Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Mar 14, 2015

Posted on March 15th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Subodh from CA: a San Francisco cop stops his wife for failure to stop at a stop-sign that didn’t exist after she parked <> and can an officer just approach a car and give a ticket for an arbitrary reason?
  • Jace from UT: avoiding increasingly unproductive forum posts <> the legal nightmare of his brother’s divorce <> campaign to help Jace’s brother fight an aggressive legal attack <> the unfair bias family courts have against men trying to provide a decent quality of life <> and producing an audiobook of Government: Indicted.
  • Dallas from TX: received a response/apology letter from the Department of Treasury following his and Marc’s call!
  • Ernie from IA: learning how to formulate good questions that bureaucrats hate to answer because it devastating to their case <> got a letter from the court admitting they had no jurisdiction over the defendant <> helping others exercise successful and effective damage control <> getting students to conduct a study of judicial misconduct at a hearing where the defendant will be raising issues of applicability of the constitution and codes <> a law professor to students that figure out the fraud of the STATE (that the laws don’t actually apply to anybody): “if you’re going to be an attorney, you need to jump on the bandwagon” <> due process procedure is all too often sidestepped in court <> courtroom intimidation tactics for those who don’t jump on the bandwagon <> UPL double standards <> stories & pro-tips from legal land: don’t blow, don’t assert your rights on the roadside, and if you don’t owe taxes year-to-year then file “exempt” <> a testifying cop had no idea what the motion to dismiss meant <> and demanding to see the contract bureaucrats assert you are violating.
  • Troy from IL: staying out of jail by effectively exercising damage-control by calmly making assertive objections to the prosecution’s non-responsive answers <> the value of role-playing courtroom procedure is pivotal to “winning” your case <> thoroughly understanding logical fallacies so you can properly object when you start getting them from the prosecutors without leaving them much wiggle-room <> confronting the judge and asking him “why are you trying the case for the prosecutor?” <> and was the time required to effectively defend yourself well-spent?

40 Comments For This Post

  1. diabolos' advocate2i Says:

    Obviously, my irony meter is in need of a trip to the repair shop, as it jumped several times during this podcast after “name-calling” and “profanity” were stated as something not to be used because the site is “family oriented”…but recall, then hearing the host use the words “hell”, “pissed-off” and (someone called a) “jack-ass” (and how many weeks back was it that the anger word of the day was “bastards”?). But i suppose those uses were “respectful”?

    Also, I’d like to see the evidence that supports labeling nigh every Bureaucrat as Psychopaths– as to how that evidence couldn’t just as well result in labeling them religious (indoctrinated) fundamentalists [e.g. Scriptural/National racism; how empathetic were/are “white” racists with people of “color”?]?
    In other words, what facts distinguish an individual as being psychopathic from a fundamental religious disciple/discipline? How many religious of the “God” variety that are confronted with logic change their minds (immediately particularly)?

    Or taken another way, if you challenged non-nationalistic (see also non-religious) “street” criminals confronting you, similar logic based questions, would many of them be stopped cold in their tracks and on the spot admit their error to you and walk away (and with their “peers” and alpha Superiors watching around every corner no less?)? Are they all psychopaths as well? (speaking of oi`vey)
    Maybe a logical question is: why is the “P” word better than calling them/identifying them (all) as “criminals” (thus hypocrites inherent?)? And when might the word psychopath be like the word bastards…?

    Hopefully it goes without sayin’ but jic: the site/podcasts all are on your 2 bits, this is just my2cents worth~

  2. eye2i Says:

  3. RAD Says:

    Why are the comments blocked?

  4. Silybum Says:


    It took about a day before my first comment was posted. Patience grasshopper… Ha ha..

  5. Jeff Evans Says:

    In diabolos case this is a clear example of not reading “Government Indicted.”

  6. i.n.rem Says:

    c’mon, c’mon
    quit teasing me with the e-book
    I want the first ” copy “

  7. Indigo Montoya Says:


    Your point regarding the behavior of bureaucrats as being due to indoctrination in the religion of the state is noteworthy. However, one can be a religious zealot w/o imposing their violence on others. Both bureaucrats and ‘citizens’ must be considered psychopaths when they advocate or engage in the initiation of violence in service of the false doctrine of government — the farming of their fellow human beings.

  8. Incubus Says:

    “Diablos” is eye2 and I’m pretty sure he has stated before that he has read Government Indicted. I’m willing to bet the finest brick of smoked cheese on it!

  9. NonEntity Says:

    ErnieInIowa, drink more coffee! 😉 I’m a witness: Possession Paperwork. 🙂

  10. NonEntity Says:

    FACT: Marc is from New York, not Indiana. He is therefore unqualified to speak knowledgeably on the subject of “Soon” or “Sooner.”

  11. NonEntity Says:

    FACT: NonE is an idiot. EVIDENCE: “Sooners” are from Oklahoma, not Indiana. FACT: This has no relevance whatsoever to any ebooks now or in the future! 😉

  12. Incubus Says:

    FACT: NonE eats babies.EVIDENCE: He’s never gone on record saying HE DOESN’T!

  13. NonEntity Says:

    Incy: What, you want me to eat stringy old farts like YOU???! Get real!

  14. Incubus Says:

    He admits it! He admits it!

  15. damon Says:

    Hello and peace be with you,

    “Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves.” Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).

    The “benefits”. Only you can establish “your” status. Only “citizens” and “permanent resident aliens” can have and use socialist insecurity numbers which is the card and corresponding number that opens and gives access to a large array of “benefits” which Marc claims is “stolen” from thy neighbor. Now knowing these are “stolen” (forced contributions) and “partaking” of such “benefits” in the way of public education, food stamps, SSDI=Social Security Disability Insurance, welfare, unemployment insurance, Title 42 SECTION 8, health care etc. binds one to it. It is called tacit acquiescence.

    The bigger picture is this. People electing men to force their neighbor to pay for their welfare in such forms as listed above. That is what is happening. It is rejection of Gods law plain and simple. People are not “loving their neighbor as themselves” therefore they are “forced” to keep his law by caring for the “fatherless and widows” while being and remaining spotted “by the world”. The peoples appetite for socialist handouts has caused them to be bound in a statutory system of bondage much like that of Egypt so long ago. Those “psychopaths” are doing what so many have elected them to do which is take from their neighbor to provide for those that elected them with “benefits” at their neighbors expense. People think they can walk at liberty while doing this….it is just not so. Liberty is responsibility. By way of example your children are your responsibility to “train up” and educate, not the STATES who is more than willing to step in as the PATRONUS. People continue to give up that responsibility and are treated accordingly. Likewise with the other things mentioned above. Perhaps the people should start taking back their responsibilities and caring for one another and their own and watch the miracles happen. As long as people keep looking to “them” to take care of them at the expense of their neighbor they will remain in the bondage of Egypt.

    Psa_69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  16. Andy Says:

    The bigger picture is that people calling themselves government forced people to give them money and those criminals then wrote things like what William E. Birkhimer wrote. People believe that crap like so many that believe the Buybull (pronounced bible)and Quran.

    “It is called tacit acquiescence.”

    It’s called battered submitizen. Much the same as battered wife syndrome is akin to Stockholm syndrom.

  17. eye2i Says:

    @&e: “It’s called battered submitizen”

    Where a key part of said battering is of the psychological, verbal nature, circa generational indoctrination and appeal to & of logical fallacies. (see Marc’s recent exchange –or lack thereof?– with that one website “teaching” logical fallacies via examples founded upon logical fallacies?)

    [*snickers* @ “Buybull (pronounced Bible)”]

  18. damon Says:

    Hello and peace be with you Andy,

    The income tax being the issue. There are legitimate taxes on imports and exports these being indirect excise taxes. The “income tax” is an indirect excise tax on privileged activities one carries on with the current martial rule powers. The social security card and corresponding number being the voluntary gateway.

    The current bondage the people find themselves in is due to their covetous practices. People electing authoritarian benefactors to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide welfare at the expense of their neighbor always leads to bondage. This is why He said ;

    Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

    And because the people have judged it is ok to exercise authority over their neighbor to “force contributions” to provide for their own welfare they too are given the same judgment and it is rendered back to them as it is written;

    Mat_7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    The governments of men are nothing more than a reflection of the people and their “heart”. When you get a bunch of slothful, lazy, covetous, lawless men and women who seek to be tyrants over their neighbor it takes a strong government to control such a lawless people and breeds such within itself.

    One can blame “them” all day long. One can blame everything and anyone else all day long. The truth is it is “your” fault. “Your” covetousness of “benefits”. Just complaining does nothing. What have you done to take your responsibility back? What have you done to NOT exercise authority over your neighbor to provide you with welfare and “benefits”?

    Tacit acquiescence. Ones continued use of the “benefit” is agreement to all the terms that regulate such benefit. Maxims;

    He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.

    What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.

    Real liberty is responsibility. One must be just as concerned about their neighbors liberty as their own. Love your neighbor as yourself might mean one should care and do for another about 50% of their time. Unless people are willing to care for the needy out of charity and free will offerings (called blood sacrifices in scripture) and continue to “force contributions” from their neighbor they will remain in their bondage.

    2Pe_2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:…

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth

  19. Truth Seeker Says:


    You don’t have to put up with the dogs next door. Get one of these…

  20. billy r. Says:

    I do not add with in limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson Marc,i enjoy following your work i am thinking of some civil disobedience this summer while fishing.I have emails back and forth of the chief executive advisor and myself of me asking for the facts/evidence that the fishing codes/regulation apply to anyone.What they did was point me too the code/statute’s and said read these!I told them i did and that’s not a answer,they said get a {lawyer}to help you!So i was just wondering if you could or would give me some words of advice for when the D.N.R. stop’s me and ask for “my permission slip” to catch the alleged states fish.I have been sharing alot of what you do with friends,some get it!!

  21. Andy Says:

    “The income tax being the issue. There are legitimate taxes on imports and exports these being indirect excise taxes.”

    The constitution is four pieces of paper and ink that nobody bothered to sign. There are no citizens; there is no body politic; there is no state. The word ‘tax’ is a euphemism for stealing.

    The No State Project radio broadcast is about, there is no state, just a group of men and women calling themselves government that provide”services” at the barrel of a gun. The NSP radio show is also about bringing about a voluntary society one visitor at a time. And of course, damage control.

    Each individual is an expert and authority of his and her life. Buybull (pronounced bible) the Quran and gods are false/imagined authorities. Believing in any of them is a symptom of an individual’s irrationality.

  22. damon Says:

    Peace be with you Andy,

    I am wondering if you have things that only belong to the “citizens” that do not exist. This is at the heart of the issue. If one claims they do not exist then one does not carry the things that can only be issued to such “citizens”. Otherwise an interesting problem presents itself. How can I claim something does not exist while at the same time take “benefits” that are only offered to ones with such a status? This status of course being a “citizen” which of course can only be claimed by the one holding such a status. It is something(status) that only you can give life to which is done in part by your continued acquiescence(participation) if in fact you claim or have benefits of such a status as “citizen”.

    One cannot simultaneously confirm then deny. Ones actions will always speak louder than ones words. If you have and use documentation that only “citizens” can use I have no reason to not believe you are not or do not hold such a status within the pretended STATE. Neither would a magistrate on behalf of the martial law powers have reason to believe such.

    I am still left wondering what are you doing to help care for your neighbor in love and charity? Do you elect men to exercise authority over your neighbor to provide welfare for your house through “forced contributions” which are claimed to be “stolen” here? Are you part of the problem maybe? Do your actions condone a system that is condemned by God? What have you done to take back your responsibility? If you have children do you send them to public school, which is at the expense of your neighbor?

    Simply parroting Marc and his political theory will avail you nothing and will definitely not “save” you come real persecution. As long as people think it is ok to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare they will remain in bondage and so will your children. The system is not really the problem….it is the people who condone it. There is a better way. A way of true liberty. But it requires sacrifice on your/my/our part.

    I agree the constitution is nothing. All who look to it look to a “law” that is foreign to my Father.

    Furthermore, the men and women that call themselves government are actually taking care of the needy and elderly of society because so many of us have refused to do so out of love , faith, hope, and charity as commanded. This is among the end results of such selfish and covetous ways ultimately leading to the fall of yet another socialist Roman Empire.

    Until people begin to gather together and care for their neighbor as much as they do themselves they will remain in bondage and go down with the sinking ship.

    1 Samuel 8 is all about what happens when one chooses an earthly king or political ruler to be the benefactor of the people through forced contributions. The whole of scripture is about two kinds of governments and how they provide for the needy of their “society”. One use force the other uses free will offerings and charity. One provides for liberty, the other provides for tyranny and bondage.

    If you are not willing to set your neighbor at liberty why then should you be set at liberty? Now you may say to the above “I only have these things to get by”. Well, it might be better to suffer every wrong/evil rather than to consent to it as the maxim states.

    The point is , if we do not care for one another out of our own free will, one does not deserve the liberty one craves. Are you willing to set your neighbor free? Are you willing to stop taking “benefits” from the “government” which come at the expense of your neighbor if you do such? What are we doing to provide for those so they do not have to take from them (government) at the expense of their neighbor? I am not condemning you or anyone but showing a better way. Can you see it?

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  23. Andy Says:

    “I am wondering if you have things that only belong to the “citizens” that do not exist.”

    Explain what that means?????

    More “Stockholm syndrome”. People are coerced into accepting government “benefits” like a SS#. The coercion negates any alleged agreement.

    I interact voluntarily with individuals. I assume you do the same. Most people are voluntaryists but have yet to realize it. Do you think a product or service should be provided on a compulsory basis? More here:

  24. Andy Says:

    Do you still believe this, that you wrote? “There are legitimate taxes on imports and exports”

  25. damon Says:

    Peace be with you Andy,

    Yes that is correct. Legitimate taxes. They are indirect excise taxes that one can avoid much like the “income tax”. Take for example the “gas tax”. That is what is used to pay for the upkeep of the roads. Don’t want to use the roads don’t pay the tax by filling up your car and take a bike.

    I noticed you skirted right around the “loving your neighbor part” and electing authoritarian benefactors who exercise authority over your neighbor Part.

    It is evident here that people claim “citizens” do not exist. I am fine with that. To carry documentation that can ONLY be issued to such people with that specific status is to CONFIRM they do. One cannot simultaneously confirm and then deny. That is what I meant. If you say they do not exist then act like it. Do not carry the status of something you say does not exist otherwise you destroy your own witness as it is written;

    “By their fruits you shall know them”.

    They make it very difficult to function without their numbers and marks but it is not impossible. It may seem like you are coerced but perhaps one may wish to reevaluate. No one forces you to sign up for their benefits. Drivers licenses, business licenses, insurance policies, welfare, food stamps, title 42 section 8, W.I.C., and so on. No one forces you to give government identifying numbers and so on.

    I will tell you again. You will not bring about a “voluntary society” while continuing down the same path. There is only one way. Just one. And there are two total systems in all of creation. One uses force to compel the “blood sacrifice” to care for the needy of society. The other uses free will offerings based on faith hope and charity to provide for the needy. One is based on love your neighbor while the other is based on love of self. As long as people continue to appoint men to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide welfare at their neighbors expense they will remain in bondage. There is a better way.

    So I ask you again, what are you doing to provide for the liberty of your neighbor? What are you doing to care for the needy of “society” so that the government does not have to? What are you doing to very much limit what benefits you take so as not to burden your neighbor from which they are taken? Are you gathering together with others in lawful assemblies to learn of one another and to provide for one another in love and forgiveness? In charity and faith? Or do people just frequent this site to have their ears tickled?

    A final thought about the “negation of any alleged agreement” and the socialist number to which your use of shows your agreement to the legislation surrounding its use. They have in their arsenal something called “plausible deniability”. That is “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Everyone is presumed to know the law, especially one like title 42 and title 26 whilst using the card/number. You are of age. You are presumed to know what the number is, does, and what your continued use of such legitimizes. It shows your consent by your continued participation. Granted it is likely you had no control in your younger years. It is likely your parents signed you up. But now…you are of age.

    •Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.
    • No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.

    •What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

    There is not much “wiggle” room around the maxims there. There is no “grey” line or “lukewarm”. Its black or white and hot or cold. You either consent or you do not.

    And to answer your question, no, products should not be provided compulsory. But it is like I said. People are “forced” to contribute because they neglected the law from the start. Love your neighbor as yourself. If everyone was caring as much about their neighbor as they did themselves they would not have to be snared into a covetous socialist system of Corban to provide for their neighbor and the needy. The governments have and always will be Gods rod of correction for the lawless to drive his people back to Him.

    Is it possible that we have been slothful in loving our neighbor and caring for the fatherless and widows and poor and therefore are put under the taskmaster to pay tribute?

    Pro_12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.

    Peace be on your house Andy

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  26. Andy Says:

    “Yes that is correct. Legitimate taxes. They are indirect excise taxes that one can avoid much like the “income tax”.”

    I can avoid the Bloods and Crips. Being able to avoid something doesn’t make the something legitimate. You’re delusional, I’m done with you.

  27. damon Says:

    Peace be with you Andy,

    Thank you for your reply. I still noticed you skirted right around the weightier matters of the law as if they did not even exist. Instead of confront them head on it is common for people and much easier to just “dismiss” on as “delusional” so as not to have to look at oneself as part of the problem. It is hard to look at ourselves. I am not in an adversarial position with you Andy but am attempting to show and hope that you see why the current state of affairs and the martial law powers “exist” and what can be done about it.

    I explained pretty clearly and gave an example of an indirect excise tax and how one can avoid it. The example was the gas tax. Pretty straight forward. No income tax = no social security number which is also pretty straight forward. this is not “delusional” as you would like to dismiss.

    The issue being avoided is that there is a very real bondage due to the fact that people have been slothful and covetous. They have appointed men (authoritarian benefactors) to exercise authority over their neighbor to provide welfare and benefits at the expense of their neighbor. This slaps shackles on everyone. It is the same bondage they had in Egypt before the Exodus right on through the Roman Empire and up until now current day. Two systems. One by force the other by freewill offerings. One produces tyrants and bondage. The other liberty and brotherly love/kindness.

    Until people are willing to repent (confess and forsake) their covetous ways over their neighbors house and his goods they will remain in the bondage.

    I ask you again;

    What are you doing to provide for the liberty of your neighbor? What are you doing to care for the needy of “society” so that the government does not have to? What are you doing to very much limit what benefits you take so as not to burden your neighbor from which they are taken? Are you gathering together with others in lawful assemblies to learn of one another and to provide for one another in love and forgiveness? In charity and faith? Or do people just frequent this site to have their ears tickled?

    That which should have been for the peoples welfare because sought through force because of covetous practices has become a snare and a trap from which people cannot see a way nor find a way out UNLESS they do the OPPOSITE of what they have done!

    Psa_69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  28. Randall (Formerly Randy) Says:

    Yes there is/are a “STATE(S)”!


    The STATE OF OREGON resides at 900 Court Street, Salem Oregon 97301

    Warning: Going to stop yelling now. The State is the body politic with it’s electors as citizens thereof.

    We, the alleged free people of the Territory are, in my opinion, inhabitants.

    I have provided evidence in the form of pictures. Please provide evidence that there is “No State(s)” in your rebuttals. Thanks.

    /off soap box

    Randall (Formerly Randy)

  29. NonEntity Says:

    Thought experiment: what is the difference between a “tax” and a “payment for value received?”

  30. REssex Says:

    @ Randall

    The “State” located at the capital, as you say, is in reality just a bunch of men and women. That is factual. The “State” or even a “Corporation”, which is what these people have actually formed, is just an idea. These psychos form a corporation, call it a “Government” and then fool people into thinking it is different than Walmart or the East India Trading Company, or any other corporation. It’s just a fiction, so NO, it does not REALLY exist at the Capital. You have not shaken off all the brainwashing yet if you think it’s a real thing still. I don’t think you really think it’s real because you said, “the State is a body politic”. You also said something about Citizens, but we all know there is no such thing… Citizen is a label that these “States” put on local inhabitants to control them and steal from them. It’s just a label, and the power to label is true power indeed. I like your take on “inhabitants” and totally agree with that, it’s very factual and descriptive and not just an opinion as it can be proven factually.

  31. REssex Says:

    @ NonEntity

    oh, oh…. i know…. A “tax” is money that is (coerced) paid though NO VALUE has been received for it… It sounds like theft to me…

  32. Randall (Formerly Randy) Says:

    @ REessex:

    Yes, it the “STATE”, is a corporation as it has a CFO and other officers.

    I said the “Citizens” or “citizens” are members of the electors which are legislatures and people who are registered to vote. No, it is not just an idea when that idea is put into practice. Yes I have shaken off ALL of the brainwashing. I think for myself and not just what people in supposed power or just regular joes tell me.

    I disagree with your statement that the STATE does not exist at the capital. Did you even look at the jpg’s I posted. If you look at the Oregon State Capital building it says on the front: STATE OF OREGON. No where else does it say this except on documents. When you enter the STATE, all welcome signs through out this country do not say “Welcome to the State of ______________”.

    “Citizen is a label that these “States” put on local inhabitants to control them and steal from them.” —- Yes, I agree.

    Randall (Formerly Randy)

  33. Jake Witmer Says:

    I think it’s a profound mistake to counsel people who are intelligent enough to understand jury nullification of law into grandstanding during “voir dire,” and thus getting themselves kicked off of juries. Yes, I get it, “voir dire” is a grossly unconstitutional stacking of the jury by the sociopathic judge and prosecutor team. That team, sadly, includes the bar-licensed defense attorney who will mindlessly accept the false premise that “all laws made by a legislature are both constitutional and legitimate.”

    I understand all of that. But the fact of the matter is this: If you get yourself kicked off of the jury during “voir dire,” then an innocent person is at the mercy of the totalitarian state. That innocent person is then found guilty by one of Milgram’s 37/40 willing electro-shockers. There’s no better study than that one, the famous “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.” The purpose of the study was to find out if willing executioners similar to the ones in Nazi Germany could be drawn from a random sampling of the American public. It turns out, they can.

    In the presence of false authority, obedient conformists behave as they think the authority wishes them to behave. The legitimacy of the authority (whether the authority operates on any kind of rational justification, or actually knows what they’re talking about) is never questioned.

    This fact of reality is the basis for the vast majority of destruction, lack of technological and social progress, and waste in all societies.

    What is the alternative? For voluntaryists to interfere with the illegitimate operations of the state.

    If you are seated on the jury that’s as simple as doing two things:
    1) Write down “Not Guilty” on the paper votes, and stick by your vote when questioned or pressed. Do not offer any reasons for your vote, unless you profile the other jurors as likely to switch their votes to a unanimous “Not Guilty.” Don’t profile the other jurors this way if you are the only “Not Guilty.” There’s a reason why you don’t give any reasons for how you voted, beyond “The prosecution didn’t convince me.” That reason is: The judge can have you replaced with the “alternate juror” if you directly contradict what you said or wrote during “voir dire.”
    2) If you’re the holdout “Not Guilty,” and you’ve hung the jury, don’t explain your vote. If you’ve convinced the other jurors to unanimously vote “Not Guilty,” resulting in an acquittal for the defendant, you should request that the prosecutor be investigated for malfeasance, official misconduct, malicious prosecution, and waste of tax resources. Enter this into the official record, before the judge ends the proceedings. That will arm the defense in case the sociopathic prosecutor and judge team retries the case. State that you believe the prosecution to lack any criminal evidence of a corpus delicti, and that failing to present such evidence itself indicates a criminal conspiracy.

    I understand that the courts have no right to force anyone to sit on a jury.

    However, you should note that they WANT libertarians and voluntaryists off of juries. They want an excuse to send you home, so they can persecute innocent people for non-crimes.

    In the course of petitioning to place independent candidate Don Wills on the ballot in WY, I spoke to at least 10 people per day who were libertarian-leaning (usually politically illiterate) people who considered themselves to be “republicans” or “independents.” Anytime such people were of a non-punishing mentality, they told me “The judge sent me home,” or “The judge didn’t want me on the jury.” …Well, no shit, dumbass! You let the judge send you home, so they could destroy someone’s life without anyone who had the presence of mind to stop it!

    If we want freedom, we have to be more sophisticated than tyranny.

    While it might be refreshing to tell the corrupt judge and prosecutor to “fuck off,” if you first tell them “Yes, your honor” when they ask their idiotic jury-stacking questions, you’ll actually have the ability to physically force them to “fuck off.” Believe me, it’s a higher priority.

    Walk yourself through a practice run, when you’re called.
    Judge: “Can you agree to apply the law as I give it to you?”
    You: “Yes, your honor.”

    Reply just the way the other sheeple do. Don’t set yourself apart from them. There will be plenty of time for that in the deliberation room, when the judge is no longer present. And don’t set yourself apart from the other jurors, they can and often will “inform on you” to the judge.

    The jury is 100% of your power in the constitutional system. Sure, we no longer have proper juries, just the remnants of them that the police state hasn’t yet been able to destroy.

    But it’s something. It’s a weakness in the totalitarians’ armor.

    If they simply outlaw juries, then the people will have zero choice except violent rebellion. So long as we have juries, we need to put pressure on the courts by finding the innocent “Not Guilty.” …That includes the guys who don’t speak English who are caught with kilos of cocaine. If you want your gun rights and rights to tax-nonpayment to be protected, you need to stand up for the rights of other types of property-rights dissenters.

    The “psychic unity of mankind” (this is a bad term, like “jury nullification of law” but it is commonly used. a better term is “psychological unity of mankind”) is dependent on empathy. That’s why juries, by default, so strongly err on the side of non-punishment: when you see the suffering of the defendant your mind naturally puts you “in his shoes.” (Models his pain response.) Adam Smith noted this in his book “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” Unfortunately, he also mistook this to apply to misanthropic sociopaths as well. It doesn’t. That’s why Marc is right to call them sociopaths: they don’t mind ruining the lives of teenagers who have done nothing worse than sell each other pot. (The illegality of which doesn’t even make sense if you’re a servile: it’s safer than alcohol!)

    So again, I repeat: the natural tendency of libertarians and voluntaryists to grandstand and get themselves kicked off of juries is idiotic and anti-freedom. When you do this, you are doing precisely what the judge and prosecutor want you to do. Better by far to be an Edward Bushell, Marcy Brooks, or Laura Kriho.

    Does this legitimize the state? No. It legitimizes the one democratic, Constitutional, civilizing element of the state that we still have left.

    Does this legitimize minarchy? No. You can still advocate for the destruction of the entire state while using its most legitimate component against it. Think about it logically: You’d rather that the state insult your beliefs using taxpayer money than that they kill you using taxpayer money. Neither action is legitimate, but one is far more harmful than the other. Now, imagine that they give you a choice of which will happen. I don’t know about you, but I’ll choose the former.

    Sure, the most legitimate thing might be for the courthouse to simply vanish in a puff of smoke. If you have the physical power to make that happen, then go ahead (so long as you don’t hurt anyone doing it). If you don’t have that power, then consider this: the impotent wish to eliminate all injustice is far less honorable than actually eliminating one single instance of injustice.

    If freedom is valuable, we should pursue it directly. Here’s some (true, valid, legitimate) “heresy” from conservative Morton Blackwell:
    “You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win.”

    I agree with everything he writes in his famous essay, “The Real Nature of Politics,” if you substitute the word “libertarian” where he uses conservative. If every libertarian in existence similarly agreed, we’d already be totally free. This would not happen because we participated in or eschewed elections (although I believe it’s highly intelligent to run serious candidates in elections). This would happen because we would focus on the real issues: preventing the state from punishing the innocent.

    As soon as the state is unable to punish one single innocent person (even for the heinous “crime” of “tax nonpayment”), we’ve won, we’re living in a libertarian society. It doesn’t matter how big the state is, at that point. If you can “opt out,” without punishment, the stupidity of any remaining bureaucracy doesn’t matter much.

    Support networks help stop illegitimate punishment.

    “Constitutionalist” candidates that run on a platform of restoring proper jury trials tend to gain more adherent, and win office. “Anarchist” candidates that run on a platform of restoring proper jury trials tend to lose adherents, and lose office. The testimony of an elected politician who testifies in a jury trial against the legitimacy of the law, and in favor of jury independence, is likely to result in an acquittal. The testimony of an “anarchist” who testifies in a jury trial against the legitimacy of the law, and in favor of jury independence, is likely to result in the defendant going to prison.

    Ultimately, this strategic fact of reality caused Lysander Spooner to write “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.” He rightfully noted that Northerners would set slaves free if they believed it was constitutional, and in accord with the Bill of Rights to do so. This argument convinced Frederick Douglass, who switched his argument away from advocating “anarchy.” (Prior to this point, William Lloyd Garrison’s anarchist faction had been the largest anti-slavery group.) This dramatically swelled the ranks of the anti-slavery movement.

    We should all pay close attention to these true historical facts.

    We owe it to ourselves to take power away from the sociopaths, and then, …not use it. Signing pledges while campaigning that you will not vote for any new law until an old one is repealed is also an intelligent way to access the libertarian element in each individual voter. Start from that point, and build incrementally. All progress is incremental. People are generally philosophically illiterate and timid. So tell them something like “Sure, you might pass a law legalizing marijuana, or a law that says all jurors must be able to use a jury independence defense argument. …But until the rest of the legislature repeals a law, you will vote for no new law,” because “We have too many unconstitutional laws.” Most voters agree with that message, but they falsely imagine chaos from expanding the anarchic vector of life (the market).

    We need to address people at their current level of understanding. If we can build that level of understanding, then great. Start with empathy. Find the empathy in an individual, and ask them if their morality allows them to contradict a specific instance of empathy. Ask them if they think that Gary Fannon should be in jail for life, for selling 650 grams of cocaine to truckers. (Ironically, keeping them awake so they didn’t crash into anyone. As someone who’s been ran into by a semi-trailer truck, I can tell you that I would have preferred that that trucker had been more attentive behind the wheel. I could have avoided months of rehab and healing.)

    Participating in electoral politics doesn’t “Legitimize the state,” any more than it is already accepted as legitimate. What it does is spreads the message of liberty, and interferes with state punishment. Not one single state punishment is interfered with by “disengagement.” Of course, I’m not suggesting participating in any evil of the state, but I am suggesting participting in the state’s elections (even if they’re rigged). Isn’t this a contradiction? No. Democratic limits on government power are not an evil portion of the state. They’re portion of the state that the state intentionally tries to weaken, because when they’re strong, they weaken the state. If this were not true, the ballot access laws for the Libertarians (minor parties) would be identical to those of the Democrats and Republicans, and everyone would be able to see that it was obviously true.

    The state defeats us by understanding basic statistics.

    If 5% of a public opposes a law, given random jury trials, that law is unenforceable. How so? .95^12 = .5403 = “the prosecution has a 54% chance of conviction.” No prosecutor will enter court with a 54% chance of conviction. If the defendant pleads “Not Guilty” and refuses to “plea bargain” (“accepting unearned punishment”), the court will dismiss the case.

    So how do they enforce all their unjust laws? By stacking the jury, idenfiying and eliminating anyone from that 5% pool of disagreement. If they can’t identify you as different, they can’t eliminate you. So wear nice clothes, and pretend you respect the court when you are called for jury duty. Show up. Get seated on the jury, and then stand in the way of the hungry mouth that feeds their for-profit prisons, and thieving county courts.

    If you want to do more, tell two people about how “voir dire” works. If you want to do more than that, run for office as a “constitutionalist” (doesn’t matter what party), on a “jury independence” platform. Call attention to voir dire (See: ), and define terms like “corpus delicti” for the electorate. Be nice, and gentle, and persuade the persuadable.

    If people oppose you within your own family, treat them the way you’d treat a thief or a murderer, since that’s what they’re advocating. If you wouldn’t hang out with a thief or a murderer, then don’t hang out with people who advocate thievery and murder (once fully informed) via the courts.

  34. damon Says:

    Peace be with you all,

    “The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government.” Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

    And again here;

    “…’government’ has been defined as a body politic, a state; a corporate entity through which the people act; a fictitious entity created by the people…”

    [38 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. ) [Legal Encyclopedia]]

    And one of the better ones if read carefully here;

    The word ‘State’ ‘describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. It is not difficult to see, that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the State. . . . In the Constitution, the term ‘State’ most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and States which compose it one people and one country.’ Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 720, 721.

    That the word ‘State’ is not confined in its meaning to the legislative power of a community is evident, not only from the authority just cited, but from a reference to the various places in which it is used in the Constitution of the United States. A few only of these will be referred to.

    [U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)]

    Damon Israel a stranger and pilgrim in the earth.

  35. Indigo Montoya Says:

    Jake Witmer’s response regarding jury participation is spot on. If one is an activist and wishes to throw himself on the levers and the gears of the state, then one has to get access to the machine. I highly doubt that the state is ready in most cases to retry someone for low level victimless ‘crimes’. The biggest trick is getting on the jury in the first place.

    In my experience in two jury selection processes — looking back — I realize just how biased it is. On one jury I was dismissed for a very vague perception of conflict of interest — being a tenant in one of several apartment buildings where my landlord was being sued. For the criminal trial, I was asked if I had any friends or relatives who were cops! Recently I chastised a San Diego prosecutor on this and he became very defensive. When he said he knew several lawyers and judges who had served on juries I told him, “Shame on those judges for allowing it!”

    Jake is right. Judges and prosecutor’s do not want jurors who are awake and informed. Don’t let them know that you are.

  36. Indigo Montoya Says:

    Article V Convention of States

    There was an interesting segment on The Power Hour — Joyce Reilly show concerning the push for the Article V convention to “save our republic”. I was encouraged that several of the callers were so much more savvy than either the guest or the host.

    One caller pointed out that the ‘Constitution’ was hijacked from the start. The motivation for Daniel Webster’s compilation of the American dictionary was to combat the lawyers’ immediate attempts to redefine the language and terms in the document to suit the special interests (killers,thieves, and liars). The point being that all such phony ‘agreements’ are in vain ala Lysander Spooner.

    Another caller made her point much more succinctly. She simply stated that she had nothing to do with the first ‘Constitution’ and would have no relationship to any new one. The guest, of course, tried to shoot this down with the quip, “If you do not involve yourself in politics, then one way or another, politics will involve you.” Of course this is just another dismissive platitude which is supposed to convince us that there is no other way to be free.

    If we are to mobilize ourselves to achieve personal liberty, there is no excuse for going halfway. Getting rid of one group of criminals only to install another should be absurd to even the most simple minded.

  37. eye2i Says:

    While i find Witmer’s argument to contain points for value consideration in the form of a commendably fashioned writing, i disagree that it’s “spot on” as is. i offer that it misses on at least two crucial aspects:
    a.) is the typical individual in the typical low level trial an otherwise happy Taxpayer/Submitizen/Statetheist –it’s just that they wish to fight that one specific issue (they were “caught” at)? Thus, helping them out of one jam when they don’t hold other shades of Statetheism as a problem actually helps voluntaryism? (see point b.)
    [as far as depriving Statetheist parasites of some bit of plunder, isn’t it equally arguable that enough of Their hosts will have to be brought to the point of crying “Uncle!” (NonSam) precisely through some such mechanism; aka “get their attention somehow”.?]
    b.) what of the assumption of validity and tacit legitimacy inherently signaled in one (seen to be) Voluntarily participating while camouflaging their voluntaryist (as logically consistent reasoned) position? Again, this helps in bringing about the demise of The State belief how?

    While it’s sad that there are indeed some (how rare?) individuals who are voluntaryists also in need of those doing Jury nullification, i can’t see how this can be determined by a voluntarism-seeking juror in advance and thus see the net result of participation as more damaging than beneficial.?

  38. Jake Witmer Says:

    @eye2i wrote: “While i find Witmer’s argument to contain points for value consideration in the form of a commendably fashioned writing, i disagree that it’s “spot on” as is. i offer that it misses on at least two crucial aspects:
    a.) is the typical individual in the typical low level trial an otherwise happy Taxpayer/Submitizen/Statetheist –it’s just that they wish to fight that one specific issue (they were “caught” at)?”
    MY REPLY: The English in the above comment is very poor, and hard to follow. Are you asking a question or making a statement? I think I can follow it. It seems you’re commenting that the people fighting against unjust punishment aren’t consistent anarchists. Well, no shit. But that’s totally irrelevant: no innocent person should be punished. You continue:

    “Thus, helping them out of one jam when they don’t hold other shades of Statetheism as a problem actually helps voluntaryism?”
    MY REPLY: Absolutely, helping prevent the punishment of innocent people helps the voluntaryist cause. If the state could punish no innocent person, the result would be a voluntaryist society, whether or not it contained an impotent state. The disease/body analogy applies here: Much as we don’t wish to kill the body (even the diseased gums, or the ulcerous stomach) when we fight cancer, the illegitimate portions of the state should also be prioritized. The idea that the illegitimate state (the cancer) is the result of individuals who are not philosophically-consistent is partially incorrect. While anyone can help to kill the cancer, the cancer exists because of its own tenacity, and the diseased gums and ulcerous stomach have nothing to do with it. (Much as coercive collectivists are only peripherally involved in establishing the modern totalitarian police state.) Coercive collectivists are not committed to the police state, …they are usually not even aware of it, or of alternatives to it. It is their passive acceptance that the state relies on. When they see how close to becoming victims they were, and they realize that they were only shown mercy because of the existence of “voluntaryists” or “libertarians,” that’s the best advertising for our cause that exists.

    “(see point b.)
    [as far as depriving Statetheist parasites of some bit of plunder, isn’t it equally arguable that enough of Their hosts will have to be brought to the point of crying “Uncle!” (NonSam) precisely through some such mechanism; aka “get their attention somehow”.?]”
    MY REPLY: This is arguing in defense of tyranny, for the sake of breaking the system, and thus ridding it of tyranny. Historically, the tyranny can get about as bad as Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, before such a “breaking point.” I don’t favor that, and I don’t think any decent person does.

    “b.) what of the assumption of validity and tacit legitimacy inherently signaled in one (seen to be) Voluntarily participating while camouflaging their voluntaryist (as logically consistent reasoned) position?”
    MY REPLY: This is a petty personal concern. It’s absurd. If you’re kicked off the jury, then feel free to agitate and call attention to the fact that they’re stacking the jury. Warn others to shut up and get seated. Grandstand and fling poo at that point, if you like. Until then, you’re best off shutting your pie hole and actually PREVENTING TYRANNY. I shouldn’t have to even explain this to anyone who is in the possession of mirror neurons. Just because a(n innocent) person is uneducated or servile is no reason to allow their punishment, when you’re in a position to stop it. Even if they remain servile, the system has been handed a clear defeat. When this happened in the 1920s, alcohol prohibition was defeated, and then repealed. Are you suggesting we’d be better off with alcohol prohibition today? The notion is absurd. Defeating tyranny piecemeal is far better than living with tyranny (or being killed by it).

    “Again, this helps in bringing about the demise of The State belief how?”
    MY REPLY: See prior response.

    “While it’s sad that there are indeed some (how rare?) individuals who are voluntaryists also in need of those doing Jury nullification, i can’t see how this can be determined by a voluntarism-seeking juror in advance and thus see the net result of participation as more damaging than beneficial.?”
    MY REPLY: Again: It’s a sign of the abject sickness and unreason of the “voluntaryist” movement that I even need to explain this. If you feel that making a minor and inconsistent philosophical point is more important than defending innocent life from the initiation of force, your values and priorities are far beyond screwed up.

    Unfortunately, there’s little in Konkinist “Agorism,” as defined and prescribed by Konkin himself in “The New Libertarian Manifesto,” to indicate the priorities I’m defending here. He only anecdotally points out the spirit of human defense by noting that truckers have come to the defense of other motorists, by pointing out speed traps, using voluntary free and voluntary association.

    The police state is the enemy. The innocent are all those citizens who are not guilty of initiating force. As LeFevre noted about Konkin’s theory of Agorism, “Portions of the state do some benevolent things.” Arguing against all portions of the state, simply because it’s the state, ignores that fact of material reality.

    We delegitimize our ideas when we do this. That the portions of the state that are benevolent are a tiny minority is of no consequence to the state apologist. It’s something our philosophy must deal with, if we’re legitimate. Thus: the jury. The most excellent and “selective of voluntaryism” designed by man.

    In fact, “the Wisdom of Crowds” is amplified by proper juries (which are the crowning achievement of western civilization). Statistically, juries are incredibly unlikely to convict. They convict solely because they are not “proper juries.” (They convict solely because of voir dire.) I’m always happy to explain the simple math that allows anyone to prove this, if they like. In fact, I’ve done so above.

    I never object to the state. I always object to specific state tyranny. This makes me neither a minarchist or an anarchist. It makes me a libertarian. Like all other libertarians, I cannot see the future, I can only note that there are some principles that are mutually-exclusive of other principles.

    Benevolent outcomes can exist alongside a murderous bully that we now call “the state.” This state is un-democratic (suffrage is not democracy). This state is unintelligent, and anti-republican (the Bill of Rights is now completely ignored by the existing government, except where FURTHER violating it would mean their likely death). The state doesn’t allow proper jury trials, but throws out sham trials to the oppressed as if it was “following due process of law.”

    Due process of law is not a part of the totalitarian state. However, it is a part of a well-functioning non-tyrannical state. It may also be that the only possible end-result that has due process is “anarchy.” Neither anarchist or minarchist sees the future.

    However, one thing is clear: Properly-constructed juries set the innocent free. That’s unambiguously true. Properly-constructed juries also disincentivize prosecutorial over-reach. (After the law making marijuana the lowest priority of the police in Denver, in 2010, prosecutors began to realize that if defendants pled “not guilty,” they were unable to obtain convictions. They thus instructed all public defenders, which included at the time the current Libertarian Party National Chairman, Nick Sarwark, to tell all their clients to plead “not guilty.” All such cases were dismissed, for lack of the statistical likelihood of finding a punishing jury.)

    That result was consistent with the end-result of purist voluntaryism. One category of innocents were no longer punished by the state. Innocent, in this case, is defined simply as “Anyone who has not initiated force or fraud against anyone else.” ie: “Don’t Tread On Anyone.”

    That’s what I want, the consequence of individual freedom. I don’t care if state collectivists can claim “That’s what we wanted all along.” I will know that isn’t true for many of them. I don’t need any of them to be punished, or “get their just desserts.” In fact, I have a better chance of producing a lasting tyranny if existing tyrants are given amnesty when their reign is ended. (John Lilburne had been sentenced to death by King Charles I, but he still tried to stop the rebels from executing him, because he knew that if the King were executed, future tyrants would fight harder to retain power –rather than be beheaded themselves.) I don’t care if state collectivists “save face.” I also don’t care if voluntaryists are considered whackos, and lose face (as is likely if they do not consistently defend the innocent).

    Much like the abolitionists, and the “wets,” I just want individual freedom itself.

  39. Jake Witmer Says:

    @Indigo Montoya – Thank you for the kind words. 🙂

  40. Calvin Says:

    I chipped-in on the fundraising campaign to support our fellow anarchists in need, I hope you can too!

4 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Mar 14, 2015 - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - Mar 21, 2015 - Says:

    […] to Eye2’s “devil’s advocate” comment about Marc’s possibly overzealous use of the label “psychopath” to describe […]

  3. NSP - Mar 28, 2015 - Says:

    […] Jake Witmer’s short essay in last week’s show comments. […]

  4. NSP - Apr 18, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - Says:

    […] Jace from UT: appreciation for sovereign living <> free trade versus corporate capitalism <> how we avoid monopolies with anarchist/(non-hierarchical) societies <> limiting people’s capitol maximums to the things and effects they can tangibly manage <> transcending statism <> the right to be a bastard jerk <> update on Jace’s brother’s legal attack: the prosecutor dropped the charges! <> Jace’s original inspiration to include off air commentary in the downloadable podcasts <> small contributions are welcome to help support a fellow anarchist breaking into permaculture <> and the consideration attending Anarchapulco 2015. […]

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