Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Apr 8, 2017

Posted on April 9th, 2017 by Calvin

The “because god” line is a dishonest way to end a discussion. When someone has no rational argument to justify certain immoral behavior, they just say “because god” as if that is an argument or justification. It’s no different than when statists use “because philosophy” when they can’t prove political rules (“laws“) apply to anyone. Some claim evidence is not required to prove “laws” apply because asking for evidence is somehow “argumentative“. Wow, just wow. In the future, we will do a better job refraining from allowing such “appeal to higher authority” fallacies to fly too far on the show.

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Rudo from WA: ticketed for traveling without permission while in Hawaii <> how to go about filing the motion to dismiss and discovery request <> and requesting a continuance to take some time to better prepare for pro per litigation (using the script and role-playing in the NSP Skype group-chat).
  • Mark from NC: missed a court date and got a failure to appear violation tacked onto a speeding ticket <> empowered to challenge the citation after reviewing the success stories posted here on the website <> how should I approach filing the motion to dismiss paperwork? <> and getting a kick out of the videos and audios posted of the Marcratic method in action.
  • Alan from Alberta, Canada: challenging the evidence-based conclusion that “taxation is theft” <> and “…because you maybe haven’t set your account up properly” [note: specific citation lacking].
  • Eyal from Israel: organizing an upcoming internet-streamed Jackalope-style Freeman Festival camp-out centered around the theme of people declaring their independence from the STATE on May 4-6 <> vegan dining will be shared and enjoyed at the Freeman Festival <> meat-inclusive diets are not kosher <> and prioritizing what non-vegan arguments you are willing to hear and debunk before advising them to rework their weak positions and reengage with a more sound argument.
  • Jermaine from Canada: lessons learned from being dragged across the coals of the criminally abusive statist system <> asking city counsel members ‘what evidence they have to prove their laws and codes apply to us?’ <> being threatened with a left-hook for asking a question of evidence <> the fear-based conditioning and loaded terminology in correctional and educational institutions <> the relevance of fully following your own logic and principals through in practice <> the new Tesla cars are the first to go fully vegan! <> utilizing a double jeopardy-based defense after a mistrial <> preparing for the remaining 10 pending charges out of the 15 issued during the initial traffic stop <> and the judge is trying to be slick by inferring that ‘if you enter a plea, then you are accepting their jurisdiction and cannot challenge it thereafter.’ <> bureaucrats dodging questions of evidence of jurisdiction <> how to respond when the court clerks are refusing to accept paperwork on the excuse that it is ‘incorrectly formatted‘ <> aren’t you accepting their jurisdiction simply by submitting your paperwork to them? <> and don’t they have to prove all three different types of jurisdiction?
  • Jan from Canada: how do we overcome the situation of when they take judicial notice that they do have jurisdiction? <> considering the officer testified ‘the defendant was in Alberta,’ wouldn’t it be strange for another judge to take judicial notice that the laws apply? <> the judge instructed the cop to not answer the question of ‘what personal firsthand knowledge, or facts and evidence, do you have to prove the laws apply?’ during cross-examination [for those taking notes: that’s one count of judicial misconduct for denying the defendant an effective cross-examination] <> and the unfairness of inaccurately being stereotyped as a Freeman on the Land/sovereign citizen.

              

16 Comments For This Post

  1. Tony Says:

    Marc in the UK there is a caveat attached to the voter registration, I am unaware if the same is for Canada. At the end of the voter registration which states ” To NOT fill in the registration form, you could be liable to a FINED up to £1000 “. So the threat is placed firmly in plain sight. Now I am unaware of any cases that have been brought under the premise of this threat, but the threat is made & as the normal person believes the governments threats ” As it’s the LAW “???? The average person fills in the voter registration, they also ” CLAIM “, you may be unable to get credit. Again the government stitch up their solution with, threats & coercion. Also in the UK they have 2 registrations, 1 for the voter registration and a 2nd that they sell to anyone, mainly corporate financial businesses…You have to love the double standard

  2. les Says:

    “Why we don’t bother discussing the divisively subjective topic of religion on the evidence-based No STATE Project radio show.”…. because the truthful application of Occam’s Razor wouldn’t fit the narrative maybe?

  3. les Says:

    “The lack of (relative) attention on Marc’s video of discrediting chief justice Scott Bales.” If one listens to what Marc actually asks Bales, Bales answered the question perfectly correct. Listen to what Mark actually asked not what you think he asked. Bales was well aware.

  4. Tony Says:

    @Les
    Just as a point of clarification: What do you mean by [QUOTE]”Thought Marc said, not what you think he said”…English is my first language and unless you (no disrespect meant) don’t understand English, I don’t see what your context means. Could you explain without omitting your actual synopsis on what Marc asks & the answer he isn’t given…? and explain your rational, as Marc in no way embellishes anything Mr Bale says in the above video, he is finitely on point as Mr Bales response & evasion to answer is a testament to Mr Bales dishonesty.

  5. les Says:

    @ Tony. English may be your claimed first language though I presume you’re too young to have had the lesson on how to quote somebody as yet. If you are going to lecture someone of their English ability, please make sure you have yours up to speed. No part of my post is outside the knowledge level of anyone who can read English (no disrespect intended). However, for those who may not have understood…

    I’m not quoting verbatim to save space.

    1: Marc asks Bales the usual “is there any evidence” question.
    2: Bales plays the “what do you mean” reply.
    3: Marc then goes on to state to the effect of, “Cops pull people off the streets based on their (the Cops) presumption of jurisdiction” etc. However, then Marc asks Bales “do you have any evidence of THAT?”… and this is the problem for Marc, he didn’t define what “THAT” actually referred to. Was “THAT” in regard to the original question or the (poor in my opinion) explanation? Bales took “THAT” in reference to Marcs explanation of his position (as anybody who comprehends English would have done) being the expositor of his question.
    4: Bales answers with, to the effect of “yes, people in jail”. This is a correct answer to Marcs explanation and what Bales took “THAT” as reference to mean.

    Marc actually asked (again to the effect of) “is there evidence that Cops just pull people off the street based on their presumption of jurisdiction”, Bales provided an honest and accurate answer of “yes, people in jail”. People in jail can be taken as evidence THAT the Cops just pull people off the streets based on their (the Cops) presumption of jurisdiction.

    From my point of view and as much as it pains me to say this, Marc didn’t word his question and explanation well at all and the Bales bails position is one based on incorrect facts at worst or an inaccurate description of events at best.

    Your “quote” proves my point perfectly. You didn’t even have the alertness (no disrespect intended) to spot that you couldn’t quote me accurately despite having my written words directly in front of you and in what you claim is your first language. People think Marc asks Bales “do you have any evidence THAT just because I’m physically……” when this is not what he actually asks Bales in the end.

    Therefor, I would say [QUOTE]”Listen to what Mark actually asked not what you think he asked.”

  6. NonEntity Says:

    And they MAKE FUN of the Grammar Nazi! They should be kissing my… boots, er… flip flops. One thing about writing code, if you’re a lazy ass it comes right around and bites you in your…

  7. les Says:

    @NonE. Your post is incomprehensible to me. Do you have an English version? 😉

  8. NonEntity Says:

    les sed: Do you have an English version? 😉— Rezcuspic! Shaktwimby vix tremblidor.

  9. les Says:

    Why you couldn’t have said that to start with is beyond me.

  10. NonEntity Says:

    Bashtfus subgicity pesf weexlum twa. Reblip?

  11. reeodd Says:

    les,

    I just listened to the video of Marc asking Scot Bales his question. This is what happened: Marc asked Scott…that the argument is if I am physically in Arizona “then” the constitution and laws of the government of Arizona apply to me and you as the government would have jurisdiction over me. My question to you… Scott Bales stalls by saying he’s not sure he understands the question…not sure that your proposition…if you’re asking me is it in fact true that if you are physically in Arizona “and” your subject to the laws of the state then I think that’s right….

    Soooo, Scott Bales restates the question changing the “then” to “and” there by changing the subject of the question allowing his pathetic answer to be in fact correct. Marc never asked about someone being physically in Arizona and being subject to the laws he asked if he went by the assumption if you are physically in Arizona then the constitution and laws apply…. However, if Scott Bales would have been honest and not changed the question to fit the answer he wanted to give or if Marc would have caught what he did then Marc could stopped him and made sure he actually answered the question that was at first asked. Instead Marc agreed with Scott’s restatement of the question and allowing Scott to control the subject being answered.

    Like Marc says these people are not stupid they are very intelligent, however they are also very dishonest, conniving and psychopathic, they absolutely know the violence they are using on peaceful people, but they are not redeemable and rather enjoy their place on the hierarchy of force. Bales absolutely knew what he was doing and so did the guy that couldn’t get the mic fast enough before their non-thinking idol worshipers heard anything more.

    I wish I could say I would have caught this on the spot but under the circumstances and being in Marc’s shoes in the moment I doubt I would have.

  12. les Says:

    @ reeodd.
    I’ll be the first to admit that it’s easy with hindsight and pause/rewind to find these points, but I noticed it the first time I listened to it as did Bales. It struck me as odd that Marc didn’t just repeat the original question again but maybe worded even more simply (if even possible).

    Listen closely between 3:55 and 4.15 in the video, listen to what Marc asks Bales…. if Marc wanted evidence that the constitution and laws apply based on physical location, then that is what he should have asked Bales.

    My issue here with this whole Bales bails thing is that it is sold as “Marc Stevens Discredits Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court” when in actuality it should have been titled, “Marc Stevens fails to discredit Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court by not sticking to the original point”. I know this won’t be popular here, but if we are honest and look at the facts, the latter title fits far more with the facts than the former.

    Consider also, I’ve only focused my posts on what Marc asked Bales, yet people are responding as though I imply Bales is some sort of pillar of the community. So I again repeat, listen to what Mark actually asked not what you think he asked. Whether Bales is a cheat, a crook, a liar etc, is irrelevant to the issue I raised.

    I’m glad however that I’m not the only one who can see this error.

  13. NonEntity Says:

    This little unreachable between les and reeodd is informative. Marc stresses the importance of role play. With all of the work he’s done over the years with lawyers and agents he’s played ball with…he still got played. Just goes to show you, boys and girls, practice, practice, practice and try and keep your mind clear and sharp. Zen meditation may be helpful with stress and clarity of thought.

  14. NonEntity Says:

    “unreachable” = interchange

  15. reeodd Says:

    les,

    Yes, hindsight is 20/20 and I agree Marc did not catch Bales change in restating the question. I think if Marc would have said “Just” because I’m in Arizona and put the emphasis on the word “Just”, as I notice he now does almost all the time, it would have been more difficult for Bales to change the question. I still think Bales would have at least tried.

    Bales stalling technique and body language(nervous giggle, stepping back looking up, grasping his hands while pointing his 2 index fingers at Marc, then waving his hands back and forth while looking away from Marc just before the restatement of the question and then de-emphasizing the “and”, he says “and ” so quietly that it’s hard to hear it in the moment) searching for a way out is telling in and of itself. I’m by no means an expert at body language, but I’d certainly like to hear from someone that can analyze it properly.

    Yes, I agree Marc did not discredit Bales to the idol worshipers in that room, however, I’d say Bales did at least discredit himself to people that can see what he did, sadly that seems to be a minority in this society and Marc did at least cause that.

    NonEntity is absolutely correct, look at the experience Marc has acquired over the years he’s been engaging these people. Experience he’s obtained on their turf, surrounding by their jackbooted thugs and all the risk that comes with that, duking it out with them without the kind of training they have. His experience comes with plenty of lumps, but his persistence should be complimented. Not many have the courage it takes to continue to take them on. So role play-role play-role play-role play knowing that when you are on their turf you probably did not spar enough and coming out without being knocked out is probably a victory. I heard a smart man once say – LIMIT the damage they are trying to inflict. My emphasis on limit.

  16. les Says:

    @ reeodd.

    Good grief.

    As I’ve stated previous, the issue is not how good Marc is or what he has achieved in the past and/or present or how honest/dishonest Bales is, all of that is irrelevant. Marc is a fantastic communicator and his recorded success speaks volumes. I say that and stand by that all day long. I would argue that Ayrton Senna was the best racing driver ever, but that doesn’t change the fact he got killed racing. My issue, as stated, is that the whole Bales bails is not true. It is a pure misrepresentation of documented facts.

    Again, as stated previous, Bales picked up on what Marc tells people very regular, being, (to the effect of) “the more you say the more chance you have of saying something wrong”… Marc demonstrated exactly that between the time frames I’ve mentioned. You can state that Bales rephrased the question if that makes you feel like you’re protecting Marc and his reputation somehow, but it will never change facts and the facts are Marc actually blew it on this one.

    Marc didn’t discredit Bales to ANYONE (who listens to what is said) regardless of their perceived idolatry. I will go as far as to say that Marcs continuance to claim he discredited Bales is actually a discredit to himself.

    I heard a VERY smart man on LRN radio say often – “The less you say, the less chance you have of saying something dumb”. To wit, 3:55 and 4.15 in the video.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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