Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jan 24, 2015

Posted on January 24th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Basic principals when challenging koproaches and bureaucrat authoritarians with questions that expose the nature of their job and their psychopathic circus.
  • Openly demonstrating the terrible corruption in the courtroom to incentivize the court to do the right thing and throw the case out.
  • Serial killers and bureaucratic authoritarians tend to share the same personality disorders.
  • Big thanks to Dan and Don for showing up to Paul’s hearing last week.
  • “You don’t wait until you are in the ring to learn how to box.”
  • The “NAME IN ALL CAPS” isn’t an assertion they’re making and has no merit.
  • A finding of probable cause is not evidence of jurisdiction.
  • No one can prove there are STATEs and citizens because there is no duty for them to protect you and it’s all done under threat, duress, and coercion.
  • Getting your paperwork, such as motions to dismiss, Brady requests, discovery requests, ect, filed as early as possible.
  • Organizing local workshops in your community to help teach and learn from one another.
  • “Lawyers are some of the most difficult people to pin down to a yes or no.”
  • 3 basic misdirection techniques used by lawyers: 1) ignore you, 2) threaten you, and 3) lie to you; and that’s why its important to frequently object to their diversionary (non-)responses to your questions of evidence.
  • When you accuse criminally aggressive attorneys of crimes in open court, some of these authoritarian bureaucrats will just sit there stone-faced like Jean Killham.
  • The constitution is meant to be used to control/oppress you the non-privileged victim, not them the privileged/ruling class.
  • Asking questions of evidence is not making or supporting an argument.
  • Getting the court’s attention by affirmatively asking the question “what do I need to do for you to take this seriously?”
  • When the judge asks if you are ready to proceed, you should respond “no” and object on grounds that the prosecutor has not provided anything to support their assertion to prove the constitution and codes actually apply.
  • The extreme lack of empathy from courtroom creatures and bureaucrats in general.
  • The standing cross-reference is updated.
  • The force continuum police use to corrosively get compliance to non-violent offenses.
  • When a question of evidence is so often conflated as a “frivolous argument” (which is a straw-man logical fallacy by the way) eventually that can, and will, trigger an evidentiary renaissance.

  • If applicability of the law was so obvious and easy to prove, then why do they have to put up a lame straw-man logical fallacy when asked to prove it? 😳
  • Demonstrating that you are trying to resolve issues without having to go to court and consume precious time and resources.
  • Vertical social structures are inherently oppressive.
  • Scheduling your motions to be heard on the court’s motion day.
  • Tax courts are a rigged game when most judges are former I.R.S. attorneys.
  • Giving bureaucrats advance notice of the tough questions of evidence that you’ll be asking to soften the blow and allow them time and space to act appropriately and dismiss the complaint from court as they should with such a lack of evidence.
  • You do not mail the unsigned plea of guilty in with your paperwork.
  • Jury nullification is not common knowledge amongst jurors.
  • John Myser‘s forced psych evaluation turned-up negative while the obvious sociopaths are allowed to have full reign.
  • Karl Lentz’s nonsense about “bringing your own court.”
  • The long arm of the assumption of jurisdiction to expatriates.
  • You don’t want to get stuck arguing the merits of a charge or complaint, you want to keep control and focus of the dialogue by asking your effective questions of evidence.
  • Requesting a teleconference hearing.
  • No other issues or charges are relevant unless the court has been presented with evidence to prove jurisdiction from the prosecution.
  • Prosecutors becoming suddenly dumbfounded when asking for the evidence to prove the operating assumptions that they’ve already stated.
  • Using the Call-of-Shames as a template to form and guide your questioning.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Kirby from WA: unsuccessfully attempted to assert his “rights” in a psychopath circus courtroom <> three additional criminal charges for not being submissive enough: 1) contempt of kop, 2) obstructing more contempt of kop, and 3) resisting kidnapping <> “all men are created equal, some are just a little more equal than others it seems” <> recounting the arraignment hearing/steam-rolling <> assigned a public defender (who later recused himself) because the defendant was not fully prepared to raise the critical issues of jurisdiction effectively and make the proper objections when necessary <> the lead prosecutor/judge claims they “found jurisdiction,” but they failed to produce any evidence of it <> avoiding the use of affirmative statements and using questions of evidence to mount an effective defense <> use of a media rep would be helpful if anyone can make themselves available <> “You have power? Okay… well, I’ve got guns at home too; I’m just not as willing to use them.” <> your well structured questions need to be in writing when raising evidentiary issues to the court <> criminal constitutionalism <> realizing the depth of deception by coming across the “No STATE Project” and Lysander Spooner‘s “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” <> the value of association by choice instead of coercion <> what happens when a person of integrity runs into the horrible truth of corruption and coercion behind government services <> attemmpting to explain to the roadside authoritarians that you are not “driving” as defined by their law <> p2p help <> the judge’s role is supposed to be a referee between the the defendant and prosecutor, but often acts as lead prosecutor <> “if you don’t read the newspaper; you’re likely uninformed, and if you do read the newspaper; you’re likely misinformed” <> and avoiding the use of refuse for causetype paperwork based on unsuccessful past experiences.
  • Eyal from NSP Israel: updates: more Israel locals are coming to the ideas of voluntaryism and living with out authoritarian psychopathic rulers [<-maybe a little redundant…] <> a NSP pro per litigant successfully exercised damage-control against cannabis possession charges in Israel with a fair amount of preparation and role-playing prior <> bureaucrats claim that “expressions” used on Eyal’s website is somehow “slander” when he’s simply objectively and properly describing pronouns and accuse him of UPL <> bi-weekly updates that can be found at, usually in Hebrew <> and how dastardly bureaucrats consistently use threats of “considering to using the full extent of the law” to attempt to silence dissent.
  • I am Self from the NSP Skype group chat: providing them a copy of their brochure that distinguishes between giving them information and advice.
  • Chris from TX: being civilly sued by the I.R.S. for $800,000+, which was triggered by following different tax-honesty guru’s advice through the years <> the government will often file a substitute for return with certain non-filers <> the government is eager to enforce their lien due to time limitations <> the prosecutor failed to serve the defendant within the 120 days that they’re supposedly permitted, missing the processing date by 33 days <> it was fascinating how unfamiliar the judge was with such a consequential case <> in a rare instance, the prosecuting attorney served the defendant paperwork for him to appear before the court <> no objections made on grounds of improper service <> how to contact Marc off air <> and did I accept the court’s jurisdiction by acting as a petitioner?
  • Art from PA: getting turned on to good ‘ol rockin’ Rory Gallagher from tuning into Marc’s show <> prepping for challenging a ‘failure to use turn signal’ traffic ticket to avoid making any further donations to the city extortion machine <> order of filing and procedure <> contacting the prosecutor by phone to attempt to ask them your questions of evidence <> how can you request production of evidence of jurisdiction from the court without entering a plea? <> strengthening oneself for pro per litigation by reading Adventures in Legal Land and Government: Indicted <> and Q: are there people around me who would be willing to meet-up for some face-to-face court role-playing? A: use the forum.
  • Patriot Wonder from FL: do you really believe you become a legitimate judge just by putting on that black robe? <>  Ralph Winterrowd‘s discovery that 1) U.S. prosecutors are actually chief counsel of the I.R.S., 2) that in Texas the courts cannot enforce a lien to actually seize your property, and 3) that police are a legitimate authority to arbitrarily order a person off of a road <> and Karl Lentz’s [¿]successful[?] cases in court.
  • Cory from FL: if a prosecutor asks if you are a citizen and you answer “no”; what are the implications of living your life and conducting your activities as a non-citizen? <> being charged with non-violently resisting an authoritarian <> and how the defendant was intimidated into mailing in a fine.
  • Joe from OH: was sent a red-light camera citation through the mail from when he was on vacation in Texas <> how can you challenge a traffic ticket through the mail? <> how does one respond to legal threats from other alleged jurisdictions? <> you cannot simply charge others with offenses of your arbitrary rules, code, or law <> how should you respond to an I.R.S. legal attack? <> and how do you effectively challenge the STATE with its infinite resources and mitigate any risks that could be unacceptably life-discomforting.

72 Comments For This Post

  1. james robbins Says:

    Hi marc my daughter and I need your help .we had our car searched today by custom agents coming back from Canada they violated our rights because we wouldn’t answer there questions what can we do if anything

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ James what happened?

  3. desertspeaks Says:

    Marc, all of these government employees “judges, district attorneys, cops, etc” are ALL REQUIRED by their own laws, to be US CITIZENS to hold their positions in their alleged government! Since no one can prove that they are US CITIZENS, they are committing fraud and perjury by signing an oath stating that they are US CITIZENS! see 18 USC 1001
    While challenging jurors on their citizenship, why not also challenge the employees legitimacy.

  4. NonEntity Says:

    Desert, I like your thinking. Consider this: in my mind what really gives Marc his value is that he has put in the time and thought to find the methods which “they” have not yet figured out how to circumvent. We’ve seen that “making claims” doesn’t work as “they” will dismiss them by pointing to some prior court decision, or by saying “well that’s just your opinion…” Marc has figured out how to use their own rules to get them painting themselves into a corner with their own statements. What your idea needs now is a process similar to Marc’s wherein you can lead them by the hand into proving themselves in violation of their own rules.

    Duzat make sense?

  5. Mike Says:

    Marc you are always talking about psychos…use Psycho Circus from Kiss as a theme song

  6. Ben Says:

    Here is something I found, and mentioned a while ago, that can help protect ourselves when being stopped and/or being pulled over by these psychos with badges and guns. It’s a small flyer that you can put against your car window or make into a wallet sized card.

    This is what it states on the front….

    Please put any tickets under windshield wiper.
    I am NOT required to sign – §318.14(2).
    I am NOT required to hand you my license – §322.15.
    Thus I am not opening my window.
    I will only comply with clearly stated lawful orders.

    This one is specifically for FL, and there are more for other states too. If any one wants to learn more check out this site.

  7. NonEntity Says:


    1) making assertions/claims,
    2) contempt of cop,
    3) is you ego bigger than you brain?

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Insert “r”s where appropriate…

  9. desertspeaks Says:

    NonEntity Yes, it would be just a matter of sitting down and figuring out to paint/question them into a corner with their own admissions.. I’m new to all of this but I’m catching on fast!

  10. NonEntity Says:


    You said, ” it would be just a matter of…” I suggest that often we look at something someone else has done and, seeing the finished product, say, “well sure,” when if it was so damned easy, as we in our minds believe, someone would have done it long ago. Marc has been doing and refining his work for well over a decade. As someone has pointed out elsewhere, it generally seems to take 10,000 hours of practice before one can become an “instant” success at anything. 😉

    I’m not intending to put down what you’ve said, only attempting to point out that ANYTHING seems simple, once you understand it. That’s the natural hubris of the human mind.

  11. Thomas Paine Says:


    Has anyone considered having the defendant, his/her advocate and/or all of the media reps showing up in the court room wearing black robes?

    Would this not help to flatten the perceived hierarchy?

    Tom Paine

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    Has anyone ever asked the prosecutor if they have evidence that the CONstitution and laws apply via an interrogatory which they have to answer under oath!?!?

  13. desertspeaks Says:

    For example, one interrogatory that has been served on’ opponents reads, “Identify all persons having first-hand knowledge of any material fact alleged in the pleadings of this case and, with regard to each such person, state what they know about each such fact and how they came to know it.”

  14. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ desert, we do that when the rules permit such discovery, problem is the judges deny our motion in limine despite the prosecution not having a witness. They still ignore the objections, they are appealable issues though.

  15. NonEntity Says:

    I like where you’re going with this, Desert! 😉

  16. Generalinquiry Says:

    Q: Why not request via public disclosure / discovery for : risk management bonding information for judge and prosecutor, CUSIP number for case, bid bond copy, performance bond copy, payment bond copy, W1040 for prosecutor’s kickback, disclosure of conflict by judge/prosecutor, list of insurance companies underwriting the monetization, plus don’t forget the clerk’s bonding information too?

    You know, just to make things interesting for the prosecutor and Judge.

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ general those are good suggestions

  18. desertspeaks Says:

    @ marc, a motion in limine isn’t an answer under oath as required by a interrogatory motion or am I missing something??

  19. Curt Says:

    i just received a ticket on sunday 1/25/2015 came off the interstate 39 in Illinois was a half a mile off of 39 when me and my wife noticed a car slowing down in front of me we both commented whats this guy doing he pulled over quick onto the shoulder we went by while i was slowing to let him over as we were passing i seeen that it was a police car he put his lights on and got behind me and i pulled onto the shoulder when he is approaching my pick up truck i tell my wife not to say anything first thing said from police man was do you know why i pulled you over i said nothing he said license and insurance i gave him that he said did you know you where speeding i then said no comment my wife couldnt hold it anymore and said no way we where speeding i just looked at her she stopped then the police man said you dont want to talk because you have a C.D.L i said no comment when what i meant to say was I respectfully decline to answer any and all questions today. but because we were both cought off guard and stunned i kept repeating no comment he says to my wife well i got you on radar and you were flying up on the rear of my squad car we said nothing he did get out of me as we were about to leave where we were going nothing more he had s smirk on his face the entire time really pissed me off because me and my wife knew that i was not speeding for sure was told that i should take a witness go ask to see judge then and there and when they refuse as they will say you have a court date on the ticket leave have witnesses sign a paper written up stateing that fact that they witnessed this have it notarized send that a;ong with ticket back to clerk im told that i more than likely will not hear from them again what do you think or do you believe your approach is more reliable let me no A.S.A.P THANKS Marc Curt

  20. Curt Says:

    it appears to me there case is going to be based on Radar / and cops version of events that he seen me flying up on the rear of his squad car. seems air tight but none the less im determined not to let this go. me and my wife are positive that i was not speeding. we were leaving when we noticed that same cop pulling over another car. then we went where we were going and on the way noticed two po;ice cars up ahead aways sitting side by side they where from a diffrent county. but on our way back thru after finishing our drive we see the same cop that pulled me over again with another car stopped. so he had 2 cars in a short time besides me i think in my opinion he was filling Quota anyway he could….. please help im going to fight for sure even if the crooked Bastards lock me up

  21. NonEntity Says:


    …and good luck with this. 😉

  22. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Marc or anyone else who would like to chime in.. Has anyone utilized a request for admission in discovery??
    See FRCP 36 for the admission of discovery motion, but in a nutshell.
    A request for admissions is simply a list of facts you serve on your opponent that he is required to answer within a set amount of time or have those things treated as admitted!

    “In a civil action, a request for admission is a discovery device that allows one party to request that another party admit or deny the truth of a statement under oath.”

  23. NonEntity Says:

    “In a civil action, a request for admission is a discovery device that allows one party to request that another party admit or deny the truth of a statement under oath.” … so much for the “right” to remain silent, and “innocent until proven guilty,” huh?

  24. desertspeaks Says:

    @ NonEntity, it’s cute that you believe you have rights!! lol.. None of that is applicable to us mundanes.. they signed an oath that allegedly obligates them to adhere to these things. Did you?? I didn’t think so!

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Desert, I know I’m cute. Some say I’m adorable! (Well, that was my mother, so maybe it’s just one, and not “some.” I don’t wanna eggzagerate.) I wuz just talkin’ about dem rights they say we’ve got. I mean, since we’re being dragged into their sandbox and all… 😉 (Thanks for the compliment, by the way!)

  26. desertspeaks Says:

    @ NonEntity, firstly, LOL, very funny.. Normally I would reject any and all hearsay, opinions, feelings, beliefs, assumptions and presumptions as they don’t qualify as evidence but since you’re not taxing me or attempting to subjugate myself or my property, I’ll let it go this one time.
    We’ll have to accept your word for what your mother has to say, as we have no factual first hand evidence proving otherwise :P..
    Having said all of that, I don’t recall referring to you as cute.

  27. NonEntity Says:

    desertspeaks Says: January 28th, 2015 at 9:14 pm@ NonEntity…cute 

  28. Andy Says:

    “It’s cute” and “you’re cute” are not the same thing and you know it and that’s why you selectively omitted the “it’s” that preceded “cute”, right? Trying to CYA for your misdirection post regards your mother allegedly calling you cute, right?. Where’d you learn how to selectively omit key words, your mother?

  29. desertspeaks Says:

    Andy, take a breath bro, it’s cool, it’s all in good fun.

  30. Andy Says:

    desertspeaks, did I get it wrong?

  31. desertspeaks Says:

    @ andy, no, he purposely left out “it’s” but only because he desperately wants someone, anyone, to call him cute.. lol. which is a bit unnerving. lol

  32. NonEntity Says:

    I still have all of my nerves, even the cute ones! — :O

  33. Michael Scharen Says:

    I’ve just started my ‘Same-Old-Lie” investigation via e-mail today.
    First reply from a City Council member to the question “What facts or evidence do you have proving the constitution and laws apply?”

    …I’m not sure what you are asking… I’m not a lawyer…. please ask the City Attorney…

    We’ll see how this goes…

  34. NonEntity Says:

    I might reply by asking if he was under the opinion that those opinions that he personally decreed were applicable to you. (If he says yes then…) And if I choose to make a decree would he be similarly bound to such? (If he says no then…) So let me see if I have this straight, you believe you have more right to choose how I conduct my life than I myself do but that I don’t have such right of control over your life?

  35. NonEntity Says:

    And if he replies that he himself does not have such a right but that when working in concert with the rest of the “council” they do have such rights… you might reply, “And this is different from gang rape how?”

  36. NonEntity Says:

    P.S. Kudos for taking this on. 🙂

  37. NonEntity Says:

    Oh, let me add this in case you were not clear on it: I’m pretty sure Marc’s intention is that these questions be asked not in the privacy of email but rather in the full glare of a public city council meeting where squirms and dodges cannot be hidden. Also, and perhaps most importantly, this gives you personal experience in thinking on your feet and staying on point in the stress of an open public confrontation with skilled obfuscators, manipulators and liars.

  38. Boxer Says:


    “I’m pretty sure Marc’s intention is that these questions be asked not in the privacy of email but rather in the full glare of a public city council meeting where squirms and dodges cannot be hidden.”

    Great point. Anyone have any ideas on how you get past the time limits they place on these public meetings? It would appear that even Marc wasn’t able to get answers to his questions and they simply allowed time to run out.

  39. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, how about a “tag team?” 🙂

  40. soup Says:

    Damn Right Marc …

  41. Michael Gaylan Says:

    I like the idea of tag teaming liars. Makes the squirming much more noticeable.

    I always thought they were trying to scratch an itch…


  42. RAD Says:

    “desertspeaks Says:
    January 28th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
    @ Marc or anyone else who would like to chime in.. Has anyone utilized a request for admission in discovery??”

    Yes have used one before in the lawsuit I did when I sued the cops. I think it could work really well with something like Marc’s process. Something like “Admit that there is no evidence that the plaintiff exists.” combined w/ a discovery request: “What facts or evidence prove the existence of a plaintiff?”

    Or maybe even :”Admit that the plaintiff is a religious deity” or “Admit that the plaintiff is imaginary”.

  43. RAD Says:

    *Alleged plaintiff*

    Request for admissions:
    “Admit that there is no evidence the alleged plaintiff actually exists”
    Discovery request:
    “What evidence, if any, proves the existence of the alleged plaintiff?”
    Or something like that, use the discovery request and the request for admissions as a 1-2 punch to paint them into a corner through Socratic inquiry. Hopefully, they would just “run away” and refuse to answer at which point, move to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

  44. Michael Scharen Says:

    I am planning on confronting the City Council and other bureaucrats in person very soon. I thought I’d feel out some bureaucrats in adjacent cities via e-mail. Only two have replied with the predictable non-responsive ‘answers’.

    I was wondering if this website or some other had a central repository/database for video/email confrontations? It would be useful also for those filing complaints against lawyers/judges/bureaucrats to have a central location that spotlighted these abuses. Contact information could also be there for instigating even more complaints or inquiries against these predators…

  45. Michael Scharen Says:

    I have heard Marc indicate that on rare occasions that he manages to shame a bureaucrat or cop into realizing just how much they are harming peaceful people. One or two have even quit their jobs!

    Would a little more focus on these people get others to change their evil ways? “Government Indicted” indicated that just getting through to one or two jurors could really do some good.

  46. NonEntity Says:

    Michael, a thought for your consideration. You may not want to pursue this path at “your” city council meetings lest you really piss someone off and they are in a position to make your life a living hell. Stay out of town for these forays into truth, justice and the Merikun whey.

  47. Michael Scharen Says:

    Well, I insulted plenty of sensibilities when I ran for City Council. Thank God I lost and came to my senses about government.

  48. Michael Gaylan Says:

    @RAD et al.

    That would probably raise a few eyebrows but in truth, the entity exists. Everything legal “exists, because they have birth certificates for businesses.

    May I suggest using “Fictitious Plaintiff”?

    By it’s very legal definition it is: a person appearing as a claimant with no right to do so. Black’s Law Dictionary


  49. RAD Says:

    The entity exists? Okay, show me the entity. Have you ever seen the entity for yourself? A piece of paper does not create an “entity”. Just drawing spiderman on paper doesn’t make him a “real” person. It’s called reification. I get it that statists really, really believe in these imaginary entities as part of their religion. I can pull out papers talking about plenty of abstract “entities” like unicorns, bigfoot, aliens, elves, gremlins etc. Where exactly on this certificate is the actual evidence proving the entity exists? Is the ink on paper the proof? What actual facts does that ink actually refer to? Like if we wanted evidence of the existence of an entity called “T Rex” we could open up a dinosaur book and where it talks about fossil evidence, it refers to actual facts, it’s not just magically true because “the paper says so”.

  50. RAD Says:

    Does the entity exist as a corporeal object? Or only as an abstraction of the mind? (Like spiderman, santa, etc)

  51. NonEntity Says:

    RAD, if you and I come to an agreement, does that agreement exist?Does it apply to Marc? Does it apy to all of the people living on the west coast of the north American continent between the San Francisco bay and the Monteray bay?

  52. NonEntity Says:

    Pardon. I should have addressed that to Michael, not RAD.

  53. Michael Gaylan Says:


    Yes it exists otherwise the mere words wouldn’t come from your mouth. Not trying to create an argument but that’s just being blunt. Yes the “thing” exists on paper. It is a legal entity, albeit a FICTITIOUS ENTITY and yes it exists. Sure it exists in the mind of men, but nonetheless it exists as a fictitious plaintiff.

    As for corporeal or not, no not corporeal as in having a physical body you can touch smell or see. Yes, it is as much an ideology as superman batman and robin. Hell let’s throw in snoopy the Red Barron and Scooby Doo too. You can’t deny the thing and say it don’t exist. It’s like making the claim that “God” don’t exist.

    NO-ONE can prove he exists, but to say “God don’t exist” is saying you are in fact “God” because you have been to every place in the universe and have not found “God” so he don’t exist. But you went looking for him.

    Let’s not get into semantics or arguments. That’s not why I chimed in here.

  54. NonEntity Says:

    Michael sed:Let’s not get into semantics or arguments. That’s not why I chimed in here. … No certainly not. We wouldn’t want to shed any light on the total bullshit nature of your totally unfounded allegations. Not after you’ve just “scientifically” proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is sipping tea with the Cheshire Cat in a universe very close to ours. Nope. Wouldn’t want to mess with THAT science and logic. No sir!

  55. NonEntity Says:

    New science: Failure to prove a negative makes you GOD! (Cool, huh?) 😉

  56. Michael Gaylan Says:


    Evidently you must believe it is even possible to prove a negative without proving a positive first. Let’s deal in FACTS shall we?

    Also you must be mistaking my logic here. I’m not advocating “believing what they say” by any means. I don’t believe ANYTHING THEY say.

    I am merely adding to your possibilities of success, by using THEIR language instead of arguments.

    If something exists in the mind, then it exists to them. Might not exist to you and with good reasons. You simply don’t believe. NO MAN is obligated to believe another man. So why not throw the burden of proof BACK on them to prove it DOES EXIST?

    Nothing short of telling them to “Produce your God and I will produce mine”.
    It’s their laws, their rules now BIND them to their rules.

    Don’t get on my ass when I am trying to help you WIN.

  57. RAD Says:

    Sorry I’m not getting on your ass, I am challenging the assertions you are making. You claim there is an “entity” being represented in these predatory lawsuits. You get that this “entity” is wholly imaginary, right? And that stuff which is imaginary isn’t necessarily real right? Like if a lawyer claimed to represent a plaintiff called “Mickey Mouse” or “Voltron” would you have the same faith? Why are you convinced these “entities” are “real”? You compare them to Batman/Robin. Ok. You really think Batman and Robin are “real” entities? If Batman were named a plaintiff on a complaint, would you accept that?

  58. RAD Says:

    “NonEntity Says:
    February 3rd, 2015 at 3:04 pm
    RAD, if you and I come to an agreement, does that agreement exist?”
    We can formalize it into a tangible form. Using abstract thought is not necessarily reification. Reifying the abstraction of an “agreement”: “My agreement is the sovereign lord of this realm. Give the agreement some food right now for the sovereign supreme master is hungry. Feed the agreement or he will sue you, etc…

    “Does it apply to Marc? Does it apy to all of the people living on the west coast of the north American continent between the San Francisco bay and the Monteray bay?”


  59. RAD Says:

    I’m not an atheist, more of a Christian Deist. I know we can’t disprove God. We really can’t even disprove the “corporate person of the state” but we can look at the thought processes that go into arriving at the conclusion. The belief in these magical entities such as the “corporate person of the state” or the Leviathan, the fictional “entity” that appears in a state-actor’s (as in an actor who personates the fictional character of the “state”) predatory lawsuit as the “plaintiff state” is a religion. The fact that you have to prove your entity exists by means of scripture/magic paper shows that it is a scripture-based article of faith rather than an empirical observation of brute fact.
    When you combine that with

    If there is actual evidence on these certificates, what facts are actually referenced as evidence proving the hypothesis? The hypothesis being that there is a “real” entity that exists as a “plaintiff state”.

    If a religion is a belief system based on dogma/scripture that includes belief in supernatural entities and powers(based on faith or magical thinking rather than reasoned evidence)then the government is a religion. Aside from magical thinking/faith there is really no proof these magic Leviathan-type entities/Leviathan-deities actually “exist”. By Leviathan-deities I mean the so-called “sovereign” Higher powers of the Government religion like the “Sovereign State of Arizona” etc.

  60. RAD Says:
    “THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009

    Magic servants
    Magical Servants have been around for ages. First, the servants were called by the druids. Now, because of their example, the people of the earth have copied them. The ideal are improved upon every day to every hour. But, the practice is similar at the base for any method. ”

    “The making of a magical servant is different in approach. The simple statement with will behind it of “Servant of magic in which I make. I call you into existence. I call you servant of magic and name you [say your personal name choice here]. I call you out of the element of ether and magic!”

    “Another way of doing this is to imagine the properties of what you want the servant to look like. Imagine how he will speak. Imagine how immune he is and in what manner. Imagine the gender of the servant as either female, in-between sexes, or male as it suits your senses. Finally, imagine the servant’s name and role said servant will play in your life.”

    The Magic Servant of “the state” can do better than clean your room! It can run your whole life!

  61. RAD Says:
    ” It will manifest in a form that will please you personally. Its normal form is pure invisible essence. But you can have it clean your house, it can serve you as any other possibility as well. Including the time scout position, the instant translation position, the maid position, and the defender position. “

  62. Michael Gaylan Says:


    Evidently we got off on the wrong foot with each other. Forgive me if I am appearing to agree with the “system” as it is. The only thing I am saying (and I will leave it at this) is that the entity exists ONLY I say again ONLY in the mind of men. As much as the very words you use every day exists because you use them. Nothing complex about that. (in my opinion)

    If I were a ship captain, and someone came to my finance dept and made a claim that I still owed for a manifest I currently am suppose to have on my ship, I would do 2 things. First thing, validate it’s existence on my vessel. Then challenge the one making the claim to make sure I compensate the right one if I in fact do have such cargo. Fair enough?

    Ok, so now there is a claim, I make a counter offer to that claim by making sure, the claimant knows full well I will honor their claim if they can provide me substance or facts that I owe. I will right way scribe a payment to render what is theirs. Not going to argue about it, but challenge the validity of their claim. Otherwise I am NOT worthy of governing that ship.

    That’s all we should have to do, is challenge the validity of the claim upon our vessel. If you looked up the term or bothered reading what I wrote above you would have noticed I posted a definition regarding a FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF.

    By the mere definition itself a fictitious plaintiff has no standing.

    Black’s Law, 5th Ed. – ficticious plaintiff. – A person appearing in
    the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in
    reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use
    of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a
    fictitious party.

    For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. right? Courts are adversarial in nature correct?

    Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

    The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.

    We are failing as a people because we are not challenging the validity of the accusation itself. Lay the axe at the root.

  63. NonEntity Says:

    Michael, A thought for your consideration: it appears that you believe that those people acting under the banner of “government” are honorable people who consider themselves bound by “duty to the truth” and such other noble sentiments. Do you have any evidence that this apparent belief has any foundation? You have made some claims, citing Blacks and so on. But doesn’t this presumption of yours depend upon the above sentiments being true? What if these people don’t give one tiny shit about truth and honor and such things and only use these phrases as things to hide behind, things that most people (such as yourself, perhaps) believe and hold as high principles? — I bring these points up as from what I’ve been able to see, Marc’s method is to try and pull back the veil of honor by simply asking for evidence of jurisdiction. He doesn’t make claims, he doesn’t cite books and statutes and such as that. No, he puts the onus on them, the ones making the accusations, to put up or shut up. By doing so he makes it really hard for them to continue the con(fidence) job.

    So while those things you are saying may make sense in some mythical land where honor and truth are principles that people stand behind, here in the real world they aren’t worth the paper to wipe with.

    Duzzat make sense?

  64. Michael Gaylan Says:


    Yes it makes sense. So to get back on point and make a clear record of what I thought was clear with my posts is this:

    I do NOT think anyone in government is ever telling the truth. They CAN NOT tell the truth because they are PAID to lie. It is their JOB to lie, steal, and destroy.

    It is OUR duty to correct them.

    I can not make that any more transparent. We have been told already about them, we have been shown in the movies by the prophets that “tell-a-vision”, we have been given the power because we ARE that power.

    I’ve heard it many times from Mac himself too, that: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just “powers” from the consent of governed”. [emphasis added]

    We have just forgotten we are.

    The issue is about the improper prosecution of the Administrative Claim docketed under the color of a moving complaint. That complaint is in the form of a fictitious plaintiff having some sort of meltdown cause by an delusional injury. Reminds me of the Wizard just before Toto pulled the curtain.. Even the dog knew he was just a phoney.

    Does the law not say: “The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived”?

    I’m not trying to create an argument here. I am merely ADDING to Marc’s strength. Just trying to give you guys some ammunition geeze . .

  65. Andy Says:

    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just “powers” from the consent of governed”

    Actually, Marc says, Again from the Declaration of Independence, Government is instituted to secure these rights. Those rights being life, liberty and pursuit of happiness — individual rights. It’s the meat of the standing cross reference Marc has compiled.

    Marc is basically shoving their sacred writ back in their face. Just words on paper that they don’t adhere to. And he exposes them for that. They can’t legitimately claim to secure those alleged rights by violating those alleged rights.

    The problem is that a right is a mental construct; a legal claim within an agreement or contract.

    A run-of-the-mill thief doesn’t claim a right to have me give him money — he just exercises the power and sheer will to steal from me — he claims no right to steal from me. People that call themselves government claim they have a right to my money; that I’m somehow obligated to give them money. People that call themselves government claim they have a right to kill me. It’s called, “just following procedure, just doing my job, I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.” The Use of Force Continuum. It’s comply or die.

    They have that one down pat. Except it seems they’re losing ground at hiding that gun under the table (under all that paperwork). As increasingly more people wake up to their own voluntary interactions and realize government is the odd man out.

    People that call themselves government have become more obvious (blatantly obvious?) in administering the comply or die procedure; just doing my job, cover my ass for me team Prosecutor and Judge — we’re all in this together — the odd man out, we’ve got to stick together.

    The insidious nature of government is that those that call themselves government not only want a double standard where they initiate violence against their subjects, they want their subjects to initiate violence against each other. In fact, people that call themselves government would prefer their subjects engage in violent conflict with government rather than debate ideas in a peaceful, civil and voluntary manner. They already lost the honest debate. Thus violence is necessary for their survival.

    The decorum of the court room helps hide the gun in the room. Out on the streets it’s the phrase, “Stop resisting” thus escalates the comply or die continuum/procedure.

    An honest debate would go something like this: The motorist resisted arrest; I followed procedure, I did my job.

    Rebuttal: No, the “motorist”, as you call him — his name is John — resisted your assault. If I were to do what you did and assaulted John, would you consider me a criminal?

    Stop resisting = It’s coming right for us.

    Violence is necessary for their survival = You all saw him, he had a gun.

  66. Michael Scharen Says:


    I have been going round and round trying to find a definitive listing of the elements for a cause of action, but I think I made it too complicated once again. I just wanted to run this by you.

    The Cause of Action are the elements required for establishing a ‘case’ or issue between two parties which requires resolution. All elements of the Cause of Action must be proved by the party making the complaint.

    1) Duty: The agreement/contract/duty must have pre-existed between two parties at the outset.

    2) Breach of Duty: The plaintiff or party lodging the complaint asserts that this duty or agreement has be breeched or violated.

    3) Causation: The party making the complaint must prove that the ‘defendant’ did cause injury or damage as a result of the Breech of Duty

    So asking for evidence that the Constitution/Laws/Statutes apply is asking for evidence that there is some contract/agreement/duty existing between the parties — the individual and the State (which has plenty of its own existential problems).
    Since it is easily proven that there is no ‘Social Contract’ or obligation/duty between people who call themselves government and any individual, then #1 cannot be proven.

  67. NonEntity Says:

    Michael Scharen Sed: Marc,I have been going round and round trying to find…

    Michael, from what i understand, Marc has moved away from using “cause of action” and is now more focused on asking for evidence of jurisdiction. He appears to find this is a more simple and more direct method of stopping ALL actions as it is foundational and they have nothing. Keep in mind however that they have no qualms about lying and making shit up and using “contempt of court” to ruin your life. There do not appear to be any magic bullets. 

  68. Andy Says:

    Andy Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 5th, 2015 at 1:47 am

    Calvin??? Are you okay Calvin? Should I send help?

  69. Michael Scharen Says:


    Thank you. I believe I understand how jurisdiction is foundational within the cause of action. That gets right to the root of the attack. Marc gave me a useful link regarding standing and the definition of a crime or tort.

    However, quoting the legal citations might skirt dangerously close to admitting some kind of jurisdiction? Perhaps Marc’s point again is that an agency that purports to exist for the protection of life, liberty, and property cannot claim any high ground if they are attacking life, liberty, and property.
    In addition, one can see government claiming the ‘people’ have been ‘harmed’ for any inane reason they like. Such as, “You need to wear a seat belt because you are causing financial/emotional damage to the ‘public’ when we have to scrape you off the pavement with a stick and a spoon!”

    Or, we can revisit the whole conflict of interest issue. It appears that the government(prosecutor) assumes automatic standing in a court operated by the government in all cases, whether there was injury or damage to a real person or not.

  70. NonEntity Says:

    Michael S. Sed: “However, quoting the legal citations might skirt dangerously close to admitting some kind of jurisdiction?”

    I think that’s part o the point. Like Bruce just pointed out in a post on the forum. Keep this concept in mind, he who asserts any claim bears the burden of proof. By accepting their terms you have more or less tacitly agreed that they have some credence to the position they are making wherein you are being expected to bow before them and fit I to their paradigm. Do you see my point here? The issue, to a very large extent is in your own mind. Are you mentally accepting that they even have a right to make these demands upon you? I think most of us DO, and this is perhaps the biggest hurdle to get over. If some random guy on the street came up to you and demanded that you answer his questions, would you? If not, then why do you feel obliged to do so to some sociopath in a dress in a fancy building?

    They are going to do whatever they are going to do anyway, so why not at least retain your personal integrity in the process?

  71. Michael Scharen Says:


    Thank you for that. Yes, it is largely in our (my) own mind. After so many years of brainwashing and accommodation to domineering A-holes, it is tough to break the habit.

  72. NonEntity Says:

    Michael, Thanks. If I’ve helped you in your path that is all the thanks I need.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Jan 24, 2015 – [ Broadcast Release] - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - Mar 21, 2015 - Says:

    […] Cory from FL: sent a driving suspension warning notice from Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for car insurance compliance <> questioning a car insurance agent on what they are referring to when they use the term “the STATE” <> and situating your automobile so that you can best avoid the bureaucratic authoritarian’s arbitrary orders and fees. […]

  3. NSP – Mar 21, 2015 - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] Cory from FL: sent a driving suspension warning notice from Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for car insurance compliance questioning a car insurance agent on what they are referring to when they use the term “the STATE” and situating your automobile so that you can best avoid the bureaucratic authoritarian’s arbitrary orders and fees. […]

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 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