Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Apr 22, 2017

Posted on April 29th, 2017 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Anarchy is about rejecting the double-standard that organized theft and violence is okay so long as you call yourself a ‘government.’
  • Using the unsigned plea of guilty as a tool to hold the prosecution to their burden-of-proof.
  • Jurisdiction and applicability of the code are fundamental elements of any mala prohibita charge.
  • drink, drank, panic​.​.” from “How to abuse everything” by Dude Jams.
  • Best of the Bushisms.
  • Revisiting the Dirty Prosecution Tactic – Flipping the Burden of Proof article.
  • Producing another video on new and overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the 9th circuit appellate panel are not reading the body of the paperwork that they are flat-out denying out-of-hand.
  • The essential defensive leverage you have when you are familiar with their court procedures.
  • You are not “contracting” in any form when a party is forcing you to pay them.
  • Building your case upon the prosecution’s insufficient evidence.
  • Taking through notes and preserving a recording of your hearings.
  • Dissent is always welcome on the show.
  • Condensing and updating the motion to dismiss to reduce the wiggle-room prosecutors and co-prosecutors have to dodge the critical issues raised within.
  • You don’t make a factually-substantive prima facia case with mere allegations and conclusory statements or legal opinions.
  • Basic logic: the one making the claim(s) bears the burden-of-proof.
  • The unsigned plea of guilty is designed to challenge the prosecution’s lack of prima facia evidence.
  • The free-pass lawyers give each other with a more-than-generous presumption of correctness that has no basis upon fact.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Andy from MI: was threatened with contempt for asking questions concerning the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings being brought forward in court <> how does one go about withdrawing a guilty plea that was submitted under duress from the courtroom intimidation? <> the court clerk refused to file motion paperwork, leaving the defendant to submit the paperwork during the hearing <> and reviewing the compounded citations and charges that led to a series of poor decisions resulting in a mixture of mala in se and mala prohibita charges.
  • Tom from MI: asking some clarifying and qualifying questions about Andy’s case <> considering Andy has already admitted guilt and damages; how can he possibly mount an effective defense? <> weighing all the different factors of damage-control <> litigating more offensively, such as the tactics used by the Rule of Law Radio folks <> and just recently surrounded & harassed by the local police again.
  • Jay from TX: pondering the strategery of proactively asking whether the prosecution has met their burden-of-proof before entering the motion to dismiss to avoid them flipping the burden-of-proof on you when you first file your motion to dismiss <> prosecutors are all-too-often granted an unfair default presumption of correctness <> and adventures in being involved in a lawsuit to recover damages and expenses from a botched roofing job where the judge oddly seems to be representing and running damage-control in favor of the defendant.
  • Julia from NY: is a traffic ticket an ‘adhesion contract‘? <> how would one begin to challenge “use of electronic device while driving” citation? <> and who is the actual complainant?
  • Max from Canada: learning much from the NSP Skype group-chat <> how could a case management hearing be off-the-record when they are forcing a plea upon you? <> the defendant was interrupted before ever being allowed to make their full point <> pinning-down the speedy trial clause in Canada <> how do they schedule a case management hearing before accepting a plea from the defendant? <> trying to handle federal and provincial charges stemming from the same set of charges <> and courtroom intimidation is a real factor regardless of litigation skill.
  • James from AZ: isn’t calling in as a ‘critic,’ but to seek “legal advice” for redress of grievances (even though Marc has repeatedly stated that he is not, nor is pretending to be, a lawyer) <> and building a lawsuit case of slander and defamation against the radio network and its operators for falsely claiming he’s threatened aforementioned individuals.
  • Matthew from Australia: considering and suggesting folks to contribute to the video production efforts to help get the material out there.

Editor’s Note: pardon the delay in getting this one posted. Working in a volunteer capacity means I sometimes have to variably and adaptively prioritize my time between production efforts here and my personal life. I am working on monetizing my skill-set and talents here on the website so I can spend more time doing what I enjoy here by keeping production and maintenance in motion. I will be offering my audio processing services in the store for all those looking for high-fidelity preservation of their conference recordings and audio archives, it’ll be featured in the store soon. My work is showcased in the radio archives found here on the site.


6 Comments For This Post

  1. JOHN COKOS Says:

    In response to Tom from Mi. Randy Kelton’s proactive approach and putting them on the defensive is one of the best approaches that I have found to even the playing field. You can get a lot of traction by just the threat of using their system against them. I used this approach with attorneys acting as legal council for municipalities, local persecutors and even a Judge.
    The Bar Grievance is the Holy Grail that will put the fear of god (metaphorically of course) in an attorney in that the very process invokes the underwriters who provide liability insurance. The first inquiry is a red flag to them, 3 strikes and your out. No insurance, no practice.
    There is an EXCELLENT opportunity coming up in Toms home state to bring a Bar Grievance against a local Judge who made a contempt of court charge against a lawyer working Pro Bono for video recording. I’m going to enjoy the shit out of bringing him before the Supreme Court with the Bar Grievance.

  2. NonEntity Says:

    John, I’m confused and wonder if you can help me gain clarity. Marc regularly states that he does not agree with the initiation of force and other criminal acts. For these reasons he chooses not to use the government “justice system” to seek redress. Going after, or making claims against, the insurers is a method that he favors and this appears to be the nature of your suggestion, and so is in harmony with Marc’s principles… except in your last sentence where you bring in the Supreme Court. Can you explain why you include the Supreme Court in this post?


  3. JOHN COKOS Says:

    Well, I’m not tied to any particular philosophic position. It’s more of a nihilistic approach to a problem minus any philosophic underpinning. I’m a mechanic in my approach to the law and the legal system.
    I’m just on a parallel course that may or may not be in sync with Marc. If it looks like I’m taking on his anarchist jurisdiction theme, I’m not. We just agree on that particular position because that end justifies the mean’s for me.
    It’s just an extension of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War for me. Hope that clears up any misconception. I include the State Supreme Court because they are a part of the legal process to get the Judge before the tribunal. They are still the enemy, but they are part of the mix.I’m like a virus who invade’s the body and tries to get past the immune system so I can get to whatever cells I need to attach myself too….:-)

  4. NonEntity Says:

    That statement, about not being wedded to any particular philosophical position, seems to come up frequently of late. I’m wondering how much of a signal it is to a certain kind of mental capacity, for want of a better word. I find this confusing: it seems that all animals have a natural tendency to reject being food for other animals. This could be stated as “initiation of force against me by others is bad.” This might be considered a philosophical position. Some people, and it appears some animals, well then view this as a universal truth, “initiation of force against others is bad.” I’m thinking that maybe this is what “philosophical” means, to take a position and apply it broadly, rather than just expediently. So then the idea of expedience could also be evidence of a lack of philosophy, no? Or philosophy and experience are mutually exclusive? Empathy describes the ability to”put one’s self in the shoes of another,” so to speak. And if one were to ponder such feelings and attempt to Devine some universal rule from the understanding one MAY gain from empathy, this could be defined as philosophy. But empathy without the attempt to formulate rules would not lead to the development of a philosophy. So then I wonder, can a person who is totally lacking in empathic ability develop a philosophy, or is that like asking if a rock can swim?

  5. NonEntity Says:

    Or, put another way:

  6. theresa Says:

    Any help for a bad bad bad divorce with children. We have fought jurisdiction all along but they are not listening. My children do not even have birth certificates, nonetheless, they are marching thru and trying to take them for CPS. No reason, no fitness hearing, just because my husband is lunatic and asking them to. Maybe also because I chose not to have a lawyer.

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