Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Nov 1, 2014 – [DRAFT VERSION]

Posted on November 1st, 2014 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Mike from TX: update on the legal attack being waged against him by his local bureaucrats <> factoring a cost-benefit-analysis on plea bargaining a victimless crime charge <> and the cop administering a flurry of sobriety tests until he got the results he was looking for to charge his victim with DUI.
  • Marva from GA: what if you aren’t drinking but a lying police officer cites you for DUI? <> municipal revenue generation schemes that victimize locals and travelers <> a court had to reverse hundreds of convictions because of a corrupt judge that was outed <> the judge blatantly and blindly denies all of the defendant’s motions <> multiple violations of due process <> the prosecutor claims they had “no idea” the tape, that they made the defendant pay for that video documented the encounter, was blank <> after a hung jury, the judge brought the case back up on grounds of mistrial <> sympathy from other attorneys in the courtroom for the exploited defendant <> the consequences of having a public defender working with you <> filing a motion for post-conviction relief <>
  • Patriot Wonder from FL: when questioning jurisdiction, why not follow up with “factually what is the “CITY” or “STATE OF”? <> there’s no such thing as the STATE OF ARIZONA <> and non-filer tax complications.
  • Cory from FL: the judge entered a plea of “no contest” on the defendant’s behalf after an objection on grounds of a breach-of-fairness <> and the defendant used an unsigned plea of guilty to be able to ask questions of evidence before entering a plea.
  • Jeff joins the show in a bonus segment on his alleged evidence to prove the law applies.

Editor’s note: production is complete up to the 1 hour 34 minute mark, show notes and audio cleanup pending. Other than that, its basically the full podcast.

              

26 Comments For This Post

  1. Jeff Evans Says:

    I’m in! Just finished watching “Mississippi Burning” with Gene Hackman. I admire Gene Hackman as a “Actor.” Movie was kinda phoney as fore some of my relatives said that there were more horrific violent acts like beheadings and castrations that never were reported “Why” I guess no black media outlet at the time in the South? I’m no fool. My race consist of weak, sellouts who would never embrace this medium to free themselves or at least do damage control methods ease the institutional bigotry and discrimination by bureaucrats. To busy worrying about “BEING BEYONCE – Michelle Obama” instead of working towards a advantagious society for themselves like “Black Wall Street.” There needs to be a film on interaction with cops when stopped and harassed and mock trials using Effectice Damage Control!!! I don’t mind donating whatever I can.

  2. bradley Says:

    I am confused with alleged DUI lady case, it does not seem right to me

  3. NonEntity Says:

    Marc (et al), I’m listening to your rebutal/response to Jake – @ ~ 28 min. – and this question hits me: why isn’t the question of “is there evidence of damage?” more often employed. My thinking is that perhaps the only valid evidence of/for jurisdiction is that you haved damaged someone. I’m thinking that maybr “jurisdiction” is a somewhat an amorphous word and pinning it down to the underlying basis for a valid cause of action, in a moral sense, might help others to clarify the issue of just where a valid form of jurisdiction might derive from.

    Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

    – NonEdify

  4. NonEntity Says:

    Ahah! To continue my thinking from above, here is an example that you glossed right over, Marc. From the low quality draft version of the podcast @ ~02:08:43 you are quoting a Supreme Court decision to the effect of “in a situation where an out of state person is driving within the state of Taxachussets and HAS AN ACCIDENT, jurisdiction shall apply.”

    Capishe my point?

    You went right over the part where there were DAMAGES and jumped straight to the part about being within the state as the salient issue. Therein lies the error in your analysis of this ruling, in meYe humble opinion.

    The floor is now open for discussion.

  5. Calvin Says:

    @NonE: I have been waiting to get a chance to respond to your comment, but I think you are right on-point when you talk about injury and damages being the most important essential element for jurisdiction. I was catching up on some past episodes of Stossel last week and his ‘Stossel’s Take’ segment really touched on the issue as well. Here’s the link, give it about 2-3 minutes for him to fully make the point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04BMRx-ou5g#t=37m51s

  6. NonEntity Says:

    An additional wrinkle to toss into the MixMaster is the current legal thinking that you may transport a gun through a “no gun” state as long as you badically form no nexus with that state during you journey (you can stop for gas, but not go to your friend’s wedding while en route).

  7. NonEntity Says:

    By the way, I must say this was a great show. Ekspecially the part with Marla (I hope that’s her name) which so blatantly revealed the utter criminality and pathology of so many of those claiming to legitimately “represent the will of the people.”

    Calling Darwin. Calling Darwin!

  8. Fake_Ear Says:

    State-ists interacting:

    http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/10/road-rage-cop-pulls-gun-on-former-senator-for-honking-at-him/

  9. Boxer Says:

    “blink compliance”?

  10. REssex Says:

    So, no big surprise this last week. I went to the arraignment with a friend that got a ticket for running a stop sign that was hidden by a tree branch. I tried to speak for him (he wasn’t able to defend himself because he gets anxiety attacks when stressed) and he didn’t want to memorize the info so he could speak for himself. The judge took one look at the Demurrer and told me to sit down, he was going to only speak to the defendant directly. He made us wait for him to send about $20,000 worth of fines in the next hour and when most of the people were out of the room, he looked at the motion. Then, big surprise, the judge lied to my friends face and stated “the motion challenges standing and I’m satisfied the information that proves standing is in the ticket.” Since I was not allowed to speak, my friend responded ‘no contest’ and the judge fined him half price at $240, instead of $480. I wanted to object and ask where on the ticket that info was, but didn’t want to piss off the judge and have him nail my friend to the wall, so I bit my tongue. I think the judge felt some guilt deep down based on the look on his face, the tone of his voice, and the fact that he cut the fine in half. My friend was happy with the damage control of half price in the fine so it’s sort of a win in that respect. I just wish I could have asked him what line on the ticket showed that information…

  11. Andy Says:

    From a judge’s and or prosecutor’s vantage point with years of hands-on experience/observation, it might go something like this:

    If we double the dollar value of each fine we we can look good and caring when we cut the fine by 50%. Not to mention for those cantankerous ones whom we don’t reduce the fine, it will send the message to others in the room that they had better cooperate or they’ll be fined the full amount.

  12. Andy Says:

    Seems to me jurisdiction resides with the individual that was injured. They have a valid cause of action. Do they have a reasonable articulable suspicion (evidence) of the person that injured them and/or their property? Do they want to press criminal charges or go straight to a civil lawsuit.

    Explained from the perspective of the victim having jurisdiction that the court usurped may help. Absent personal jurisdiction the court has no where else to get it.

  13. NonE Says:

    &e sed: “Do they want to press criminal charges or go straight to a civil lawsuit.”
    ——-
    The underlying supposition contained in that statement is that there is a “higher power” of some sort, to which such claims can be taken. I find that problematic. I do find the totally voluntary form of justice developed by the Somali people and perhaps others to be as close to justice as I’ve yet studied. To make the assumption that there is an “authority” to which you can take your grievance is a huge mistake, in my view.

    – NonElectrified

  14. NonEntity Says:

    In my post above I say “huge mistake.” From the point of moral/ethical/logical consistency I think I’d have to say it’s a fatal mistake.

    – NonEkleeziasstickle

  15. Andy Says:

    @NonEntity: I’m trying to bridge the gap for listeners of the NSP and people that comment herein. It’s in light of having to deal with the state. It isn’t a statement regards a voluntary society. Perhaps I was mistaken by your original posts. I thought you were trying to bridge a gap for people to understand how to think about the jurisdiction issue in light of being forced into “government’s” legal land. If that’s true, it seems you’ve changed the context to how a person might think of jurisdiction in a voluntary society absent government.

  16. Andy Says:

    NonEntity wrote: “My thinking is that perhaps the only valid evidence of/for jurisdiction is that you haved damaged someone. I’m thinking that maybr “jurisdiction” is a somewhat an amorphous word and pinning it down to the underlying basis for a valid cause of action, in a moral sense, might help others to clarify the issue of just where a valid form of jurisdiction might derive from.”

  17. Andy Says:

    @NonEntity, I think you missed this that I wrote: Explained from the perspective of the victim having jurisdiction that the **court usurped** may help. Absent personal jurisdiction the court has no where else to get it.

    To which I add. The only way a court (is government the only organisation that can have a court? If so, says who?) could legitimately get jurisdiction is the injured victim freely chooses to bring their case to a court, DRO or wherever they have a prior agreement with to handle such matters.

  18. Andy Says:

    crickets.

  19. NonEntity Says:

    Andy, if you’re wanting dialog from me on this topic perhaps the forum would be a better venue. Because of the form of the medium and my inability to totally follow your intended meaning I am not able to intelligently respond here.

  20. Andy Says:

    NonEntity, if you wanted dialog on this perhaps YOU should have posted to the forum rather than here with your posts commenting on my post. I get it, you didn’t want a dialog, you just wanted to do a hit and run. Double standard much? You, playing/feigning dumb as an excuse, YAWN. I’ve seen it too many times before from you. Now’s your opportunity for you to chastise me. Go ahead double-standard tough guy. 🙂

  21. NonEntity Says:

    Andy … FU.

  22. Andy Says:

    NonEntity, You lost you the high ground. Double standards tend to do that. You should not be a sore loser. It doesn’t bode well. 😉

  23. Andy Says:

    Where does legitimate jurisdiction come from? The way I figure it is that jurisdiction comes from the parties to a contract. In the case of a contract dispute, the parties would abide by the terms laid out in the contract for dealing with contract disputes – dispute resolution.

    What about instances when there is no contract; such as when a person is victim of a violation of the NAP? The injured person, say for example, their car was stolen, they would have jurisdiction to use force in self-defense. Meaning, they have the moral high ground to “steal” their car back.

    Alternatively, they could hire a person as their agent to retrieve their car for them (the victim). Jurisdiction comes to exist when the NAP is violated. The victim has a valid cause/reason to use force in self defense.

    Force used in self defense is an act of nature. Is it a natural law? I think it is. Essentially, all animal species demonstrate it — Homo sapiens too. For humans, defensive force is the moral use of force.

    The individual is the authority/expert/ruler over his/her life. He/she is an autonomous individual.

    Jurisdiction with regards to “government” courts, my understanding is that it’s documented that for a court to have jurisdiction a victim must have incurred the violation of a legal right that resulted in an injury that the court can redress. See the standing cross reference on this website.

  24. NonEntity Says:

    Andy sed: Jurisdiction with regards to “government” courts, my understanding is that it’s documented that for a court to have jurisdiction a victim must have incurred the violation of a legal right that resulted in an injury that the court can redress. See the standing cross reference on this website.
    ——
    That’s kinda what I’m thinking. If that is so then it seems we need to find a simple way of trapping them into admitting this so they have no way of weaseling out of it. You know, like how Marc has developed his setup questions.

    That’s my current thinking on the matter anyway.

  25. Andy Says:

    NonEntity, Short answer is, ask the prosecutor the “valid cause of action” set-up questions that normally would be put to the cop testifying in court.

    With regards to asking a “government” agent Marc’s set up questions, I think most politicians and bureaucrats would say they’re not a lawyer and that you should ask a lawyer. I think it would work best to ask a politician or bureaucrat that IS a lawyer. Thus cutting off the weasel’s excuse to evade answering the questions.

    Marc’s motion to dismiss addresses the issue of standing/valid cause of action. Mr. Prosecutor, even if the judge denies my MTD, the issue is not going to go away. I’m going to question the cop about valid cause of action. I’ve heard Marc say that’s what he does. Be straight-forth and professional about it.

  26. RAD Says:

    From Leviathon by Thomas Hobbes(Part of the philosophical basis for the constitution religion):

    “Difference Between Verifying And Authorising

    Verifyed, I say, not Authorised: for the Verification, is but the Testimony and Record; not the Authority of the law; which consisteth in the Command of the Soveraign only.”

    In other words the law applies because some guy said so and for no other reason. THIS IS THE (pseudo)”LOGICAL” BASIS FOR THE WHOLE ENTIRETY OF CONSTITUTIONAL/STATUTORY LAW.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - May 30, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Patriot Wonder from FL: rumors of citizenship <> “once you get elected you become a CITIZEN, I think” <> suggest sending ‘a letter’ to the chief council to the previous caller <> the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is the chief counsel when THEY are attacking you <> senseless bureaucratic entropy <> Clint Richardson’s dependence on obscure definitions and complex gish gallop non-responses <> where is the paper-trail for the alleged “millions/billions of dollars your live birth certificate is worth annually?” <> someone is foolishly claiming “you can pay your medical bills by producing your birth certificate to the hospital” <> Clint’s friend apparently was able to trace his bloodline to his privileged posterity, which was how he was granted his special citizenship status <> and analyzing more of Clint’s statements from last week. […]

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 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