Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Aug 27, 2016 – Co-host: Calvin

Posted on August 28th, 2016 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Doing a costbenefit analysis when weighing the decision to engage in courtroom activism via proven effective damage-control.
  • Using the forum to converse on issues that frequently come up in the Skype group-chat so we don’t have to catch everybody up all the time and we can go back to using it for helping people prepare for their hearings.
  • Some main non-discretionary appealable errors: 1) denial of cross-examination of a witness that has personal firsthand knowledge of the facts pertaining to the charges, 2) denial of an effective defense and fair hearing without waiver, 3) allowing the prosecutor to argue outside the facts and evidence, just to name a few. 😉
  • Its extremely difficult to prevail on an abuse of discretion because you have such a high legal burden to overcome.
  • Walking through the process of how the prosecutor will reflexively impeach his own witness when you ask damning questions of the facts and evidence.
  • Documenting all due-process violations that predictably occur over the course of any number of hearings.
  • Does the judge have the discretion to relieve the prosecutor of their burden-of-proof? A: No.
  • The agents attacking Bill in New Hampshire are claiming “the applicability of the law is an issue of law and does not require facts.”

  • Tips for improving public speaking and litigation skills to achieve effective damage-control: practice, practice, practice. Resources: NSP Skype group-chat, NSP traffic study, SoLWT, and the CoS.
  • The huge points James from AK was able to make, despite him not being the best public speaker/litigator.
  • Misplaced amusement: they are amused by our questions of evidence, while we are amused by their non-responsiveness and lack of evidence to substantiate their claims. 😀
  • Scott Bales, nor Bill Montgomery, didn’t even attempt to claim that “the applicability of the law was a matter of law” or that “the driver’s license is evidence that the constitution and laws apply.”
  • Incorporating these magical blues jam-sessions as a post-broadcast wrap-up festivity once a month; still scouting a public venue.
  • Common (non-)responses you can expect when asking questions of evidence to prove jurisdiction.
  • Unnecessary introducing legal entropy, and giving the prosecution team an easier option to ignore your core issues, by deviating away from the simple, yet strict, Marcratic method.
  • Countering a Florida tax supervisor that tries to conflate questions of evidence as an argument in attempt to dismiss away the tough questions as “frivolous.”
  • The myriad of double-standard bureaucratic-backdoors used to bail-out of a tough question when they got nothing.
  • A question of fact is not a frivolous argument, so if they persist to suggest as much; then simply ask them to cite where it says “a question of evidence” is a frivolous legal argument.
  • A follow-up update on Edgar’s and Terry’s legal-attacks: Edgar had a lawyer forced upon him and is working a plea deal along with significant prison time, and Terry is out of jail from trumped-up contempt charges.
  • The serious damage unnecessary jail-time imposes on a individual and their loved ones.
  • Objectively applying right and wrong.
  • The only people that need to be caged are the ones actually causing other innocent people damage and harm.

Editor’s Note: We lost the entire first hour of the broadcast due to overwhelming technical difficulties, however; we were fortunate enough to be able to carry-on to be able to bring you the remaining 2 hours of this week’s show.


49 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    “overwhelming technical difficulties” Aha! no wonder the show’s up even before my coffee.

  2. FBA Says:

    Well, sit down and make that list of appealable error, the more data that we have the better we understand it and the better we can push this in their face.
    The only reason you haven’t caught a brushfire and burned the statists out is because your communication is failing to be simple enough to be digested easily.
    The more data you put out from your viewpoint the more easily we can assume that viewpoint without having to brute force the data.

  3. FBA Says:

    If you are keeping a subset of data secret as ‘trade secrets’ because you are a crapitalust and wish to be paid for your mental prowess, you are short changing the revolution.
    How do you monetize freedom?
    Do you want to live in freedom, or do you want to climb the crapitalist ladder?
    I know you got to eat, and prefer not to put your kids under a bridge, but making the data that is your legal prowess available in a format that is easily accessible to the common 8th grade education is very important to the freeing of the minds of the slaves.

    The current 8th grader has no clue who Socrates is, nor how he thinks.

    By not explaining the why’s of what you do we are left analyzing the why from our own data, and not your’s.

    Thanks for your work, Marc.

  4. NonEntity Says:

    FBA,.I find your last post so incredibly offensive I lack words for it. And your little “out” in the last line does not let you off the hook.For you to direct such a post at Marc, of all people, is reprehensible.

  5. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meat Pot.

  6. NonEntity Says: translates Marc for us: bah-fungoo! excl. [Ital. vatf’anculo, ‘go fuck yourself in the ass’]

    Remember, this is a family site, well, except maybe in Italy! LOL 🙂

    Hmm… I wonder if this has anything to do with Italy’s declining birth rate…?

  7. Matthew Says:

    FBA, do you work for free?

  8. FBA Says:

    Just lighting brush fires as firebrands do.
    I’m hoping this means I will be allowed to forget you exist, nonE.
    Any chance of that?

    For the others that might get this far, doing as you are told without having sufficient knowledge will get you hurt.

    If you are coming in off the streets for sure get in the chat, but don’t expect miracles to be handed to you.
    The amount of knowledge that you will potentially need far exceeds the current abilities to deliver of the customer service department at

    I got two felonies dropped to no consequences misdemeanors.

    If I had had a better understanding at the beginning perhaps I would’ve won, but absent what knowledge I brought to the show, and acquired in the two year process, I could’ve been much worse off for having stood up to the bullies, not many people have the time to spend hours a day in a law library, I was fortunate.

    Shout out to Detroit!!

    As you can see from the comments above, constructive criticisms get no attention at all.

    Polish the materials, please.

    And again, thanks for the monkeywrench.

  9. NonEntity Says:

    And without Marc’s thinking, experience, and freely shared materials you would have gotten what?

  10. FBA Says:

    I paid for marc’s stuff, thank you very much, and think everybody else should, too.
    He is the face of the group that is doing a tremendous thing for liberty in the land of the free range slaves, and he is trapped in a crapitalust matrix. His kids need to eat and cash is how that is done, for now.

    I have no problem rewarding the man with whatever he wants, I’m just saying that the materials I received may have contained the kernels of knowledge necessary to receive satisfaction in court, however, they are not organized in a way to give us the whys of why we ask this question or why we don’t ask that one.

    Specifically I would like to see more in cross examination as weakness in that area is what caused me to doubt my abilities to prevail at trial.

    Assuming that most of those that stand up in court are railroaded, more attention needs to go into appeals.
    I was denied interlocutory appeals three times, all on deadlines I didn’t know about.
    All the deadlines would’ve past while I was locked up.
    The county I was in ignores my right to access to a law library, they told me that if I wanted to I get a lawyer or have my family donate legal materials to the library cart, with no guarantee that they would make it to my pod before being taken from the cart.

    I’m sure you agree that there is a lot of knowledge second nature to marc that needs to be communicated in a way that makes it universally second nature?

  11. FBA Says:

    Oh, and will you please look into a presence?

  12. TOM MIXX Says:

    man I don’t know how to put it without insulting Marc…(and I don’t want to) “self preservation”….he and JT addressed what I had to say regarding “damage control” but cuntvienently renamed it “cost analysis” ….and harped on my posting the copy and paste of my warning of “damage control” which I hadn’t done in weeks…..

    I fear “DAD” and you to fuckstick Alan have a point in the motivation for Marc to “sell” his product.
    I hope nobody reads my pissy rant…I really love Marc….
    self preservation seems to be peeking its head…
    as Ayn Rand said there is no such thing a altruism…it HAS to be about “greed” (self preservation) for things to “work”…just disappointed tonight..

  13. TOM MIXX Says:

    sorry Marc….those were copy paste but had to be said….what the fuck was that last sat?….the self appointed hero squad has completely forgotten “damage control” “cost analysis”. they never ask the newbie what there situation is…

  14. TOM MIXX Says:


    that is were it has to begin before someone ends up I jail or broke, destitute without a clue….

  15. 11:11 Says:

    Are you sure that J.T. wasn’t being sarcastic by renaming damage control, cost analysis?

  16. NonEntity Says:

    I don’t get it, Tom. Isn’t it ALL about damage control? As Marc pointed out in the beginning of his first book, you’ve already lost, now it’s just a matter of limiting your losses. So cost analysis seems to be the proper word. Costs can be in money, time, or freedom, but they are all costs that have to be weighed against the option “they” are offering. If time is critical for you, for instance a loved one is dying, then it might be that damage control, as you put it, suggests you just pay them off in dollars rather than spend the precious time needed to deal with their process. Each person must assess his own relative level of damages and choose the least costly one depending on the circumstances. Is this making sense, or have I missed your point?

  17. TOM MIXX Says:

    yes Non you have made my point. The problem with the main chat and the “self appointed hero squad” branch known as NSP101 NEVER mention damage control. every time I do the ridicule me for it…the first thing I do when I first speak to a newbie when they are dropped into the Marcs NSP chat is I ask them can they afford to take time from work and possibly higher fines BEFORE they enter the battle…kinda important don’t ya think? The thing marc was talking about my “copy and paste” I do when a newbie comes on…I hadn’t done it in weeks yet that is what Marc keeps hearing in “complaints” from the SAHQ. (Self Appointed Hero Squad..SAHQ from this point forward…..Here is what seems to piss them off, see if it pisses you off…

  18. TOM MIXX Says:

    “My goal first and foremost is to help you understand what you are getting yourself into. To decide IF and HOW MUCH damage you can sustain BEFORE you decide to enter into battle. There is no such thing as “winning” since the moment the statist attack begins, you have already lost. You can only hope for the best “damage control” YOU can achieve. After all, it will be YOU and YOUR wallet in the den of vipers; not anyone else”.

  19. TOM MIXX Says:

    That short post seems to really piss off the SAHQ gung ho crew…

  20. TOM MIXX Says:

    Here is another

    The Socratic method can be used to show someone that they are wrong, or at least imprecise, by getting them to agree with statements that contradict their original assertion. Since Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one’s ignorance, it’s not surprising that this method focuses not so much on proving your point but on disproving the other person’s point with a series of questions (elenchus), resulting in their aporia (puzzlement). This method is used in law school to teach students critical thinking skills, and it is also used in psychotherapy, management training, and classrooms. The judges and persecutors are fully trained in this method and experienced liars, killers and thieves.

  21. TOM MIXX Says:

    If you disagree with the SAHQ you are bitterly attacked man or women. Hundreds of posts of ad-homonym attacks and vulgar insults. But that doesn’t seem to bother Marc…hmmm
    Q and I were the only “couple’s” team I have seen on the NSP chat in our almost 4 years being there daily, but that doesn’t count for squat…I am constantly accused of “chasing away newbies” and oddly enough every one of them thanks me on that chat.The lady whom came up with the “self appointed hero Squad” moniker was also insulted and degraded and left. The vulgar slurs directed at Q, I would think would make a women turn and run from the NSP. The direct death threat posted by Pierce to me was also completely ok with Marc….Well let me tell ya, Q and I are done in that chat and the rest…We have learned how to apply the Socratic Method in the court room , gained confidence and realized that when you encounter a real tyrannical judge NOTHING is going to “work”…

  22. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Are you sure that J.T. wasn’t being sarcastic by renaming damage control, cost analysis”?

    No he wasn’t being sarcastic he was being clever as not to agree with me and disrupt the cash machine that the SAHQ has become for Marc. Every time a newbie go’s Gung Ho without thinking it through and approaching it with the idea of getting out without a fight they don’t need More motions and “help” from Marc now do they?

  23. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Every time a newbie go’s Gung Ho without thinking it through and approaching it with the idea of getting out without a fight they don’t need More motions and “help” from Marc now do they?”

    I need to clear that up.
    Every time the SAHQ convinces the newbie to GO GUNG HO and FIGHT no matter what….Marc sells more Motions and possible “services” .

    If the suggestions to the newbie are like they used to be, they simply file the MTD , Brady and Discovery, (which in most states Discovery isn’t allowed in traffic or misdemeanor “cases’ ) call the opposing party and try to bluff a “deal”….Marc even says so on the last show but when I pointed it out on the chat the SAHQ says that isn’t what he meant…”we don’t want to bluff we want to fight”….

  24. NonEntity Says:

    Well since I don’t do Skype that leaves me totally ignorant (I forget, what’s the correct word,eYe?) of the issues. Seems like similar crap to what happens on the forum. I suggest you just ignore them and continue providing what you think is most helpful information. As for Marc having a money machine, I’m kinda doubtful that a) he does, and b) that’s his motivation. Butt I cood be rong.

  25. NonEntity Says:

    FBA, “All the deadlines would’ve past…” passed

    – Your local and beloved Grammar Nazi

  26. NonEntity Says:

    Tom, it sure seems to me that Marc continues to hammer on the need to practice, practice, practice. This does not sound like someone interested in selling forms as a quick fix. Just sayin’.

  27. FBA Says:

    Right you are, nonE, I got emotional, didn’t I?
    A little fired up,….

    Now can we get some copy and pasted articles on Steemit?

  28. i.n.rem Says:

    @ Tomm Mixx

    Marc’s “cash machine” ..??
    from traffic MTD ..???

    I would bet that consultations on Tax Cases may lend a bit to the bottom line, but the frakin’ traffic stuff is a Gift from Marc as an Activist

    why don’t you go learn this stuff yourself ..??
    it’s much more valuable that way, in any event

    personally, I thank Marc for opening my eyes, even tho his stuff is not of use to me in my STATES Courts as regards ” traffic”

  29. i.n.rem Says:

    @ Tomm Mix again ..
    “Discovery” is most certainly allowed for Traffic in my STATE’s Criminal Procedure Law
    Do not make blanket Statements
    especially ones that discourage potential litigants

  30. TOM MIXX Says:

    i.n.rem I did NOT make a “blanket statement” perhaps you missed this:” (which in most states Discovery isn’t allowed in traffic or misdemeanor “cases’ ) ” trust me you’re so called state isn’t far from instating it…it’s ‘intension” is to “speed up the case log”. Even the attorners are having fits about it for it limits their ability to “defend” their DIU “clients”….look it up you’re self

  31. TOM MIXX Says:

    what so called “state” are you on? just curious as I would like to look it up for myself..

  32. i.n.rem Says:


    you will need to read this carefully to see what new York STATE allows

    S 240.20 Discovery; upon demand of defendant.
    1. Except to the extent protected by court order, upon a demand to
    produce by a defendant against whom an indictment, superior court
    information, prosecutor’s information, information, or simplified
    information charging a misdemeanor is pending, the prosecutor shall
    disclose to the defendant and make available for inspection,
    photographing, copying or testing, the following property:
    (a) Any written, recorded or oral statement of the defendant, and of
    a co-defendant to be tried jointly, made, other than in the course of
    the criminal transaction, to a public servant engaged in law enforcement
    activity or to a person then acting under his direction or in
    cooperation with him;
    (b) Any transcript of testimony relating to the criminal action or
    proceeding pending against the defendant, given by the defendant, or by
    a co-defendant to be tried jointly, before any grand jury;
    (c) Any written report or document, or portion thereof, concerning a
    physical or mental examination, or scientific test or experiment,
    relating to the criminal action or proceeding which was made by, or at
    the request or direction of a public servant engaged in law enforcement
    activity, or which was made by a person whom the prosecutor intends to
    call as a witness at trial, or which the people intend to introduce at
    (d) Any photograph or drawing relating to the criminal action or
    proceeding which was made or completed by a public servant engaged in
    law enforcement activity, or which was made by a person whom the
    prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial, or which the people
    intend to introduce at trial;
    (e) Any photograph, photocopy or other reproduction made by or at the
    direction of a police officer, peace officer or prosecutor of any
    property prior to its release pursuant to the provisions of section
    450.10 of the penal law, irrespective of whether the people intend to
    introduce at trial the property or the photograph, photocopy or other
    (f) Any other property obtained from the defendant, or a co-defendant
    to be tried jointly;
    (g) Any tapes or other electronic recordings which the prosecutor
    intends to introduce at trial, irrespective of whether such recording
    was made during the course of the criminal transaction;
    (h) Anything required to be disclosed, prior to trial, to the
    defendant by the prosecutor, pursuant to the constitution of this state
    or of the United States.
    (i) The approximate date, time and place of the offense charged and of
    defendant’s arrest.
    (j) In any prosecution under penal law section 156.05 or 156.10, the
    time, place and manner of notice given pursuant to subdivision six of
    section 156.00 of such law.
    (k) in any prosecution commenced in a manner set forth in this
    subdivision alleging a violation of the vehicle and traffic law, in
    addition to any material required to be disclosed pursuant to this
    article, any other provision of law, or the constitution of this state
    or of the United States, any written report or document, or portion
    thereof, concerning a physical examination, a scientific test or
    experiment, including the most recent record of inspection, or
    calibration or repair of machines or instruments utilized to perform
    such scientific tests or experiments and the certification certificate,
    if any, held by the operator of the machine or instrument, which tests
    or examinations were made by or at the request or direction of a public
    servant engaged in law enforcement activity or which was made by a
    person whom the prosecutor intends to call as a witness at trial, or
    which the people intend to introduce at trial.
    2. The prosecutor shall make a diligent, good faith effort to
    ascertain the existence of demanded property and to cause such property
    to be made available for discovery where it exists but is not within the
    prosecutor’s possession, custody or control; provided, that the
    prosecutor shall not be required to obtain by subpoena duces tecum
    demanded material which the defendant may thereby obtain.

  33. TOM MIXX Says:

    6. Check to see if your state allows for discovery

    Some states allow for discovery in traffic ticket cases. That means you can make requests to the prosecution for any documents or evidence that they may have relating to your case. You could, for example, request the officer’s note book, training manual, manual for the radar or laser equipment that the officer used, cruiser cam video, etc. This can greatly help you prepare for your case and even win your case in some instances.

    Michigan, however, does not allow for discovery in traffic ticket cases.

    More and more so called “state supreme courts” are going this route. you’re “state” may or may not have it in place already. You will find out if and when you get you’re next traffic ticket and ask for it….

  34. TOM MIXX Says:

    I have first hand knowledge and experience here on Michigan and have been told that by the persecutor and the judgie sided with him.

  35. NonEntity Says:

    Witness with personal first hand evidence of jurisdiction?

  36. NonEntity Says:

    Which makes me wonder, Marc and others, if it might be a further refinement to Marc’s current position on asking if there is evidence of jurisdiction to instead get even more specific and ask for the witness with first hand personal evidence that the constitution and codes apply simply because I’m in (X). It seems to me this meets their legal requirements and would be even harder to just try and blow off. Thoughts?

  37. TOM MIXX Says:

    I like that Non…

    “ask for the witness with first hand personal evidence that the constitution and codes apply simply because I’m in (X)”.

  38. TOM MIXX Says:

    but I bet the judgie will support the persecutor or cop with “he represents the people”….”so he has first hand knowledge and evidence sir”

  39. TOM MIXX Says:

    have you done any “role play ” sparky? Non or In rem?

  40. TOM MIXX Says:

    oops..”sparky” may have been a bit condescending…have you fellers done any role play?

  41. TOM MIXX Says:

    just for a break in the fight. My daughter playing a simple piece.

  42. TOM MIXX Says:

    Ludwig van Beethoven – Moonlight Sonata ( 3rd Movement )
    is always relaxing….mmmmmmmmmmm..

  43. TOM MIXX Says:

    and maybe some Vivaldi to break the boredom?

  44. NonEntity Says:

    Hey Tom, if you’re going to treat this place like your own personal Facebook page, how about doing it over on the forum which is a more suitable venue,

  45. TOM MIXX Says:

    I heard the “forum” is worse than the NSP chat so no thanks..

  46. TOM MIXX Says:

    oh and by the way I don’t use Facebook or any other social media..

  47. eye2i Says:

    @NoNE: “Well since I don’t do Skype that leaves me totally ignorant (I forget, what’s the correct word,eYe?)”

    “… that leaves me nescient”
    (see also nescience; i.e. the default state of mind apart from investigation and availability) –as what i +value for signaling consistency; as far as any “correct”, well, is there an authority with first hand personal evidence for that state? :scratchin’mehead:
    [sidenote: however, IF you are intentionally, purposefully, or willingly ignoring such via Skype, THEN why indeed not go with being left ignore’ant, aye? e.g. see TOMIXX ignoring the forum because of what he’s heard but not investigated.?]

  48. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    ” TOM MIXX Says:
    September 2nd, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    I heard the “forum” is worse than the NSP chat so no thanks..”

    Habenae says nothing and quietly shakes his head.

  49. NonEntity Says:

    What I find amazing is that Tom was able to remember when he heard that the forum is worse… he heard this at precisely 3:37 pm on the second of September. Kinda blows your mind, don’t it?

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