Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jun 27, 2015 – Co-host: Vin James

Posted on June 28th, 2015 by Calvin

Co-host: Vin James.

Show Notes:

  • Scientist critics that assert that “if you’re an anarchist; you’re an imbecile don’t recognize the double-standard in their beliefs in the violently religious nature of the STATE.
  • Clint’s early acceptance of the real definition of anarchy, but failure to accept people can actually live in such a state.
  • You are not there to testify, nor ready to proceed, as long as the issues of disclosure and jurisdiction are unresolved.
  • “Jurisdiction because we say so.”
  • Let them prove their arguments.
  • The cop and prosecutor depend on the judge bailing them out of having to produce evidence to support their assertions.
  • Clint failed to do basic research of Marc’s unsigned plea of guilty tool to which he felt the need to criticize.
  • The lack of fairness and good faith with Jan Irvin’s moderation in Marc’s debate with Clint.
  • Defining what a fact is; objectively tracing it back the source.
  • Reversing a conviction is generally very difficult.
  • Doing LIVE role-playing sessions.
  • The trivium is a great tool, but does nothing when all you do is stick with definitions without making the relevant factual connections.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Ian from CA: getting into fruitless feedback loops on various public forums <> Clint’s trolling and illusion of intelligence <> empty-handed debaters tend to flip the burden-of-proof away from their own claims <> the weirdness of the misplaced enthusiasm over the recent marriage legalization celebrations <> weighing the decision to ask permission/apply for a permit for a concealed firearm as an anarchist <> blind spots of statists <> why there is a high liver failure rate amongst doctors and how it relates to statists <> and the persistent and transcendent pessimism of statists and their appeal to the stick.
  • Mike from AZ: update on his recent legal attack with a very hostile judge <> the judge entered a default against the defendant for a failure to appear despite there being witnesses that can testify he was <> the cop attempted to present a piece of paper with a diagram to prove that the laws apply <> filing a motion to vacate the judge’s arbitrary rulings <> and calling out the legal plunder.
  • Patriot Wonder from FL: Clint: present your evidence so people can set themselves free <> and filing a motion to set aside judgement of a drunk driving conviction due to ineffective counsel.
  • Imran from AZ: overcoming the overwhelming costs of a false conviction <> this is the worst time of year to visit the scorching Phoenix valley <> and sovereign citizen advocate Gordon Hall sentenced to 8 years in prison.

29 Comments For This Post

  1. RAD Says:

    “The United States is a juristic person in the sense that it has capacity to sue upon contracts made with it or in vindication of its property rights.”

    Statists literally pray to this “person” while they worship its idol(the flag) during the ritual known as “The pledge of allegiance” a seeming variant of “The greater pentagram ritual”, which is a traditional occultist ritual where a magician salutes a pentagram idol and invokes a supernatural “person”.

  2. RAD Says:

    And why do they believe in the existence of this “person”? Is it based on empirical observances or measurements? No, it is purely based on the faith in the dogmas of the sacred authoritative writings. The cannon of statist scripture. Such as the fable known as “U.S. V Cooper Corp” where the “person” called “The U.S.” sued the “person” called “Cooper Corp.”

    A modern allegorical religious fable of statist scripture. Preached by men and women who dress up in priest robes from their pulpit on high.

    So it is:
    1. An organized dogmatic belief system preached by a priest caste who control the interpretation of the dogma
    2. Has supernatural persons
    3. Prays to supernatural persons
    4. Has supernatural powers (jurisdiction, authority “force of law”) which cannot be empirically observed to exist in the natural world but are believed as articles of scriptural faith

    But it’s not a religion. To say otherwise is heresy, blasphemy.
    Because government is the savior.

  3. summer apple Says:


    That is why the “person” ALWAYS needs to be represented. That is why the cop absolutely insists on you showing them legal identification. Statutes apply to the “person” which is an aggregate of legal/civil rights.

    You are forced to appear and argue these rights in a place called a court/forum. The officer of the court/judge must first acquire jurisdiction over the “person” of the defendant.

    The defendant/surety stands in place of the “person”. He/she represents the “person”. The rights/person is considered to be property – property that the government is letting you use. Property that can be taken away. Like the privilege of driving on the state’s highways in a motor vehicle.

    They can take that privilege away from you because they are the ones who gave it to you.

    I could be wrong – but that is the way I see it at this point in trying to figure it all out.

  4. Andy Says:

    @ summer apple, the following quote can be found in context on the thread titled: Clint Richardson’s arguments – see comment #27

    “The four elements of a contract are:
    1. An offer.
    2. Meeting of the minds to discuss the details and responsibilities of each party to the contract. Full disclosure.
    3. Consideration (means each party puts something of value/consideration into the agreement).
    4. Agreement.

    Element #2 of a contract would include the full disclosure of the use of force continuum as standard procedure for when an individual doesn’t comply with a law enforcer. Comply or be terrorized until the individual complies which may result in the individual being killed for non compliance.

    With regards to element #2 of a contract (the meeting of the minds), I would never agree to being subject to the comply-or-die, use of force continum. Element #4 of a contract has not been met — I do not agree to the offer.

    Essentially every individual knows when he/she wants to be left alone — it’s the foundation of freedom of association. He/she would not agree to a contract that includes the use of force continuum against himself/herself.

    The men and women calling themselves government know that to be true and thus never tell the other prospective party to the contract about the use of force continuum. Instead, they (the people calling themselves government) use trickery. Which again, [trickery] nullifies the alleged contract.”

  5. Andy Says:

    “The trivium is a great tool…”

    Tools are double-edged swords. A tool can be used honestly or dishonestly.

    Hucksters such as Jan Irvin and Clint Richardson use the trivium tool with little regard to honesty. Meaning, honesty or dishonesty take a back seat to whether the trivium shall be used honestly to support an argument or used dishonestly in attempt to support an argument.

    In the “debate,” Clint and Jan used the trivium more as a weapon to “bludgeon”, interrupt and derail Marc’s explanations. That is, when Marc could get a word in edgewise Clint or Jan would whip out the trivium and derail Marc’s explanation.

  6. RAD Says:

    “The rights/person is considered to be property – property that the government is letting you use.”

    Whose property specifically? Who owns an idea? Property/ownership is another article of faith. If I don’t take your property deed on faith, what empirical evidence proves you actually own a property(rather than that you occupy it as a residence but don’t own it). “Property” is a projection of the mind, associative magical thinking; a cognitive rationalization of the primitive ape instinct to claim territory. That’s my theory on it anyway.

  7. RAD Says:

    But I will let use my theory as long as you follow this long laundry list of rules I made up that say pay me money and basically do whatever I say. Because when you use it, you become bound by my rules muhahahaha.

    Factually, what is the difference between “legally binding” and “magically binding”?

    “In the course of your magical studies, you may at some point hear someone use the word “binding” in reference to a spell or working. Typically, a magical binding is simply a spell or working that restrains someone metaphysically, preventing them from doing something. It is often used to keep the individual from causing harm to themselves or to others. Some popular methods of binding include, but are not limited to:
    •Binding Spells
    •Witchcraft Spells
    •Voodoo Spells
    •Magic Love Spells
    •Money Spells

    Use of a poppet in the person’s likeness, wrapped with string or cord

    A spell tablet, restricting the individual from performing harmful actions

    A candle inscribed with the person’s name on it

    A specific rune charged with restraining the person”

  8. staljanski Says:

    @RAD re;Like the privilege of driving on the state’s highways in a motor vehicle.<, got any proof? the fictitious STATE owns the roads? or the "person(s)? or anything? also, i have an engine, a flamable, ignition, combustion engine in my car, and on that engine i have a starter MOTOR, and electrical device. Terms of art, where black is white? hey Clint, heres a definition for ya

    They can take that privilege away from you because they are the ones who gave it to you.<< this fictitious STATE, gave? it to you? gave you what? Cristmas?, easter bunny eggs? "rights"aka privileges?

    I could be wrong – but that is the way I see it at this point in trying to figure it all out.<< you could be still in the matrix, and your beLIEfe is still strong, shows by the use of your words and thinking there exists such a fictional enity…how does marc put it?, calling themselves gov. but its just wo/men , liers thieves and murderurs. ..yup, occams razzor.

  9. summer apple Says:

    Rad said: “Whose property specifically? Who owns an idea?”

    Exactly. From what I have read from their own legal books is that rights are abstract in nature and they need to be recognized before they can be enforced.

    No one arrives in this world with anything but a body, soul, and mind. Rights, like you said, are just an idea. Do they claim the authority to force people to recognize their ideas too?

    I have recently been learning about argument fallacies like Appeal to Authority. I think this information will be helpful when dealing with government-types.

  10. Inigo Montoya Says:


    I believe Clint’s ‘evidence’ would be best described as hearsay. Hearsay is not acceptable in any court or other arena, as it cannot be verified.

  11. RAD Says:

    “Do they claim the authority to force people to recognize their ideas too?”

    I’ve never seen them (the cultists called government) explicitly put it like that but it seems implicit in their actions at times that they seem to think that way.

  12. Incubus Says:

    “No one arrives in this world with anything but a body, soul, and mind.”

    I’ve got to call objection; hearsay on soul. Any proof of said soul?

  13. summer apple Says:

    No. Just that when I say “soul”, I mean not a robot.

  14. Andy Says:

    @ Incubus, Come on man, “soul” is defined in the dictionary so its got to exist; the definition is on the same page as Santa Clause. /sarcasm

  15. Thad Says:

    Jan used ( with Clint ) the very thing he talks about on his shows/podcasts….Sophistry or Sophists. They would teach Kings/Nobles the art of language acrobats. They became the very thing he warned people of.

  16. Thad Says:

    I understand it has been breed out of the British ( and Australian ) population to fear/dismiss/hate the idea of people other then those who call themselves the governmental types firearms. The mentality you mentioned about hunting/wilderness is the SAME crap I hear in Australia as IF that is the only reason for a person to want/own/use a firearm. You take away the firearms or weapons of a populations, the bigger bully called “government”get a open season to do much more then they would if an equalizer (chance of a gun) is in the mix.

  17. Raw420 Says:

    Love it, great shows all the time

  18. Inigo Montoya Says:


    “The gun in the room” or the logical fallacy of ‘ad baculum’ is definitely at play. Clearly this has been the operating principle since the beginning of time. Why cant I organize my neighborhood and institute our own ‘laws’? Because another alleged ‘body politic’ has more wealth and more goons with guns. It has nothing to do with morality or freedom.

  19. BryanD Says:

    Regarding the Gordon Hall, the guy the last caller was talking about. Doing a search, I found info about him at Quatloos. Linked below:

    Hall, seems to have a colorful history. If Quatloos can be believed?

  20. BryanD Says:

    How come the, from the link above seems to be censored now??? I was just there yesterday reading some articles. Even forwarded some of the article links to friends. Now they are emailing me too, that they get “FORBIDDEN” error 403 like I get now??? What’s going on???

  21. Boxer Says:

    In Marc’s book(s), he makes a great point regarding how “cities” are fictions using the words of lawyers. Does anyone know of anything similar with regards to “states” and “counties”?

  22. RAD Says:

    When they anthropomorphize the “state” or the “Federal State” as its own “person”, the Leviathan. It is literally invoking a supernatural “entity” or deity, since the statist religion regards this supernatural “person” or “Entity” as a supreme power and authority. It’s a made-up modern pagan deity. The scriptures of government call the supreme deity of the religion “The Federal State” or “The Sovereign” or “The national sovereign” or “The United States of America”. All different names the scriptures call this fictional entity. For scriptural references to these magical fictional “entities”, check out US v Cooper Corp, US v Arizona, New York v New Jersey. These religious allegorical fables are rife with references to these so-called “people” who appear as plaintiffs and defendants.
    In each case the plaintiff and defendant are both fictions.

  23. summer apple Says:

    RAD, You said it. When you suggest to someone that something has feelings or has rights or whatever – just like you!… well, you connect with that “person”.

    They try to confuse!

  24. dan Says:

    It was really nice to meet Mike. I really enjoy meeting people who have the decency to stand up for themselves and pose questions where most others think it is a waste of their time and/or don’t care.

  25. Inigo Montoya Says:

    In case there was any question about cops being psychopaths, this is a quote from a Seattle Police training seminar.

    “Last week, there was a guy in a car who wouldn’t show me his hands. I pulled my gun out and stuck it right in his nose and I go, ‘Show me your hands now!’ That’s de-escalation.”

  26. Andy Says:

    Hey tough guy, If I did as you did and approached someone and shoved a gun in their face and demanded they show me their hands, would you consider me a criminal?

    It’s no wonder more and more people are dismayed with cops. No, not because if we did as you do, you’d consider us criminals. You’d be absolutely correct to consider me a criminal. It’s because when you approach a person and shove a gun in their face and demand to see their hands you delude yourself to believe you’re not a criminal!

    I get it that you’re just doing your job — just following orders.

    The IRS and state tax agencies steals from us to pay your salary. And they too are just following orders. It’s just one big happy crime family — a mafia you guys operate. Just following orders.

    Bottom line, you’re just a bunch of thugs and conmen. You can look your face in the mirror and not be the least bit phased or bothered by that. You’re a friggin psychopath!

  27. Chexie Says:

    White robes, Black robes, with the IRS.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges. Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    The IRS doesn’t collect a (tax – usury) for money it collects, The IRS collects a (tax – usury) for the currency it contracts with man/woman for the debt notes the treasury prints for the federal reserve bank.

    Greece and its membership in Europe’s joint currency.–finance.html#

  28. desertspeaks Says:


  29. Chexie Says:

    @ desertspeaks that’s what I am saying there is no contract there never was and there never will be unless you give one up.

    Sow me my wet ink signature on that contract. Isn’t everything a contract? You want me to be who for why and for what.

    What do I get out of it? Better question is “What do you get out of it?”

    The assumption that these a contract better be shown to the person asking for the proof otherwise get my master who says there is a contract.

    Like RAD said It’s a made-up modern pagan deity.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Jun 27, 2015 – Co-host: Vin James - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] By Calvin […]

  2. NSP - Aug 8, 2015 - Says:

    […] Imran from AZ: attending a showing of “The Stanford Prison Experiment” movie in Scottsdale <> and calling into a judge’s radio show and asking him tough questions of evidence to prove jurisdiction live on-air. […]

  3. NSP - Oct 17, 2015 - Says:

    […] Patriot Wonder from FL: government corruption portrayed well in the film “How to Frame a Figg” <> Teen Boy Shot and Killed by Cop for Flashing Headlights and Flexing Rights <> and determining jurisdiction and rights. […]

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