Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Mar 7, 2015

Posted on March 8th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • 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 <>
  • Joey from the NSP skype group chat: are questions of law/legal-opinion required to be supported by facts and evidence exclusively?
  • Michael from TX: enjoyed the audio of Tom’s hearing <> looking forward to following Ian’s efforts in and out of court <> Abby Martin‘s interesting and emotional goodbye from RT: “nations are invented, borders are invisible, prejudice is learned” <> appreciation and complements to the folks behind the useful and informative site TheFreeThoughtProject.com <> and Texas Town Experiences 61% Drop in Crime After Firing Their Police Department.
  • Vin James from England: upcoming speaking engagements <> how we’ve approached the world we have now through a reduced necessity for sound reasoning <> government’s takeover of what early friendly society associations provided collective populations <> people’s religious reverence of the STATE <> four principals of logic: 1) law of identity, 2) law of non-contradiction, 3) law of excluding middle, and 4) law of sufficient reasoning <> update on a recent “case management” hearing during the week where the defendant was almost steamrolled into trial <> a CPS appointed barrister admits that they have no facts to present to the court to prove jurisdiction, which he privately says is a matter of “blind faith,” and then later says there are facts to prove jurisdiction that he doesn’t have to present in open court <> a UK barrister claims they have “inherent jurisdiction” when they were asked if they had “unlimited jurisdiction” by the defendant :-/ <> continuing with their steamrolling efforts, the barristers attempt to trick the defendant into believing facts to prove jurisdiction will be determined after a trial <> and reversing a courtroom steamrolling by raising the point of presumption of innocence.
              

26 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    Outstanding show.
    The first guy (sorry I forgot your name and Calvin’s superb notes aren’t up yet) made a.profoundly important point regarding the personalization of “the law” into “your law (s).”
    This ties together foundationally (strike the root) with the point I’ve been trying to convey in my forum thread about “there is no ‘we’.”

    Which is also the same issue as what Marc talks about when he mentions “reification. “

  2. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Non,.. In a continuation on the theme “your”, it’s “their” CON-stitution and it has to be their CON-stitution as we “the private people” are not parties to it. When one is not a party to some agreement, contract, compact or CON-stitution. A NON PARTY cannot be legally or lawfully bound by said agreement, contract, compact or CON-stitution or any promulgations arising from, of or by any alleged authority granted by said instrument. In this instance, those promulgations being codes, statutes, laws, policies, etc.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    “Your” can be both singular and plural. If we (that’s the Royal “we” 😉 ) mentally keep it as singular in our minds and exposition it fits more clearly with reality (just the facts, Ma’am…) wherein almost all attacks against us are made by individuals. Furthermore, it is only to individuals we can apply for redress and relief. There is no “them” to which you can get effective relief, it is always from one individual or another where we must ultimately seek a meaningful response. I repeat: there is no “we,” no “them,” there are only individual actors or aggregations of individuals.:

  4. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Non, even though individualistic, it is still “their” CON-stitution, not ours!

  5. NonEntity Says:

    Desert,
    And the evidence you have for this claim?

  6. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Non, are you a signatory to their CON-stitution? nope! = NON PARTY!

    Have you sworn an oath to be bound by and to obey their CON-stitution and any promulgations arising from, of or by any alleged authority of said instrument? I haven’t..
    IF you are now or have been an employee of their government then you voluntarily enslaved yourself by swearing that oath, as all of their employees are required by their law to do. I’m not aware that a sworn oath has an expiration date, sunset or exculpatory clause, although you could disavow that oath.

    It’s odd that the governments employees are required by their law to swear an oath to be bound by something that they claim automatically applies to everyone. Were it factually automatically applicable to everyone, there would be absolutely no need to swear an oath to something that automatically applies. or am I missing something??

  7. Inigo Montoya Says:

    “Constitution”, you keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means!

    Why not swear an oath to a document whose meaning can has been continuously ‘reinterpreted’ since Marbury vs. Madison? The only criteria being what is convenient for the bureaucrat at the time, and how much firepower he/she can command. We could call it the hypocritic oath — as it is completely meaningless, though based on ‘precedent’. The swearing of such an oath is really just another ritual of the State Religion.

    The sons and daughters of ‘citizens’ are automatically ‘citizens’. Everyone knows that those born of slaves also belong to the same master. Likewise, escaped slaves of other masters either become slaves, or are returned to their original masters. This ‘law’ has not changed in 5,000 years.

    Evidently the ‘birth certificate’ or saying the Pledge of Allegiance creates an obligation, though babies have not reached the Age of Reason. So why are driver’s licenses and 1099’s evidence of ‘citizenship’ or ‘taxable income’? Bureaucrats never run out of the State holy water that makes it so. If we lived in 10th century France, no one would dispute that we were Catholics — because they said so.

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Desert,

    You say, “their constitution.” Who are the individuals who make up this “their?”

  9. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Non, are you being purposely obtuse?

  10. NonEntity Says:

    Nope.

  11. NonEntity Says:

    Desert,

    Have you read Spooner’s “The Constitution of No Authority?” If not, you might find it interesting. I think Marc may even have made an audio of it.

  12. Thad Says:

    Thing I noticed with that Agent saying he has questions of his own but then he merely makes statements afterwards says it all. He was not going to answer questions nor did he feel he was required because he gauged his interaction with Marc by asking if he ANY professional title. Professional title means if Marc had one he would then be able to control any professional title Marc may of had by merely threating his ability to make money from /by the title he may of had. That is the only reason they ask for any titles/profession, as well as see if your the 10-15% make up of population that have professional titles. The agent like most understand they have one master escape….hanging up like punks.

  13. Indigo Montoya Says:

    Thad,

    Very interesting angle on the request for ‘professional’ credentials while dodging the question at hand. Of course the implied threat is the potential of losing one’s ‘priviledge’ of being able to make a living. Heretofore, I had only considered the ad hominem/gaslighting component of this response. The threat would be great for a lawyer if he/she could be kicked out of the union.

  14. SovereignDirt Says:

    I know I have heard Marc say “your opinion”…often, but not often enough.

    I always say “..your opinion THAT LAW applies to me?…” (I can’t be free until they are! No sense making claims that a law applies to somebody else without facts or evidence!!-and there’s no sense appealing to a higher authority than YOUR OPINION, the judges’ opinion, the prosecutors’ opinion, the cops’ opinion, mamma’s opinion, public opinion,… Just got to change their opinion.) “Your opinion” is an acquired nuance that should be stressed more. Stay away from making accusations of ownership ie: “Your law”.

  15. Silybum Says:

    Everything done THROUGH government is done by representation.

    Identity: the fact that a subject, person, or thing before a court is the same as IT is REPRESENTED, claimed, or charged to be. Sameness.

  16. Silybum Says:

    Who created the jural society/organized political community/state? Am I bound to join? Who is making the claim or charge? The jural society. Is it your presumption that I am personally liable to answer a summons that is meant for a member of a jural society?

  17. General question Says:

    Q: Recently a Policeman / accuser is a no show for municipal vehicle code violation court date. (truck canopy accused of being a camper w/o license) Can one get ones court costs by bringing a reasonable order for the Judge to sign after you move to dismiss? I.e. pay for attorney, time, missed work, etc.
    Q. Can you get the judge to issue a bench warrant for the policeman no show? Failure to appear.

  18. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ General, technically yes to both, but judges love cops and don’t do that. They are partners in crime after all.

  19. General question Says:

    Thanks. By the way, this guy strolled into the Muni courtroom with his video running. That noise you hear are his balls clanging.

    Live action of a judge squirming.

    Care to comment on perhaps how he can perhaps improve using your methods? Maybe use for your followers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pHzCcNtVzg 2 minutes

  20. Silybum Says:

    I like the idea of using analogies to simplify a point. Marc has a good one about how being born in a parish doesnt automatically make one a catholic.

    I also like the idea of asking a govt. agent if what he is saying is the position he takes on the matter.

  21. eye2i2 Says:

    @Silybum: one romp with that parishes (geographipolitical claims) analogy here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-7341-post-48225.html#pid48225

  22. Silybum Says:

    eye2i2,

    Nice comparisons. One organization uses religious terminology, another uses legal terminology.

    I was wondering earlier about how prosecutors claim they have the facts to prove jurisdiction but dont show these alleged facts.

    Maybe they are referring to “dispositive facts”: jural ACTS or EVENTS that create (birth), modify (marriage), or extinguish (civil or natural death) jural relations.

    Jural relations exist for the recognition and protection of rights. A government exists to protect the rights of the jural society/state/public and individuals and maybe even the rights (privileges) of everyone in the universe – depending on current legislation.

  23. eye2i2 Says:

    ref: “One organization uses religious terminology, another uses legal terminology.”
    consider: http://www.dailypaul.com/157771/government-is-a-religion-larken-rose *for the article, not the site\host*

  24. NonEntity Says:

    eYeToo sed: *for the article, not the site\host*
    —-
    Ah. So it’s okay for you to post references from sites you may not totally agree with, but not for others, huh? I see. 😉 Book, meet Cover.

  25. eye2i2 Says:

    @NonEntity: where did i post that it’s not okay for you to recommend something that i may not “totally agree with”? If you’ll note, all i posted was that i would not recommend what you recommended, and a bit about why. Ah, Book, meet NonCover.? (and book, meet a single, free, hosted webpage.?)
    Calvin, que up the Marc mp3 audio clip for me here: “Narcissist”– no wait, /not that one, this one: “Oi’vey”

  26. Silybum Says:

    eye2i2,

    Thanks for the link. I have watched Larken Rose’s videos. I especially like the one about the voting cattle.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Mar 7, 2015 – [DRAFT VERSION] | Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - Mar 21, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Ian from CA: refining our use of the term “psychopath” with Robert Hare‘s “Without Conscience” work in mind  <> getting dismissed from jury duty in 15 seconds! <> deincentivizing the court from wanting to keep you in the courtroom by asking uncomfortable questions that expose their revenue scheme and unfairness <> parsing courtroom legalese <> approximately 4% of the population are outward acting psychopaths <> sociological [mis]behavior commonly found in artificially large groupings, cultures, and/or communities <> psychiatry’s failure to examine brain-states <> identifying natural born psychopaths neurologically <> Kevin Dutton‘s “The Wisdom of Psychopaths” book claiming that psychopaths are “a benefit to society” <> the eugenics of psychopaths <> developing a constructive dialogue with people over a period of time <> finding the No STATE Project by expanding a study on psychopathy and the excellent discussion on the topic of peaceful non-compliance <> fully disengaging from the psychopathic STATE <> the limited brain activity of a psychopath <> getting to the non-compliant “no I won’t” state of mindset <> latest video addressing breaking through the intimidation and legalese in the courtroom <> picking yourself up off the floor from hitting the hard truth and objectively refining your reality <> the difficulties of sharing the concept of anarchy with statists <> “there are those who want to be left alone and there are those who just won’t leave them alone” <> and Kevin Dutton‘s voluntary procedure to temporarily become a psychopath. […]

  3. VACCINES | there is no debt Says:

    […] NSP – Mar 7, 2015 – [DRAFT VERSION] http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150307.html […]

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