NSP – Apr 11, 2015 – Guest: Jeff

Posted on April 12th, 2015 by Calvin

Guest: Jeff, who has recently managed to get a speeding ticket dismissed from court by using the motion to dismiss template and script, describes his adventure in legal-land and discusses what he’s learned.

Show Notes:

  • Facts don’t matter when it comes to statist bureaucrats, their cohorts, their apologists, and their useful idiots; because nobody really cares.
  • Chief Justice Scott Bales‘ ironic confirmation bias response after giving a speech on bias.
  • KOPIMI calling out STATE prosecutors’ bluff that they actually have empirical evidence to prove their laws apply to us non-privileged class.
  • Building confidence and an effective template to challenge the legitimacy of authoritarians.
  • An ethics law professor claims that discussing evidence to prove jurisdiction is “beyond his expertise.”
  • Most of what the prosecutor responds with when questioned on their evidence to prove jurisdiction was a lie or completely unsupported by facts.
  • Not all judges are raging lunatics; some are willing to hear both sides before making a determination.
  • The usefulness of using names, instead of titles, in the courtroom.
  • Raising questions of the conflict-of-interest between the judge and the prosecutor.
  • You have to be persistent with your objections to disrupt the deception that they’re actually being fair and impartial.
  • You don’t need the element of surprise when you challenge the evidence to prove jurisdiction.
  • Prosecutors have come to expect judges to relieve them of their burden to prove all elements of their case.
  • Understanding the use of the unsigned plea of guilty.
  • Clever ways to prove the arrogant prosecutors aren’t reading the paperwork you file. 😀
  • Things that could have been executed better and improved upon.
  • Case dismissed on grounds of the prosecution’s “lack of evidence.”
  • Learning from and with others who have been in the lion’s den with the questions of evidence and have found success.
  • Media members have actually claimed they don’t fact check stories that come to them.
  • The judge prosecuting the prosecutor’s case by asking questions to elicit testimony from the defendant.
  • Why we continue fighting bureaucrat’s legal attacks.
  • Gross rationalizations for authoritarianism.
  • Those who are so conditioned that they cannot accept contradictory evidence when it is presented to them.
  • A New Zealand MoJ bureaucrat asserts that it is “a fact” that their laws apply simply because someone is physically in New Zealand, but resorts to appeal to popularity logical fallacy when questioned on what exactly the fact(s) is/are.
  • “Can you explain what you mean by ‘jurisdiction’?”
  • The kiwi bureaucrat claims that its an “accepted social fact” that people are citizens based upon their geographic location.
  • Taking something for granted is not a legally accepted standard-of-proof.”
  • How to effectively challenge and counter tricky bureaucrats by using their arguments and admissions against them.
  • The kiwi traffic fine collector finally admits evidence to prove jurisdictiondoesn’t exist as far as I know.”
  • Failed attempt you use cultural capital/appeal to popularity as evidence to prove the laws apply.
  • Connecting facts to prove the law applies.
  • It depends on what you mean by jurisdiction.”
              

66 Comments For This Post

  1. mastersteve Says:

    NO VICTIM? NO CRIME!
    FULL STOP . PERIOD!

  2. NonEntity Says:

    No bulletproof vest, no survival of traffic FULL STOP. 😉

    (SCREAMING really does improve listener comprehension. That’s why cops scream “STOP RESISTING” when they have their boot on the back of your neck while you are hand-cuffed, unconscious and bleeding on the ground in front of them.)

  3. RAD Says:

    Okay, so you have a guy who:
    1.Dresses up in a black priest robe.
    2.Preaches scriptural dogma as sacred truth, without evidence
    3. Claims a personal relationship with an invisible entity he regards as a higher power he calls “the state” or “The State of Arizona” or simply “Arizona”
    4. Other bishops who outrank him like Scalia explicitly refer to this “entity” as a “sovereign state” and “Sovereign entity” which they personalize as anthromorphized personalities capable of making decisions, entering into contracts, and acting on the physical universe in myriad fashion, yet IT’s AN INVISIBLE ENTITY.
    5. Priest guy uses this scriptural dogma as his guide to how to conduct his rituals which he is hired for by the government.
    6. I would say right there are your facts proving the conclusion that what we call “the government” is factually speaking a fundamentally religious institution with its own state religion and that the men and women who work for this organization are a cult.

  4. RAD Says:

    If you can prove those 5 premises with solid evidence, I think logically you prove the conclusion (#6)

  5. RAD Says:

    “An argument ad baculuum is quite appropriate”. Obviously he doesn’t know the meaning of Ad baculuum and is trying to save face pretending he understands. “I think a logical fallacy is appropriate”. He’s literally saying it’s appropriate to prove his case by spewing bullshit. I don’t think that’s what he means, but it’s what he says(I don’t think he actually knew what the terms used meant).

  6. Steven Richards Says:

    What if you could enjoy the moment now, regardless of whether or not anyone else becomes convinced that anarchy is better than statism?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLyn2vI0qk

  7. Andy Says:

    @Steven Richards, please stop trolling these articles and take your “name game” thing to the forum where you may get a robust discussion. Or, simply take your BS elsewhere.

  8. Steven Richards Says:

    what’s a name game? is that what you call anything other than claiming to be or own a name?

    could it be i already posted in the forums?

  9. Andy Says:

    @Steven, It could be that you’ve already posted to the forum at marcstevens.net. If you have, please take your who-does-or-doesn’t-own-a-name back to the forum. Also, if you’ve posted about it on the forum, post a link here pointing to the thread and continue the discussion there on the forum.

  10. Andy Says:

    Why does anyone who has not been charged with violating anyone’s “individual rights” go to court? Because of the comply-or-die use of force continuum. It’s the threat that if I don’t make it to court they whom call themselves government will follow through on there threats to further initiate force/violence against me.

    That’s why people go to court. To the man in the street, s/he goes to court to fend off even greater harm than what will likely take place in court. As if to say in their mind’s eye: “The ticket will likely cost me $150 dollars, but if I don’t go to court it will be much worse for me.”

    Thus the issue with gong to court is this…

    ‘Sir, the reason I’m here is because my life has been threatened by this court’s actions on behalf of the plaintiff’s accusations against me. I’m here defending my life and the question I have is where is the prosecutors alleged evidence that the code and constitution are applicable to me because of my physical location in Nebraska? It is also my understanding that absent jurisdiction the prosecutor has no just reason for using the court to force me to be here, is that correct, sir?’

    Jurisdiction, that’s the one and only issue that should need to be addressed.

    Absent evidence of jurisdiction, the court has no credibility/legitimacy on any other issues raised either by the plaintiff or defendant/victim. Why? Because neither the plaintiff nor defendant have reason to be in court in the first place.

    Objection to “judge’s” moving forward absent the prosecutor showing evidence of jurisdiction is strike one to be raised on appeal.

  11. Steven Richards Says:

    “Sir, the reason I’m here is because my life has been threatened by this court’s actions on behalf of the plaintiff’s accusations against me. I’m here defending my life and the question I have is where is the prosecutors alleged evidence that the code and constitution are applicable to me because of my physical location in Nebraska?”

    Could it be by claiming to be threatened, accused, be defending “your life”, that someone claims codes/constitutions are applicable to you, and to be in Nebraska, you’re guilty?

  12. Andy Says:

    @Steven, absolutely not.

    You’re still putting the cart before the horse. Which I pointed out to you in the previous weeks NSP comment section. http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150404.html#comment-66334

    Absent evidence of jurisdiction, the court has no credibility/legitimacy on any other issues raised either by the plaintiff or defendant/victim. Why? Because neither the plaintiff nor defendant have reason to be in court in the first place.

    You refuse to acknowledge that the criminals — prosecutor and judge — are, from the get go, threatening violence and initiating violence and that’s the reason for a defendant/victim to be in court in the first place. It’s called a premise.

    Check your premise Steven. …Why is a defendant/victim in court in the first place? Is it because they thought it would be a nice day to hang out in the courtroom or because of the threats issued by the court/”judge”?

    You’ve mentioned that you may have already posted to the forum, please take your batman talkshoe stuff there. Thanks in advance.

  13. Steven Richards Says:

    “Absent evidence of jurisdiction, the court has no credibility/legitimacy on any other issues raised either by the plaintiff or defendant/victim”

    Could it be making claims, assumptions or staying silent when asked a question is all that’s needed for jurisdiction?

    “Why is a defendant/victim in court in the first place? Is it because they thought it would be a nice day to hang out in the courtroom or because of the threats issued by the court/”judge”?”

    Could it be because when the name and/or “you” was threatened, they took it personally?

  14. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    What is in fact your position and how does it differ from marc stevens?

  15. eye2i Says:

    Marc, would you share with us who the “liberty activists/anarchists” that you speak of in this broadcast are; or where one might reach out to them @?

    Regarding confronting those like the “Chief Justice” publicly, do you think using the corollary of, for one example, the “jurisdiction” claims of The Catholic Church (aka another religious institution) over the same land/geography, asking if since “They say so” (too) that “makes it so” for him/applicable to him personally?
    i know that parallel presentation (if memory serves, it coming thru AILL) aided me immensely when it was presented to me –keeping in mind, that often confrontations of religious belief, faith-based nature seldom result in instant, on the spot conversion. Rather, they too typically take ‘simmering’ when left alone that eventually results in a laying of such aside.?

    i wonder as well, if when They use the infamous “There are people in jail” as Their Argument, asking something like, “Isn’t that the case with gangs in their territorial geographical arguments (“cases”/”rulings”/”claims”/”Opinions”)? Are you saying we are subject to such Arguments because They (too) punish those that disagree with Them?”

  16. eye2i Says:

    When Marc was talking with the lady in New Zealand, i had a flash of neo-deja’moo* with her “You’ll need to talk to a lawyer”, where she’s saying she’s no lawyer, brought back to mind encounters with religionistas of the “Creator Revelation” faith variety when challenging their core claims, where for me the too typical counter was “You’ll need to talk to a theologian”.
    ___________________________
    *[deja’moo being the sensation one has heard this bull before –aka heard the b.s. before]

  17. reeodd Says:

    Marc,

    I listened to the questions being asked and it occurred to me that what I was hearing was softball questions coming from people who were comfortable with their position in life as slaves. Your question was the only one that made Scott Bales uncomfortable. The only one that exposed the true nature. The only true “question”. His nervous giggle appeared pathetic coming from someone holding his title in society. Without protection from the guy controlling the questioning he would have run out of the room like Jan Helfeld has been able to get them to do.

  18. Lilly Says:

    Marc, do you pay taxes?

  19. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Lilly, not many, there is no way around some. Can’t get away from taxes on internet, gas and sales tax. I do barter to get around some sales tax, but with gas I can’t.

  20. RAD Says:

    What is the proof of Isis’s claim to being the “Caliphate” with the divine right to rule the world(as the rightful successor to Mohamad)? They shoot people, abduct them, and take their stuff. The “Supreme Judge” of “state” is making the same type of argument.

  21. RAD Says:

    reodd: Would be awesome for a real socratic-type journalist like Marc or Jan to get a chance to grill someone like Scalia or John Roberts. Actually, this interview is one of his best ones. Kolby Granville still arguably his best yet in my opinion. Of course I don’t buy into this notion that some men and women have a magic right to control everyone with magic robe power but these are the high priests of the religion: Appellate judges. They are the “council of bishops”. The council of bishops who created the bible had their scriptural cannon they call the “Nicene Creed”. It is a body of scripture which is very similar to the scriptural cannon called “case law” in some respects. It is the scripture church bishops use to “interpret” biblical scriptures.

    If the constitution and legislation are the bible of statism, then case law is its religious “creed”.

  22. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be making claims, assumptions or staying silent when asked a question is all that’s needed for jurisdiction?”

    No.

    Marc has said it a thousand times and every “government” agent has agreed that their argument is that if you’re physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to you and thus the court has jurisdiction.

    None of the “government” agents have been able to show evidence to support their argument that if an individual physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to the individual and thus the court has jurisdiction.

    Steven why have you not taken your arguments to the forum? Is it because you want to tag these and/or pollute these threads with your Steven Richards links to Batman2’s talkshoe call and the garbage therein?

  23. Boxer Says:

    @ Marc Stevens

    “You’re a funny guy”!!!!

  24. Thad Says:

    The thing I tend to notice in calls or interactions with the psychopaths or such is the redirection to the lawyer stance. Either they wish to end the conversation by asking if you are a lawyer ( which is their exit pass ) OR when asked about facts and they say YOU need to talk to a lawyer. If that is true, how do they telling YOU to get a lawyer to explain mean they understand the facts either? How did they determine something is true absent of a lawyer telling them the ends and outs of the argument they stand behind relentlessly? If a lawyer is required of you to understand the argument…….how do the agents of the state on the phone know all of it.

  25. Andy Says:

    Government is a religion and God has a gun.

  26. Boxer Says:

    @ even worse…..what if you have a government lawyer telling you to get a lawyer? What they are really saying is find someone who believes this and get their advice.

  27. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Boxer they are telling you in plain English, “I’ve got nothin.” So let’s be clear; you believe your laws apply to me but you have no proof? Got it.

  28. Boxer Says:

    @ Marc Stevens

    “Can’t get away from taxes on internet, gas and sales tax.”

    Are you aware of anyone attempting to get away from sales tax (i.e. contacting someone you do business with on a regular basis such as a grocery store and requesting to no longer be charged for “taxes”)?

  29. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, I’ve made it a habit for decades to do as much of my buying from out of state as possible.* (Used tires are not taxed, or at least not the federal tire taxes.) And thrift shops don’t charge sales tax. And I almost always offer to pay small businesses in cash and tell them that I don’t need a receipt. Sometimes that works but generally not. Bitcoin helps make these things easier.

    * I have mixed feelings about this as by doing so I am not supporting my local merchants and so in the end may be shooting myself in the foot.

  30. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, Example: I have two vehicles. I do almost all my own work on them. One is 28 years old, the other 48. I have two favorite parts vendors, both small businesses in other states. When I buy parts I do have to pay shipping so it may cost me the same as if I bought it in-state but I am preventing both “my” state smd the vendor’s state from being able to collect tax on the sale.

  31. Thad Says:

    Statism = Self-Reinforced Delusion 🙂

  32. Steven Richards Says:

    “Marc has said it a thousand times and every “government” agent has agreed that their argument is that if you’re physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to you and thus the court has jurisdiction.”

    Do you believe everything you’re told?

    “None of the “government” agents have been able to show evidence to support their argument that if an individual physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to the individual and thus the court has jurisdiction.”

    Could it be part of their job is to try telling you something that might seem plausible to most people, instead of “the truth”?

    “What is in fact your position and how does it differ from marc stevens?”

    Could it be positions are either for sex or people wanting to convert other people to their belief system? Why would anyone want to convert anyone to anything?

    Marc Stevens seems to believe non-violent criminal charges are someone else’s fault than the one doing the time and/or paying the fine. He seems to believe ownership is real. He seems to believe claiming to be and/or own a name is better than not doing so. He seems to believe it’s best to ask for evidence that laws apply to the defendant.

    I believe the only reason to go to so called court is if it seems someone claims I made a claim, by sending paper with mention of alleged controversy concerning the name I use. I believe so called jurisdiction is derived from controversy, and that there can only be a controversy if someone is claiming something. I believe if one fails to make claims, and stays on the point of asking to speak with the one claiming they made a claim, the so called matter will be settled honorably. Maybe someone will claim you made a claim, and in that case, if “you” is you and not the name, I would ask “If I offended you, would you please forgive me?”

  33. NonEntity Says:

    “I believe if one fails to make claims, and stays on the point of asking to speak with the one claiming they made a claim, the so called matter will be settled honorably.”

    “And how’s that workin’ for you?” – Dr. Phil

    😉

  34. Steven Richards Says:

    “And how’s that workin’ for you?” – Dr. Phil

    Pretty great. Hard to even imagine I used to believe in anarchy 😉

  35. NonEntity Says:

    S.R. sed: “Pretty great. Hard to even imagine I used to believe in anarchy.”
    ———
    So you are claiming that you DO believe in the violent imposition of one person’s will over another? (I don’t see any other conclusion I can come to.) And if indeed this is your belief then I suppose you have no problem with my imposing my violent defense of my own interests from your violent imposition of your own will over mine, huh? Again, Howzat gonna work out for ya?

  36. Steven Richards Says:

    I believe people violently impose their will over others, but I believe that only happens in so called courts when people make claims.

    As for the hypothetical seeming to want to make a case for right or wrong, good or bad, etc… why would anyone give a damn? Could it be those that judge good vs evil, right vs wrong etc. enjoy life less?

  37. Andy Says:

    Andy said: “Marc has said it a thousand times and every “government” agent has agreed that their argument is that if you’re physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws apply to you and thus the court has jurisdiction.”

    Steven said: “Do you believe everything you’re told?”

    No. Why do you beat around the bush; why not just be forth right and say you believe Marc is lying?

    BTW, other people have had similar experience with government officials and their argument that jurisdiction is based on an individuals physical location.

    Steven said: “Hard to even imagine I used to believe in anarchy ”

    Anarchy is voluntary interaction among individuals. If it’s not voluntary interactions you prefer, what’s the alternative? As I suspected almost since your first couple of posts on last week’s NSP April 4, broadcast, you prefer initiation of violence/force and threats of violence/force against individuals.

  38. Steven Richards Says:

    “No. Why do you beat around the bush; why not just be forth right and say you believe Marc is lying?”

    Could it be I believe he’s mistaken, not lying?

    “If it’s not voluntary interactions you prefer, what’s the alternative?”

    Reality? I believe I’ve wrote this before, but in case you missed it, I love the idea of of only punishing violent offenses. I don’t think it’s possible, but I’d love to be proven wrong. I’ll enjoy life just as much either way, if not more the way things are now; I like a challenge. How about you?

  39. Boxer Says:

    @ Steven Richards

    “Could it be positions are either for sex or people wanting to convert other people to their belief system? Why would anyone want to convert anyone to anything?”

    That is one way to dodge the question. There you go again with that word, “system”. What is a “system” and how do you convert someone to it?

  40. i.n.rem Says:

    S.R. sed:
    I believe if one fails to make claims, and stays on the point of asking to speak with the one claiming they made a claim, the so called matter will be settled honorably.

    what does Karl tell you to do when the District Attorney brings a claim representing the people of the STATE ..??

  41. Andy Says:

    Steven said: “Could it be I believe he’s mistaken, not lying?”

    That’s possible under a few possible conditions

    1) You never or almost never have listened to Marc’s The No State Project radio broadcast. Where every show he tells of another government agent that has confirmed their argument for jurisdiction is based on an individual’s physical location.

    2) You’ve not read the articles on the Call of Shame section of the website that include audio recordings of the phone calls with “government” agents that confirm their argument that jurisdiction is based on an individual’s physical location.

    Thus, if you are clueless about to Marc’s NSP broadcast and the CoS articles with accompanying audio of phone calls with government agents…

    Conclusion: Your belief that Marc is mistaken is a belief with zero support — it’s a mere belief not much different than if you said you believe Santa Clause exists and or you believe unicorns exist.

    An individual can believe whatever the choose to believe.

    So you’ve come to this website blind as a bat; clueless about Marc’s seminal work exposing the “government’s” foundational argument. You link your Batman2/Talkshoe URL in your “Steven Richards” username.

    How many “government” officials/bureaucrats/agents have confirmed your argument, rather than their argument that they have confirmed to Marc and several other people, not limed to the “United States”, includes “Canada”,”New Zealand and the “United Kingdom”? Also, where are your articles and audio recordings with “government” agents that confirm your belief/argument of how government gets jurisdiction?

    Why do you not post your argument to the forum here at marcstevens.net so we can have a much more robust discussion? Could it be that you don’t want a robust discussion, but rather, you prefer to spew your unsupported arguments and post links to the batman2 garbage.

  42. NonEntity Says:

    Continuity and clarity? … Silly Calvin! 😉

  43. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Steven.. lets see your track record in court then?? dismissals, victories, wins, et al..
    I won’t hold my breath waiting, because you don’t have any! You just want attention.

  44. BryanD Says:

    @ Steven Richards said:

    ***I believe the only reason to go to so called court is if it seems someone claims I made a claim, by sending paper with mention of alleged controversy concerning the name I use. I believe so called jurisdiction is derived from controversy, and that there can only be a controversy if someone is claiming something. I believe if one fails to make claims, and stays on the point of asking to speak with the one claiming they made a claim, the so called matter will be settled honorably. Maybe someone will claim you made a claim, and in that case, if “you” is you and not the name, I would ask “If I offended you, would you please forgive me?”***

    So what would be your strategy if you were ticketed for speeding, a parking ticket or jay-walking??? Or any other victimless crime? Would you be attempting the loser all caps name/strawman route??? Or what???

  45. RAD Says:

    BryanD:

    Steven Posted this before:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLyn2vI0qk

    Really interesting approach.

  46. Andy Says:

    RAD, Steven and Batman put the cart before the horse. The first claim is the “government” claiming it has jurisdiction. The burden of proof is on them to support their claim.

    So I watched/listened to a couple of videos on Steven Richards YouTube Channel. This brief segment of Batman talking of/at Robert Menard is priceless! It’s 37 seconds. Fair warning of strong language ahead…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZMIbe6StvA#t=839s

  47. Andy Says:

    Furthermore, the “prosecutor’s” underpinning claim is that there is a State. There are no states. Thus, by non-contradictory logic/consistent reasoning, there can be no jurisdiction. There is no body politic. There are no citizens. There is no prosecutor and no judge. Just a gang of killers thieves and liars claiming authority/ruler/master over an individual, or NAME, if you prefer.

    Conclusion, asking the “prosecutor and/or “judge” about the claim to the name is doubly putting the cart before the horse.

  48. RAD Says:

    I just listened to the video with Batman 57 lecturing Dean Clifford on this stuff. I’m pretty sure the guy in the video is using Batman’s approach.
    Anyway, he does get into the “no state” or “no city”.

    “The State” or “The City” when used as personalized “entities” are religious deities of the modern State religion. They are supernatural “entities”: They don’t conform to the laws of the natural world. For instance, you can’t see them and there is no tangible proof that they “exist”. Statists believe in them as scriptural articles of Faith.

    So, getting back to Batman, he says to stick to just using Socratic type questions to bring out that there is no actual claimant, or at least no EVIDENCE of a claimant such as a plaintiff or defendant. No evidence of “the city” or “the state”. If there is no claimant, there is no controversy. If there is no controversy, there’s no case, no jurisdiction: just hot air and words on paper. The thing with the name does seem weird at first and on a superficial level seems to resemble the sovereign citizen strawman thing.

    But it actually is quite different: The person being attacked doesn’t CLAIM to be the defendant. They offer first hand testimony that they have used that name. So for instance when Marc says “I’m Marc Stevens, author of Government Indicted”, he’s making a claim: namely, that he is Marc Stevens. So if you go into court, and say “I’m Andy”, now you have identified yourself with the defendant on the complaint: You yourself are claiming to be their defendant.

    One of the elements is applicability of the law, like Marc says. However, one of the elements one would logically need to prove to prove YOU are guilty is to prove that YOU are the defendant named in the complaint. When you testify to being the named defendant, you offer testimony supporting an element of the charge.

  49. RAD Says:

    Unspoken presumptions that would be necessary to prove YOU committed a victimless crime as elements of the charge:

    1. Their codes or scriptural laws apply
    2. There actually is a plaintiff/claimant.
    3. The person named in the complaint is actually you and not someone else called “Andy” or that there even is an Andy based on first hand knowledge. Just as they logically would have to prove the existence of a plaintiff, they would also have to prove the existence of a defendant. When you testify that there is such a person as Andy, and that you are he, you provide evidence of this conclusion.

  50. RAD Says:

    My name is the same as my Dad’s. His name is the same as his dad’s. So I’m called “The third”. If my name shows up on a ticket, what first hand knowledge establishes that that name refers to me rather than someone else with the same name as me (or anyone else who could be using my name) except the first hand knowledge I personally provide? Does the cop have personal first hand knowledge of my birthday? How would he have personal first hand knowledge? What facts connect the name on the ticket to me?

  51. Andy Says:

    Batman sounds like a really nice guy…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZMIbe6StvA#t=839s

  52. RAD Says:

    Yeah, I get that he acts like a bit of a prick and his conversational style is kind of rough around the edges and maybe it hurts his presentation but the argument he makes seems sound: Just as one would have to prove the State, if one were to claim the State were suing Andy, one would also have to prove Andy.

  53. RAD Says:

    Just because you view “Andy” as a given or your identity as “Andy” as a “Sacred cow” doesn’t mean the hypothesis of “Andy” has been proven on the record with competent evidence until YOU offer first hand knowledge that you are the Andy. It’s their case. Why offer testimony of one of the essential elements: that there even is a defendant. Why stop at holding them to the burden of proof as to the existence of a plaintiff? The existence of a defendant is equally important to their case.

  54. BryanD Says:

    @ RAD,

    That youtube sounds kind of fishy to me. Where was the judge in all of that back & forth with the persecutor???

  55. RAD Says:

    It was, from my interpretation, one of those pre trial “conferences” where they do the slick sales speech and sell you a plea “bargain”.

    From what I’ve seen at the local “court” “house”, it works kind of like this: they gather their victims in a room and try to set up a “conference” where they cut to a “deal”, taking maybe 5 minutes with each “defendant” to try and sell them a “deal”. Like: We’ll drop the seatbelt ticket if you just pay the cracked windshield ticket, that sort of thing. To make the “deals” go smooth. Then the judge processes through the “deals”, reading them their “rights”, and the “sheeples” go pay at the window on their way out just glad it wasn’t as bad as what was threatened it could be.

    If you ever just sit there and watch the proceedings all day as an observer, which I do once in a while to study, one thing that pops out(at least to me) is how much the court protocol resembles an auction. They’re trying to process as many “deals” to rack up as much money as fast as possible.

  56. RAD Says:

    Around here they try to sell them “deals” before they’re ever even arraigned. I get the sense that’s what this is. They call the “sheeples” out by their name from the pews. I think that’s where the video starts, the ADA probably called his name, and he then said he was known to using that name, but inquired as to whether the name on the ticket was him and who was the claimant(plaintiff)? Notice he asks when did the ADA speak to the “claimant”, which to provide a responsive answer would be “never”, which hits at the bullshit they try to sell you on to make a “deal”: that there is a claimant called “The city”. So it is a socratic question designed to show the logical inconsistency of claiming to represent a non-existent claimant without making an argument.

  57. RAD Says:

    I think where he goes off track a little is when he starts saying, “I was led to believe the United States owned that name”. A non-existant “entity” “owns” a name? Why even go there?

  58. Andy Says:

    @RAD, if you move your comments to the forum I’ll respond there. Thanks in advance.

  59. RAD Says:

    Says new accounts are disabled.

  60. desertspeaks Says:

    anyone else notice that when Steven Richards was asked to prove his story, he disappeared??

  61. Jeff Says:

    Tried to share this page on FB and it was auto-deleted twice. Changed the format a little and it got pass the FB Bot, I guess.

  62. wm mcnamara Says:

    hey…im having trouble contacting marc about an ongoing tax prob im having. i have been following him for years but need some specific paperwork to send in now that i finally got a real person assigned to my account. please help…they already have a garnishment going so i didnt catch this in time but still have many more years not filed that i know they are going to try and get out of me.just need some advice on proceedures to preempt their attack.thanx…bill.

  63. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ wm the contact info is on the website, email is marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

  64. Jeff Says:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b75cyy0658ubpj/Jeffs%204%20Case%20Dismissed.pdf?dl=0

    The dismissal letter. They WERE attacking me!

  65. mark washington sr. Says:

    It sure does seem that these “taxes”, tithings rather, go to the cult/church/fund/”state” & that they are connected, is this not a violation of the doctrine of prohibition of marriage between church & state??????????? If that is not a magnanimous objection, & a violation of religious rights, for them to assume jurisdiction over members “of” some other church, or a non-incorporated man not being a member of any political body/church/state/fund/Ciestui kay via trust/credit system/by our choice with full disclosure. It sure seems our bible has lots of warnings/harbingers against getting per-mission from any man for what you could’ve done without, as if that was a benefit to be extorted out of your stuff for doing what is right before God & man. I recently asked a defense attorney what evidence could be used to support any “states” claim that our physical existence in any geographical area would create one to be “within” the “state”/”political body” in question. Like proving a bear to be Catholic… Is it possible to “prove” ????? See “Is the bear Catholic? ” on unencyclopedia, where some fool Ivan, an ursinologist, Wanders into the Syberian wilderness to study of all things bears religious proclivities, & gets eaten by the bear in study, on a Friday, in late April. Now, we all know Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays (especially around Lent/Good Friday),so it would be easy to assume that this bear in study was not a Catholic, or at least a very non observant one. Therefore we can logically assume that all bears are not Catholic, & hence are not required to follow their codes, regulations, statutes, & acts of their written “laws” & are not bound to act upon them.!!!!!! That’s my opinion, & It’s not based upon my liking bears better than any man, but, logic, reason & fairness towards any; U.C.C.1-308 says we are not to be compelled to perform under any contract we did not knowingly enter(birth cert/ “drivers”/any license)nor accept the liability of any contract that is entered into by force, intimidation, threats, duress, or non disclosure. Will an affidavit of reservation of rights per U.C.C.1-308/1-207/1-103 & any & all rights reserved affidavit, will help to place a negative averment of their jurisdiction upon us ? I believe now that we as a nation & a peoples would be better off without us having “birth certificates” or any granting of any “thing”(baby or any “thing”) to the “state” as pretended “owner” who never has real(only pretended) equity in any of our stuff. We have been lawfully ignorant & it’s time to do something as a group in public.

  66. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ mark, no, stay away from the UCC stuff, that is their law, their jurisdiction.

4 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. GREECE, THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC | there is no debt Says:

    […] NSP – Apr 11, 2015 – Guest: Jeff – [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20150411.html […]

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

    […] never gotten a complaint dismissed, you can use the success stories as a reference to KOPIMI and build a temple of questioning that has proven itself to be […]

  3. NSP - Apr 25, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] damage control update: we’ll be posting the documentation of Jeff’s ticket that was withdrawn from […]

  4. NSP - May 2, 2014 - Guest: Skyler J. Collins - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] and their apologists, when questioning the applicability of the law that is generally “taken for granted” and much “like Santa […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

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

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via youtube.com. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here