Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Nov 14, 2015

Posted on November 17th, 2015 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • The serious consequences caused by populations acting upon the grotesque fictions of STATES and government.
  • A new, instructive, Call-of-Shame with the American Terrorist Syndicate demonstrating how to stay focused on getting a responsive answer when challenging their evidence to prove their territorial jurisdiction: IRS – Lots of Evasions, Plenty of Dishonesty – Never Any Evidence. <-try to count the total number of logical fallacies; post your tallies in the comments section.
  • They will admit that its their assertion/argument that their laws apply to you based upon your physical location.
  • “Forcing people to pay you means you never have to be professional or logically consistent.”
  • Avoid making legal arguments that shift the burden-of-proof upon yourself and make sure to keep the burden-of-proof on the one bringing forth the claim(s); the prosecution.
  • What to expect and how to proceed when your motion(s) are denied out-of-hand without explanation or grounds.
  • Other people’s past successes repurposing the motion to dismiss template.
  • Moving for dismissal when there is insufficient facts to support the charge.
  • “Is that because you say-so?, or because the evidence says-so?”
  • Success story: Another Ticket Kicked Out in California – No Evidence of Jurisdiction.
  • The double-standard of the enforcement of the court’s own rules; the prosecution’s witnesses do not get the same failure-to-appear charge you get when they don’t show up for court.
  • The history of travel taxation/commercial code legal challenges and evolving towards using effective Socratic questioning of the evidence.
  • FMOTL and UCC advocate’s cherry-picking of the evidence to support their case.
  • Conflicting (schizophrenic) legal interpretations for the same determination.
  • Documenting people effectively objecting to and countering lying lawyers.
  • Strictly focusing on “where is the evidence?
  • Countering the common judicial lie(s) that “territorial jurisdiction is a trial issue,” “legal citations can substitute for evidence,” and/or “I am going to enter a plea of not guilty because ____.
  • Using their lack of response through the entire chain-of-command to your questions of evidence to build your case that there is no evidence.
  • The necessary burden-of-proof required for an issue of fact is strongly objective compared to issues of law which are loosely subjective and interpretive.
  • The factual burden of proof for territorial jurisdiction is routinely waived and replaced with legal opinion absent your keen objections.
  • Getting a complaint tossed out of an Irish court based on a lack of evidence to prove jurisdiction!
  • How to counter non-responsive bureaucrats when they insist you “put that in writing” (Ireland edition).

Caller’s Topics:

  • Andy from CA: litigation so far with challenging a HOV/traffic citation <> irregular bureaucratic activity <> filing the motion to demur that comes with the motion to dismiss/discovery/Brady/limine request package <> and utilizing the Socratic questioning method to destroy the prosecutions baseless assertions.
  • Norman from MI (not Detroit): update on his ongoing adventure in legal land: the judge dismissed the original ticket and ordered the cop to write a different ticket after he was caught lying on the stand <> the troubles of setting an actual motions hearing and getting a shady fact-finding “hearing” in return <> the judge did not want to commit to ruling on the facts and limited himself to say he will only “rule on the law” <> the biased judge’s attentive attitude towards the prosecutor and dismissive attitude towards the defendant <> vocally moving to dismiss the complaint based upon the prosecution’s lack of evidence to support their all of their assertions <> objecting to all sorts of due-process violations and documenting rampant Brady violations <> individualizing each issue of challenge in its own motion <> getting an unfair hearing reheard/reconsidered before a less biased judge <> the prosecutor refuses to communicate with the defendant unless he was in front of the judge <> and the aggressively adversarial nature of the court system against you.
  • Rob from AZ: responding to a fresh legal-attack.
  • Jan from British Columbia: how do I prevail on an issue of fact?

19 Comments For This Post

  1. dan Says:

    The new bumper music was extraordinary.

  2. jack 06 Says:

    with i could email this to a friend any idea how ?

  3. jack 06 Says:

    wish not with and like to email radio show .

  4. Andy Says:

    When the IRS agent question’s Marc’s authority to represent his client, the agent was gung ho, full steam ahead believing he had trapped Marc with his question. As soon as Marc said, “I can have my client ask you directly,” (thereby defusing the agent’s question) at the drop of a hat the agent did a 180 retreat. The agent’s “gotcha” douche move backfired.

    It’s important that Marc didn’t answer the agent’s question or discuss his (Marc’s) authority to represent his client. Instead of taking the diversionary bait he offered to have his client ask the question directly.

  5. Kevin McCann Says:

    Got a real kick out of the fact that you explained it was Rush in your bumper music…Great Choice.
    When speaking with the gentleman from Fresno you touched on what I think is one of the most powerful tools we can use in battling traffic offenses. That is a signed Valid Cause of Action (by the the damaged party NOT the witness) in a criminal court.
    If the criminal rules of procedure have to be followed by everyone in the courtroom then someone from the State would have their signature on that document…which does not exist.
    Then if the judge wants to say that the ticket is just that and it is the cops signature at the bottom then he is claiming he IS or represents the damaged party…and we all know what happens when we get the cop on the stand.
    Am I all wet in my thinking or am I at least close.

  6. Rad Says:

    “Is there any evidence of a claimant?”, go from there imo.

  7. Rad Says:

    “No, there is no evidence of a claimant.”
    Ok, have a nice day.
    “Yes there is evidence of a claimant.”
    What is it?

    The question they cannot responsively answer without exposing the fraud inherent in what they do.

  8. Rad Says:

    That or is there evidence the laws apply but imo it makes more sense to first ask if there is any evidence of a claimant because if you break down their claim, they’re not just claiming the laws apply but they are actually claiming that there is this other “entity” who is claiming the law applies. So until you see evidence of the “entity” making the claim, why even address the claim the alleged claimant is alleged to have made?

    “The state alleges…”
    Is there any evidence this “the state” who is alleged to have made the allegation even exists(matter of fact not matter of law).

  9. Chex Says:

    Pete says: Understanding the federal-privilege-excise nature of the tax also makes clear that to say, “I don’t live within your geographical area of authority;” or, “I’m not one of your subjugated or duty-bound citizens,” as is advocated by those who promote these misunderstandings regarding jurisdiction, is a meaningless response to an assertion of tax liability. All that such declarations do is make clear to the taxing authority that the speaker is clueless about the arena he or she is in– it is the pasting of a “Kick me!” sign on one’s own back.

    But then you have this Docket and record, Houston and Lufkin Division Federal tax cases.

  10. spooky2th Says:

    Ask if there is valid “cause of action.?” With victimless crimes, there is never a cause of action. The 2 main elements are rights broken and harm done. Break a code like a speeding ticket, who’s and what rights were violated??? What harm was done to anybody???

  11. PaulNZ Says:

    An argument is a collective series of statements leading to a definite proposition.

    e.g. “Your physical location means laws apply and you have to pay me”

    “Any evidence to support your argument ?”

    “Stop arguing and move to the Philippines”

  12. Chex Says:

    PaulNZ Says:
    November 19th, 2015 at 12:59 am An argument is a collective series of statements leading to a definite proposition. e.g. “Your physical location means laws apply and you have to pay me” “Any evidence to support your argument ?” “Stop arguing and move to the Philippines”

    The Roosevelt Administration created millions of foreign situs trusts merely named after individual living Americans.

    Legal definition for situs

    Foreign-situs trust refers to a trust created under foreign law. Such trusts are treated as a non-resident individual for federal tax purposes and therefore has no significant income-tax benefits.

    Torts. Lex loci delicti is applied with respect to the substantive phases of torts or the actions thereof, and determines the question of whether or not an act or omission gives rise to a right of action or civil liability for tort[ix]. For instance, where an act of omission or commission occurs at one place and resulting death, personal injury, or damage takes place at another, the situs of the actionable wrong is the place at which the death, personal injury or property damage takes place[x]. – See more at:

    This was done secretively and without granted authority and without the knowledge or consent of the victims. These trusts were created and used as a purposefully deceptive means of alleging an ownership interest in assets belonging to the American States and private property belonging to American State Citizens.

    Who is Anna Von Reitz from Alaska

    I perceive Judge Anna von Reitz [Alaska] blowing the lid off the Great Fraud, and the Declaration of Law, are our opportunity to end a quiet war waged against humans decades ago, using silent weapons like chemtrails, weather wars, GMO food, fluoridated drinking water, vaccines, Fukushima cover up, electro-smog, sleight of hand economics, etc.

    That page is a correction of the date and name time line.

    From the founding of this country onward the jurisdiction over the land was split from the jurisdiction over the sea.

    The Continental United States — the actual geographically defined states with physical borders, etc.,– were given jurisdiction over the land, and their Citizens known as American State Citizens are the ones protected by The Constitution for the united States of America and vested with all powers of the civil government on the land.

    Here is her writings

    Here is another link.
    Google search Open Letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Lew from Anna von Reitz Alaska and read it and get an understanding of it, in PDF for your convenience.

    Here is the link Source PDF document. If that don’t work for you then read it here.

    You think optima tax relief doesn’t know this? Who’s company do you think this is?

  13. Kevin McCann Says:

    Does the State have any factual evidence of a damaged party and if so please bring them forth and let me ask them some questions.
    Whos signature is at the bottom of the signed valid cause of action.
    Please correct me if I am wrong but when they can’t produce that document…game over.

  14. Rad Says:

    When does “The state” even show up at court? Is there any evidence there even is a state? They just want you to take it on faith.
    “Does the State have…”
    The thing is, your question is loaded with the presumption that there even is a “the state.” Before getting into what evidence the state may or may not have I think logically it makes more sense to address what evidence is there for this alleged “the state”.

    Think of it this way. I’m a lawyer. I show up and say Santa Clause is suing you. He has a bunch of presents that were supposed to go to little kids but when he was on your chimney he slipped and fell. Some toys got broken, and he’s holding you responsible.

    Do you start by asking if Santa can produce some toys to show the factual injury or do you start with who in the F#$! is this “Santa Clause”?

  15. Rad Says:

    ALLEGED Santa Clause, that is (till there’s evidence or Santa himself shows up)

    Just like until there is evidence on the record of “the state”, or “the state” shows up it’s just an allegation (the existence of the so-called supposed hypothetical “plaintiff”). Now that I’m thinking of it, you could even go further: Is anyone ALLEGING that there is a plaintiff? That may be a better way to start. Ask at arraignment: “Is anyone alleging that there is a claimant”? Who’s alleging that? The reason I say this is often the judge himself will be the one bringing that allegation. So it shows the judge is basically the other prosecutor, since if you are asking who is bringing the allegation of a claimant, the answer is HE IS THE ONE WHO IS BINGING THAT CLAIM(usually it’s the judge himself!). If you watch Ademo’s new video, it’s the judge who alleges “The state alleges…”. Other than the judge’s say so, there’s no one there alleging anything! No plaintiff, no prosecutor,no “the state” it’s just the judge bringing the allegation! Just a lawyer in a priest robe preaching his religious fable of his imaginary friends. I say challenge him on it: where’s this alleged “the state” RIGHT NOW?

  16. Rad Says:

    “spooky2th Says:
    November 18th, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    Ask if there is valid “cause of action.?” With victimless crimes, there is never a cause of action.”

    Yeah, this is one of the major flaws with these governmental predatory lawsuits. The thing is it can be interpreted as a mixed question of law + fact. “Cause of action” is legal terminology/legal determination. Who is the plaintiff and what evidence is there is purely within the realm of factual determination.

  17. Rad Says:

    They can always bs their way on the law. They are the priests of the religion. They have that egoistic “status” as “the authority”. That is your most potent “Weapon” in your arsenal. Their own egoistic sense of “status”. Marc gets into how their behavior is often psychopathic and we can ponder whether they are primary psychopaths or secondary but the main thing is either they will do the right thing or they’re a psychopath. Often the judge/prosecutor does the right thing and Marc’s methods/honest defenses work. They’re not all “bad”. But your strategy has to account for that likelihood.

    What is the #1 concern for psychopaths? Their own narcissistic “image”. That is what you hold over them. They command the bailiffs with the guns. Your most powerful weapon against the lies and guns is their own narcissistic egoistic sense of status. The same status that is their greatest strength in terms of BSing their way through issues of law is their greatest weakness in bsing on issues of fact. They can BS the whole packed courtroom on issues of law because they are the priest and their exegetical interpretation is the “ruling”. But if they get caught BSing on issues of fact up there in front of everybody, the worst fears of the psychopath have been made into reality: public exposure as full of shit.

  18. spooky2th Says:

    Court cases require a “cause of action,” their own rules! Ask for the cause of action. If the judge tries to blow you off saying that it’s not needed here or for this type of case or whatever, just “object” and ask the judge quoting Marc, “are you telling me that this court can acquire subject matter jurisdiction with out a cause of action before it???” Watch him start squirming and see what he says then. He’ll be giving you ammo for an appeal to say the least. Depending on the case, a cause of action can be different but “rights broken” and “harm or damage done” are the 2 elements that are in all of them, criminal and civil cases.

  19. RAD Says:

    In theory it should work if they are going to follow their own rules or simply do the right thing. On many levels, their claim fails because it’s simply a false claim. There’s no plaintiff, no cause of action/corpus delicti, no injury/damages, no evidence of jurisdiction, no evidence their laws apply, all while maintaining they are going to prove it to a preponderance of evidence. There will be many effective ways to challenge the falsity of the claim. Axiom: All government-initiated lawsuits are fraud. Of course I can’t prove they ALL are but when you analyze the basic premises then they are based on, there’s a lot there that is simply a lie.

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