Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – May 23, 2015 – Co-host: Vin James and Guest: Clint Richardson

Posted on May 24th, 2015 by Calvin

Vin James, from No STATE Project UK and The Bunker Show, co-hosts with Marc today as we welcome our guest Clint Richardson, from The Corporation Nation and Reality Blogger, to examine and resolve a number of issues of hot debate amongst anarchists and the UCC/FMOTL/QUASI-STATIST advocates. We do plan on continuing the conversation at a later podcast, stay tuned.

Show Notes:

  • Being stalked by the local police for simply asking damning questions of facts and evidence.
  • The journey into radio hosting and embracing the values of freedom and truth.
  • Backtracking authoritarian terminology from their doctrine.
  • <assertion>”We are volunteering to be in a state of agency.”</assertion> <-based on what facts and evidence?, not someone else’s opinion.
  • Be aware of the rewards, risks and consequences of courtroom activism when considering asking evidentiary questions and filing paperwork in response to the prosecution’s usual lack of evidence to prove all of their assertions.
  • Specifying the meaning of our terminology.
  • What do you actually mean when you say you are an anarchist? <-good question!
  • Examples of hierarchy and anarchy observed in nature.
  • <assertion>”Anarchy means confusion of government“[??]</assertion> <-methinks there’s a little more to anarchy than just confusion
  • Excellent historical examples of working anarchic social functions such as those provided by the friendly societies and the Anarchist Republic of Cospaia.
  • The historical progression of more limited and more distributed political power hierarchies.
  • Responding to Gish Gallop chunks of statements.
  • Using the trivium to come to objective and meaningful conclusions.
  • <assertion>Our practice of anarchy is really “the true form of Christianity“[??]</assertion>
  • The No True Scotsman fallacy.
  • Maturing towards a less-coercive society by dealing with matters as they exist and challenge us in reality, and restraining from deluding ourselves to what we’d like them to be.
  • <assertion>Society is synonymous with public</assertion>, and instead of dealing in public matters, we need to begin to deal privately.
  • <assertion>”The signature creates a citizen or contract.”</assertion>
  • Distinguishing between dodgy legalese and common terms.
  • Are your beliefs exactly what you think they are?
  • The Etymological fallacy: assuming the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.
  • Defining anarchy as the rejection of the belief that hierarchical rulers are a necessity and as the rejection of devastatingly consequential double-standards.
  • Countering the assertion that “government is voluntary” based on the actions and admissions of the beast itself.
  • Live update from Marc’s wife Genia from Washington DC!
  • <assertion>”Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”</assertion>
  • Evidence is not simply court ruling citations and statements; evidence and legal definitions are not the same thing.

  • Separating fact from the fiction keeping in mind that law is just an opinion backed by a gun.
  • Schizophrenic use of vocabulary.
  • The guy who “figured it [UCC theory] out” and who is now “above the law” officially. [documentation pending]
  • Do you believe there a government comprised of STATES and CITIZENS? Yes or No?
  • <assertion>”The bible is the supreme law of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”</assertion>
  • Why would you foolishly take a burden-of-proof upon yourself to prove a “higher law” in court, when you could just demonstrate that the prosecutor doesn’t have the evidence to support all of their arguments?
  • Is it rational to have people violently rule over others?
  • Is non-aggression the best way to facilitate social interaction?
  • Taking back the choices that really matter from those who have taken such freedom away.
  • The public relations of the highest grade psychopaths.
  • Framing questions in a way to strip out all the political/Orwellian language.
  • Resolving inconsistencies.
  • Coercion ≠ commerace.
  • The wealthy have historically been the loudest advocates for big government.
  • The origins of commerce.
  • Getting our vocabulary terms recalibrated.
  • The psychological factors of courtroom decorum.
  • The proper sequence of filing your paperwork.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Darrell from KS: living life around the invasive police state <> stopping the victimization cycle of excessive traffic opinion enforcement by standing up for yourself pro per <> using the plea of guilty video to better understand pleas <> judges itching to fill private prisons, often for kickbacks of all sorts <> and moving on to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of the prosecution’s lack of evidence.

74 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    I can’t wait for Clint to come back. Or maybe not.

  2. Farmer James Says:

    Marc, could I suggest that you do not bother having Clint back on until he presents facts and evidence to support his argument? Without that, it is just his say so. I for one prefer listening to you helping people during your shows, not providing a platform for unproven claims. As tantelizing as his rhetoric appears, let’s see the proof a cop, child protective services, IRS, etc, recognize his paperwork and immediately allow his one “free” friend to proceed unmolested. If it is so simple, why is Clint not saying he has done it, that he is free? The difference here is that your method gets right at the heart of the matter, the illegitamacy of Rulers and their arbitrary whims violently imposed upon peaceful people. Clint is all good with that, as long as it does not apply to him.

  3. SovereignDirt Says:

    Words are valuable and have value.
    Words are “a means of exchange”.
    Used to make contracts.
    Use of language = evidence for voluntary consent to engage in commerce

    2 people find each other. They trade.
    They trade or exchange germs, ideas, hands,… words. How would it go if there was a “language barrier”? Would they be having long conversations or would they be grunting and pointing?

    Sell: to give, furnish, supply, lend; surrender, give up; deliver to; promise, offer up, deliver, to hand over, deliver, to give, hand over,to offer a sacrifice, to take, grasp, to give up for money, to give, give, to sell, to swindle

    Buy: pay for, acquire; redeem, ransom; procure; get done, budge, bidge, believe, accept as true, prevent further deterioration but make no improvement, purchase

    All law is contract law, comply or don’t.
    Gods’ Law is contract law.
    Mans’ law is contract law.

    There is always an authority.
    The Author.

    The facts and evidence surround you.
    Rely o

  4. SovereignDirt Says:

    I was going to say, rely on your experience.

    I accidentally hit submit, hehe

  5. citta Says:

    Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse!

    nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law)

    IF this is the case then perhaps we should e testing the judges before we allow them to hear court cases — for the simple reason that we don’t want an ignorant person overseeing the procedures.

    The courts, prosecutors and judges all assume that every bit of legislation is law so let us test them.

    I contend that everyone knows that they should not commit harm, injury or loss to another person or his property.. and if that is the case then bring forward the man/woman claiming harm, loss, injury.

    I think the maxim of law is a good one and I contend that no judge or team of judges can claim to know every bit of legislation ever passed therefore they would all be ignorant by their own standards and unfit to sit on the bench

  6. desertspeaks Says:

    Clint is living under the delusion that “their” CON-stitution actually applies to the private man.
    He has no evidence that supports his assertion! although he believes in his own opinion!
    He babbles on about how “their” laws, historical interpretations, definitions, language, terms of art, the person, name, religion, etc.. are all applicable under “their” rules.. but again provides no factual proof, vox et praeterea nihil

    Where is his factual firsthand evidence proving that any of it applies to the private man?? he has NONE!
    All he states is his propagandized education and then regurgitates it to buttress his own BELIEFS and OPINIONS! Sorry Clint but your opinions and beliefs of applicability aren’t evidence of a damn thing!

    Sadly, he sincerely believes what he spews but has no facts that it applies to anyone!

    In order for “their” words, laws, policies, terms of art, etc to apply to the private man,. The private man MUST be a party to “their” CON-stitution, when he is NOT.. The ONLY parties to “their” CON-stitution are the corporate STATES!
    NOT the flesh and blood man. FYI Clint, you cannot FORCE someone to become a party to some agreement, contract, compact or CON-stitution. Coercion NULLIFIES any alleged agreement, contract, compact or CON-stitutional “social contract”

    One other note on this, the private men/women are NOT signatories to this agreement!

    Clint ALSO CLAIMS he knows a guy that has a court decision that removes/changed HIS CITIZENSHIP “TO PRIVATE CITIZEN” that puts him above the law and cops now BOW TO HIM after he whips out this court document!! ROFLMFAO .. oddly enough, Clint DOESN’T have that case information available without PERMISSION from his friend “but this friend will show it to every cop that he comes into contact with”, NOR does Clint have a court decision that would afford him the same status. Wouldn’t you SPRINT right out and use the same exact tactic if it ACTUALLY WORKED???? WHO WOULDN’T??? apparently NOT CLINT! FYI Clint, the fact not appearing is presumed NOT TO EXIST!
    It makes you wonder WHY Clint has FAILED availed himself of this MAGICAL UNICORN CASE and had the court change his own CITIZENSHIP STATUS???? “me thinks Clint is a LIAR”

    No one else has a court decision changing their CITIZEN status either, just his magical friend.. You know as well as I do, if Clint wasn’t a lying sack of shite, he would be able to quote it verbatim!
    I have run into nutjobs like Clint all over the internet, they can NEVER provide the proof they proclaim, it’s ALWAYS a friend, or a friend of a friend.. all he has to do is produce the case BUT HE CAN’T DO THAT, as that would blow up in his face AND HE CAN’T PRODUCE WHAT DOESN’T EXIST!

  7. RAD Says:

    Clint kept going back to the same fallacies:
    1. etymological fallacy: he uses several types of etymological fallacies and arguing by redefinition of words.
    2. No true scottsman
    3. Tuquoque: Notice he NEVER actually rebuts anarchist theory but instead keeps trying to make the argument about Marc as a person. He claims marc doesn’t follow anarchy principles as his ONLY argument. Thought experiment/reductio ad absurdum: imagine two people making the exact same argument. One follows the principles, one doesn’t. Now, according to Clint’s fallacious logic THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT would be correct in one case and false in the other.

  8. Clint Says:

    For your consideration, in this video the guy is told by the judge that he can only be in that court… in that “place of business” (commercial court)… for one of two reasons. He is either appearing in the name of the person or he is there as the registered agent for that person (name).

    The judge gave this idiot the keys to the kingdom, but he thinks he somehow got one over on the court because the judge abandoned the court. LOL! The judge left because of the arrogance of idiocy. They have to put up with legally inept people all day every day. And this guy actually tried to give this guru a clue!

    You can learn from this or you can ignore it. Up to you. But no truer words were ever said by a judge. Person or agent.

    If you keep trying to apply logic and reason into a system that is built on already in place strict commercial laws that do not apply to logic and reason, you’ll never get anywhere. Reason, right, and justice is only an equitable notion (of the natural law). The commercial or civil law is not built in natural law. The law is set despite it. It is set upon the person, which the man is operating voluntarily in commerce.

    If you appear in person, you loose.

    If you instead appear as the registered agent of the person, like any attorney, you are not bound and responsible for that person’s activities and can settle the account.

    The law of agency works as such… U.S. citizens are domiciled in Washington D.C. because they are birthed and found abandoned in a federal district (district means seizure, distraint, distress). As foreigners, U.S. citizens are in agency as residents within whatever state they live. The state is a third party to the agent, and the agents principle is the United States (corporation).

    The birth process and certificate is an abandonment (de-livery) by the parents. See the statute here that is clear that the birth certificate is the founding (finding) of an “infant of unknown parentage.” Look up the word foundling and foundling hospitals. Found is a sea term, as treasure found. How can you be born by your mother in a hospital and also be of unknown parentage? That’s the point of the process. Certified abandonment.


    Finally, it is very important to know Marc that the reason your logic and reason, and for that matter your moral compunctions and ideals do not apply and are not allowed in the international legal law of commerce is that freedom of religion is specifically defined, just like volunteerism is. And it’s quite different than the common meaning, of course.

    Freedom Of Religion – Embraces the concept of freedom to believe and freedom to act, the first of which is absolute, but the second of which remains subject to regulation for protection of society. (Black’s 4rth edition)

    In other words, you can believe what you want but you can’t act on those beliefs while operating in commercial citizenship (personhood). The person is bound by strict legal codes, and so the man in surety to the person must be in obligation (debt) to those codes to operate the citizen-ship.

    A U.S. Citizen is not under the constitution, not protected by it, and cannot invoke it in a commercial (admiralty) merchant court. Many court cases back this up.

    Finally, read the following to see there is a difference in “The People” and the persons in commercial U.S. citizenship:

    130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
    CITIZENS UNITED, Appellant,
    No. 08-205.
    Supreme Court of United States.
    Argued March 24, 2009.
    Decided January 21, 2010.
    Reargued September 9, 2009.

    *972 “It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

    You can keep banking you head against the wall trying to apply logic and reason, or you can see their system for what it is and start working to exit it so that it no longer presumes you are its volunteer under the law of agency in “master and servent.”

    I can only show you the info.

    If you think I support this or think its right you must be crazy. I am trying to help myself and others after me stop participating in what enslaves them. And I can back up in triplicate everything I’ve said here.

    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”


  9. Boxer Says:

    “We must fulfill our sacred obligations to them.” – Obama

    adjective: sacred

    connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.


    Political speak for statism as a religion.

  10. Panxer Says:

    Listening to this UCC guy is making vomit a bit in my mouth. He’ll figure it out eventually; the how and the why he can flibbidy gibit around about what document, text, law, definition caused a “commercial” system, but you strip away all that fluff and you’re left with the gun in the room. He’ll be a lot happier person when he dumps the UCC, forgets the constitution and realizes all you have is a group of evil people holding a knife to the throat of the world, and whatever “contract” he imagines is in play is just violence masquerading legitimacy.

  11. NonEntity Says:

    Panxer sed: “but you strip away all that fluff and you’re left with the gun in the room” —-
    This is the genius of Marc’s current position. While Clint may have some valid points from his perspective of understanding the current system and how to attempt to work within it so as to escape it, Marc goes straight to the root and asks for evidence of jurisdiction… if there is any further step we can take (as Marc has been step-by-step clarifying this process of his over the years) I certainly don’t see it, but then we can never know what we don’t know until we DO know it, so go figure. Marc deserves great respect for his stubborn search for clarity. Clint is too rude to avail himself of this clarity.

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Clint, you have still failed miserably to provide factual, firsthand, irrefutable evidence that proves applicability of their CON-stitution to the private man/woman.
    There is no contractual obligation that would be binding upon private men and women.. and even if there had been a contract, it has been nullified by the alleged governments breaches “of which there are many” fyi clint, there is not severability clause in their charter aka their CON-stitution, so ANY breach on their part, nullifies any alleged “social contract” in toto!

  13. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Clint, ALSO where is this magical unicorn court case you CLAIMED had the police BOWING to ‘your friend”?? Oh let me guess, he won’t allow you to quote it, right?
    and if this magical case works so well, why aren’t “you” using it??? um could it be that it doesn’t exist and you’re just lying out of your arse??

  14. Terrible Tommy Says:

    Surely Brehon Law in Ireland was practised for thousands of years before the invaders destroyed it, was Anarchy. Yes there were appointees but they were not Hierarchy.

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ tommy, there are historical examples of anarchist societies, but they are not even relevant to the discussion regarding whether the principals of anarchy are rational. Even in 1775 Massachusetts there were a few months where after the British were kicked out (excepting Boston) there was no organized government and tax collection. It’s too bad, though being decentralized, they eventually started taking taxes again.

  16. desertspeaks Says:

    Nothing to say now clint?? just another internet windbag with zero facts of applicablity!

  17. Matt Says:

    “We, the 99%, have always been brainwashed and consequenctly ruledby psychopaths, the 1%, therefore it has to be that way, forever!” -Clint

    “It is estimated that approximately 1 percent of the general male population are psychopaths […] The psychopath is an intraspecies predator […] In general, psychopaths are glib and charming, and they use these attributes to manipulate others into trusting and believing in them. This may lead to people giving them money, voting them into office […] Many psychopaths have little difficulty joining the ranks of business, politics, law enforcement, government, and academia. They exist in all lines of work…”

  18. Matt Says:

    Freeman on the land types are the most naive and stupid people on the planet…

    And he keeps interrupting you… he really believes that legal OPINIONS of psychopaths are facts, he denies the existence of psychopathy, and he ACTUALLY BELIEVES that men and women called “government” own ALL THE LAND, just because they say so, and therefore you are “in their society” lmao… is he serious?

    What a rude and delusional guest…

  19. RAD Says:

    “The state is a third party to the agent, and the agents principle is the United States (corporation).”

    Both of these “parties” are supernatural deities of the government religion and only exist in the imagination as articles of scriptural faith. The governmental scriptures recognize both natural persons and supernatural(beyond the natural) persons.

    “The State” as its own “person” is the deity of the modern government religion aka “The Leviathan”. Check New York v New Jersey Arizona v USA Montevideo convention for scriptural references to these supernatural entities in the government scriptures.

  20. RAD Says:

    The modern government religion has 51 deities in total, the 50 “states” and the supreme deity, the supernatural “Person” which is regarded as having the magical supernatural “sovereign power” is called “the Federal State”. This deity is the “person” statists pray to when they do the flag worshiping ritual. Its proper name is “The United States of America” aka “The national sovereign” as it is called by Scalia. This “person” is not a “natural” person but rather is a “supernatural” person and only exists in the imagination.

  21. RAD Says:

    Check the scriptural covenant known as the Montevideo Convention articles 1 2 and 4. The supernatural “Person” named the “United States of America” is supposedly a “party” to this religious covenant.

  22. Derek Rymell Says:

    I’d just like to point out that, Clint was trying to say that we are just basically animals by trying to use the rationalisation for a hierarchical structure just because animals have one, but what his argument is missing, is the fact that animals have no choice but to behave as they do…We on the other hand, have consciousness, which gives us the ability to think using concepts which we integrate reality with. We therefore have choices and our thinking nature is a part of our nature and therefore there is no true comparison…what he put forward is a fact out of context.

  23. Boxer Says:

    “Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.” – Oscar Wilde.

  24. RAD Says:

    I would postulate that that is really all the religion statism is: an attempt to rationalize the reptilian/ape instincts of dominance, hierarchy and territorial-ism. These are irrational in the sense of logic and reason, yet they are still part of the ape/reptile part of the brain. So I see statism as an attempt to use REASON to rationalize those primitive INSTINCTS. You see so much fantasy attached to this rationalization process. The statist must conjure up imaginary supernatural people, supernatural forces like jurisdiction, etc. The more you question them on it the more fantasy they will have to conjure to explain it.

  25. Raw420 Says:

    This was by far one of the best episodes ever. Everyone is brilliant. We should all jam out in punk rock anarchy band …

  26. bob Says:

    I’ve listened to Marc for years and this one show was the worst ever. I’m just going to play the devils advocate here.

    To me, Clint made some very good points (if you listened to him), however the problem was as I see it, Clint was jumping between common/lay definitions of words and the legal definition of that same sounding word… Marc and Vin kept with the common/lay definition and couldn’t understand that Clint was moving around all over the place. Had both Marc and Vin listened a bit more it was clear that Clint was jumping between these definitions and it was clear to see when and why he did so. All Clint was trying to do was get the message across on how “they” being those who call themselves government see and define things. It didn’t require a PHD in rocket science to understand.

    There were failings on both sides in this show. Clint was way off with his quotes of scripture for example and Marc/Vin couldn’t understand how a state can exist without evidence, in the same way that, for example, love can exist without evidence. If I asked anybody if love was real you’d most probably all say yes, but then show me the empirical facts and evidence to prove it. “Acts of love” don’t apply as proof as they are subject to the presupposition that love exists in the first place. The very same argument can be made for a state(s)/citizen(s) existence etc.

    I’m disappointed that Marc/Vin made such a fuss over Clints points considering that they would both agree (I presume) that they use terms of art or legal words in the notices and motions that they “submit” to “court”, “clerks of court” and their “judges”. To claim a court isn’t a place of commerce is simple ignorance.

    I think in this instance, both Marc and Vin overlooked that Clint was doing the exact same thing that they claim to do. Marc/Vin, you use the question “What facts do you rely on to prove the laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona/Berkshire?” All Clint was attempting to do was to use the legal land definition of those words to demonstrate how a Judge would hear those words in his legal language. If you claim to be “in Arizona” you are telling the Judge (in his language) you are under his jurisdiction and there is the evidence he needs to have his claimed jurisdiction over you. You provide the evidence against yourself. The Judge then laughs as you are trying to infer that you’re not party to the fictitious laws of the fictitious state you just stated to be “physically in”… next stop physic eval’.

    It’s madness to have a go at Clint for using legal land definitions (you don’t like) to words you yourself use in legal land.

    Please answer this one question Marc/Vin….

    If you claim states/counties etc don’t exist, why do you claim to live/physically be “in” them?

    Your own question invalidates your own claim that a state(s) don’t exist. Your question and logic really only works because of the structure of the question. You first ask for facts (What facts do you rely on) then clarify what those facts are to demonstrate (to prove the laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona/Berkshire). If your question was worded “Just because I’m physically in Arizona, what fact do you rely on to prove the laws apply to me?”, you would not have the success you are having. There is never evidence to be provided that a “state”/“county”/“constitution” liability exists by the prosecution so your questioning has the semblance of correctness, however, it is also incriminating in itself.

    Marc/Vin, I’m from the UK living in Australia and I’m sure that in the US you had Indian Chiefs a few hundred years ago and back in the UK we had (recorded accounts of) village Chieftains going back at least 900 hundred years ago, so are these Chiefs not a form of hierarchy dating back centuries? In Australia we have the aboriginal people who have the oldest existing civilisation on Earth, they’ve had hierarchy since the oldest times they have history of. Hierarchy isn’t a recent invention.

    I think you both missed Clints point here, just because a group of people may not have a written legislature this does not automatically equate to their being no form of functioning hierarchy/government over those same people. You both should know better than that.

  27. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Bob, I never claimed to live/physically be in a state or county. I don’t think I missed Clint’s many points. For one, he claimed we are all “voluntary government agents” and he never provided any evidence to back up the claim. The evidence is against the claim, it’s comply or die, we’re all forced to pay, and that was way before the birth certificate. Clint also argues we are ALREADY in a voluntary society, the evidence proves otherwise.

    Clint is using definitions in an attempt to prove his argument the system is voluntary, he’s not just presenting the definitions and arguing they are criminals using these definition to cover up their crimes. And he has no evidence that cops, prosecutors, judges etc., are actually using such arguments.

    And you are wrong we provide evidence against ourselves when we say we are physically in Arizona, the judge is just assuming the prosecutor’s argument is true.

  28. Paul Nz Says:

    Sorry Clint…you either didn’t explain yourself well or you have made sone error because if I apply the trivium there are too many ‘red flags’. Conflating facts and opinion. But application your input. Thanks.

  29. Paul Nz Says:

    …Appreciated Your input… my spell checker ducks.

  30. Bo Says:

    It is not entirely Clints fault for being wrong headed. Maybe he ought to get out a bit more and take to gardening. I’ve posted this with Marc’s last podcast, but just for the benefit of Clint, here it is again –

    Rad, I’ll second that.

    Your quite correct in saying the crown is a deity.

    It’s interesting to arrive at that knowledge through the fun filled way of the symbolic understanding of flora, particular the crown being said to be, “the fairest flower of the prerogative”, and how that relates to the pharaohic lotus flower.

    Ignore videos, for a quick read and understanding of material explaining the crown, when you scroll down to title headed – INTERPRETATION OF SYMBOLISM REFLECTING EVOLVED CONTEXTUAL CHANGES IN HISTORICALLY DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP.


  31. RAD Says:

    Ya, the “crown” “the state” “The United States” when used as personal “entities” are supernatural deities of the government religion and “the city of xxx” when used as a “person” is one of their demi-gods. These “persons” are supernatural articles of scriptural faith the government cultists regard as super-human. Yet they’re invisible and imaginary.

  32. NonEntity Says:

    Marc sed: And you are wrong we provide evidence against ourselves when we say we are physically in Arizona, the judge is just assuming the prosecutor’s argument is true.
    Marc, I think Bob’s point here is worthy of consideration. By using the name “Arizona” one is to a certain extent accepting the idea of a state and acknowledging that you are within it. I’m thinking that perhaps this is an idea which may benefit from further refinement regarding physical location. I particularly enjoy the issues that came up regarding that library which is partially in “US” and partially in “Canada.” 😉 The Tohono O’odham nation is another very problematical situation where the US and Mexico have drawn a line directly through the middle of this tribe’s historic territory, territorial occupation which presumably long precedes both of these political entities.

    Just as so much of your process has been refined and improved over the years of your work, I’m thinking this may be potentially improved upon as well.

  33. RAD Says:

    The territory is not the “Entity” it just often is called by the same name. This is in the Montevideo convention. The Athenians anthropomorphized the “state” of Athens as “Athena”. Today we still anthropomorphize “the state” as a person but we just call it “State” or “united States”. Just because there is a place called Arizona and a scriptural “Person” called Arizona, that doesn’t mean they are the same thing. They simply have an identical name.
    Montevideo Article 1:

    The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

    Also, in Arizona v United States where they speak of the “Entity” of “Arizona” – not the same thing as the place/geophysical location also called Arizona which is said to be the “Territory” of that “person” or “Entity” as Scotus calls it. For example saying :”The US and MExico have drawn a line” we are speaking of the supernatural “persons”. A chunk of land cannot pick up a pencil draw a line.

  34. desertspeaks Says:

    its nice to see bob the apologist, so staunchly defending Clint, since he “clint” can’t seem to defend himself with FACTUAL FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE!

    Hey bob, did you notice that your best buddy clint has yet to produce his magical unicorn case that changed his “friends” citizenship status to “private citizen” and this case paperwork makes the cops bow to him???

    Bob, you need to contact your bestest buddy and tell him to STOP LYING about a case that does NOT EXIST!

    I would reiterate that their definitions aren’t applicable to the private man/woman without some contractual agreement,. FYI bob, there is no contract!

  35. Incubus Says:

    I agree with RAD. Claiming you’re in Arizona is not the same thing as claiming you’re in the State of Arizona. The former, being a label for a geographic location, predates the latter, being a political body.

    Bob is either being disingenuous in conflating the two or is genuinely mistaken.

  36. damon Says:

    People are still not looking at the actual problem and still just dealing with symptoms.

    Until people are willing to set their neighbor at liberty, they will not be set at liberty. Everyone has thought it fine to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare and now they wonder why they are in bondage, so they blame everyone else instead of looking at where the problem originated. From within. It is their own fault. They have been slothful in caring for one another. Instead of looking within they seek to blame others because of self righteous pride. It is easier to blame others than to look within. Once we look within we realize how dirty and filthy we really are. It is harder to look within.

    People want their “benefits” now and do not care where it comes from or who gets cursed with the debt even if it means cursing their own children and the generations to come. How can a people like this deserve liberty? How can one expect to be free and “voluntary” if they will not even set their neighbor free and let their neighbors interactions be “voluntary”?

    Rights are a byproduct of duties. People here do not like the word “duty” so I will use responsibilities. Many have given up their responsibilities so they also have given up their rights that accompany those responsibilities. Sending their children to “public education” instead of rearing the child up at home is a very good example of this. They have given up the responsibility to train up their child and given it over to complete strangers to teach them to be complete socialists who will eventually graduate thinking it is just peachy to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare and curse their children with the debt. Why? Because their parents did the exact same thing. They will think it is just fine to force their neighbor to pay for educating their children because they were also not taught the way of truth or the responsibilities that accompany being a man/women. It is insane. It is completely insane to give up our children to complete strangers to train them up and teach them to be socialists and then turn around and wonder why the society has these socialist keep electing authoritarian benefactors who will just exercise authority over their neighbor forcing them to contribute to their welfare at the neighbors expense. It is insane. People need to take back their responsibilities to regain their rights. How about preparing for your “retirement”? Why give that responsibility to a bunch of socialists by way of socialist insecurity numbers, which by the way is the VOLUNTARY gateway into the income tax scheme. What about ones responsibility to move about the common way? Most have given up that responsibility in lieu of a commercial privilege called “driving”. What about the marriage license instead of their matrimony? More responsibilities they gave up and therefore lost the corresponding right.

    Bottom line is this. Unless one is willing to set their neighbor free and not take the benefits that are offered at their neighbors expense the one accepting will remain in bondage. If one is not willing to care about their neighbors liberty as much as their own they do not know or seek true liberty and will remain in the bondage they are in and worse to come. They are dust in the wind and carried about with “itching ears” waiting for the next “prophet” to come along to itch the ears a little more but not willing to do a darn thing to alter or change the current state.

    2Pe_2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

    In His Peace and under His Authority
    Damon Israel

  37. damon Says:

    have not mentioned many but here is another important one;

    People have given up their responsibility to “sell”/trade their labor so they have lost the corresponding right. Someone else owns their labor which is why it is taxed. Daddy wants his portion for caring for his children( those that belong to him) from cradle to grave.

    Give up the responsibility lose the corresponding “right”. give up the responsibility to care for one another then lose the rights that accompany that. Do not want to give out of charity and free will where one gets to decide how much they give? Then give up that responsibility and give it to others and they get to decide when and how much one will give. All they had to do was offer some “benefits” at the expense and force of ones neighbor to chorale the people in like sheep having no shepherd.

  38. Andy Says:

    damon said: “Everyone has thought it fine to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare”

    Do you have evidence to support your argument? How do you know everyone, has actually thought they were forcing their neighbor. I think very few have thought about it as forcing their neighbor. That said, it’s your argument thus the burden of proof is yours. No moving the goal post. You made the argument now either support it with evidence or admit that you have none.

  39. Derek Rymell Says:

    I gotta say that, in order to solve any contradiction or problem, you have to get it down to the fundamental irreducible idea or concept that it is standing on…so with that in mind, here is what It is with Clint…When he says that we are already in a voluntary society, because of, according to him, we are choosing to do things such as get a drivers license, or pay taxes…ect. what he is in error with here is….mistaking “a choice” with “free choice”….pay or go to jail isn’t a FREE CHOICE.

  40. RAD Says:


    There are SEVERAL definitions of the term STATE. Arguments that rely on insisting a particular word has ONE AND ONLY ONE definition are using a variation of etymological fallacy. There are like 14 different definitions of the word “is”. State can mean:
    1. A supernatural “person”/religious deity
    2. A place/geophysical location
    3. A “political community” in the abstract
    4. A government
    5. A protocol (as in “The State Elections)
    6. Whatever you want it to mean

  41. damon Says:

    @ Andy,

    The evidence is all around and is actually what is taking place if one is honest with themselves. This is where it becomes difficult for people, looking within. If one is or does take “benefits” from authoritarian benefactors that come at the expense of their neighbor or even intend to at some date in time then they are part of that “civil religion” called socialism and agree that it is ok to force their neighbor to provide for such.

    “Everyone” is not necessarily “all inclusive” but is meant to relay a point. Mincing statements meant to be figurative and not wholly literal is not something I am really interested in. What I am interested in, is if one goes to the “government church” for their welfare and help in time of need then they are guilty of forcing their neighbor to provide for their welfare because it comes at their neighbor’s expense.

    Many people gather talking about “voluntary” and “right to choose” but these are the same people that want to take away ones right to choose and the voluntary “interactions”.

    If one sends their children to public school this is paid for by forcing their neighbor to contribute via property taxes. If one takes welfare, Social Security disability/insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama Care, government loans, or anything by way of “benefits, privileges, and opportunities from the “government trough/church” it is done at the expense of ones neighbor by the authoritarian benefactors that the usually slothful have appointed. The evidence is in the action of one taking the benefit and is called tacit acquiescence or implied consent.

    Show me a people that are not or do not feed at the government trough and take benefits offered at the expense of their neighbor and instead provide for one another through free will offerings and charity then I would have no evidence. However, a LARGE majority (“everyone”) is a participant in the “civil religion” called socialism. This system relies on forcing others to contribute to ones welfare by electing others to force them to provide. Don’t want to get our hands dirty.

    Marc talks all the time about the force they use but does not understand the extent of it. It stems from the callous people who want their welfare right now and do not care where they get it nor if they have to force their neighbor to provide for it. They also curse their children and future generations with the debt because of their covetous practices. Now the covetous have been made merchandise once again, not even owning their own labor but have given that up also , selling their own birthright for a morsel of meet.

    Heb_12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

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

    time to wake up.

    If people are not willing to set their neighbor at liberty then they will not see liberty. If one thinks it ok to exercise authority over their neighbor then one will exercise authority over them.

    There is only one other way that will keep people at liberty and if folks are not interested in that and not willing to actually DO it they will remain in their bondage under their taskmasters. Liberty, real liberty is an animated contest as one once said. It takes a diligent people who are willing to help and care for each other instead of giving that responsibility to others whom this power will corrupt eventually as you see now.

    Want your freedom then you have to set others free.

    In His Peace and under His Authority
    Damon Israel

  42. Derek Rymell Says:

    Damon, are you for real!!? What you seem to be implying is that everyone is a socialist for receiving any benefits, and that they are somehow to blame for the force and the threat of force that is applied to individuals in order to pay for these benefits!! What you seem to be missing in this, is that those calling themselves government are also forcing those who receive benefits to go to them for these benefits…because unlike a business situation, there is no alternative…that is the definition of force…I hardly think that, take benefits or die is a free choice, do you? As for cursing our children and future generations, yeah I agree with you to a point, but that is only if they don’t wake up to what Marc and many others are trying to do…and this is as far as I can see THE ONLY WAY…WHEN WE ALL WAKE UP FROM IRRATIONALITY…and it happens only through people being informed…its frustrating, but it can only happen as fast as it can happen. However it isn’t something you can do individually beyond the sort of thing that Marc is doing and similar type things. And you most certainly aren’t playing a part when they are using force individually on you to get you to comply especially when force is woven into the very fabric of the entire system itself.

  43. damon Says:

    @ Derek,

    It is a hard pill to swallow isn’t it, to look at oneself. I appreciate what you write and I am not here to create strife or contention but I do come in peace. I am here to share the problem and the solution to the problem/s. I understand your frustration.

    It is correct, to take the benefits is to supply the force if you will. It is agreement. Social security IS socialism and it is in fact and in deed a “civil religion”. Just like if I purchase stolen property knowing it is stolen I become an accessory after the fact. This is why I am out here “sounding the alarm”. It is from our very own covetous nature that we find ourselves in the current state of “martial rule” by the provisional government/s.

    See, there is an alternative and there always has been for those that seek it. But it takes a virtuous people that are just as concerned if not more concerned about their neighbors liberty as they are their own. This is why I keep repeating that if we are not willing to set our neighbor free how then can we expect to be free? If I take from the tables of kings knowing it has been forced from my neighbors mouth how then am I less guilty? What am I doing to provide for your needs by way of health, education, and welfare so that you do not have to go to the “kings of the earth” that exercise authority over your neighbor and rule over you and their welfare is a snare and a trap as it is written;

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

    What do people propose here to provide for this “voluntary society” if it is not done through free will offerings and the charity of the people? How do the folks here intend to provide for one another by way of health, education, and welfare? Because if it is not done through free will offerings it will most assuredly resort back to what it is now based on the covetous nature of people wanting to rule over their neighbor. “Forced” contributions and tithes.

    I understand you feel you have no choice but the truth is people have given up that choice or “right to choose”. This is why I keep saying also that rights come from responsibilities. When one gives up their responsibilities the corresponding “rights” follow. People have given up their responsibility to others to care for one another, to educate their children, to maintain their union as husband and wife under God to a mere “legal status” of spouse under their civil religion and on and on. Their movement about the common way and the responsibility for a commercial privilege. Want your “rights” back??? then start taking back your responsibilities like men and women. Train up your children in the home instead of giving the responsibility to others. Start learning how to come together in free assemblies to figure out ways to care for the needy of your assemblies and then for others. If one is not willing to do this and expects others to do it for them then this one will forever remain under taskmasters and tribute to Caesar being told how much to contribute.

    As far as individually , I would say it is to each man according to their measure of faith. There are plenty of folks that do not participate in their social welfare scheme and function just fine without license, privilege and permission. Just not as many who would prefer the socialist scheme.

    So again, if one is not willing to set their neighbor free then that one will not see freedom. If one wants their rights back then that one needs to take back their responsibilities.

    In His Peace

    You stated “there is no alternative” and I disagree. There is and always has been an alternative. It uses the free will offerings of the people through faith, hope, and charity in the perfect law of liberty to take care of the people in their time of need. It is a system where one gets to keep their “right to choose” how much they contribute and they cannot lord over their neighbor forcing them by the election of authoritarians. It “operates” on faith which currently is lacking , hence the peoples need to use force because they are not willing to do so out of free will.

  44. Derek Rymell Says:

    @Damon, no that isn’t the case, because it’s a fallacy to point out to us on here what needs doing, or in other words, you think people should be woken up to what you are saying, isn’t that your real point, so how are you going to wake them up?

    By telling us lot on here, is that it? let’s say we agreed, then what?…So clearly you agree getting others to wake up is the way, (if not you wouldn’t be telling us what you think needs doing would you?) for the system is held in place by ignorance on an individual level. Let me just quote you.

    “If I take from the tables of kings knowing it has been forced from my neighbors mouth how then am I less guilty?”

    You see here is the problem, this supposes that there is a victim of the crime and a perpetrator of the crime and that neither of them are Government!! The reason this is a problem in terms of your model is because, whoever is being taken from is also a criminal for complying.

    So that would mean that we have the government who are criminals, we have the individuals having their taxes taken off them (but not doing anything about it, just complying according to you and so they are allowing this and many other crimes to be carried out against everyone else) who are criminals and the ones who are criminals who are receiving benefits from this theft.

    So where is the actual victim of this crime then?

  45. damon Says:

    @ Derek,

    Part of the problem is “everyone” (large majority) wants to blame everyone else for their problems instead of take the RESPONSIBILIY for the part they played or are playing in the now governments abuse of power it has been given by the peoples lack of responsibility.

    No one wants to accept that they are partly guilty of forcing their neighbor to provide for their welfare at their neighbors expense because they have been slothful in their diligence in keeping their neighbor at liberty. It is easier to say “I am being forced” or “they make me do it”. No one forces anyone to take the benefits which is usually accompanied by some signature (oath) and then followed by action.

    Yes, people do need to be awoken to some facts. These things I write were written long before I came here to repeat them. I cannot take credit. What I am telling you is that if one is not willing to care for your neighbor and his liberty as much as your own you will not be able to keep your liberty. If one is not willing to release their neighbor from the force they impose by taking benefits that come at the expense of ones neighbor then they will remain under that same force they seek
    to impose.

    simply refusing to see that taking from the kings table that which he forced from others now makes the taker accomplice does not make it any less so. He is guilty. Marc talks all the time of the government stealing from everyone. Well, if I go to feed at the federal trough KNOWING it is stolen because I refuse to see a better way does not make me any less a partaker of the “theft” so called.

    The welfare , health and education has to come through the free will offerings of the people in faith and charity. If it is not funded through charity it results in tyranny and force and covetousness. If not through free will what is being proposed here to care for one another? It is clear the current system like the many before who tried the exact same thing does not work. It falls into chaos because of the peoples sloth and avarice.

    Are we willing to set our neighbor free?

    In His Peace

  46. Mike Says:

    Would you go to China if you were required by law to know the language? Would you go to court if you were forced to know the language legalese?
    Getting a drivers license is not a affirmation of your willingness to be a commercial agent on behalf of the government. A birth certificate is a recording of an event signed by an officer of the government. It is not identification as it does not have your signature on it so never use it as identification. If you do use it as identification it’s fraud. Just put V.C. in front of your signature on any government document.Vi coactus is a Latin term, abbreviated as V.C., and means: ‘under constraint’. It is used to indicate an agreement made under duress.

  47. Mike Says:

    Clint is saying “We the people” of the constitution are a higher class of people than 14th amendment ‘citizens’ and are not subject to government statutes…licenses, taxes etc. Birth certificate came into effect after the Federal reserve came into effect….before BC, births were recorded in the family bible or at church

  48. Derek Rymell Says:

    @Damon, you haven’t clearly defined for me who the victim of this crime is specifically. When you say the Kings table, that has no meaning and isn’t a clear example at all. Going on about how everyone is a part of the problem, shows that my point of how they need waking up then is the point in all of this. Taking responsibility is to have a clear integrated understanding of reality, and to use as much strategy against them as is required with any one situation.

    For here is the irony, the more an individual acts in his RATIONAL best interests, he automatically then acts in everybody else’s rational best interests at the same time!! So if you are advocated that an individual should sacrifice for others, then it is this that socialism is built upon…and contrary to your claims, this idea is what creates the government as it is today, so in reality it is facts not faith that people need to wake them up…so if you can just demonstrate for me one victim in this model of yours who isn’t supporting the force and fraud according to you then I’m all ears.

  49. Mike Says:

    Government agents are oblivious about the BC…Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the plaintiff and Clint would have a tough time proving his claim in a court of law about his claim about the BC and commercial government agents.

  50. damon Says:

    @ Derek

    The folks that are not supporting the “force and fraud” are the folks who DO NOT look to the authoritarian benefactors for their welfare but instead look to the charity and free will offerings of the people in faith, hope, and charity. The Church is supposed to be doing this. The real Church just like Mike allures to above where the recordings are to be taking place. They have moved far from there purpose and are therefor no church at all but incorporated under 501 (c)(3).

    Are you a “victim” of the crime of covetousness? Have you possibly victimized others through covetousness of your own? Everyone (large majority) is taking a bite out of their neighbor and they continue to do so. Again, public education is a perfect example. If we are not willing to train up our children as is our responsibility and stop forcing our neighbor to pay for it then we do not deserve the rights that go along with those children who we think are ours. What are they doing here to be the welfare for one another so they do not have to go to the “kings of the earth” for their benefits? Asking fancy questions in administrative buildings sitting in summary court martial? That will get the folks far when the belly begins to groan.

    The systems are vehemently opposed one to the other. One operates on forced contributions because of a slothful and covetous people while the other operates on free will offerings of the people or charity in their care for one another. One leads to captivity and bondage while the other sets men at liberty and returns every man to his possession. One is the religion of socialism while the other is pure religion and undefiled. In one you get to choose how much to give while the other you are forced to give and told how much. Socialism is the one where you are forced. So no they are not the same.

    Socialism is built on force and not sacrifice. It is built on covetousness and not love. Socialism is built on all responsibilities given over to a central authority. Socialism always leads to communism and eventually tyranny. The Kingdom and system I am talking about is none of those things and leads to liberty. The system I speak of requires a virtuous people willing to set their neighbor at liberty and forgive their neighbor for the force they sought to use against them. This is why I keep saying , if one is not willing to set their neighbor at liberty then they will not see the liberty they are seeking.

    The “kings table” are the authoritarian benefactors who exercise authority one over the other and the trough of benefits offered at your neighbors expense by them. They usually hold some pretended office de-facto by the ones who appoint them.

    you know Proverbs talks about socialism. I post it here for to edify. It talks about having one purse and not to go in the way with those that advocate such,

    Pro 1:10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
    Pro 1:11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
    Pro 1:12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
    Pro 1:13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
    Pro 1:14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
    Pro 1:15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
    Pro 1:16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
    Pro 1:17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
    Pro 1:18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
    Pro 1:19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

    We are not to take the “life” of the owners thereof but to return one another to their possession. To set men free from our covetousness and desire to rule over our neighbor to force them to provide for our welfare. Action is consent and there is no way around it. We will know one another by our fruits.

    Are you willing to set your neighbor free, at liberty by not taking the benefit but seeking the alternative and to be the benefit for others? If we do not set one another free we will not see freedom.

    In His Peace,

  51. Derek Rymell Says:


    The force that you talk about does indeed come about through individuals believing in irrational concepts of altruism and sacrifice….The only system that will set everyone free is Laissez Faire.

    I don’t know why you keep on using biblical references, when the facts are the only thing that matters. Your examples of home schooling are good ideas, but require that people are fully free of irrationality in order for us to get these ideas through to them. So ultimately THE POINT is to get people to wake up isn’t it, otherwise you haven’t made any point at all, don’t you agree?

    Also for the record, I have taken on many government workers, who were not in a court room at all, and have used poker like strategy on all of them by treating them as the individuals that they actually are, and I have used psychology on them like they do with us, and because I take responsibility for sorting the matter out, I plan a long game and expose and use all the weaknesses I uncover along the way, and I have won on nearly every occasion. That is because I am as free of irrationality as I can be, that’s why I know that this is what people need to be in order to sort this problem out.

    So it all boils down to, you are desperate for a rational world, I hear you. But I know it can only happen as fast as it possibly can happen. You on the other hand, are like someone on a ship at sea who thinks you need to go out and push the ship because it isn’t going fast enough. But you think we can alter the Laws of the universe in order to do so…We can’t?

  52. damon Says:

    @ Derek,

    I may or may not be what you say Derek,

    I do know that unless we are willing to set our neighbor at liberty we will not see that liberty we desire. This will not change. Everyone (a large majority) need to look at themselves and realize that they need to change and seek their neighbors liberty as much as their own.

    Call it what you will, rational, irrational, right, wrong. Sure I am desperate for it but “it” will not come until the folks realize that they are in fact and in deed the problem. They are the ones that need to change. The zombie apocalypse is everyone taking a bite out of their neighbor. If this is not “you” then no worries. But if it is then what needs to change? The government or “you”?

    The facts concerning the Biblical references is because it talks about both forms of “social” welfare. One results in liberty while the other results in bondage and captivity. It explains in detail how both systems operate. It explains in detail historical accounts of the rise and fall of empires and why they ended up in such a way.

    If people think they can be free by simply keeping all interactions “voluntary” they think what will never be. The public school issue I keep bringing up is a good example from which I gather you agree. The same is true for the welfare of the people. It works in similar fashion. We have to be responsible for one another and not give the responsibility to a central authority. Otherwise protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. We are to be diligent in keeping one another at liberty and we will remain at liberty.

    Provision has to be made for the needy, the welfare, health, and education for those that are in need or will be in need. It has to come through charity. I will boldly say that anything else other than charity and free will offerings will eventually result back to captivity and tyranny.

    One cannot continue to take the “benefits” of the rulers at the expense of their neighbor and ever expect to be free. Familiar with the statement “He who desires liberty more than security, deserves neither”?

    Can I honestly eat out your substance and be “free”? Not saying you do this but the large majority out there “prays” to the government for their “welfare”.

    We have to set one another free. We have to work on that alternative through free will offerings. Do any of you know each other well enough to entrust one another with a free will offering? Knowing that who you gave it to would use it for the purposes of charity and for those in need amongst you? One who will not exercise authority over you? Anyone here of “good report” that can manage the welfare of your assembly in faith, hope, and charity?

    I have to set you free to be free and vice versa. If I want my rights I have to take back my responsibilities and be responsible for others and their well being. If this makes sense then think on it.

    In His Peace
    Damon Israel

  53. Derek Rymell Says:


    yeah but this is “the point” all of it can only come about by everyone waking up and being rational, which incidentally, is how you truly define right and wrong. I agree with coming to the conclusion that the needy shall be provided for through donations instead of forced tax. However, we need to remember that MOST of the needy are caused by the present system run on force and fraud…But people can only come to these things by waking up…and you can not speed it up any faster tgan it can go no matter what you do…so it isn’t about taking at the expense of another, which is force and you keep avoiding this obvious fact…but it is and can only be everyone waking up…This seems to be the fact that you keep avoiding, and leads to you believing that there is two solutions (from you being arbitrary), when there is only one!!

  54. damon Says:

    @ Derek,

    I disagree that it takes “everyone” to “wake up” to this. It just takes a people who are willing to be DOERS of the work and diligent. Not willing to take a bite out of their neighbor by taking what is forced from their hands by authoritarians. Simply “waiting” around for “everyone” to “wake up” is wishful thinking and to be honest an excuse for those that are not willing to be doers, not saying this is “you” but still needs to be said.

    It is EXACTLY about taking at the expense of others and it is in this point that keeps people in their bondage. I cannot force you to pay for my welfare, health, or my child’s education. If I think that I can force you to do so and then elect authoritarian benefactors to force you to contribute to my welfare because I am to slothful, covetous, and lack diligence then I will remain under tribute to taskmasters and rightfully so. I have to be willing to set you free. “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.

    the current state is not because of the “system” rather than a slothful and covetous people. The “system” is a reflection of the people and their hearts. Now it fosters and breeds sloth and covetousness because the people are slothful and covetous. It breeds the “needy” as you say because the people not because of the system.

    I am glad that you agree that;

    “coming to the conclusion that the needy shall be provided for through donations instead of forced tax.”

    this is so very important and I am very happy you agree with it. This is what should be focused on. How do people provide for this? What are they doing to be the welfare for others not forcing their neighbor to contribute to their welfare?

    In His Peace
    Damon Israel

  55. desertspeaks Says:

    I’ll have to post this again since “some” people don’t get it or remember it!
    Clint has never heard of the following either!

    Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah
    But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court
    , on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is
    true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it.

    The aforementioned can be found at to bottom right of page 45 and top left of page 46 here.

    Now please stop quoting/invoking something that does not apply to you! Did you sign their CON-stitution? No? then it doesn’t apply to you! Did you take an oath to be bound by their CON-stitution? No? guess what, it doesn’t apply to you! You “the private man/woman” is NOT a party to any of it, nor any promulgations “laws, statutes, codes, policies, etc” arising from, of or by any alleged authority allegedly granted by their CON-stitution!

  56. Derek Rymell Says:


    I didn’t say we should wait around for everyone to wake up, this is what you have deduced from what I have actually said. It does require a large majority to wake up in order to reach a tipping point. That is true whether they agree with you or me about what the problem is, and what the solution is.

    people caught in this system of force and fraud, do what they are told to do and not because they support the authoritarians that run it, but because force and fraud or the threat of is always present. And/or, because they think voting is the right thing to do because of ignorance, so they are indeed asleep. Even though it requires individuals to wake up, this doesn’t mean that they are the entire reason that they are asleep. There is no evidence that I know off that supports that view.

    Individuals are irrational and it is this that indirectly stops the world from changing, they are not directly supporting this system…It works like this, we are born into this world, and we are programmed by those false authorities that run it, through everything right down to our parents and what they have already been programmed with themselves from the same process.

    So both parts build upon each other. We are conditioned from the authorities, then our conditioning creates the environment that those authorities need to exist. So we are not the cause and they merely the effect as you have claimed.

    Like I keep saying, it is only through people waking up that this will happen, the only work to be done is to deal with the authorities on an individual level when you have to do, through thinking clearly, which sets an example for others, and educating others when you can.

    That is the top and the bottom of it. If you think individuals are somehow supporting this system when a gun is at their head, then you must think that are supporting all crime, rather than the fact that they are the victims of it in the moment. If you are still in any doubt. Then check out Lysander Spooner’s “no treason” the constitution of no authority” for further clarification of my points. There is a YouTube audio of this available.

  57. Andy Says:

    damon said: “Everyone has thought it fine to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare”

    Andy said: Do you have evidence to support your argument?

    damon said: The evidence is all around… “Everyone” is not necessarily “all inclusive” but is meant to relay a point. Mincing statements meant to be figurative and not wholly literal is not something I am really interested in.

    You mean your error, which is what you did, is not your intent. You wrote everyone, and that includes, well, everyone. Which of course includes me and thousands of anarchists. If you wanted to make a point that wasn’t attributed to everyone then why not put forth the effort and integrity to be clear rather than ambiguous?

  58. damon Says:

    @ Derek,

    I still see that it is the people and their covetous nature that has caused the current “state” and bred what is out there. Now they have a “vested interest” in what is built to continue on as the governments are a reflection of the people and their “will”.

    Getting past blaming others is always a very difficult part and lands us back on responsibility for our actions. Perhaps we have been slothful in caring for one another out of our charity. If one continues to look to authoritarians to provide for their welfare they will remain in bondage. People need to look to each other.

    Too many do agree with the current system and even cry out for more benefits at the expense of their neighbor. Those that have promised them liberty have appealed to the covetous appetites of men who have made covenants with these authoritarians to provide welfare for them at the expense of their neighbor through a civil religion called socialism.

    they have given up their “right to choose” to these authoritarians and are now found to be crying out as the chains get heavier and heavier until there is nothing left to take to provide for others. Whether you believe it is “their” fault or whether I see it is the slothful people who are to covetous to care for their neighbor might mean little if neither you or I are not willing to at least set our neighbor free from our own covetousness.

    So how does one begin to build out of charity and begin to be the charity and welfare for others so they do not have to go to authoritarians who force your neighbor to contribute?

    In His Peace

  59. Derek Rymell Says:


    What facts do you rely on that it is the people and only the people that have given rise to the current situation and the government are just an effect of that and have played no part in it? Also that the governments are a reflection of the people and their “will”.

    I shall get to your other points after we have dealt with this one above.

  60. damon Says:

    governments are a fiction, it has always been the people.

  61. Derek Rymell Says:

    Yeah I know that the government is a fiction, I have only used that term in the sense of it being a group of individuals who take from all the rest through force and fraud and the threat of. And this is the point isn’t it? Are you saying that there is no difference, between this group of individuals calling themselves government….and everyone else, because are you saying that you have the same choices as this group of individuals, so if they say to you obey our (arbitrary) Laws or go to prison, you can just ignore them and nothing will happen…or that you yourself can go around and do the same to others…ie: tell them that they must pay you or you will kidnap them and hold them hostage! !

  62. Andy Says:

    Your neighbors are not the bad guys. When you tell a neighbor to leave you alone, they leave you alone.

    People that call themselves government are the bad guys. When you tell one of those people to leave you alone, they escalate their initiation of violence until either you comply or they kill you — comply or die.

  63. damon Says:

    There is a contractual nature with the provisional governments. Right now as it stands the current state is that we are to care for one another through charity. Because the folks have refused that responsibility and chose rather to force their neighbor to provide for their welfare they are under that same force from their neighbor who elect authoritarian benefactors to exercise this authority. This is exactly what He is talking about here;

    Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
    Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
    Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

    It will keep going back to, one has to be willing to set their neighbor at liberty before they will see liberty. Unless one is willing to sacrifice for their neighbor and set them free and be willing to provide for their welfare through charity they will remain in bondage. This is in part how one does for others as they would have done unto them.

    We can blame others all we want, but I will keep saying it. This is why we were told not to go and “serve other gods”. Gods is translated from the word Elohim and means judges and magistrates. We were told not to go and make covenants (contracts) with them or else it will snare you in Exodus and throughout. Look it up here if you like>>>Exo_23:33

    I think also that their is a “blind eye” to see that the courts are under military rule and that this is a conquered country and is occupied. Not the point but worth noting. The current provisional government is not the republic they tried to start. People have lost that.

    yes the “government” is a reflection of the people. They elect socialists to provide them with more benefits at the expense of their neighbor which is why the guy (probably soon to be women) promising the most benefits usually “wins”. It is a direct reflection of the people and their hearts.

    You want to see some change then you will have to become that change. For most this is to hard, to inconvenient, or they just do not care and would rather complain while accepting a check from “daddy” then do anything about it.

    In His Peace

  64. RAD Says:

    Some interesting points; we have to create alternatives to the government systems we have become addicted to in order to break the cycle. Alternatives to public school, courts, public socialized welfare programs, “roads”, defense, etc. What other actual services does government have a monopoly on? Those seem like the main 6 off the top of my head, seems like everything else they do is either meddling or predatory type activity(and most of the legit services they do provide are funded through extortion and are pretty low quality due to perverse incentives).

  65. Andy Says:

    With nearly three billion people online I’m sure there’s a much higher probability of creating much better solutions than having a thousand or two people in government do it.

  66. NonEntity Says:

    I’m so excited that Firehose of Bullshit is coming back for an encore… and with Jan (yell right over them if you don’t like what they’re saying) Irvin as a moderationist. Good times for all. Too bad I’ve gotta be scraping the barnacles off my hull that day. Oh well.

  67. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Anarchy: A Non, yes Clint, because addressing your arguments and the lack of evidence is an inquisition. I know, I know, what do you mean by inquisition? Please don’t respond. Also, I’m not checking to see if you are claiming I am censoring your posts, all initial posts have to be approved, especially when there is a link. You’re free to post comments.

  68. desertspeaks Says:

    Clint, if you do post, you had better damn well post factual evidence that proves your “lie” about the what you allege to be a court decision concerning your friend who had his citizenship changed “to private citizen”, because of his ancestry, who the police now bow to.
    I wait with great anticipation, to watch you prove to the world what a pathological liar you truly are!

    Let me guess, your friend won’t allow you to post the information “even though its part of the public record and he apparently shows this court decision to every cop that accosts him, so that they can BOW TO HIM?”
    OR will you claim that you can’t “conveniently” locate the case and or your friend now??

  69. RGB Says:

    I am convinced that Clint Richardson likes making himself look stupid.

  70. Some Dude Says:

    I think if you both worked together it would be productive to be honest.

    You both have TONS of useful knowledge. But let’s face it, no one has it perfected yet.

    Marc has put his to the test against the system and I’ve yet to see Clint do the same. Not saying that in a negative way towards Clint at all.

    Would love to see Clint share that.

    Marc, Anarchists, and Clint all want the same common goal: out of this f*cking trap we’re in now.

    So who gives a f*ck about who has the bigger d*ck…let’s work together.

  71. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ some dude, I’d suggest listening to that “debate” with Clint to better understand where Clint is coming from. I never engaged in such a contest as you mention, I just wanted the evidence to support Clint’s claim. It was about evidence and having a rational discussion, instead it was nothing of the kind as Clint would not answer a lot of questions and then claimed I contradicted my entire premise because I used the word “doctor.” It was pathetic and I should bailed in the 1st half hr or so.

  72. Some Dude Says:

    PS. Clint…work on your personality of being above everyone because you have knowledge. It comes off that way.

    And all the Clint haters, re-f*cking-lax. Give the dude some respect. He’s against what you’re against.

    I’ve gained insight from both Marc and Clint. And I think you can use knowledge in tandem.

    I think you’re both on different levels at discovering the true nature of how we’ve been setup.

    As I said prior, let’s work together. This system got setup by working together and we’ll only get out of it by working together.

    If we fight about who has the bigger d*ck in what’s really happening…we become further divided. And “they” continue on….

  73. Some Dude Says:

    Okay…after listening to the whole show again. Which, besides the commercials I think was a great conversation between two people I respect (Marc & Clint).

    I get where Clint is coming from. When people say things, they’re perceiving them for what they mean them to be. But in reality, that’s not what matters. It’s what they mean, period.

    Clint is basing the words on their true definitions not what we perceive them to be. And when you understand that, you can understand him.

    I will say one thing, I do not get why so many people are attacking Clint. But I do understand “cognitive dissonance”.

    Of course you aren’t just going to take his word for it…just like someone who is “asleep” isn’t going to believe a word you say until they perceive it themselves by it’s true meaning by understanding the reality of it.

    I’ve been to Court a handful of times and if you think words out of your typical dictionary mean what they mean…you will be found dumbfounded quickly. And notice that your illiteracy of their true meaning will get you into trouble.

    It’s the same principle as to why you should never talk to Cops because your words can get you into trouble very easily. Even if you’ve done nothing wrong.

    I’ve also heard the analogy of why they call it “spell-ing” because words cast “spells”.

  74. desertspeaks Says:

    @ some dude
    You want to parse words over something that doesn’t apply to you.. good luck!

6 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – May 23, 2015 – Co-host: Vin James and Guest: Clint Richardson - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - May 30, 2015 - Says:

    […] our discussion with Clint Richardson, employing the moderation services of Jan Irvin, and getting to the bottom of his assertion that […]

  3. CoS - Jun 9, 2015 - Statism is a Mental Disorder - Says:

    […] questions weren’t being answered.” <- Why don’t you review the record and listen to wh0 wasn’t answering who’s questions. Hint: its really […]

  4. NSP - June 13, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - Says:

    […] Clint Richardson‘s Gish Gallop tsunami of interpretive definitions that lack supporting facts and […]

  5. Anarchy: A Non Sequitur Non Compos Mentis | REALITY BLOG Says:

    […] The inquisition: […]

  6. NSP - Jun 27, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James - Says:

    […] Clint Richardson‘s delusional over-defining-of-definitions in attempt to escape what the facts and evidence are saying. […]

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 he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

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

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

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

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

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here