spewed from their mouths and say nothing to defend myself, you guys can do anything you want. One big reason is because you have (in a clinical sense) anti-social psychopath with guns in the court that would kill me without discretion on your orders. You are honestly the gun in the room and a jury is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant people forced though public relations the fiction that have a legal duty and the threat of violence by the Court to be there.
    I don’t believe anyone would be able to qualify after I expose the logical fallacies and the perpetuated violence by the court during jury selection such as; Jan Kennedy is allowed to lie, withhold evidence, use perjured testimony and has immunity no matter whose life she or he destroys. “This Court, in interpreting Imber, has agreed that prosecutorial immunity extends to a prosecutor’s actions in “initiating and pursuing prosecution and in presenting the state’s case… [E]ven where the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, deliberately withheld exculpatory information, or failed to make full disclosure of all facts,” Henzel v. Gerstein, 608 F. 2nd 654 (1979) (emphasis mine). See Imber v Pachtman 424 U.S. 409 (1976), and this is some of what the jury will hear from me.

    After reading page six, I became finished with your embolden bias and “shocking” lack of truthfulness in facts presented in the arguments in my recusal motion. Jurisdiction, from the moment it’s asserted, is subject to challenge at any and every point throughout litigation. “[A] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleading, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact which requires trial.” Beard v. Whitley County REMC, 840 F.2d 405, 410 (7th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original); see also Hickey v. A.E. Staley Mfg., 995 F.2d 1385, 1391 (7th Cir. 1993).

    On page seven you contradict your own opinion from page three, that the Judge cannot inform me, then turn it around and basically provide evidence to the contrary in Kirkland v State, that a judge “must investigate as long an as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case before him demand…” Judge Harrison, your friend, did not comply with the “foregoing requirements” and my recusal motion is appropriate and factual according to your stacking the deck in this argument. “In all trial court proceedings a judge shall disclose on record the information that the judge believes the parties…might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.” Calif. Judicial Canons 3(E) (2) (emphasis mine) “IN ALL TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS…” not some or only at trial. Why lie like in your distractions and diversionary tactic on page three, about your assumed thought’s on the questions you fictionalize I would ask like you’re a mind reader. Ever heard of “Hypothesis Contrary to Fact” (Argumentum Ad Speculum) Trying to prove something in the real world (my questions on legal intent) by using imaginary examples (assuming my questions in your argument).

  34. Just want to be free! Says:

    continued paragraph #11

    What the problem is after you read my material you know that I can and will expose the gun in the room. Court is not a place for justice all the time. Some judges do not provide a fair and meaningful proceeding except to the [pro-se] cutor (representing her) and the cops. Many judges represent and bail out the prosecutor and cops and other judges like you’re doing here. All you did was make abusive personal attacks against me trying to using your title and judicial power. You did nothing more than spew out logical fallacies and lies. You are not honorable to me and you cannot stop me from exposing Appling County and its dishonorable lawyers and judges who represent it. That entire “lawyer speak” you used was personally offensive and you and your colleagues continue to attack me even when on the Court’s record Judge Harrison rescued himself. You are a “Statist” and you intend to profit from it taking money from me by force through coercion, intimidation and violence and a little help from your friends at the “Bar.” No amount of spin can change that fact. When you go home you and your lawyer buddies lose no sleep over the misfortune you cause innocent people like me. Your “ORDER” solidifies the public relations schemes used by the courts and the conflict of interest you imagine is not there. I don’t have an advance university degree, but I am not retarded either.

    I will always believe that the Court system and many of the people who call themselves government are liars, thieves and murderers. Who says, they protects people, then say they don’t have a duty to protect them, then force people to pay them for protection (taxes) or will cage and kill them if they don’t pay the taxes for service they never even ask for in the first place. The Supreme Law of the Land says there is no legal duty or obligation for the government to protect any individual…? Then there is this lie: “First, compelling an individual to support religion violates the fundamental principle of freedom of conscience.” Mitchell et al. v. Helms et al., No. 98-1648. If they were honest they would write: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence,” as long as that’s defined as a taxpaying citizen or resident of the United States. Only in a clinical sense factually, anti-social psychopaths are the only one’s capable of these types of convoluted rationalizing and commit crimes like the mafia and say it has legal authority to do so.

    I am very scared of you evil prejudice people, but I am going to stand up for my autonomy something lawyer’s and the “Bar” ignore. “autonomy…Independence; self government; the negation of a state of political influence from without or from foreign powers. Green v Obergfell, 73 App DC 298, 121 F2d 46, 138 ALR 258. A self-governed community.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 113 (emphasis mine). I’m going to pray constant for Jesus to have mercy on you and your cohorts and leave your threats and attacks in His hands. You have proved to me you people are tyrannical.

  35. Jeff E. Says:

    @ Mark. Did u moderate and kick out all my post? Did I take up too much space or use up to much data? If I did, I apologize. It was 9 post with two paragraphs each.

  36. Jeff E. Says:

    I don’t think it is wize to talk bad about another man’s spiritual belief. It’s like you like squid and I come along and say that squid taste like cat dodo.

    I believe God is in our hearts. It’s that spiritual feeling you can have when a baby is born and you hold it close to your heart and the possible difference in emotions can be if it is dead or alive.

    Think if there is a Creator would you take the risk of being a non-believer. If the rules are non-violent non-aggression and charity to your neighbor anyway; then what????????????

  37. Calvin Says:

    Jeff Evans said: “I don’t think it is wize to talk bad about another man’s spiritual belief.”

    Sure it is, because if a man had genuine integrity in their belief system, they would have no problem fielding criticism. However, if a man’s belief system is built on a shaky foundation, someone should apply a little push to knock down such a house-of-cards so that the poor soul could realize such weak belief system and adopt an improved, more functional, belief system. For example, it would be okay to criticize the statist belief system so that the individual can adopt a more consensual belief system such as libertarianism, voluntarism, anarchism, minarchism, ect…

    The same can be said for religious extremists, people just need to offer/market them better alternatives to achieve the social justice/objectives they are now having to physically fight, and die for.

    No one is demanding anyone to abandon their religion, we are just suggesting people seek alternatives to oppressive religious belief systems (which are usually limited to STATE and extremist religions), which probably doesn’t apply to you, so ease up with the defensiveness on the topic Jeff and lets entertain more meaningful criticisms in the future eh?

  38. NonEntity Says:

    eye2i Sed: @Anti: “I have never cared about somebody’s religious views. —–
    HAHAHAHAHA!!! That’s a good one eYe!

  39. NonEntity Says:

    Just want… have you considered a Twitter account?

  40. NonAntiE Says:

    @NonEntity: NonEntity Says:
    October 30th, 2014 at 11:04 am

    ” eye2i Sed: @Anti: “I have never cared about somebody’s religious views. —–
    HAHAHAHAHA!!! That’s a good one eYe! ”

    Did you miss my inclusion of quote marks there, tuff guy? *shock*gasp*horrors* The Punk’tuation Nazi missed just such?!?

    JIC, what you excerpted was my quote of Anti (who posted/said that). ?

  41. NonEntity Says:

    Ah. Perhaps if you had closed the quotes it might have meant that it was an actual quote and not a typo. :p

  42. Jeff Evans Says:

    Thanks Calvin! I didn’t mean it that context. I’m not as verse in communication as you are. My comment was along the point of – If you love you wife and believe if you bring her flowers every Friday it brings joy to her, then whose to say your belief in bringing her flowers to show your appreciation of being with her has anything to do with an advertisement from 1-800 FLOWERS or any traditional belief system. Yes, I know from my research that people can be extremeist, but don’t discount those who are earnest in their belief’s which don’t intrude on another man’s reality.I would hate to hear that 100 years from now people would make the same critisims of you, Mark and “Govertment Indicted.” Guess I got off topic * He He :-}.

    I have been educated about a lot of things since listening to Mark and many of you in the No State and Free State radio programs and video’s and the other participants who have very intelligent common sense comments. I’ve been following Mark since 2009 and became very effective in defending myself against bureaucratic attacks. I wonder why you, NonEntity, NoNe haven’t critiqued my other post. I dropped out of school in the 11th grade so forgive me on the writing style. Still learning.

  43. NonEntity Says:

    …and the other participants who have very intelligent common sense comments.
    ——
    Why… THANK YOU!!! 😉
    ——
    I’ve been following Mark since 2009 and became very effective in defending myself against bureaucratic attacks. I wonder why you, NonEntity, NoNe haven’t critiqued my other post. I dropped out of school in the 11th grade so forgive me on the writing style. Still learning.
    ——-
    Still learning is cool! Itz often those who are positive they know everything who annoy the shit out of me.

  44. eye2i Says:

    @NonEntity: find you some Windex? or get those cataracts checked? something? The closed quote marks you’re saying were a typo were there all along (like they still are). Here’s a copy>paste of it:

    @Anti: “I have never cared about somebody’s religious views. As long as nobody is forcing you to believe something then who has the time to care about what other people think. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what kind of cat litter my cats like best.”

    [/copy>paste]
    http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20141025.html#comment-51627
    doGownit, what a distraction…

  45. NonEntity Says:

    Oooops! (blush blush blush) 😉 mea culpa.

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