Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Apr 4, 2015 – Guest: Matt Papke

Posted on April 5th, 2015 by Calvin

Guest: Matt Papke from Free Tempe.

Show Notes:

  • Why its so important to expose the statist double-standard of any local bureaucrat if you get an opportunity to fairly and openly debate them.
  • Tempe city council member Kolby Granville asserts he, and his fellow lawyer associates, have jurisdiction “because we say so.”
  • Entering politics by sharing the message of liberty through political campaigning; as championed by Ron Paul, and continuing on to fulfill the vision and objectives promised to your constituents.
  • Adventures in exposing fraud and corruption with political campaign contributions and corporate welfare.
  • “Government is not the answer; its the problem.”
  • Join Matt and Marc (pending) at the 2015 Arizona Freedom Festival in Kingman, AZ on May 1-3.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Kenny from CA: the STATE wants $469 to take a traffic ticket to trial! <> how to file the motion to demur <> prepping for litigation [by reading the books, skimming the AiLL wiki, getting involved in the NSP skype group-chat, getting into the specific forum topics, and confronting city council members on the same questions you’ll be asking in court] <> and leveraging evidence of a shortened light as part of the defense.
  • Jenny from AZ: can I have some money for concert tickets and shopping?!
  • Bo from TX: asking if there is any evidence to prove jurisdiction in a drug possession case <> do you have to retain an attorney to request adjudicative probation? <> trying juveniles as adults to exploit their victims even further <> tracing government’s evolution back to its origins of managing agriculture for populations <> what would evidence of jurisdiction even look like? <> “evidence that the laws apply is jail” <> countering those who tout “the rule of law” as the reason we don’t have Somalia in the U.S.A. <> citizens killed by kops now outnumber Americans killed in Iraq war <> and pointing out the “just following orders” mentality of the I.R.S..
  • Scott from NY: case update: acquitted contemplating dismissal! <> rewiring your logical circuitry to operate more effectively by utilizing the “Marcratic questioning method” <> challenging a traffic camera citation <> and the evolving extortion schemes with the use of traffic cameras.
  • Chad from OH: arguing a writ of habeas corpus at an upcoming hearing <> and how the judge has many options at his disposal, contrary to what the prosecutor would have you believe.
  • Ken from MO: 2 big court days coming up: an arraignment and a trial <> the judge cut off the defendant when he asked about what facts have been presented to prove jurisdiction during the last hearing, can the defendant pick up that line of questioning at the beginning of this upcoming hearing? <> bureaucrats dread and avoid having to answer a question that they don’t understand <> and being stalked and harassed by the local police.
  • Imran from AZ: being framed and accused of stalking a daughter of a U.S. diplomat that he didn’t even know <> the STATE OF ARIZONA is a chartered corporation <> requesting the articles of incorporation for the STATE OF ARIZONA in the discovery process in an ongoing case <> exposing city prosecutors’ fraudulent claims that they actually represent the STATE OF ARIZONA <> and the prosecutor’s absurd response letter attempting to prove jurisdiction.
  • Keith from Canada: is there evidence of the STATE as a corporate entity? <> working up the ladder of authority seeking evidence to prove jurisdiction <> good advice on not traveling with proper tax tags if you are wanting to avoid legal attacks <> the prosecution team claimed that traveling without current registration was a civil violation, therefore they were able to dodge a higher degree of a burden-of-proof that comes with criminal proceedings <> a JP claimed that the cop was the injured party <> the court completely disregarded the unsigned plea of guilty and demanded a plea <> and blatant instances courtroom steamrolling and intimidation.
              

123 Comments For This Post

  1. matersteve Says:

    Well Ola my right tinking buddies! i’m back after the dickheads of the syco world incarcerated & abducted little old me for 2mths with a right BS stitch up without any evidence or even signing their own statements and committing perjury in their own place of business-in their den of iniquity- the so called court house.

    Where am i supposed to get those 2mths of my life back for my beliefs, and their corruption of a cess bin, for my beliefs are mine and nobody can take those away or anybody else’s even though they constantly try! A Myrta to the cause i tinks!? Like many before and many after i: a man; mastersteve! WISH TO F..K THE SYSTEM! Good and proper! Esp. following the same abduction and incarceration for 16 MThs without any justification whatsoever of Guru Canadian Dean Clifford “WELCOME BACK DEAN BIGGER NOW THAN EVER MAN”!

    Peace and all that!

    mastersteve

  2. Steven Richards Says:

    How might we ensure nobody is in charge (anarchy?), without being in charge?

  3. Boxer Says:

    @Steven Richards

    By living in reality.

  4. Steven Richards Says:

    @Boxer

    How might we “live in reality”?

  5. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    By not accepting fictions.

  6. Steven Richards Says:

    @Boxer

    By fictions, you’re referring to?

  7. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    Here you go. Rinse and repeat. You’ll get that programming out of you soon.

    https://youtu.be/TB54dZkzZOY

  8. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    Go back to your original question ===> “How might we ensure nobody is in charge (anarchy?), without being in charge?”

    No one is “in charge”. Authority is arbitrary, a belief in a legitimate ruler. Take away the “belief” part of it.

    Here, go read Larken Rose’s book. It will do you some good.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mensenrechten.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fthe-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf&ei=J6AiVe3jOcjZsAXw54CACA&usg=AFQjCNFiXYiuFA9lvAOZKO6_dQs_NwD-AA&sig2=JqmwF1Haw2I-b-sb0KggvA&bvm=bv.89947451,d.b2w

  9. Steven Richards Says:

    If you believe no one is in charge, how do you think people end up in jail/prison? They just say “sure, I’ll go be a prisoner”? LOL @ “taking away belief” when you seem to be claiming everyone in jail and prison said “sure, jail/prison sounds great. I’ll go”

  10. Steven Richards Says:

    As for the book, the author seems to be an anarchist. If so, that’s all I need to know to point and laugh 😀

  11. mike Says:

    Keith let me know when your next court date is…I will come and witness in the gallery

  12. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    “If you believe no one is in charge, how do you think people end up in jail/prison?”

    Maybe you’re mistaking “authority” with one’s (or a few’s) willingness to attack others. If I forced your daughter to have sex with me, does that mean she is my girlfriend?

    “As for the book, the author seems to be an anarchist. If so, that’s all I need to know to point and laugh :D”

    Well, I suppose that is one way to avoid having a meaningful conversation.

    Do you think its ever appropriate to attack a stranger?

  13. Steven Richards Says:

    @Boxer

    Do you want to convince me that authority is illegitimate? If so, I couldn’t care less, honestly, whether you think anything is legitimate or not. I’m over the whole “is it right or is it wrong?” question; I’ve moved onto “how might we make the best of it, so everyone wins, regardless of right or wrong?”

    Maybe you find meaning in debating anarchism vs statism; I don’t. I find meaning in doing the best I can with what there is to work with. I find meaning in building a new model that makes the old model obsolete, not fighting the existing reality. Anarchy seems, to me, to be fighting the existing reality, and honestly, seems impossible.

    I still don’t see how “living in reality” (not accepting fictions), and/or “taking away the belief in a legitimate ruler” allows us to ensure nobody is in charge without being in charge. Maybe you will be kind and enlighten me 🙂

    “Do you think its ever appropriate to attack a stranger?”

    Appropriate=legitimate=”right” (instead of “wrong”)? If so, like I’ve said already, I couldn’t care less. Have you ever considered the possibility that the stranger being attacked did something that lead to being attacked, and could do something different that would lead to not being attacked?

  14. BryanD Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    Do you realize that the bulk of people in jails & prisons in the US have not done anything wrong??? Haven’t harmed any body much less violated anyone’s rights. Probably should just say haven’t harmed anyone beciase “rights” are just a legal construct. The US has more people in jails & prisons than any other country in the world, per capita.

    All are victims of psychopaths that attack peaceful people just because of a difference of opinion.

  15. NonEntity Says:

    BrianD… so, what’s your point?

    (just kidding! JUST KIDDING!!!) 😉

  16. Andy Says:

    Steven Richards said: “I’ve moved onto “how might we make the best of it, so everyone wins, regardless of right or wrong?”

    Regardless of it being honest or dishonest. Okay that’s all I need to know. Good bye.

  17. Silybum Says:

    Steven,
    Are you someone’s dad? If so – you are showing them how to be indifferent and Lazy minded.

  18. Steven Richards Says:

    @Silybum

    Gee, thx

    If you’re raising children, you seem like you’ll be showing them how to blame other people and complain about things when they don’t like something, instead of looking in the mirror and changing.

  19. Silybum Says:

    Change myself into a non-questioning myrmidon? No. The first thing I question is someone’s motive. What are you hoping to accomplish here if you do not care to learn and utilize the information provided on this site?

  20. Boxer Says:

    @ Silybum

    “What are you hoping to accomplish here if you do not care to learn and utilize the information provided on this site?”

    I’m pretty sure that has already been answered when s/he stated “I couldn’t care less”. That pretty much sums it up.

  21. Steven Richards Says:

    @Silybum

    Maybe I’m here to understand how you think we could ever ensure nobody is in charge without being in charge? Maybe I’m here offering a perspective you haven’t considered? Maybe I just like seeing anarchists fail over and over again trying to convert people to their cult?

  22. Andy Says:

    “Maybe I just like seeing anarchists fail over and over again”

    I know many statists that became anarchists/voluntaryists. I don’t know any that reverted back to statism. It’s a one way street — one direction moving towards anarchism, moving away/distancing “itself” from statism.

  23. Andy Says:

    “trying to convert people to their cult?”

    Cults’ have leaders. You know, people in charge. Anarchism is no rulers, no one is in charge. What cult are you with, Steven?

  24. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    Could it be a select few move onto something entirely different than anarchism, instead of reverting back to statism?

    Since it seems you haven’t noticed yet, here’s the dirty little secret about anarchy: the “no rulers”, “nobody in charge” claims make no sense. It’s for people that don’t have the balls to just admit they want things to be “their way” and they want to be “in charge”. Maybe I’m wrong, so please, explain it to me: how might we ensure nobody is “in charge”, without being “in charge”?

  25. Steven Richards Says:

    Oops. Forgot to mention I’m “with” JR Bob Dobbs and the subgeniuses 😀

  26. Andy Says:

    “Could it be a select few move onto something entirely different than anarchism”

    Statism is entirely different than anarchism.

    “Maybe I’m wrong, so please, explain it to me: how might we ensure nobody is “in charge”, without being “in charge”?”

    Leave me alone means exactly that. Everyone wants to be left alone when himself and herself deem it appropriate. It’s the underpinning premise of freedom of association — the freedom to not associate.

  27. Andy Says:

    Also, about your huge fail on calling anarchism, a cult. Don’t want to be reminded of that and certainly you don’t want to acknowledge your error.

  28. Steven Richards Says:

    “Leave me alone means exactly that. Everyone wants to be left alone when himself and herself deem it appropriate. It’s the underpinning premise of freedom of association — the freedom to not associate.”

    Leave you and your fellow anarchist followers alone, yeah, but what about so called cops and judges? Do you think so called cops and judges should be “left alone” to continue doing what they’re doing?

    No error. Just calling it like I see it, bud. 🙂

  29. Steven Richards Says:

    Could it be a select few move onto something entirely different than anarchism or statism?

  30. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    What did you mean when you wrote

    “I find meaning in building a new model that makes the old model obsolete, not fighting the existing reality. Anarchy seems, to me, to be fighting the existing reality, and honestly, seems impossible.”

  31. Steven Richards Says:

    @Boxer

    As for the anarchy seeming impossible, I still don’t understand how you anarchists think you can stop people from telling people what to do or not do, without telling them what not to do.

    As for the “new model”, click the name I’m using, if you dare 😉

  32. Incubus Says:

    Ah, methinks Steven is with the Cult of Karl. Touting that crap Lentz spews.

  33. Andy Says:

    “Do you think so called cops and judges should be “left alone” to continue doing what they’re doing?”

    No. Self-defense force is legitimate because it’s applied against people that won’t leave people alone.

    Do you think killers, thieves and liars should be left alone to continue doing what they are doing? Government is a gang of killers, thieves and liars.

    Why the double standard, Steven.

  34. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    Could it be “should” and “shouldn’t” are terms for people interested in “right” or “wrong”, and/or “legitimate” or “illegitimate”? If so, why would anyone give a damn?

  35. Andy Says:

    @Steven, do you still claim/argue anarchism is a cult?

  36. Andy Says:

    @steven, Should or shouldn’t a person murder you? And do you give a damn? Steven, is it legitimate or illegitimate for a person to murder you? And do you give a damn?

  37. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    I claim anarchy is a cult, but won’t argue it. Why argue/debate about anything?

    Why even consider whether someone should or shouldn’t murder me, or whether or not doing so would be legitimate? I don’t give a damn, because I see no reason why it would effect whether it actually happens or not. Honestly, good luck on your dream of anarchy; hopefully you are enjoying the moment, because I don’t see it ever actually happening.

  38. Andy Says:

    @Steven, so when a person asks argues to you that he should kill you what are you going to do??? Say, “I’m not going to argue with you? I have no reason for why you should or shouldn’t kill me.”

    smdh

  39. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    Do you believe I would be more likely to be killed if I said that than if I argued? If so, why?

    Maybe it would be wise to ask if they’re even talking to me?

  40. Andy Says:

    Steven, the psychopath — looking you in the eye — said to you, “Give me one good argument why I shouldn’t kill you right now and maybe my partner won’t kill your wife.”

    Your response, “I’m not going to argue with you.”

    BTW, what, if any, facts/evidence/proof do you have to support your claim that anarchy is a cult?

    Yes, Steven, I’m taking to you. We’re having a conversation. Apparently you need me to confirm that I am talking to you.

  41. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    Why do you seem to think not arguing equals claiming “I’m not going to argue”? Could it be that any claim can lead to arguments?

    Could it be facts/evidence/proof are only for people wanting to convert people to their belief system? Why would anyone want to do such a thing?

    Could it be the word “you” is ambiguous? Maybe the killer is speaking to a hallucination.

  42. Andy Says:

    Steven, who is in charge of you?

    If you’re not in charge then the person who is in charge of you tells you to kill someone, and you do it; do you say/argue that you were just following an order and that you aren’t in charge?

    If you adhere to the non aggression principle and are in charge of yourself and thus responsible for your actions, you’re an anarchist.

    Steven, should a product or service be provided on a compulsory basis?

    We’re All Anarchists – Most Just Don’t Realize Yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhyXveYtChk

    Once an individual realizes they’re an anarchist, they don’t return to statism. It’s a one way “street”. Direction moving away from statism and towards anarchy.

  43. Steven Richards Says:

    @Andy

    Could it be who’s in charge depends on when, where and what claims we make? Could it be if I choose to make claims in a so called court, the so called system is now in charge, but not if I fail to make any claims and stay in honor?

    Why would anyone even bother with should or shouldn’t questions?

  44. NonEntity Says:

    Andy, The discussion you are engaged in here is a perfect example of the thesis of my thread about morality being a one-way street. You may find that worth consideration.

  45. Ben Says:

    Apparently Andy & Boxer are forgetting one key element here “FREE WILL”

    Until the both of you know and understand that there are NOT only just smart, vigorous, and good people, such as yourselves, that exist in this world, with free will, there are also stupid, lazy, and evil people out there, that coexist with the rest of us, and share the exact same free will too.

    There has to be some form of law and order to coexist with one and other. To NOT know and understand this is like living in a dream world utopia where everyone is happy and gets along…..BULLS–T!!!!

  46. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “Until the both of you know and understand… there are also stupid, lazy, and evil people out there, that coexist with the rest of us, and share the exact same free will too.”

    You mean like “judges” persecutors, cops, politicians and “government” bureaucrats among assorted types of criminals? Yeah, I totally don’t know and understand that. And I’m sure boxer doesn’t understand or know about them either. /sarcasm

    Ben said: “There has to be some form of law and order to coexist with one and other. To NOT know and understand this is like living in a dream world utopia where everyone is happy and gets along…..BULLS–T!!!!

    Anarchy is not no rules, it’s no rulers. It would help if you understood the common meaning of anarchy as used by voluntaryists.

    Those that violate the NAP/rule will be dealt with by many forms of self-defensive force. Ostracism, dispute resolution organizations and contracts are but a few ways/means of dealing with NAP/rule violators.

    Ben, you appear to be a statist at heart; a real law and order guy. How has that been working out for the last, oh say… two thousand years?

  47. Andy Says:

    @Steven, should a product or service be provided on a compulsory basis?

    Steven dodged the question and asked: “Why would anyone even bother with should or shouldn’t questions?”

    Steven, who is in charge of you?

  48. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “Until the both of you know and understand that there are NOT only just smart, vigorous, and good people, such as yourselves, that exist in this world, with free will, there are also stupid, lazy, and evil people out there, that coexist with the rest of us, and share the exact same free will too.

    There has to be some form of law and order to coexist with one and other. To NOT know and understand this is like living in a dream world utopia where everyone is happy and gets along…..BULLS–T!!!!”

    It’s clear that freedom scares you. I get it. Mr. Frederick Douglas touched on this a bit in his writings. Let me quote my dear friend Mr. Larken Rose in response to your flawed logic:

    “Bizarrely, almost every statist admits that politicians are more dishonest, corrupt, conniving and selfish than most people, but still insists that civilization can exist only if those particularly untrustworthy people are given both the power and the right to forcibly control everyone else. Believers in “government” truly believe that the only thing that can keep them safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans – some of the most flawed, in fact – and appointing them as gods, with the right to dominate all of mankind, in the absurd hope that, if given such tremendous power, such people will use it only for good, and the fact that that has never happened in the history of the world does not stop statists from insisting that it “needs” to happen to ensure peaceful civilization.”

  49. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    So let me see if I understand you….

    If someone violates the NAP/rules, aka your fundamental natural abilities, you will then resort to, and utilize, the same fear, threat, and coercion through the same judicial procedures of the very psychopaths your trying to break away from and want nothing to do with? Ostracism=jail, dispute resolution organizations=courts, contracts=laws. WTF OVER!?!?

    For someone claiming to be an anarchist YOU’RE the one who appears to be a statist at heart. Wake up dude! There is a whole other world out there besides the one in your head.

  50. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    By the way, the only people who live in Utopia are people like you who believe that you can simply “legislate” evil away all the way giving immunity to your masters who commit the very crimes they are supposed to prevent.

  51. Ben Says:

    @Boxer

    I have read some of Fredrick Douglas’s work. He’s a brilliant man. However do you have any of your OWN thoughts to add here instead of quoting someone else’s? Some kind of structured criticism YOU can contribute?

  52. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I don’t believe in utopias.

  53. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “So let me see if I understand you…. If someone violates the NAP/rules, aka your fundamental natural abilities, you will then resort to, and utilize, the same fear, threat, and coercion”

    No. To the person that INITIATES force, threat of force, coercion and/or fraud, (ie, violates the NAP/rule), In my defence I’d use force/violence and coercion in SELF-DEFENSE. Initiation of force and self-defence force have defining morality and ethical difference. They’re not the same. They’re opposite uses of force, threat of force and coercion. Who fired the first shot or, who threw the first punch or who issued the first threat of force?

    Ben said: “through the same judicial procedures of the very psychopaths your trying to break away from and want nothing to do with? Ostracism=jail, dispute resolution organizations=courts, contracts=laws. WTF OVER!?!?”

    Ostracism isn’t jail. DROs (dispute resolution organizations) aren’t courts of law and order. (Law and order statism is your thing, not mine.) Contracts are created by and contain whatever the contracting parties chose to put into their contracts.

  54. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “I have read some of Fredrick Douglas’s work. He’s a brilliant man.”

    Apparently not brilliant enough because you still believe in slavery.

    “However do you have any of your OWN thoughts to add here instead of quoting someone else’s? Some kind of structured criticism YOU can contribute?”

    Again, you failed to address the issue, and, instead, turned this around into an ad hominem attack.

    How do you reconcile the fact that you admit people are stupid, weak, and bad and then suggest that those very same people should rule over others?

  55. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “I don’t believe in utopias.”

    Then what is the point in your religion (“government”)?

  56. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    So you do believe in an adversary system. Then can you pleas explain the factual differences between your “dispute resolution organization” and the “courts?.” What are the factual differences between “ostracism” and “prison”? What are the factual differences between a “contract” and a “law”?

  57. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I don’t believe in slavery. And I never said that stupid, lazy, evil people should rule over us.

  58. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “I don’t believe in slavery. And I never said that stupid, lazy, evil people should rule over us.”

    You sure about that, chief?

    “Until the both of you know and understand that there are NOT only just smart, vigorous, and good people [emphasis mine], such as yourselves, that exist in this world, with free will……”

    “There has to be some form of law [emphasis mine] and order to coexist with one and other.”

  59. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    Then can you explain to me what is factually wrong with the current justice system? What are the factual differences between your methods and theirs?

  60. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “can you pleas explain the factual differences between your “dispute resolution organization” and the “courts?.”

    Yes.

    There I answered you question now answer this question for me and boxer: How do you reconcile the fact that you admit people are stupid, weak, and bad and then suggest that those very same people should rule over others?

  61. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    First of all that is NOT an answer. If I answered questions like that back in school and collage I would of aced every single one of my classes.
    Teacher – “Ben, do you know who the first president of the US is?”
    Me – “Yes.”
    Teacher – “Ben, can you find the radius in the angle of this triangle?”
    Me – “Yes.”
    Teacher – Congratulations Ben! You pass!”
    Me – “WTF OVER!?!?”

    Second, you are, once again, missing my point entirely and only listening to every other word I say. I am NOT talking about the stupid, lazy, evil people. Why do you keep gravitating the conversation back towards them and then accusing me of being one of them???

    Third, to answer your question. You can not reconcile with stupid, lazy, evil people. A leopard doesn’t change it’s spots.

    Fourth, since you’re not presenting any facts to support your claim that your “dispute resolution organization” is no different from a “court”, “Ostracism” is no different then “prison”, and a “contract” is no different than “law”, it would be safe to assume that you DO believe in the current system and will rely on and utilize it in your so called “free and voluntary world.” Just because you changed the words doesn’t mean it’s something different. If walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…..

    You just don’t like the way it has been perverted and corrupted and no longer done under a voluntary bases after all these years, and I AGREE!

  62. RAD Says:

    Ben:
    It’s not a factual difference. It’s a conceptual difference.

    Government courts: Are paid for by extortion. Peaceful people WHO HAVEN’T HARMED ANYONE are threatened with jail/fines or other coercive ad baculuums to make them pay bureaucrats. Maintains a violently enforced monopoly on dispute resolution.

  63. RAD Says:

    Voluntary dispute resolution service: Are paid for by subscription or restitution or voluntary means. Does not threaten peaceful people. Only takes actual causes of action with an injured party or a contract dispute between two subscribers to the service. Does not use aggression. Only uses involuntary coercion on those who can be proven to have used aggression or harmed others.

    Does not claim monopoly. Must compete with other similar services. You are free to subscribe to their competitor if you think the competitor offers better value. If they “go rogue” other competing DRO’s can take THEM to “court” as aggressors(rather then having them investigate themselves). In short, they have all the right incentives to actually serve and protect you as a bona fide customer rather than looking to pray on you.

  64. Ben Says:

    @ RAD

    If a DRO provides services such as mediation, reimbursement for damages, personal protection, ect, how is that NOT factually any different from how a court operates? FYI I am NOT referring to the stupid, lazy, evil psychopaths who operate it. I’m referring to the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. The system itself. PLEASE try to know and understand that before you respond back to me.

  65. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    You’ve lost any credibility you might have had for failure to answer a simple question and your last post is a clear demonstration that you are hallucinating.

    “FYI I am NOT referring to the stupid, lazy, evil psychopaths who operate it. I’m referring to the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. The system itself.”

    TRANSLATED: FYI, I am NOT referring to the stupid, lazy, evil psychopaths who operate it. I’m referring to the things that matter because they are written down on parchment paper. The system itself.

    What the heck do you think “the system” is besides stupid, lazy, evil people?!?!?!?!

  66. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I did answer the question and you keep misinterpreting what I’m saying. You just can’t grasp the concept that you, Andy, and now RAD are referring to the same system that is already in place, but without the stupid, lazy, evil psychos in charge of it. The current system was based, founded, and operates on the exact same principles that you all believe in and rely on too. It’s just been corrupted and manipulated after all these years by the stupid, lazy, evil psychos that have been in charge of it all these years.

    Think of the system as a gun. Alone and by itself it is just that… a gun. Now put that same gun in the hands of a stupid, lazy, evil psycho. For some reason you think that just because lazy, stupid, evil people have control over something you immediately assume that “something” is also corrupted and anyone who refers to it and uses it is also a lazy, stupid, evil psycho too. When there was NOTHING WRONG with it to begin with. It was simply in the wrong hands.

  67. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    Think of the paper thing as a formality, a way to communicate. The “papers” you are referring to, aka the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, are meant for the judges, bureaucrats, lawyers, ect. NOT FOR US. “They” only know and understand and will follow what is written on that paper. But obviously after all these years lazy, stupid, evil have took control and look where we are now….

  68. Ben Says:

    OOPS! I meant @ Boxer.

  69. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “I did answer the question and you keep misinterpreting what I’m saying. You just can’t grasp the concept that you, Andy, and now RAD are referring to the same system that is already in place, but without the stupid, lazy, evil psychos in charge of it. The current system was based, founded, and operates on the exact same principles that you all believe in and rely on too. It’s just been corrupted and manipulated after all these years by the stupid, lazy, evil psychos that have been in charge of it all these years.”

    No, Ben, you didn’t answer the question and if anyone is misinterpreting anything here, its you. There is no “system”. No one is in charge. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?!?!

    “Think of the system as a gun. Alone and by itself it is just that… a gun. Now put that same gun in the hands of a stupid, lazy, evil psycho. For some reason you think that just because lazy, stupid, evil people have control over something you immediately assume that “something” is also corrupted and anyone who refers to it and uses it is also a lazy, stupid, evil psycho too. When there was NOTHING WRONG with it to begin with. It was simply in the wrong hands.”

    Now you are comparing a tangible object (gun) with intangible objects (system)? Please stop with the halluncinations.

  70. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “Think of the paper thing as a formality, a way to communicate. The “papers” you are referring to, aka the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, are meant for the judges, bureaucrats, lawyers, ect. NOT FOR US. “They” only know and understand and will follow what is written on that paper. But obviously after all these years lazy, stupid, evil have took control and look where we are now….”

    This is a prime example of where you statists are wrong. You stated “They (without definined who they actually are) only know and understand and will follow what is written on that paper.” You would seriously need to be ignoring ALL the evidence that suggests you’re wrong to believe any portion of that. Marc even touched on this in his book:

    “I went in with a “Supreme Court” opinion called Brown
    v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), that held you could not be arrested
    for not providing 1D to a cop. How could I lose? I read the
    relevant part to the “judge” and he sneered down at me with
    contempt: “That’s your interpretation.” I was stunned, I had
    read from the opinion verbatim and he claimed it was only “my
    interpretation.” Needless to say, I lost, and that is how things
    tend to go in “Legal Land.”

    If you found that rape was a very successful method of conceiving children, would condone that behavior, too?

  71. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    Then explain to me how YOU would hold somebody accountable for violating the NAP/rules? What manner of method, process, program, mechanism would you initiate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person violated the NAP/rules?

  72. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    “I went in with a “Supreme Court” opinion called Brown
    v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), that held you could not be arrested
    for not providing 1D to a cop. How could I lose? I read the
    relevant part to the “judge” and he sneered down at me with
    contempt: “That’s your interpretation.” I was stunned, I had
    read from the opinion verbatim and he claimed it was only “my
    interpretation.” Needless to say, I lost, and that is how things
    tend to go in “Legal Land.”

    Yes. I remember this from his books. That’s because a lazy, stupid, evil psycho was in charge of a system that is suppose to adhere to that ruling. DUH!

    And stop playing stupid with me. You know exactly what I meant when I said “they”.

  73. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I already know and understand that it is just a piece of paper and nothing more. However in “their” eyes it’s something more than that. And over the years they twisted and manipulated the majority of us into believing that too.

  74. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “First of all that is NOT an answer.”

    You’re wrong. It absolutely is a responsive answer to your question. Don’t blame me for your incompetence.

    Ben said: “can you pleas explain the factual differences between your “dispute resolution organization” and the “courts?.”

    Yes. <That is a responsive answer to your question.

  75. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    Are you serious? You’re calling me incompetent? If you think simply saying yes to a question that states that you should “explain” yourself then you have glorious absence of sophistication I can’t even begin to comprehend.

  76. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “Yes. I remember this from his books. That’s because a lazy, stupid, evil psycho was in charge of a system that is suppose to adhere to that ruling. DUH!”

    Remind me again…what is so great about your “system” versus actual freedom?

    “And stop playing stupid with me. You know exactly what I meant when I said “they”.”

    Playing with you? Please, define who “they” is exactly? If you can’t, its only further evidence of your hallucinations of the magical “they”

  77. Andy Says:

    Ben, you can’t even begin to comprehend it because you’re incompetent.

    If I had given you the responsive answer, “No.”, would you have argued/claimed/said that “No.” is not an answer?

    For future reference and your continued learning: What are the factual differences between…

  78. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I am not comparing the current system, nor emphasizing it, to “actual freedom.” I’m comparing it to the DRO system that you all hold so dear. They are virtually the same.

    Let me break this “they” thing down for you. When I say “they” I’m referring to the lazy, stupid, evil psychos that call themselves government and that have corrupted and perverted a once morally just system. Does that spell it out for you or do you want me to draw you picture?

  79. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “a once morally just system.”

    According to you, I’m Allowed to Rob You!, is morally justified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

  80. Incubus Says:

    The Achilles heel in it all, so far as I can see, Ben, is your premise is flawed. You assert the system was corrupted over time, but it was corrupt to begin with. “Lazy, stupid, evil psychos” didn’t overtake the system, they started it. It was never voluntary. It was always wrought with illegitimacy.

  81. RAD Says:

    Ben

    The services a DRO would offer could be similar to the services government court offers IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES and IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES you could think of them as functional equivalents. For example, in a statist society the government enforces a monopoly on dispute resolution. A voluntary society is one where NAP becomes the cultural norm. Up till now humans have been characteristically aggressive. There are tools of ancient humans 380000 yrs old. But government, religion and modern “society” date back about 11000 yrs to the neolithic revolution. Hunter gatherers formed religions, the religious groups formed cities, cities led to agricultural farming societies, and then for the first time, modern humans had a SURPLUS. Which means for the first time they had something valuable stored up which could be TAXED. Enter the modern age of government.

  82. Boxer Says:

    @ Incubus

    Facts don’t matter to Ben; if its written on parchment paper, he’ll believe it.

  83. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “When I say “they” I’m referring to the lazy, stupid, evil psychos that call themselves government and that have corrupted and perverted a once morally just system. Does that spell it out for you or do you want me to draw you picture?”

    No, I’d like specifics. Names, please.

  84. RAD Says:

    Modern Humans – Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Us) are about 60000 yrs old as a species.
    Theory:
    About 10000 it appears new circuits evolved in the human brain which allowed for a higher degree of socialization and domestication of homo sapiens sapiens. This circuitry is what gives us a sophisticated ability to conceptualize abstract “entities”. Examples: Spirits, comic book characters, Santa Clause, States, Corporations, Imaginary friends, etc. The ability to imagine abstract “people” allowed humans to socialize into churches, cults, farms, villages, companies, governments, social organizations, etc. The character “Santa” is an abstract fiction, and it is this technology of humans to imagine such abstract “people” that allows us to organize and pull off the christmas ritual. Similarly it is this made up person called “The state” which allows the “black christmas” ritual of statism: what we call “court proceedings” where instead of using an abstract fiction to rationalize gift giving, it is used in the opposite manner, to extort money.

  85. RAD Says:

    Ironically, it is this circuit, which evolved in humans about 11,000 yrs ago which allows us our modern society. Before humans can engineer a complex project, they first have to CONCEPTUALIZE it as an abstract form. Humans are uniquely sophisticated in their ability for abstract thought among all the other creatures of earth. This same capacity for complex abstract thought and social organization is what makes humans superstitious: The same part of the brain that imagines an engineering project PURELY AS AN IDEA is what conceptualizes the boogie man, also ONLY AN IDEA. I think when Marc calls this governmental aggression, using these fictions to rationalize government, psychopathy, it is a little over-simplistic. I don’t think it’s psychopathy so much as religious programming run amok. Like when Aztecs sacrificed virgins to the “rain god”- it’s not psychopathy per se, although it is a type of pathological behavior.

  86. RAD Says:

    Like Marc points out, government isn’t logical and it isn’t rational. Is it rational to carve a bird into a rock and worship it? To sacrifice to it? How about to make a flag an idol for an imaginary “entity” and then pray to the entity while worshiping the flag idol? To sacrifice human life before the idol on behalf of the “entity”?

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlu6t75Tmch1SwByBkwqRY76h09vjRbwQR9H4y_k7oDoZutM7LzcLVllV-

  87. RAD Says:

    To anthropomorphize this imaginary “entity” as a “person”?

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQd3ISG7VtABwNUA6Ks4c_U-VUud3mdiZLnM4Lpxxnq5L3IU5WYnzOOGKo

  88. RAD Says:

    Worshiping the idol, praying to the leviathan, the supernatural deity of the modern state religion:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg/220px-Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

    “…it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person… the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH…This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN…of that…god…which, to define it, is: one person.”

    This is “the state” when referred to as its own person. An example on the news tonight: “The US has demands for cuba…”(paraphrasing). When we refer to “the state” as its own “personal” “entity”: “The United States wants freedom and democracy”, etc. This is the leviathan: When “The state” appears as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, the state spoken of in the abstract as a “person” or “entity”. It is a supernatural “entity” which only exists in the mind, yet we use it to explain physical phenomena such as wars, etc.

  89. RAD Says:

    What we call “the courts” or “the court system” within the context of modern statist society is in fact a religious institution.

    The men and women called “judges” who wear the black priest robes claim to have a supernatural power they call “authority” or “jurisdiction”. This supernatural power is a scriptural article of faith: there have been no control experiments or evidence put forth to actually prove it as some sort of physical force like gravity, but rather people believe in it strictly because sacred authoritative writings say so. We can speak of “g-forces” or “volts” to measure physical forces of the universe. How many more volts or lumens or whatever measurement unit of jurisdiction does an appellate judge have than an “inferior” judge? How would we measure jurisdiction – richter scale? Decibel meter? This “power” of jurisdiction is presumed as an article of faith because the judge has the personal relationship with their leviathan deity – they are a “state magistrate” or “United States Federal Judge”. This personal relationship with their deity is what is symbolized by the black priest robe – they aren’t just an ordinary person. They are one of the chosen ones of the leviathan deity – one of the chosen ones of “the state”.

  90. RAD Says:

    A special kind of personal relationship with the higher power of “state” as one who is ranked an “appellate judge”(a higher ranking government priest than normal “inferior” court judges) gives appellate judges a unique power: the power to create new religious scripture. There are 3 main canonical bodies of scripture in the government religion: 1.Constitutional law, 2.statutory law/legislative law, and 3.case law/legal precedent.

    All judges by virtue of their personal relationship with the higher power of “state” are presumed to have a monopoly on exegesis/hermeneutics of government scripture. However, even among judges, those known as appellate judges have a unique power: they can give legal opinions, and then those opinions magically become scripture and are added to the scriptural cannon called “case law”. Other members of their cult are then “bound” by those decisions through the magical power called “force of law”.

  91. Boxer Says:

    @ RAD

    That felt like:

    http://www.setsubset.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_3RfL2mDeD9c/Sg8TH8MTsnI/AAAAAAAAAKE/-CJa_VH0J8w/s1600/2013/02/barf.jpg

    A lot of (good) information, though.

  92. RAD Says:

    The difference between A DRO and the modern courts would be like the difference between getting salad because you choose to at a restaurant compared to being forced to participate in eating sacrificial meat at the altar of Mars because Caesar said so. One is compulsory participation in a religious ritual; the other is a voluntary commercial business service.

  93. RAD Says:

    Although they are similar in that they are both “lunch”.

  94. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    If you said no I would still want you to “explain” yourself. We aren’t in court or in DRO.

  95. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    I never said nor suggested that facts don’t matter to me and that things written on a piece of papper are lagit and real. Stop putting words in my mouth.

  96. Ben Says:

    @ Incubas

    I’ll give you that. The founding fathers wanted a free and voluntary system but most of them owned slaves. Tht’s the pot callin the black. But slavery is obalished now.

  97. Ben Says:

    @ RAD

    So based on all this info you gave me it’s a stupid, lazy, eivil persons “free will” that changes and corrupts things regardless if that “thing” is fake, imaginary, make believe or even real and factual?

  98. Steven Richards Says:

    Could it be if you think there’s something wrong with the so called system, you would benefit from questioning some assumptions you’ve failed to question as of yet? Could it be the so called system only charges the name with crimes and fines, then waits so see how the one using the name responds? Could it be when most people respond they give jurisdiction by making claims, assumptions and dishonorable behavior?

  99. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “The founding fathers wanted a free and voluntary system”

    If that was what they truly wanted they failed. Shoulda product or service be provided on a compulsory basis? Pay the tax or be put in a cage is not consent and not voluntary.

    Ben said: “When I say “they” I’m referring to the lazy, stupid, evil psychos that call themselves government and that have corrupted and perverted a once morally just system.”

    From the get go it was a morally repugnant system. Here’s your alleged “once morally just system.” Video: I’m Allowed to Rob You! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

  100. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be when most people respond they give jurisdiction by making claims, assumptions and dishonorable behavior?”

    I’ve never heard or read of a judge or prosecutor claim/argue that is how the court obtains jurisdiction. So to answer your question, no.

    They, judges, prosecutors and other government officials acknowledge that jurisdiction is obtained by an individual’s physical location within a state and/or the socalled United States”.

    Steven said: “then waits so see how the one using the name responds?”

    Waits???

    No doubt an inclusion in your meaning of dishonorable behavior includes not pulling over when a traffic cop turns on the flashing lights to pull you over in your car that has no government issued tax tags, no registration sticker and no inspection sticker — cop doesn’t have a clue as to who is inside the car much less the person’s name. It would be dishonorable for you to not pull over, right? Is the traffic cop acting honorably?

    Is a guy walking down the side of the road with a sign that reads, “Marijuana For Sale” acting dishonorably? And when the cops attack him, are they acting honorably?

    And you want to play the silly name-game, honor-dishonor game when people calling themselves government initiate dishonorable actions.

    SMDH

  101. Steven Richards Says:

    “I’ve never heard or read of a judge or prosecutor claim/argue that is how the court obtains jurisdiction. So to answer your question, no.

    They, judges, prosecutors and other government officials acknowledge that jurisdiction is obtained by an individual’s physical location within a state and/or the socalled United States”.”

    Do you believe everything people say?

    “It would be dishonorable for you to not pull over, right? Is the traffic cop acting honorably?”

    Could it be if it’s honorable to “pull over” or not depends on how you respond when finally talking with the man or woman doing the “pulling over”? If anyone else is using emergency lights, such as a fire truck or ambulance, would you get out of the way for them too?

    “Is a guy walking down the side of the road with a sign that reads, “Marijuana For Sale” acting dishonorably? And when the cops attack him, are they acting honorably?”

    Does he claim ownership of the so called marijuana? What do you mean by attack? Do you believe we’re attacking each other by asking questions?

    “you want to play the silly name-game, honor-dishonor game when people calling themselves government initiate dishonorable actions”

    Who you talking to? Me? If so, gee thx. Pls don’t let me stand in the way or your happiness and success. If I’ve offended you, would you please forgive me?

  102. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    I never said that it was perfect system. Like I said earlier most of the founders owned slaves and yet at the time they were yellin freedom, freedom! WTF OVER? Your DRO system is basically a tweak to an already existing, good and just, but not perfect, system, and it’s a good tweak. That’s all I’m saying.

    To answer your questin, no I don’t think buisness should be done at the barrel of gun.

  103. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be if it’s honorable to “pull over” or not depends on how you respond when finally talking with the man or woman doing the “pulling over”?

    You put the cart before the horse.

    So an individual can choose to not pull over for the cop tying to pull him/her over and the individual remains in honor. Then the cop calls in his cop-colleagues and they force the individual off the road; are the cops acting honorable?

    Again I ask, is the cop acting with honor when he tries to pull an individual over to give the individual a traffic ticket?

    Steven said: “Does he claim ownership of the so called marijuana?”

    Assuming it’s a cop asking the question, I chose not to interact with you other than ask has someone claimed that I’am in possession of their marijuana?

    Steven said: “What do you mean by attack?”

    Initiating force/violence, threat of force and coercion.

    Steven asked: “Do you believe we’re attacking each other by asking questions?”

    No. If I were to ignore you and your questions would I be attacking you? No.

    What if you were to ignore the cop that’s trying to pull you over and give you a traffic ticket, is your ignoring him/her honorable? Do you think the cop will not continue his pursuit of you, and instead just say to himself, “This guy is ignoring me so I’ll ignore him too.”

    No. He’s not going to do that.

    What he will do is further his dishonorable actions and call for back up. The gang of them will proceed with their “comply or die” procedures. See: Use of force continuum. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx

  104. Andy Says:

    Ben said: “When I say “they” I’m referring to the lazy, stupid, evil psychos that call themselves government and that have corrupted and perverted a once morally just system.”

    Bensaid: “Your DRO system is basically a tweak to an already existing, good and just, but not perfect, system, and it’s a good tweak.”

    DRO’s are voluntarily funded. Taxes is forcing people to give people calling themselves government money. If I were to do as government types do and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

    Going from stealing to voluntary is not a mere tweek. It’s a huge paradigm shift!

    The already existing system is close to perfect for the psychopaths that run it. As for the rest of us, it’s a gang of killers, thieves and liars attacking us.

    For sure, the already existing system is NOT good and just!

  105. Ben Says:

    @ Andy

    Like I said earlier most of the founders were slave owners and they were screaming give us freedom and no taxation without representation. We eventually abolished slavery now we gotta work on this tax thing and the DRO system is a step in the right direction.

    Since you’re DRO system is voluntary explain how you would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has violated the NAP/rules and then make that person accountable for their actions?

  106. Boxer Says:

    @ Ben

    “But slavery is obalished now.”

    “We eventually abolished slavery…”

    Yes, you’ve officially lost ALL credibility now.

  107. Ben Says:

    @ Boxer

    How do figure that?

  108. Steven Richards Says:

    “So an individual can choose to not pull over for the cop tying to pull him/her over and the individual remains in honor. Then the cop calls in his cop-colleagues and they force the individual off the road; are the cops acting honorable?”

    If you believe you’re being pulled over, I believe the only honorable course of action is to pull over. I believe the so called cops forcing someone off the road is honorable, as are all the “rules” they follow.

    “Again I ask, is the cop acting with honor when he tries to pull an individual over to give the individual a traffic ticket?”

    Could it be he or she only tickets people that make claims, assumptions or stay silent when being questioned (in other words act dishonorably)?

    “Initiating force/violence, threat of force and coercion.”

    Could it be force is only used when someone makes claims, assumptions or stays silent when being questioned? If so, who “initiated” it?

    “What he will do is further his dishonorable actions and call for back up. The gang of them will proceed with their “comply or die” procedures. See: Use of force continuum. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx

    Are you enjoying the moment? Could it be people that accuse brothers/sisters of “wrongdoing” are generally miserable, and unwilling to do anything about it other than complain or point fingers, digging themselves deeper?

    Seems you use honor/dishonor interchangeably with right/wrong, good/bad, just/unjust, legit/illegit etc. You’re probably not alone, but in case you care, I simply mean either in or out of jail/prison. Staying in honor is anything that results in staying out of jail or prison. Dishonor is anything that results in going to jail or prison.

  109. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    “If you believe you’re being pulled over, I believe the only honorable course of action is to pull over. I believe the so called cops forcing someone off the road is honorable, as are all the “rules” they follow.”

    And therein lies the problem….psychopathic behavior is perfectly acceptable to you. Some of us just want to be left alone. Go place psycho with yourselves and leave us out of it.

  110. Boxer Says:

    **Correction**

    And therein lies the problem….psychopathic behavior is perfectly acceptable to you. Some of us just want to be left alone. Go play psychopath with yourselves and leave us out of it.

  111. Steven Richards Says:

    “Some of us just want to be left alone”

    People claim to “just want to be left alone”, but it seems most that claim that really want to force so called cops and judges to stop doing what they’re doing. They seem to want to make the rules, as if that would fix something.

    “Most people want to believe somebody else is in charge. Then they don’t have to take responsibility. Then they have the supreme pleasure of perpetually complaining that somebody else is in charge, and it would be better if only they were in charge.”

  112. Andy Says:

    Steven fantasized: “People claim to “just want to be left alone”, but it seems most that claim that really want to force so called cops and judges to stop doing what they’re doing.”

    I just want cops to leave me alone. They are initiating force and I may use self-defence force to get them to leave me alone. I want all psychopaths, not just cops and judges to leave people alone. You make an exception as boxer noted: “And therein lies the problem….psychopathic behavior is perfectly acceptable to you.”

  113. Andy Says:

    Boxer said: “And therein lies the problem….psychopathic behavior is perfectly acceptable to you.”

    I think Steven has a vested interest in some segment(s) of “government” psychopaths.

  114. Boxer Says:

    @ Andy

    “I think Steven has a vested interest in some segment(s) of “government” psychopaths.”

    That or he is too vested in his religion and can’t let go. These are the same people that accuse “Muslims” of being immoral. Go figure.

  115. Incubus Says:

    I’d suggest you (and more specifically you, Andy) read through Stevens’ posts again and pay attention to the way he words things. Also, follow the hyperlink embedded in his name he mentioned before. What you’ll find is a path leading to the same camp Lentz and Notsure7 hail from and the “knowledge” they espouse. Then, ask yourself if you want to debate another Notsure, albeit a less abrasive one.

  116. Andy Says:

    Thanks Incubus.

    I guess that’s why Steven isn’t straight forth and doesn’t simply advocate that garbage. Rather, he tries to discredit anarchy/voluntaryism in general. He has a vested interest in the psychopath circus.

  117. KeithOB Says:

    Thanks Mike
    mike Says:
    April 6th, 2015 at 8:27 am
    Keith let me know when your next court date is…I will come and witness in the gallery.
    50 eagle st newmarket ontario 9:30 am april 17th

  118. billy r. Says:

    Because of their respect for what appears to be law and many people are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights do to ignorance. US V Minker,350 us 179 (1956)

  119. Sarah Says:

    This always tickles me:-

    Do you realize that the bulk of people in jails & prisons in the US have not done anything wrong??? Haven’t harmed any body much less violated anyone’s rights. Probably should just say haven’t harmed anyone beciase “rights” are just a legal construct. The US has more people in jails & prisons than any other country in the world, per capita.

    So why are most of us scared of going to jail?

    Just wondering.

  120. Randall Says:

    More proof of “no duty to protect”:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucZDTzAQ_b8

  121. Bo Says:

    States and Countries are indeed fictions, and Marc Steven’s brilliant no nonsense uncompromising approach is the only way to deal with them –

    Legislative Definitions of Countries as Admitted Fictions

    Scroll down to –

    The Legislative-legal Definition of Spain

    (as well as all other countries)

    https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/espana/

    An Example of The Legislative-legal Definition of USA as a Fiction –

    Income Tax Treaty – 1996
    Article 3, 6) (i) & (ii)
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/austria.pdf

    Sourced:

    Austria – Tax Treaty Documents
    http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/Austria—Tax-Treaty-Documents

    Further Legislative-legal Definitions of U.S. as a Fiction –

    United States Income Tax Treaties – A to Z
    http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties—A-to-Z

    United States Constitution Copyright as Personally Owned Private Fictitious Intellectual Property –

    United States of America
    The Constitution of the United States of America
    http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395

  122. Bo Says:

    P.S. –

    If you’re having difficulty opening the definitions for the U.S., just search in a browser for the terms –

    United States Income Tax Treaties – A to Z

  123. KeithOB Says:

    KeithOB Says:
    April 11th, 2015 at 6:43 am
    Thanks Mike
    mike Says:
    April 6th, 2015 at 8:27 am
    Keith let me know when your next court date is…I will come and witness in the gallery.
    50 eagle st newmarket ontario 9:30 am april 17th

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Apr 4, 2015 – Guest: Matt Papke - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - Apr 18, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Imarn‘s excellent questioning of Scott Bales asking him about the lack of support they actually have, their compromised fairness, and how most people have not approved how judges grant themselves immunity. […]

  3. NSP - Jun 6, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Imran from AZ: courtroom extortionists do not want to fully disclose the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings being brought against you <> American courts systems are run by a private British guild by way of a failure to fully emancipate from the crown <> getting harassed by the local police for providing transportation to drunk patrons on Super Bowl Sunday (so much for public safety…) <> how can the Chandler judge/attorney act for the State Attorney General? <> easily demonstrating the conflict-of-interest between the judge and prosecutor and how that is grounds to void a judgement <> and a potential Call-of-Shame audio of an interview with a cop asking tough questions about their statutes and definitions. […]

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