Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jan 3, 2015

Posted on January 4th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Starting the year off by first calling-out the grandest pretenders that people victims are starting to finally push back against.
  • Refusing to allow any sacred cows in the courtroom by refusing to accept arguments that are immune from challenge.
  • You have to be able to ask tough questions to discover truth.
  • Using the double standard of the STATE as a leverage point to expose the corruption in the courtroom and the immorality of the use of torture.
  • To effectively litigate, remember to openly state that you are only participating under threat, duress, and coercion and keep the burden of proof on the one making the accusations during hearings.
  • There is no evidence to prove that any of legislator’s political laws apply across the board, as THEY, the ruling class, believe and will tell you if you ask them.
  • Torture defenders/cheerleaders.
  • Comply/pay or we’ll jail youis not contractual.
  • Being stalked for asking a bureaucrat a question they cannot answer.
  • Essential factual elements of contracts: 1) an offer, 2) acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, 3) mutual agreement, and 4) a valuable consideration.
  • Using the Same ‘ol Lie World Tour, Ian Freeman’s Administrative DMV hearing, and the Washington Tax hearing as guiding examples of how to counter courtroom misdirection and logical fallacies.
  • Marc’s 12+ years of questioning the existence of a citizen or STATE and seeking what evidence THEY have to prove THEIR arbitrary laws apply.
  • How to file for recusal of the presiding judge.
  • The judge entering a plea for a defendant who is [actually] refusing to plea is not considered practicing law from the bench.
  • Critics are always invited to call into the show to voice their dissent and/or criticisms.
  • “The only difference between the government and mafia is the government has superior public relations.”
  • Do not maintain loyalty to a lawyer based upon how much you have spent with them already and the self-imposed limitations of retaining counsel.
  • Two instances where an attorney can be worth using: 1) if you have such bad public speaking skills to where you can’t defend yourself, and 2) for communicating with people on the outside while in jail.
  • Maricopa county head prosecutor: “the evidence our laws apply are the people in prison.”
  • Using the unsigned plea of guilty to be able to ask questions of evidence that the prosecution must have to present a case before the court.
  • Marc’s series of shows with Joe Thomas.
  • Techniques government agents use to back out of having to answer a tough question.
  • Liberty-minded people getting elected to office?
  • Do you think that bureaucrats are getting more obviously oppressive or are people just now noticing more?
  • Using the term ‘attack’ when referring to government summons.
  • Does might make right?
  • Addressing those who would discount a traffic court as “not a real court.”
  • Contempt can be considered a huge offense.
  • “Forcing people to pay you means never having to do the right thing and never having to be responsible.”
  • Revenue mills: “Leaders don’t force you to pay them, rulers do.”
  • Marc’s call with Martin Jenkins of the New Hampshire State Board Labor where he says it’s an oversimplification to say “their operating presumption is that if someone is in New Hampshire, then its assumed that the constitution and codes apply.”
  • The overwhelming inertia of some bureaucratic attacks.
  • Getting agents to admit that they don’t know and that they have zero evidence to support their assertions.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Al from CA: thanks for playing the call of shame where he [Al] was declining to participate in the court’s religious practices <> asking questions of evidence does work, but not every time when you have an overly impartial and unfair judge <> investigating a valid cause of action and the name of the person(s) who filed and who is processing the complaint <> jamming the oppressive system <> and persistently attempting to ask why the prosecution continues to be non-responsive.
  • Kenneth from MO: filing paperwork to motion the court to dismiss based on the lack of an actual adversary <> courts sending mail to previous addresses to attempt to trigger a bench warrant <> would it be wise to use the intended plea of guilty at a later stage of litigation? <> and filing an affidavit of fear with your driver’s license application.
  • Ian from CA: disengaging with the system <> constructing a flow-chart based on the Marcratic method <> the power of using a motion to dismiss based on their admissions <> what are the grounds you can cite for a request for recusal of the presiding judge? <> how to best file a writ of mandamus in the higher courts <> how to deal with a judge who blindly denies to even consider the issues raised in the motion to dismiss before denying it <> and validation from past successes in legal-land (soon to be added to the NSP parking ticket study).
  • Eric from MN: responding to a couple felony charges/complaints in Nebraska <> the consequences of working with an attorney or public defender who doesn’t have the defendant’s best interests in mind <> raising the issues of a lack of a valid cause of action and lack of standing <> non-responsive, stonewalling bureaucrats <> streamlined court steamrolling <> and the risk of botched paperwork.
  • Vin James from England: getting back to hosting a show <> mutual friends <> update on a few ongoing adventures in legal land <> the prosecution wants to wordsmith with the word ‘accusation’ <> taking advantage of asking tough questions of evidence at case management hearings <> and a new Call-of-Shame of a ‘bewildered’ bureaucrat.
  • Rod from CA: debating the pro’s and con’s on renewing a driver’s license <> having a license does not mean you are contracting with the DMV or STATE <> knock on the door from an IRS agent <> finding Marc through related videos on YouTube <> and failure to produce a verified complaint.
  • John from MI: a judge claims the citation is grounds for the court to establish jurisdiction and accused the defendant of debating when they were simply asking questions of evidence to prove jurisdiction <> building a case for prosecutorial and/or judicial misconduct <> and gaining some low-risk real world experience to sharpen litigation skills.
  • Dave from NJ: success story of a traffic citation being kicked from court in New Jersey <documentary proof> <> not surrendering to the pretender’s veiled threats <> proactively not accepting jurisdiction until the court can provide evidence to substantiate their assertion <> maintaining a professional code of conduct while objecting at every opportunity possible <> the fascist corporate nature of government <> life outside the cave <> layered and compounded bureaucracy and taxation <> the lack of consciousnesses of bureaucrats <> and the STATE’s illegal claim to property taxes.

              

28 Comments For This Post

  1. RAD Says:

    The government is a religious institution and the belief system is a religion in the literal sense. The supernatural deity is the corporate person of the state, what Hobbes called the Leviathan.

    Here is where the chief architects of the modern era version of the government religion literally says the state is god(remember US Government really is based on this theory, and the proof is in Arizona v United States):
    The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.

  2. RAD Says:

    JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
    The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.””LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    “Today’s opinion… …deprives States of what most would con- sider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”

  3. RAD Says:

    “As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.”

  4. RAD Says:

    : “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.”

  5. RAD Says:

    So a lawsuit in which both of the “parties” are imaginary Leviathan deities. Look at this for what it is: A group of men and women dressing up in priest-style robes preaching from their pulpit that there invisible higher power, that is their abstract “person” of “Arizona” is “sovereign”. The supreme power. The same supreme “being” they prey to when they worship the idols with the pentagrams. The same symbol which appears on the magic jewelry of authority, one long associated with magic.
    YOU HAVE LITERALLY EVERY ELEMENT OF A RELIGON:
    Dogma/Scripture Supernatural Deities Supernatural Forces Faith Magical Thinking
    the robed wizard priest preaching his invisible higher power. Claiming he, due to his claimed personal relationship (as claimed representative) with the invisible higher power has a unique authority to interpret the sacred scripture, and even to write new scripture. But in order to fully activate his supernatural force of authority he must make it official with a religious oath to support the scripture. Then he is bestowed by the invisible higher power with the supernatural power of jurisdiction. Then whatever he says comes true through ritual magic. He sits at his alter/pulpit wearing the magic robe and bangs the magic hammer and due to the ritual ceremonial magic his scribblings then become scripture.
    Ya, I love how statists say its “a lot” like a religion yet not really a religion. It has literally every characteristic of a religion but it’s not one.
    Lol talk about special pleading. We know the power of jurisdiction is supernatural because Marc has gotten them to admit their faith and also that there is no evidence. Thus, there is no naturalistic principle of science to prove this invisible force. By definition this makes it a supernatural belief.

  6. Andy Says:

    “I can’t seem to find this mystical document called the “social contract” you claim I’m a party to.”

  7. Andy Says:

    Government consists of
    1) pieces of paper
    2) some buildings
    3) people like you

    The rest is in your head.

  8. Andy Says:

    Asked of a politician or bureaucrat: If I did business as you do and forced people to give me money would you consider me a criminal?

  9. Andy Says:

    What’s the difference between the government and the mafia? The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte

  10. Andy Says:

    If government was by consent, taxes wouldn’t be compulsory.

  11. Boxer Says:

    @Andy

    Actually, “governent” doesn’t consist of anything. It’s ALL in your head.

  12. Andy Says:

    @Boxer, tell it to the graphic on the home page that links to this article/NSP. http://marcstevens.net/

    Here’s the graphic: http://marcstevens.net/NSPmedia/Images/Graphics/Government_Consists_Of.jpg

  13. mike Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VEPCuRfFG_I

    good video

  14. Boxer Says:

    @Andy

    You want me to talk to the graphic?

  15. desertspeaks Says:

    The next time a judge or prosecutor tells anyone that the ticket/complaint is proof or and or establishes jurisdiction.. quote the following case

    courts of appeal control lower courts and their interpretations

    U.S. v. Bailey 696 F.3d 794 (2012) United States court of appeals, ninth circuit, argued and submitted April 12, 2012
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6323800857722081749&q=U.S.+v.+Bailey+696+F.3d+794&hl=en&as_sdt=806&as_vis=1
    Below, direct quotes from the court

    801 “A complaint is merely an accusation of conduct and not, of course, proof that the conduct alleged, occurred.”

    802 “All a complaint establishes is knowledge of what a plaintiff claims. It does not establish the truth of either the facts asserted in the complaint, or of the law asserted in the complaint.”

  16. RAD Says:

    Andy Says:
    January 5th, 2015 at 6:55 am
    What’s the difference between the government and the mafia? The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte

    Ya basically the government religion is the only noteworthy empiric difference.
    Their medeival scriptures say so and they have a personal relationship with the invisible higher power of state, which Marc has exposed as a supernatural belief,
    one which is presumed based on imagination and faith rather than reasoned evidence.

  17. WorBlux Says:

    Any way I can get that spooner graphic right above the podcast link as a bumper magnet?

  18. 11:11 Says:

    I agree with Marc’s advice to the caller in this program, about filing as soon as possible, the Brady Request & Motion To Strike/Dismiss or Demur. I don’t know about other “states” but I know that here in “Louisiana” the other side has the right to timely receive, review and respond to pleadings.

    In other words, if you show up, for instance, the day of your trial and file the Motion To Strike the black robed criminal can strike your pleading as untimely filed. Usually the persecutor will ask (move or motion) that it be stricken and the judge will sustain.

    If it is an ‘element of surprise’ that you’re looking for, then that will will happen in your cross examining of the cop as well as the questions and objections that you will make during the proceeding.

  19. RAD Says:

    It’s not terrorism when the government does it but apparently it is when other people do it:

    “Paper terrorism is a neologism to refer to the use of false liens, frivolous lawsuits, bogus letters of credit, and other legal documents lacking sound factual basis as a method of harassment, especially against government officials.”

    Lacking in sound factual basis…hmmm.

  20. Don Waas Says:

    My city and the courts have refused to grant me any rights laid out in the US Constitution. Does this mean I should be exempt from paying any tax, or is it now my right to invoke the second Amendment. Your thoughts. Read my story at http://www.judicialimmunitynecessaryevil.com/

  21. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Don Was, there are no rights. Were you just challenging the prosecutor’s arguments and the judge covered for the prosecution? You talking about a due process violation?

  22. Don Waas Says:

    So how do you get the court to address the lack of due process and equal protection? Note all the ordinance violations are still there with more to come. Our zoning law mean nothing to our city council members. They know the people in this community can not afford council. Out of all the evidence (pictures, state statues, case law, and city ordinances) I’ve put forth not one issue has been addressed. Question, so who do u turn to too in force our laws? Apparently it’s in nobodies job description to protect our rights.

  23. Incubus Says:

    A) What do you mean by “our laws”, and B) “our rights”, more specifically “rights” in general?

  24. Don Waas Says:

    I’m assuming you’ve read my statement of claims submitted to fed court (case 14-C-1266). There are two link (arguments presented and about us) with some of my arguments presented in the WI. State. Courts. Note I did not post the evidence of the violation submitted to the courts on my web site. The main issue I’ve been trying to get address is that can a city disregard civil procedures and zoning regulations with impunity, and if so don’t the American people have an right to know this? Before a city can take your financial security and quality of life, don’t the people have a right to be heard first. http://www.judicialimmunitynecessaryevil.com/

  25. Don Waas Says:

    I’m assuming you’ve read my statement of claims submitted to fed court (case 14-C-1266). There are two link (arguments presented and about us) with some of my arguments presented in the WI. State. Courts. Note I did not post the evidence of the violation submitted to the courts on my web site. The main issue I’ve been trying to get address is that can a city disregard civil procedures and zoning regulations with impunity, and if so don’t the American people have an right to know this? Before a city can take your financial security and quality of life, don’t the people have a right to be heard.

  26. Andy Says:

    Don Was said: “My city…”

    As plain as the nose on your face, it’s your nose; can you please explain some of the attributes of your city and how it is your city.

  27. Don Waas Says:

    Andy is This what u got out of my case. That I’m not smart enough to receive equal protection. My writing ability only quilifys me for military serve and not for help from intelligent people like u. Thank for your help ful thoughts.

  28. qwerty Says:

    When u play the part of defendant, you are acting in a representative capacity. The judge then assumes jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

    If you want to make changes on a birth certificate, u need to act in a rep. capacity too. On line 14 it says: I represent the person as – Self, Parent, Guardian, Informant, Funeral Director, Other (specify). Line 15 then says: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington …

    A Guardian is any individual or agency whose status as guardian of the person of the child has been established by judicial decree.

    To represent is to pretend.

    Natural life – black’s law: used in contradistinction to that artificial conception of life as an aggregate of legal rights or the possession of a legal personality…

    Artificial persons: persons created and devised (dispose of real or personal property by will) by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons.

4 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Dave Gets Ticket Kicked in New Jersey - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Congrats to Dave for defending himself against the bogus claims of the psychopaths called “government”.  And thanks for providing the documentary proof below.  We spoke about this on the No State Project. […]

  2. NSP - Mar 7, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Ian from CA: can laws be entered into evidence? <> lessons learned from past hearings <> producing a modular educational series on YouTube to help people learn to defend themselves against bureaucratic legal attacks utilizing the “Marcratic methodology” <> noting due process violations, such as when the judge proceeds with a complaint absent required evidence <> a [now former] federal prosecutor quit their job because of the rank corruption <> the cognitive dissonance that bureaucrats have with their own internal contradictions <> inconsistencies with the “jurisdiction based upon birth location” theories, can minors enter into contracts? <> learning how to get third party authorization in order to be allowed to help others in court <> how mentally malleable people end up as cult-led automatons <> government accountability catch 22‘s <> trauma induced statist comradery and fraternity <> exercising peaceful non-compliance in the face of aggressive opinion enforcement <> Frank Underwood‘s mainstream example of authoritarian psychopathy <> psychopaths are most successful when they are able to operate covertly without risk of accountability <> more objectively rephrasing our language by implying ownership: “the law(s)” versus “your law(s)” <> poking holes in “social contract” theories <> traffic ticket dismissed on grounds of bad faith <> […]

  3. NSP - May 9, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Al from CA: latest success story from legal-land defeating an excessive traveling charge ($274+ fine for not turning on headlights); the cop was a no-show because he didn’t feel like following through with his legal-attack <> the judge commits a due-process violation and enters a plea on the defendant’s behalf <> filing motions is as useful as voting; just stick to asking simple direct questions <> if the cop can’t make legal determinations; then he is not qualified, nor competent, to issue a complaint where he’s made the legal determination that the law applies to you <> bureaucrats and attorneys protecting their lucrative revenue streams by excessive fines and intimidation tactics <> keeping the burden-of-proof on the one making the claim/complaint/assertion is key <> the destructive gang nature of government; if they are committing most of the evil in the world, then what good are they? <> the beard edge <> key to achieving success is keeping the burden-of-proof on the accuser to produce the facts and evidence to support their claims <> the prosecutor went crazy when the defendant earned an acquittal of their felony charges <> some of problems and admissions from Mike’s trial <> making effective conscientious objections <> the point of putting bureaucrats under oath and their otherwise utter uselessness <> the destructive nature and actions of government <> and the legalese jargon thrown around to obfuscate what’s actually happening. […]

  4. NSP - Jan 30, 2016 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Rod from CA: improving litigation skills and techniques before an upcoming arraignment for a traffic citation <> when do you employ your questions challenging their evidence? <> how do you counter the common bureaucratic lie that “your driver’s license is the evidence” to prove their jurisdiction? <> getting constantly interrupted and derailed when arguing that the prosecution has no case without a verified complaint <> are there any cannons of law that mandate the judge to thoroughly review a motion before so easily deny it? <> role-playing court procedure <> and “whoever is asking the questions is in control.” […]

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