Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jun 13, 2015 – Co-host: Calvin

Posted on June 16th, 2015 by Calvin

Co-host: Calvin.

Show Notes:

  • Analyzing Clint Richardson‘s Gish Gallop tsunami of interpretive definitions that lack supporting facts and evidence.
  • “You don’t use the trivium in a way to marginalize and negate the facts.”
  • Clint, at times during the “debate,” didn’t even realize he was responding to an actual question after his non-factual and nonsensical rants.
  • The difference between political language and factual language.

  • Statist double-standard: Clint mocked Marc for using “clever words,” but his [Clint’s] whole position was dependent on the use of clever, narrowly defined words.
  • Court ruling citations and legal opinions are not to be confused for facts or evidence.
  • Clint’s condescending snippets laced throughout the “debate.”
  • A pursuit of truth ought to be guided by hard facts and evidence, not largely on the use of subjective and interpretive political terminology.
  • The misuse of the word literally has led to a change in the dictionary to include its misuse as a figure of speech. Literally.
  • Defining anarchy, again.
  • Clint’s schizophrenic use of language.
  • Bloodline buffoonery.
  • Clint’s victim blaming.
  • Clint accuses Marc of using the fact that he’s been to jail as the sole piece of evidence to support his claims, when he [Clint] uses the fact that he bored an agent long enough to where he let him go as the sole piece of evidence to support his claims.
  • The absence of a success stories section on Clint’s websites.
  • The burden-of-proof on an issue of law is extremely high and very difficult to overcome when compared to an issue of fact.
  • Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation with the fewest amount of assumptions is usually right.
  • UCC theory claims that “citizenship is contractual,” yet application of it doesn’t satisfy all the essential elements of a contract. 🙁
  • Its dangerous to get on live radio and repeat things that you know are invalid and untrue.
  • People who claim to be rational, but will continue to cling so desperately to irrational statist concepts, are not real skeptics; they’re hucksters.
  • The simplicity of proving that those calling themselves government are just members of the most successful criminally violent organization the planet has ever seen.
  • Dogmatic beliefs that truth seekers can’t let go of.
  • Mark Passio on Anarchy.
  • Deconstructing Clint’s outcome-based thinking.
  • Debunking the alleged contractual nature of UCC theory: “If they’re ‘tricking you,’ there’s no meeting of the minds and it cannot be contractual.”
  • Do you have an objective or subjective standard of proof?
  • Is murder a tangible or intangible asset in commerce?
  • Clint and Jan responded as if they weren’t listening to what was being said; claiming there were no facts presented right after Marc laid them out, claiming Marc wasn’t using any case citations to support his statements after he did. <- listen to the recording; its there plain as day.
  • Clint’s severe lack of factual support for his conclusions.
  • Publicly debating extraordinary legal theories and their advocates, with the excellent opportunity for audience feedback.
  • The obvious double-standard Jan held in requiring each debater to directly answer questions.
  • A challenge for anyone who heard Clint to produce a concrete fact or empirical evidence [remember: legal opinion and definitions aren’t facts in of themselves] to point out at what exact time in the recording he actually cited them.
  • Ian Punnett changed his position when it was inconsistent with the facts.
  • “If you’re just talking definitions without any actual facts, then its just mental masturbation.”
  • Clint was more dogmatic in his belief system than most of the I.R.S. agents featured in the Call-of-Shame.
  • The frustration of a perpetrator accusing you of committing their wrongful act.
  • EVERYTHING is not an act of commerce.
  • Solely relying on psychopath’s definitions doesn’t make your definitions true, it hinges on whether the attributes can be independently verified.
  • Ques that indicate when someone doesn’t have any facts or evidence to substantiate and prove their position.
  • Cherry picking definitions to connect dots where there are no real connections.
  • What is the operating presumption that government agents use to get you to comply? Location, location, location.
  • Authoritarians influence social control by hijacking the decision making process with the help of the Nash Equilibrium.
  • Working within the system affirms it, empowers it, and compromises your ethics.
  • Authoritarians fret non-compliance much more than people engaging the democratic process.
  • There are many ways to appeal to the agentic masses’ sense of autonomy and freedom.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Jake from AK: speculating where Clint’s inspiration comes from with his statement of “conjuring up a demon” <> encountering thousands of UCC advocates over the years has brought about the epiphany that they want the battle in court to be easier than it really is <> agorism distances anarchists and activists too far from the general public who still operate within the systems parameters, so we ought to utilize political activism to also reach them <> the force continuum and authorization to use deadly force is the evidence to show that they are forcing you to participate in their system; it is not contractual or voluntary <> sociopaths are constantly trying to game and exploit empaths and expand their influence of power <> Ross Ulbricht’s defense attorney failed to humanize him and to remind the jury to mind their conscience <> sociopaths lack mirror neurons that allow empathy <> when empaths find themselves operating within the sociopath’s system, they enter into an agentic state <> the judge is an expert at manipulating the agentic state of the jurors <> Norbert Wiener‘s development of cybernetics; the study of adversarial systems <> bringing a more intelligent strategy to bear against sociopaths if we expect to overcome them <> pursuing operations your adversary does not want you to engage <> how the libertarian party is purposefully made ineffective <> accessing the ballot simply because they don’t want us to <> Dick Randolph‘s political success in Alaska as a libertarian by getting abolishing the state income tax on the ballot <> Douglas Durham Was FBI Informer During ‘Wounded Knee’ <> earning the position of authority from the agentic masses <> and the greatest weakness of the totalitarian state is the voir dire process.


45 Comments For This Post

  1. RAD Says:

    I think there is a major missing part of the grammar in the debate:

    For all the definitions and all the controversy around is there a government yes or no

    THEY NEVER DEFINE “GOVERNMENT”. Does any one else think this is perhaps one of the major disconnects going on?

  2. mike, uk Says:

    I am sorry to say the people that call themselves government would have had a very good laugh at the Marc v. Clint show, thinking if this is what we are up against we have nothing to worry about. I gave up after one and half hours, i wish you (Marc) had pulled the plug after 45 mins, you could see were it was going nowhere.

  3. NonExclusive Says:

    There is no government, is a De facto government, all of them are agents and agencies of a De facto government.
    The Dr Jure government does not exist anymore.

  4. NonExclusive Says:

    Correction: the De Jure government does not exist anymore

  5. RAD Says:

    June 16, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    Obviously Clint was the only one who provided any facts and citations. Marc had one… he used jingles… if you try to dominate the conversation here, flagged cyber terrorist, you’ll be prevented from replying again.”

  6. Calvin Says:

    Jan said: “Obviously Clint was the only one who provided any facts and citations.”[?!!] “Jingles“[?!!]

    This makes me question the usefulness of the trivium if it permits this type of nonsense to pass through its supposed rigorous, objective reasoning process.

    I did notice a pattern within his comments though; if you agree with him you get a kind “thank you,” and if you disagree you are a “cyber terrorist,” even if you are defining terms out of their so sacred merriam-webster dictionary.

    For one who is so keen on logical fallacies, he really misses his own ad-hominem attacks and personal biases, but you can pick that up from the poorly moderated debate and should expect the same nonsense on his tainted website also.

    Not that I ever followed Jan’s work, I prefer Jan Helfeld personally, but I am glad I never wasted my time after hearing how much of a UCC/statist apologist he is. Clint and Jan suffer from excessive information overload along with defining terms to fit their predetermined conclusions.

  7. Jacob Says:

    Funny… I posted a comment on both of their websites yesterday

    about Matt’s excellent point:

    “Clint and Jan are so smart, they can’t even see the obvious:

    MON-ARCHY = one ruler

    OLIG-ARCHY = many rulers

    AN-ARCHY = no rulers

    “Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.” -John Hasnas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University.”

    ….but it is not displayed anywhere within the comments. Are they censoring unfavorable comments? Seems like it.

  8. bob Says:


    Marc, a few weeks back I left comments when Clint was your guest. In retrospect I see now that it was I who had things unclear in my mind rather than yourself and Vin, I hope you accept my apologies for that.


  9. Eyal Says:

    Jan’s acting like he’s a genius with his “trivium” – either you question everything or you take other people’s opinions and make them your own. It’s that simple.

    I don’t like it when people take something simple as “asking why/what/who/how/where/when” and replace it with sophisticated terms like “trivium” and ambiguous expressions as “Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge”

    I rather stick to “how do you know?”

  10. Calvin Says:

    Interesting observation Eyal, I mentioned that to Clint on Skype:

    “What [the] debate was really over, though you FAIL to realize it, is the trivium vs. Socratic questioning. Marc did not have the same difficulties answering your questions as you did his, despite the simple, straightforward nature of Marc’s questions. So based upon responsive answers, I’d say Socratic questioning prevailed victorious.”

    And like I mentioned here; this calls into question how valid the trivium really is if it lets such irrationality through its system. I don’t see value in a system that disrupts the critical thinking process and must require one to bow to another’s years or research and definitions over the facts and evidence in reality. That’s why we refer to it as “legal land” in the first place.

    As a Non-tangEnt, I am getting a few laughs at some of the other observations of this “firehose of bullshit” on the forum. 😀

  11. Andy Says:

    The Socratic method and the Marcratic method are anchored to facts. When the trivium is anchored to facts it is effective. It’s how a person pieces together a plastic model airplane, or how a chef creates a new recipe, or how an auto mechanic diagnoses a problem and then repairs/corrects the problem.

    In short, what all three methods rely on to be effective in achieving a goal is for the individual be honest.

  12. RAD Says:

    Well the “logic” part of the trivium is to identify contradictions. There were several contradictions to what clint presented.
    1. He spent about the first two hours preaching sacred truths to later admit it was all based on lies and fictions
    2. It’s all contractual, non-coercive yet acknowledges you “have to” deal with them and that it’s based on lies.
    Mandatory=voluntary or at least not necessarily coercive(?Ambivalent)
    3. Contractual=you have no choice and
    4. it’s based on fictions and tricks
    5. and one party is unknowing of the terms,
    6.while the other’s agents are acknowledged to have broken the terms of the alleged “contract”.
    7. Yet it’s still a valid contract
    8. Acknowledges they don’t follow the “laws”(scriptures) yet insists the scriptures they don’t always follow are evidence of how they really act

    If Clint can’t produce facts, it’s because Marc doesn’t know them(?!) Pretty much like the city attorney who told Marc she had facts but since he didn’t accept her claim as true before seeing the evidence, she wouldn’t tell him the evidence(?!)

    Jan insists it is a contradiction Marc knows the definition of government yet claims it doesn’t exist
    This would be like if you’re saying Unicorns don’t exist and then insisting it’s because you just don’t understand the definition of unicorn

    Definitions are conflated with evidence

    Dogmas are conflated as evidence

    Reification, appeal to authority/scripture,

    Ad hominem: Marc just doesn’t understand (because anarchists are somehow presumably anarchists because they just don’t know better?at least this seems to be the operating presumption – maybe I’m reading too much into it though) since anarchy is a fallacy but to show it to be fallacious you HAVE to insist on using a different definition of the word. As if merely conflating two diametric definitions negates one of them.

    Aside from the duty of allegiance thing if you look at the 14 th amendment

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Using this definition, you still have to have FACTS to show:
    1There is a United States
    2It has jurisdiction
    3The alleged citizen is subject to the jurisdiction

    in order to prove someone actually meets the criteria of the definition as it is written

  13. i.n.rem Says:

    this was just as bad as the show
    painfully listening to you 2 rehashing this

  14. nic Says:

    America was conquered from the Indians. They did not volunteer to give it away. Consequently, I can’t see how an “original American” could ever claim to be a private citizen. Conquest by force was legitimate back then too. Regarding Clint resigning agency and establishing his posterity so that he can gain full original constitutional rights… can it be moral to escape this jurisdiction simply by establishing you have the blood of the conquerors, especially when the vast majority can not?.

  15. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Nic, depends on what you mean by conquered. As far as bloodline, it’s laughable that Clint thinks he can prove it was just one bloodline and not a mix of Anglo-Saxon, Britons, Norman, (white but NOT Caucasian) etc., that were behind the creation of the original 12 constitutions, 13 “states” and then were the same ones behind the 1787 constitution. Even if he can, that would stay fail to be consistent with the definitions of states and government. The whole argument is nonsense.

  16. Andy Says:

    @ i.n.rem, After listening to about thirty minutes of the prerecorded “debate”, laughter was my release. You should try it. That, or just change the channel. I mean, unless you’re a masochist, why keep listening?

  17. desertspeaks Says:

    My nephew was in the room while I was listening to clint ramble on and on,.
    My nephew is ten years old and commented to me about the man that was talking A LOT “CLINT”,. He said, “that guy talks a lot but doesn’t really make any sense and won’t answer a simple question.

  18. Eyal Says:

    I don’t even use the term “Socratic method” – I stick to “how do you know”

    otherwise I open the door for other “methods”

    simply “but how do you know it’s true?” will always prevail.

  19. LOL Says:

    What I took from the “Debate” was, how patient Marc was.

  20. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ lol, yeah, but he wore me down after 2+ hours. So, that part I’m sorry about. I did that hearing with Ian in NH and it didn’t faze me, I’ve done tax hearings also. I did 2 hearings with Bill in NH, they totaled probably 20 hours, they weren’t able to get to me. Clint though, wow that guy can ramble and spew incomprehensible crap forever. Truly of fire hose of crap. Yeah, I know, what do I mean by fire hose.

  21. Mike From CT Says:

    Marc, i am very glad that you did this!Even though it seemed like a complete waste of your time, now i have something to show ky “strawman”,”it’s all commerce” friends. I liked the lively debate and lack of facts after 2 hours round and round like a hamster on a wheel.
    If Clint stated that be did not and could not “understand” the charges against him, he would be immediately be given a psych eval. It’s very obvious that those two have no real world court experience, it’s all in their heads, literally. Also to rebut the assertion that the “living man” can not be thrown in a cage, take into consideration the countless “”illegals” that are pulled over, brought before the court, and sentenced aand spend time in prison, all without US birth certificates. And some of them even deported. The court didn’t say, gee, you’re an “illegal” i have no jurisdiction over you. Doesn’t happen.
    I would also like to know how many title 18 suits Clint has pending, my guess, zero.

  22. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Mike, the more Clint speaks the less sense he makes. He’s really been making things up this week too, he thinks Calvin and I are the same people and that my name is Frank Rizzo. Why? Because I use that on skype. Clint has a problem with reality. Everything is commerce is as laughable as his claims we are already in a voluntary society, we’re all voluntary government agents. But who can forget, “literally conjuring up a demon.” Wow, just wow. If that is not enough of a clue to stay away from him, then there is no hope. Literally conjuring up a demon. 😀

  23. Robert Says:

    Was wondering does anyone notice the difference in behavior of the police handleing someone who just killed 9 people verses how they handled a black girl at a pool party?? Not condoning actions of those at pool party, but….is it a shark thing? Sharks respect other sharks? I mean police murder people all the time, so maybe there is some pier respect…ugh I hate typing. What are your thoughts?

  24. Mike Says:

    there is a “clint’ up her in Canada, Scott Duncan, that comes out with same bold person commerce birth certificate crap for example:

    “Let’s look at that handsome lad, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, XXIII. What’s with that 23rd thing (I am not a number! I’m a free… nope, I’m a number. :/ )? You see, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN is a PERSON, and all records of that PERSON do not bear my signature. In fact the FOUNDATION DOCUMENT of that PERSON has the signatures of what appears to be two AGENTS REPRESENTING a TRUST. You see, under ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW, even the Nobility are slaves. More so for Scottish Nobility. Your BIRTH CERTIFICATE is, in FACT, a REGISTERED SECURITY, conveniently the date the SECURITY was REGISTERED, also SERVES to CERTIFY that on the REGISTERED DATE a CROWN ORGANIZATION was, in fact, ORGANIZED; and henceforth the child of unknown parentage named, JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, was LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to BENEFIT from the COMMERCIAL TRUST, the SECURITY that is the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, represents. Why was this event recorded, and attached to a SECURITY? Because the TRUST that SECURITY represents is in RECEIVERSHIP. When you have BENEFIT, you have obligation. It is one of the foundations of CONTRACT LAW itself. There are no exceptions to this rule;”

    this guy also like to hear himself speak and thinks everyone else is an idiot

  25. Mike Says:

    Clint…”you don’t understand the definitions’ yes Clint I don’t stand under your definitions because they are arbitrary opinions

  26. desertspeaks Says:

    The following quote is attributed to “Brad Spangler”
    Anarchists are the hard nosed realists. People who have a fixation on some ideal government, which isn’t fundamentally just a criminal gang with flags, are the starry-eyed dreamers without a firm grasp on reality!

  27. Boxer Says:


    I’m always impressed with those who can take a complex topic and voice an opinion or position in a single or couple of sentences. That was a great quote.

  28. Reeodd Says:

    One result of the debate, if one could even call it that, is that Clint has proven he is not worth listening too. I did not even make it through 20 minutes of it. My morbid curiosity was over come by my realization that I couldn’t even get back the time I spent listening.

  29. george w Says:

    I just listened to the Gnostic media ‘debate.’ Clint started out by refusing to accept the evidence Marc made with regard to police behavior of force compliance to the pt of death. This is fact, reality.

    Then all I heard was a lot of badgering and fun making of Marc.

  30. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ George, hopefully you didn’t listen to the whole so-called “debate.” Clint and Jan are not interested in the facts, only abstract definitions. Notice Clint has never posted one of the many alleged “declaratory judgements” from the “private administrative court” recognized by police, prosecutors, judges, tax agents etc. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist. Apparently Clint’s love for axioms doesn’t include this axiom. Clint’s arguments are garbage and he should be avoided.

  31. george w Says:

    In Bouvier’s dictionary I found this definition of the state:

    ‘STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic;…’

    To me it seems in NO America, the state has been dissolved by a long history not being a ‘state’as defined above. A tyranny is not a state.

    I did listen to most of the ‘debate.’ It was like wrestling with greased pigs. Nothing solid on their part to grab a hold of.

  32. summer apple Says:

    george dubya “It was like wrestling with greased pigs”. Great analogy. :0)

    “Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it”. ~ Anonymous

  33. summer apple Says:

    “Slick as the devil” (not religious so don’t start)

  34. NonExclusive Says:

    Mark Stevens, I give you credit for the great amount of patience you have when dealing with this psychopaths and criminals called: Judges, police officers, and agents of the different alphabet agencies

  35. Dick Says:

    Is a traffic ticket a crime? If so, can I ask for a jury trial? The reason I ask, is that if enough people asked for one, the “justice” system would bog down.

    I know a DUI “crime” defendant can ask for a jury trial. Public defenders loathe and try to talk the defndant out of it, usually asking a question like, “Why would you want to do that?” What an idiot! Who would not? This actually happened to my son, and I was there and counseled him to ask for a jury trial.

    My son was found guilty, but his court-appointed attorney (a new young guy with a sharp mind and an eye to the constitution and bill of rights), who was assigned after the original Def Attny (head of the department) asked the above idiotic question.

    Result, the new Def Attny brought up many points and questioned everything the DA brought up, including witnesses and evidence. We appealed, based on many of the points he had entered in the trial, and received a 3-0 unanimous reversal. The verdict had huge repercussions in the county because it called into question the validity of the chain of evidence that the county was sloppy with.

  36. NonEntity Says:

    Dick asked: Is a traffic ticket a crime?

    Yes! Of course. Any governmental action is criminal.

    Next question?

  37. Andy Says:

    The thin blue line. Can’t whack a made man without first having a sit down.

  38. Tharrin Says:


    A humorous reverse accusation.

    “Yes! Of course. Any governmental action is criminal.”

    Miss your sense of humor.

  39. NonEntity Says:

    Humor? I speak the bald, unvarnished truth to the huddled quivering masses and you think I’m doing stand up? Sigh. Tough crowd tonight. 🙁

  40. Dick Says:

    Has anyone who received a traffic citation asked for and obtained a jury trial? When did you ask? Before appearing in the NON court (administrative judge of traffic “court”)or AT the administrative traffic court? Thanks,

  41. Andy Says:

    Dick said: “The verdict had huge repercussions in the county because it called into question the validity of the chain of evidence that the county was sloppy with.”

    Are you saying the prosecutor presented actual evidence/facts proving his argument that just because your son was physically located in XXX State the court had jurisdiction?

  42. Dick Says:

    ndy Says:
    September 22nd, 2015 at 7:15 am
    Dick said: “The verdict had huge repercussions in the county because it called into question the validity of the chain of evidence that the county was sloppy with.”

    Are you saying the prosecutor presented actual evidence/facts proving his argument that just because your son was physically located in XXX State the court had jurisdiction?

    I’ve never heard an argument for jurisdiction. Not in this trial ( I was not aware of that argument at the time)nor anywhere else. It is a good argument…does it get anywhere in today’s court system?

    Is a traffic ticket a crime? If so, can I ask for a jury trial? The reason I ask, is that if enough people asked for one, the “justice” system would bog down.

    I know a DUI “crime” defendant can ask for a jury trial. Public defenders loathe and try to talk the defndant out of it, usually asking a question like, “Why would you want to do that?” What an idiot! Who would not? This actually happened to my son, and I was there and counseled him to ask for a jury trial.

    My son was found guilty, but his court-appointed attorney (a new young guy with a sharp mind and an eye to the constitution and bill of rights), who was assigned after the original Def Attny (head of the department) asked the above idiotic question.

    Result, the new Def Attny brought up many points and questioned everything the DA brought up, including witnesses and evidence. We appealed, based on many of the points he had entered in the trial, and received a 3-0 unanimous reversal. The verdict had huge repercussions in the county because it called into question the validity of the chain of evidence that the county was sloppy with.

  43. Andy Says:

    Dick Said: “I’ve never heard an argument for jurisdiction.”

    Have you listened to any of the No State Project broadcasts from the past two years? Whatever state you live in, do you think the laws and constitution of that state are applicable to you?

  44. Dick Says:

    I meant I have never heard the “jurisdiction” gument presented in any court proceeding I have been a part of. Of course I am familiar with Marc’s teaching on this.

  45. Charles Says:

    “There are no contradictions in nature”

    The law Clint recited is that which applies to the US. Is there an identical law in all other countries or borders?


    Can I prove that? Yes. Take any area of the planet controlled by natives without a written language and you will NOT find such a law. The fact that some fiction claims control over that group means nothing, the natives were there thousands of years before those with pretty pieces of paper with pretty writing on it.


    Then we have a conflict, the “law” that Clint read is a creation of man and not a fact of nature. It is an illusion that we accept as real, replacing nature. That most buy into the illusion is not proof of truth of the illusion, it is proof of the frailty of the mind of man to be deceived.

    That is the problem whenever these discussions come up. The grammar is the reference frame beyond the pretty pieces of paper with pretty writing on it. This is the entire issue of “authority”, that someone can have a pretty piece of paper with pretty writing on it and then claim control over another == conflict.

    This is also why the UN, and other international organizations, seek to “harmonize” laws and policies as it then eliminates this obvious conflict of your location on the planet being the definer of reality (i.e. local laws). In other words when all the pretty pieces of paper and all the pretty writing on them is in fact the same regardless of location, the illusion is complete in the mind of most as it will be harder for them to establish a reference frame outside the illusion of the paper. The pretty writing is all they know.

    “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
    – Vladimir Lenin

    At that point, burning down the Library of Alexandria (metaphorically speaking) becomes the only option. In other words the only way to prove the illusion of the paper reference frame is to delete it. Back to conflict. If reality can be changed by burning a piece of paper or erasing a hard drive, is it really reality?

    Or it is some arbitrary agreement that you accepted in replacement of reality?

2 Trackbacks For This Post

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

    […] 17, 2015 Update: I did finish the podcast from last week, but I am not going to finish the notes for this recording. Between what’s already noted […]

  2. NSP - Jul 25, 2015 - Co-hosts: Vin James and Matthew - Says:

    […] Jake from AK: listen to the No STATE Project LIVE on the phone listen lines during the broadcast <> Is That Your True Rejection? <> the wisdom of a truly random jury <> the easy manipulation of low-level thinking people <> the jury system is the last avenue of justice available to the people <> and spotlighting the improved quality of life that comes from successfully challenging the system. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

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

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

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

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

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

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here