Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jul 25, 2015 – Co-hosts: Vin James and Matthew

Posted on July 29th, 2015 by Calvin

Co-hosts: Vin James, from No STATE Project UK and The Bunker Show, and Matthew, from 4ZZZ FM in Brisbane, Australia join us to share their recent adventures and lessons from legal-land.

Show Notes:

  • Join Marc next week at the Jackalope Freedom Festival!
  • Welcoming back a returning critic on the forum and walking through his moving of the goal-post and red herrings.
  • Debunking the poorly-founded criticisms of the folks over at Quatloos! [Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos!, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3]
  • Wserra’s long history on the forum and the posts designated exclusively for him to respond.
  • Responding to a question of evidence with legal opinion is a non-responsive answer because law is not evidence.
  • Wserra condescendingly claims he has evidence to prove the constitution applies, but can only defer to legal opinion. 🙁
  • Developing effective litigation techniques by studying logical fallacies.
  • No one has a monopoly on logic.
  • You have a textbook instance of prosecutorial misconduct when a prosecutor makes an argument without sufficient facts and evidence.
  • “Is your opinion that your laws apply to me by either 1) strictly a subjective opinion, or 2) is it based on objective reality and truth that can be independently verified and proven?”
  • Vin James’ upcoming appeals hearing this Monday.
  • Documenting the foul-play from the prosecution team (judge and prosecutor) in the escalation in Vin James’ case through the courts.
  • Getting a responsive reply on the discovery request before moving forward to a trial.
  • Getting confirmation from overconfident judges on the assumption that the prosecutor actually has the facts and evidence to support their arguments.
  • The statist double-standard.
  • Unqualified and incompetent witnesses.
  • Using role-playing sessions with the helpful folks within the NSP group-chat to best prepare for court.
  • Mastering Socratic questioning to best counter deceptive prosecutors.
  • Avoiding dependence on using the script.
  • False correlation fallacy.
  • Matthew’s latest adventure in legal-land for a clearway parking violation.
  • The coercion behind all interaction with those calling themselves government.
  • Attempting to offer the tow-truck driver a counter-incentive to not tow a car.
  • Matthew’s work with the “Locked In” show on 4ZZZ FM that reads letters and plays music requests from inmates.
  • Zed.
  • Avoiding accepting their jurisdiction by avoiding statutory declarations.
  • Proceeding without the option to “not play their game.”
  • Calling bureaucrats and asking THEM what evidence THEY have to prove THEIR laws apply to help build your case that THEY have no case.
  • The STATE-department two-step.
  • The perception of pro se litigants through the eyes of the court staff.
  • Australia’s controlled and limited questioning parameters for those who challenge the prosecution.
  • Making meaningful and assertive objections in court proceedings.
  • Not allowing the prosecutor any free-passes on any of the elements that they have the burden to prove.
  • Tom’s experience with the prosecution team in Norman’s case.
  • The casual criminal misconduct that is allowed to fly in the courtroom. As long as the criminal wears a badge or a robe; their crimes will usually pass unchallenged and undocumented.
  • The path to wisdom is to first call things by their true meaning.
  • How to make a proper objection when the prosecution claims that the evidence you are seeking is on the ticket.
  • You can only properly defend yourself against things that have been disclosed to you.
  • Courtroom distraction and diversion techniques.
  • The more the prosecutor says, the less credibility they’ll maintain.
  • The ethical inconsistencies of minarchism.
  • The statist group-think of juries.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Jace from UT: a personal thanks to Matthew and all those who donated to the legal assistance fund! <> and an update on Jace’s brother’s case.
  • Norman from MI: spent time in the box for a improper left turn/impeding violation <> the prosecutor said the motion to dismiss was full of hooey <> sitting in on hearing to get a feel for the courtroom environment <> the judge claimed that the defendant “cannot ask questions of facts and evidence to prove jurisdiction” and that “jurisdiction is a given” <> the judge ignored, then refused to hear, the defendant’s sound objections <> condescending rhetorical attacks from the prosecutor <> enter the steamrolling <> cross-examining the witness (cop) <> the cop testifies that the defendant did not commit the crime cited on the ticket! <> and the judge instructed the cop to file another ticket during a trial when he realized he could not proceed with the prosecutor’s compromised complaint.
  • Danny from WA: first time challenging a ticket for disobeying a “traffic control device” <> the [in]significance of signing the ticket <> following up with a phone call while waiting for disclosure <> the proper use of a motion in limine to prevent the prosecution from making arguments they are refusing to provide evidence for <> and role-playing to better hone litigation skills.
  • 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.

30 Comments For This Post

  1. yan Says:

    Thank you Calvin, Marc, JT and all of the NSP [chat] people..for helping me see the reality of things. Truth hurts, but it is a pleasurable truth (i hope that dint go the wrong way of thinking?] what was that saying? “first you ….then it becomes self evident”… hmm? hope i got the last part right?

  2. TOM MIXX Says:

    the judge instructed the cop to file another ticket during a trial when he realized he could not proceed with the prosecutor’s compromised complaint.
    WASNT A HE…it was a SHE BITCH…I KNOW I ALSO “appeared” “before” HER

  3. TOM MIXX Says:

    listenin to the podcast and Norm here in Michigan ..the things that the she bitch said to him she also said to me…very rude bitch and will not let you ask questions PERIOD..its lie de’javue….GRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  4. TOM MIXX Says:

    lokkin forward to showin up with norm at his next date

  5. TOM MIXX Says:


  6. Billy r. Says:

    Hey Marc are you ever coming to Baltimore if so write me a text and I’ll surely be there !

  7. summer apple Says:

    yan, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”.

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

  8. desertspeaks Says:

    @ summer
    So that’s where ghandi got his quote!

  9. summer apple Says:

    desertspeaks, I looked up the quote and that is the author that was attached to it.

  10. summer apple Says:

    desert, There is no need for the @ (at) symbol, is there? Have I stumbled on to Twitter?

  11. RAD Says: Forum
    Sorry but you cannot register at this time because the administrator has disabled new account registrations.

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ RAD, all people need to do is email me a username and I create the account, that is to stop the spambots.

  13. RAD Says:

    Been trying to register for months and it’s been like that for a long time.

  14. RAD Says:

    K Thanks Marc will email

  15. Andy Says:

    “Bringing about a voluntary society one visitor at a time.”

    “Sorry but you cannot register at this time because the administrator has disabled new account registrations.”

  16. summer apple Says:

    Marc, “@ RAD, all people need to do is email me a username and I create the account, that is to stop the spambots”.

    I don’t think that you are being entirely truthful. I was going to join the forum also. There is nothing that would suggest that one needs to email you to have access to the forum.

    Also – I don’t see people saying that some conversations would be best discussed in the forum anymore.

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Summer, there is a sticky on the forum about it. I posted it 06-19-2014 so I am an being entirely truthful about it. Discuss things here or the forum, doesn’t matter.

  18. summer apple Says:


    1. Honest

    2. Sincere

    3. True to your self

  19. summer apple Says:

    Marc, As if anyone would go to your “sticky”. Just be plain about it. It is obvious that at least three people have tried to join. Sorry to ruffle your feathers.

  20. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ summer, you didn’t ruffle my feathers. I’m sorry it’s not easier, I’ll try to make it better. I have mentioned it on the live broadcast regularly though. I wish the available software could stop the spambots. I prefer not having to create each account.

  21. Just sayin' Says:

    Pretty sure a chimp with Down Syndrome could figure out how to join the forum, even with a half hearted effort.

  22. Andy Says:

    summer, it appears to me that you are insinuating that there’s something underhanded or nefarious about the registration process; are you?

    I see need for a different message than “Sorry but you cannot register at this time because…” — Perhaps a message that tells the reader what to do to register… or tells them to go to the sticky on the forum. My guess is that the current message can’t be changed or Calvin would have already done so.

  23. RAD Says:

    “The Government oughta pass a law…”

  24. desertspeaks Says:

    (at) Summer,
    I noticed you did not offer Marc advice about utilizing the (at) @ symbol..
    or is he above your pay grade??

  25. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Great show! No matter how many I hear, each one leads to deeper enlightenment.

    So we have judges not allowing questions, not allowing objections, and ORDERING new accusations to be made against the ‘defendant’ when the old ones are not going to elicit any revenues to pay for her BMW.

    A friend recently told me of how he was among a group of 6 or 8 ‘defendants’ in a CA traffic court. On their first appearance, the judge had them lined up en masse while he threatened them. He told them they’d better just go ahead and plead guilty, because if any of them tried to fight it, it would “go much worse” for them. They would be given a much harsher fine if they tried to defend themselves.

    Perhaps there are more people waking up and fighting the ‘system’ over all, as Marc mentioned the rise in objections ‘not being allowed’ by judges. Or perhaps statistically, the STATE is getting more aggressive in ‘revenue’ collection so there are a greater overall number of people fighting them. The result will be the same. Courts (psychopaths) will have to reveal the gun in the room much more quickly than they have in the past. Or, as Marc’s counterpart in Israel threw out, the courts may become ‘automated’ by computers. I believe we have a combination of both. The local criminal syndicates have soaked the public to saturation levels. Far more parasites are at retirement age now. Thus, the number of ‘offenses’ are increasing as well as the fines skyrocketing.

    A big part of the problem, it seems to me, is that the vast majority do not understand basic logic. The dumbing down or overt intimidation of the population has sapped people of their logic and critical thinking skills. To most spectators in the courtroom, the judges and lawyers are always right, because they are taught to believe these ‘authority’ figures, as they are taught to believe doctors, etc.. This leads to the piling on effect as Marc points out in Government Indicted — the crabs pulling the potential escapee back into the bucket. Take a look at the statist trolls blaming Sandra Bland or Samuel DuBose for their own deaths at the hands of cops (homicidal psychopaths).

    Marc hit upon the heart of the confusion, purposely pushed by the lawyers — the conflating of ‘legal’ arguments vs. actual logical conclusions. Legal arguments or citations are conclusions without evidence. In the same scientific sense, a ticket or an assessment or accusation is only a hypothesis or conjecture. The correct scientific method is:

    Hypothesis –> Facts, Facts, Measurement, Data –> Conclusion
    The conclusion may or may NOT be proved by the data or facts. That is the whole purpose of the experiment. Not all experiments will prove the original hypothesis. As Marc eloquently pointed out this time, in a murder trial, the absurdity of not allowing all evidence such as time, location, murder weapon, DNA, etc.. This is the DATA between the accusation (hypothesis) and the conclusion (verdict).

    The ‘legal’ process does not resemble the above scientific method in the least. After all, conviction rate is paramount to anything else, as the ‘Innocence Project’ would attest. The ‘legal process’ is:

    Hypothesis (assume guilt) –> accusation, intimidation, denial of discovery, denial of cross-examination, accepting case law as evidence, jury intimidation or misinformation –> Conclusion (verdict)

    The persecutors and judges will try to convince everyone that whatever garbage spews forth between the charge and the verdict is ‘evidence’. Logical arguments and objections coming from their victims are frivolous, do not apply, or contrary to the ‘obvious’ or ‘self-evident’ ‘facts’.

    A Vin said, if one is well versed in the most common logical fallacies, one can see through the bs very quickly in order to stay on point. This is good advise for everyday life as well as the courtroom. The media and people around us bombard us with these fallacies constantly and we need to call them out.

  26. RAD Says:

    The “questions of fact vs questions of evidence” dichotomy the lawyer cult and judge priesthood push is a variant of the “non-overlapping magisterium”. As if there are some matters where the facts don’t even matter in forming conclusions. The dogma is just magically true regardless of what the facts tell us (or don’t tell us). The fact that wserra quotes these scriptures as “evidence” actually is evidence – evidence that he has blind faith in the dogmas rather than basing the conclusions on facts. Evidence that they are articles of scriptural faith. He just believes in them regardless of facts (or lack of facts).

  27. Andy Says:

    @ RAD, “non-overlapping magisterium”… Your’s is an astute observation and analogy (pattern recognition).

  28. RAD Says:

    I don’t think it’s really even analogy. It’s just a variation of the same argument being called by a different name really. They try to put over that there is this realm of knowledge that is “outside the bounds” of logic and reason where it doesn’t even matter if there is any connection to any facts in the real world in forming conclusions. Questions that can only be addressed by dogmatic articles of faith.

  29. Inigo Montoya Says:

    I just thought I’d share this short video I found.

    Another Fine ‘Public Servant’
    In Under A Minute, This Cop Shows Exactly Why People Are Losing Faith In Police (As if we had any in the first place.)

  30. thad Says:

    Inigo Montoya,
    I watched the video and read the “statements” of the cop and his dept and they did what most do when cops are caught doing wrong……tell people that they do not have the FULL picture. Which magically only they can retell or express it as if that will somehow change one’s mind if we…..knew the full story. For me, people recorded doing the wrong thing speaks for itself, what happen before changes nothing. 🙂

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Sept 26, 2015 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - Says:

    […] Judge Gets Special Treatment As Her DWI Charges Suddenly Dismissed. [Research credit: Matt from Australia] […]

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