Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jun 20, 2015 – Guests: Brian and Derrick J

Posted on June 21st, 2015 by Calvin

Guests: Brian from California joins us, for yet another show that the critics will likely dismiss away, to discuss his less than successful adventure in legal-land. Then, Derrick J returns to update us on his latest victimless crime spree, oh my!

Show Notes:

  • Investigative flubs from critics of past and present.
  • The amusement of why we choose our various monikers.
  • We don’t call statists statists as an insult; we do so to describe their belief system that the STATE exists and is necessary for a healthy social body.
  • Producing a future video/article itemizing and debunking many of Clint’s fallacious statements made during his appearances with Marc to finally put an end to the UCC/strawman/FMOTL theories and their many gurus.
  • A delusion is a persistent belief despite evidence to the contrary.
  • Clint’s cherry-picking to avoid directly answering hard questions of fact and evidence.
  • Brian’s first AiLL for a the heinous rampage of slowly rolling through a stops sign that did not result in the best case scenario of effective damage control.
  • The judge claims they [her, and her teammate the prosecutor] are not here to answer questions. <-its called full-disclosure!
  • There was evidence to suggest that no one even looked at the motion to dismiss paperwork before it was denied without any stated grounds for the seeming arbitrary decision.
  • Keeping the focus on “has the prosecution stated or produced any facts or evidence to support their claim that their laws apply just because you happen to be caught up in their gang territory/jurisdiction.”
  • Learning the specifically localized legal trickery within the courtroom you’ll be litigating in beforehand.
  • Its the prosecutor’s job to pony-up some answers and disclosure, its just getting the judge to actually follow through instead of giving them a free-pass.
  • You should not be getting to the point of putting witnesses on the stand with a pending challenge of the facts to establish jurisdiction.
  • Interrupting due-process violations on-the-fly by using effective Socratic questioning to plainly expose that they are wrongfully moving forward a trial without first vetting the pending factual dispute of jurisdiction.
  • If the judge will not hold the prosecution to their responsibility to provide full disclosure so that one can properly defend oneself; then it is obvious the proceedings have nothing to do with fairness.
  • The cops testifies, on the stand, that the defendant is actually being “prosecuted by a piece of land.”
  • Knowing where to go after getting silly responses to the questions you’re asking.
  • How the judge and prosecutor will impeach their own witness to run interference on questions the desperately don’t want answered.
  • The judge’s linguistic backpedaling.
  • Is the cop really so confident in his complaint against the defendant that he has to be forced to appear in court by subpoena?
  • The extremely dogmatic belief, because there are no facts or evidence to substantiate the assertion, that jurisdiction applies to people within the arbitrary borders of cleverly costumed psychopaths.
  • The only reason THEY act the way THEY do is because of their vicious outcome-based thinking to get the facts to conform to their will, and damned are rationality and fairness as a consequence.
  • When they ‘trick’ you into becoming a CITIZEN, they are literally conjuring up a demon.”
  • The additional caveat of a lady approaching the cop during the traffic stop to thank the cop for his service [of initiating a legal attack against someone who has injured nobody, caused no losses nor damage, but is being caused real loss by the cop].
  • The Americanization of Emily.
  • THE Bruce Dickenson.
  • Being inspired by the stories from Adventures and Legal Land to defend oneself pro per against a recent legal-attack.
  • Judge Edward Burke did a fine enough job pretending like he’ll fairly hear the issue of jurisdiction later on during trial. <- Yeah, we’re not holding our breath.
  • The issue of jurisdiction can be challenged and heard at any point during litigation.
  • The significance of making assertive, meaningful objections every opportunity you have; especially if you may need to appeal.
  • Demonstrating the bastardization of the presumption-of-innocence principal when they block your objections to their seemingly irrefutable assumption of jurisdiction.
  • Is there anything on the ticket that would lead any reasonable person to believe there is evidence to prove that their laws apply to you simply based on geographic location?
  • Playing devil’s advocate with the prosecutor’s responses to your questions of fact and evidence that may include “since you got a driver’s license…”
  • Raising the issue of their use of force and coercion when they claim “no one is forcing __________.”
  • You’re not just fighting a speeding ticket; you are also delegitimizing their entire system, on a moral basis, in front of an audience.
  • Jean Killham sat stone-faced without objection to the multiple accusations of prosecutorial misconduct because she knows the judge will cover her ass, oh, and also, probably because the accusations happened to be well substantiated and documented.
  • What a unpredictable surprise: the prosecutor Jason Short sat stone-faced as he was unable to respond to the question of what facts he had to substantiate his arguments while Judge Burke began to cover for him.
  • Its more objective, and useful, to look at it as you aren’t challenging their authority as much as you are challenging their arguments. 🙂
  • How does one gauge when to back off tough litigation so to avoid being found in contempt by the judge?
  • Submitting a discovery request and following up with a phone call to help the prosecutor provide exactly what you’re looking for, [not what they want you to be looking for]. 😉
  • Making jurisdictional challenges before a city council to help strengthen your questioning skills before needing them in court.
  • Every assertion the prosecutor makes must be supported by fact, or a witness with personal firsthand knowledge of such fact and/or evidence.
  • The element of surprise is negligible in the effectiveness of the evidentiary questions you’ll be asking.
  • How to counter if they are non-responsive to your question of “has the prosecution provided sufficient facts to support their assertion that they have have jurisdiction to proceed?”
  • How to counter if they attempt to enter a plea on your behalf because they so desperately need to pretend you’re refusing to plea so they don’t have to answer your questions of evidence to prove the prosecutor’s assertions.
  • Courtroom activism ought to be focused on the moral foundation that these people put forth, and .
  • How to go about requesting the judge to recuse themself or vacating the judgement & disqualifying the judge.
  • Keeping track of the many due-process violations so you can use it downstream if litigation goes south.
  • Watch out for sneaky lawyers that will try to fool you with an offer of proof.
  • Why its helpful to avoid using the phrase “your honor” in court, or entertaining to use it.
  • Calling the prosecutor and asking them about what evidence they have to prove their assertions before filing the motion to dismiss.

Editor’s Note: Apologies for this audio missing the broadcast, I had a bricked computer since Thursday night and did not get a chance to get it back up and running until later Saturday evening, well after GO time. We may run this audio on LRN some other time in the future, but its here for you to listen to now. The content is very useful for anyone who’s looking to sharpen their litigation skills, but, as it should go without saying, court activism is not without its risks and consequences, so engage at your own risk and reward. Happy learning!


27 Comments For This Post

  1. dan Says:

    BB King was known as a one note guy too.

  2. RAD Says:

    From Clint’s June 19 2015 broadcast @ One hour, 19 minutes (yes this is an exact quote FROM CLINT):

    “…The lie becomes the truth when it’s confirmed, when it’s understood, when it’s…uh…uh uh uh…acted in…”

    “Government is opposed to nature; it’s opposed to natural law – IT DOESN’T EXIST.”

  3. Matt Says:

    “Let me Clinterrupt you…” haha 😀

    I. Love. This. Show.

  4. Stefen Randall Says:

    If you are going to debate Clint again, I would NOT let Jan Irvin monitor anything but a gang chicken fight. For someone who claims to know the Trivium, ask the clown “who” government is? Who is directed towards a real entity not a fiction that doesn’t need to be defined, in order to ask “who”.

  5. TOM MIXX Says:

    great podcast Marc! Listened at work today and will listen to it again

  6. Armando Says:

    Hey Marc, no “that’s what she said” remark on this edition?
    you are slacking my friend!!

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Armando, that’s what she said.

  8. desertspeaks Says:


  9. desertspeaks Says:

    clintrospection, clinterjection, clintimidation, clintoxication, clINTORLERABLE, clintervention, clinterrogation, clINTERPOLATION.
    and i’ll end with clinternational dumbass!

  10. TOM MIXX Says:

    Specifically liked the Derrick j discussion.

  11. Darrell Says:

    May be a little of topic but I just have a curiosity question. Can a juror ask for proof of jurisdiction even if it is not brought up in court?

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Darrell
    Here’s a general overview:

    Civil Trials: Several states including Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Illinois, and Wyoming allow jurors to submit written questions in civil cases such as personal injury lawsuits. The rules may vary as to when jurors can ask their questions, such as at the end of closing arguments or any time a witness is on the stand.

    Criminal Trials: Arizona is one of just three states that allows jury members to question witnesses following direct questioning and cross-examination, reports ABC News. Given the stakes in a criminal trial, it’s understandable that most states do not want jury members actively questioning witnesses.

    The above is from this link

  13. Darrell Says:


    Thanks for reply but I was mainly focusing on the element of the arrest, not necessarily of witnesses. If you vote not to convict in juror room because the prosecutor failed to establish a key element of the crime, which would be jurisdiction, even though it was never brought up during trial.

    Was just curious how that would play out, or if it had been done before.

  14. Thad Says:

    You should check out this latest podcast of Peace Revolution podcasts, it talks about law and legal plundering (episode 089) It is gold.

  15. Andy Says:

    Thad, you do realise it’s a twenty hour (20 hours) podcast.

    Cliff notes: Law is opinion backed by a gun.

  16. Thad Says:

    Are you implying I do not know it is 20 hours long? It is a total of 20 hours ( 20:11:53 )of alot of relevant topics/sound bits/discussions from many sources. It is not 20 hours of one or a few guys sitting around talking. I did not post it to force people to sit and listen to the full audio. Pick the parts you would find of interest. I am full aware law is opinion backed by force, just showing how other ways the “law” is used and abused. Fun fact though Jan has been on their shows/podcasts but he rarely had insight into anything they had to say nor did he correct them if they used errors in logic. Not this podcast but some from Tragedy and Hope.

  17. Thad Says:

    Bill Buppert has a new read ( blog posting) worth the read.

  18. Andy Says:

    Thad said: “Fun fact though Jan has been on their shows/podcasts but he rarely had insight into anything they had to say nor did he correct them if they used errors in logic. ”

    I understand. It is in part why I suggested, either on one of these comment sections or on the forum, that if there was another debate/discussion with Marc and Clint that Richard Grove be the moderator. I’d pay to here here Jan Irvin and Richard Grove discuss the validity of “government” issue and anarchy.

    I’m tempted to join the Tragedy&Hope community/forum and post a link to the Clint and Marc debate that Jan was an alleged moderator of in effort to gain some feedback from T&H community members.

  19. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Darrell I would insist on the facts proving jurisdiction “which you can demand while the jury is in deliberation” which is at the end of the trial!
    they would however, in all likelihood call for a mistrial should you demand they produce the evidence of jurisdiction! and they would remove your name from the jury rolls!

  20. Darrell Says:


    LOL in other words win, win.

    Always thought the jury roll was rigged anyhow since you had to do it at the same time as voter registration. Simple program can generate a control group of folks that stacks the jury prior to juror questioning.

  21. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Darrell
    They really dislike it when you use their own words and laws to your advantage, as they weren’t designed that way!
    The judge tells you in his jury instructions “which by the way imho, is jury tampering” that they will follow the law, or something to that effect..
    Well, to follow the law, they must prove jurisdiction “an essential element of any alleged charge” which as “we” know is not applicable to the private man/woman. There is no contractual nexus, no duty, as they “the gvt” have abrogated many of their duties and ignored their chartered mandates!

  22. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    “Standing up before a judge in a courtroom is designed to force you into obedience; to make you know your place before government authority lest you find yourself in a cage for contempt of the ruling political class. In a free society, it would be the judge that stands up when you, the consumer, enters the room for arbitration services.” ~ Kal Molinet

  23. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Marc..
    In today’s “saturday’s” show 6/27/15 @ approximately 1:50 pm, you said no one calls out clint and his LIE aka the magical unicorn case that changed his friends citizenship status to private citizen. I have called him out numerous times here. The first instance was after he posted ,.. notice he never responded because WE ALL KNOW IT WAS A LIE AND CLINT KNOWS ITS A LIE!

  24. desertspeaks Says:

    Marc, was I the one clint called names?? oh please let it me be!!!!!!

  25. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ desert, I meant the moderator, Jan, didn’t call him out on it. It was zonsb on the forum I was referring to about the troll whore comment.

  26. summer apple Says:

    Hey Marc – This is out of the blue: Have you ever thought about making an HTML image-link (or several) of your website that people can copy and paste on their social profiles, websites and whatnot?

    No need to answer. Just something to think about. 🙂

  27. desertspeaks Says:


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