Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 14, 2015 – Co-host: JT

Posted on February 15th, 2015 by Calvin

Co-host: JT.

Show Notes:

*Fine print: there is an additional audio clip inserted into the podcast that contains some explicit, yet quite appropriate, language.

              

22 Comments For This Post

  1. Latimer the Cat Says:

    @ Boyntonstu,

    As to evidence that Christ exists, it’s been there all along as confirmed in many literary sources of the time of his physical being on earth. Why do you accept documents “written by men” (or even testimonies for that matter) “given by men” or e-posts “written by men” as given in the trivium process that Mark uses if men are as “unreliable” as you’ve implied in your objection to Christ’s existence? Isn’t arbitrary application a fallacy issue according to your own process?

    Your issue, and the “religious” naturalists that you associate with, is not “evidence” per-say, rather, it’s your antitheses to understanding and accepting it apart from your non-theistic narrative assumptions. Your “religious” false dichotomy (non-theism being not religious as-opposed-to theism being religious) at route in your error will always reflect the starting-point of your “religious” position that you currently hold “believe” (i.e. exercise faith) in – just like with everyone else. Conclusions reflect assumptions. Listen to the show, why do you think judges always conclude statutes and codes apply? (because they assume what?) Your question is couched, as is all knowledge applied by men in your particular world-view (collection of narrative assumptions) that you hold to and act on by faith. Yes, you’re as religious as the rest of humanity. You are either deceived like the Edomite influenced masses (granting charity) or you’re aware of the context distinction and choose to ignore it (showing lack of integrity) exhibiting the same behavior of what Mark exposes in judges, lawyers and cops, etc, who work within the subverting Edomite parasite paradise. I don’t know which one.

    I’m thankful that you answered your own out-of-context objection on the commandment. Your objection was made (intentionally or not) using an atypical Edomite spin of the text “devoid of context” differing from Mark’s error of importing a erroneous context. (No condemnation, granted we all make errors.) Both are standard for anti-Logos types using logic (while assumptively denying its source) via their non-Theistic religious systems. It’s nice to see that you correctly clarified and answered you own objection at the end of your post. The context is killing unlawfully or murder. Not merely killing.

    I have like everyone else, a full plate and limited time to answer questions. I hope this was helpful.

  2. NonExclusive Says:

    Lastimer, Who is Christ? What proof did you have that He existed?

  3. Andy Says:

    Latimer, Boyntonstu’s reply to you is on a different article. Please don’t cross post your reply to him here. You’re losing credibility fast.

  4. Michael Scharen Says:

    Marc/JT,

    Isn’t the judge also presuming (unproved) jurisdiction (Power) to send someone to jail for contempt or to force them to get a psychological evaluation and possible drugging? There is not even a pretense of testing jurisdiction as it is assumed from the start and enforced by men with guns.

  5. NonEntity Says:

    Michael S., That’s a GREAT question!!! I’ve never heard of jurisdiction being applied to the judge before. Marc, you gotz cogent thoughts on dis?

  6. NonEntity Says:

    All of this replies on the presumption that there is a “we.”

  7. Andy Says:

    Michael, you’ve got it right. Absent evidence of jurisdiction the judge/persecutor has no business even talking to John.

    Absent evidence of jurisdiction the judge/persecutor-prosecutor duo have committed prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct. If it were me they were attacking, the honest thing to do would be to inform their insurers of their misconduct. I wouldn’t want a nickle from the insurers. If they felt obliged to reciprocate I’d tell them they could donate to XYZ charity.

  8. Generalobservation Says:

    How about this question?

    Q: Mr. Prosecutor. What evidence do you rely on to prove this sentient being, (allegedly sane,) Marc Stevens, is surety for the allege defendant corporate person MARC STEVENS?

    A case of unproven mistaken identification. Maybe the prosecutor should be sent “away” for psych evaluation?

  9. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ General, There is no merit to the all CAPS stuff.

  10. qwerty Says:

    I found an interesting pdf of a county prosecutor who sued a city for exclusive jurisdiction over all of its duii cases. The complaint mentions that the city court is not a court of record but does not elaborate. The complaint is actually brought by the atty general. Motion declaratory.pdf.
    A case in clatsop county, oregon.

  11. Michael Scharen Says:

    I’ve only been listening for about two years and have just read ‘Government: Indicted’ As I mentioned to Marc, I studied Math/Physics for years but never applied the rules of logic to everyday life. Rene DeCartes – Discourse on Method and Meditations states that ALL beliefs must be examined on the basis of empirical evidence, and that is what Marc is doing.

    I wonder if Marc et al have ever mused on the voluntary alternatives for the abusive monopolistic ‘system’ that is forced on us. How might it work?

    For example would each individual contract with a bonding/insurance company as a guarantee of their personal behavior and even have them apprehend us if we violated that contract? If someone could not show an employer, for example, that he/she was in good standing, it might affect what kind of job he/she could get. Freely contracted ‘courts’ would have to demonstrate that actual justice was done — or they would not stay in business.
    Or would we contract with private security agencies which would patrol our neighborhoods and investigate crimes committed against us? Private security and arbitration agencies already exist, though I do not know what their track records are. There is a good security firm in Detroit(video on YouTube)which helps non-paying as well as paying customers. Detroit residents have taken several matters into their own hands, such as starting bus companies, or just mowing the overgrown properties next to them. City employees, of course, have nothing better to do that to tear down bus stop benches that are ‘unauthorized’. John Stossel, though he has not renounced statism, has done many excellent shows on privatization, peer-to-peer business, etc.
    And what about the roads? I know that private roads exist which are much better maintained, and even have their own security. A legitimate question would be how to privatize existing roads. Do we annex the street in front of our houses? Current ‘public’ roads/highways need to be privatized somehow.
    Then there are the armies. We all hate armies, but some private agencies would need to spring up which would protect their clients from maurading armies/navies of others who do not understand voluntaryism. It is interesting to note that the bulk of the arms, ships, cannons, etc. in the American secessionist war were private property.

  12. Farmer James Says:

    @Michael Scharen Howdy! For musing, post over in the forum http://www.marcstevens.net/board Cheers and welcome!

  13. desertspeaks Says:

    To the judge; Am I presumed innocent of all elements of the charge.. “judge” has to say yes.
    To the judge; Since jurisdiction is an integral element of the charge, am I not also presumed innocent of jurisdiction? Let the stammering and excuse fest begin.

  14. Michael Scharen Says:

    “You Don’t Own Me!” — Leslie Gore

    you don’t own me, don’t try to change me in any way you don’t own me, don’t tie me down ’cause i’d never stay

    http://youtu.be/JDUjeR01wnU

  15. Mike_Z Says:

    How can a code have jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction?

  16. NonEntity Says:

    The same way an omnipotent power can create everything from nothing. That wasn’t so hard, was it? 😉

  17. Really? Says:

    The same way everything can just come into existence with no outside impetus. Even easier.

  18. NonEntity Says:

    Outside of what? 😉

  19. BustdaMatrix Says:

    JT

    If you need bodies for the court stuff for John or others I am in Scott County and schedule permitting would be happy to attend if wanted.

  20. mike Says:

    http://www.justicefordeepan.org/background/about-us/
    born in Canada but currently STATELESS.Marc you should do a video on this

  21. Dr Hypno Says:

    A recent novel study sought to evaluate pro se defendants empirically to test the validity of the commonly held assumption that these defendants are either foolish or mentally ill. The author evaluated existing federal and state databases, documenting trial outcomes and type of counsel at case termination, and created an additional database (the Federal Docketing Database) using data contained in federal court docket sheets maintained by clerks of the court for each federal jurisdiction. These docket sheets documented written filings and oral motions made in court, and, from them, data were collected on 208 federal defendants who chose pro se representation at case disposition.

    The outcomes of pro se defendants in state courts were at least as good as those for represented defendants with 50 percent of pro se defendants convicted of a charge, compared with a 75 percent conviction rate for represented defendants. Eventual felony convictions for pro se defendants were also less frequent than for represented defendants (26% versus 63%). While pro se federal felony defendants did not fare as well as their state court counterparts, acquittal rates for pro se and represented federal felony defendants were nearly identical (.64% and .61%, respectively). Thus, pro se federal felony defendants did not seem to fare significantly worse than did the represented defendants. Finally, based on federal docketing sheets and with a court-ordered competency evaluation used as a proxy for the presence of outward signs of mental illness, 80 percent of pro se defendants were not believed to have displayed signs of mental illness, as only 20 percent of this sample were ordered to undergo competency evaluation. Furthermore, dissatisfaction with current counsel appeared to be a prominent reason that defendants in the Federal Docketing Database chose self-representation, as more than half of them requested new counsel before invoking their right to self-representation.

    These studies of pro se defendants, though few in number, indicate that many such defendants seek to represent themselves for legitimate reasons. Voicing dissatisfaction with counsel was a rationale for seeking to dismiss counsel noted in all of these studies, and voicing displeasure about counsel perceived as ineffective may be viewed as an appropriate self-protective behavior for defendants facing serious legal charges. These studies cast doubt on the view that all pro se defendants are either mentally ill or foolish.

    Hashimoto EJ: Defending the right of self-representation: an empirical look at the pro se felony defendant. NC Law Rev 85:423–88, 2007

  22. Dr Hypno Says:

    source
    http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/4/551.full#ref-15

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Oct 3, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] long-documented record of evading and lying when asked tough questions of what evidence they have to prove their […]

  2. EYE OF NEWT, TOE OF FROG – ACT VI | there is no debt Says:

    […] * Radio Programme (listen to audio player) – NSP – Feb 14, 2015 – Co-host: JT http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150214.html […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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