Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Apr 26, 2017 – Bonus Wednesday Edition: Episode 18

Posted on April 29th, 2017 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Dealing with incessant commenttrolls that are pissing on Marc’s work while refusing to accept the objective evidence of its successes.
  • Logic dictates that you cannot prove somebody violated a law/rule if you cannot prove that the laws/rules apply in the first place.
  • Pinning down intentionally false statements from a witness.
  • How to structure an airtight appeal based upon the prosecution’s and co-prosecutor’s misconduct, errors, and lack of evidence to support their claims.
  • Judicial immunity has not been overcome by many complainants.
  • Judges can waive any rule on grounds of “the interest of justice.”
  • A motion to dismiss/demur is utilized when not all the elements of the crime are met.
  • The judicial notice is just a reiteration of what’s already stated in the motion to dismiss, so when they deny your motion to dismiss but do take judicial notice; you can point out that damning contradiction to leverage in your favor.
  • Exposing the double-standard of the judge allowing the prosecutor to argue without evidence but disallowing the defendant from doing the same thing.
  • Avoiding being forced to plea by utilizing the preemptive unsigned plea of guilty.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Andy from MI: filed the motion to dismiss on the day of court where the judge heard the previously filed motion to withdraw the forced plea induced by prior courtroom intimidation <> the judge dismissively denied the defendant’s motions without stating grounds for his decision <> filing a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court <> using the bureaucrat’s oath of office, rules, and laws against them <> filing a motion to be advised of rights and nature of cause <> “speeding” is not defined in their statutes; it’s seemingly pure opinion <> using other non-Socratic tactics that have a history of “working in court” <> and potentially filing a lawsuit against the judge and prosecutor for their criminal misconduct and negligence.
  • Ryan from TN: getting resistance from the court while attempting to schedule a telephonic hearing for a traffic citation issued in California <> filing the motion to dismiss package with the court <> how to deal with a denial of reasonable requests and exercise effective damage-control <> and exploring the option of setting a trial by declaration.
  • Jermaine from Canada: fresh out of court with an update <> girlfriend targeted and harassed while at court as a witness for the defendant <> the prosecution was non-responsive to questions of evidence to prove their jurisdiction <> the judge denied the motion to dismiss without even reading it <> the judge continually co-prosecuted the case for the prosecutor <> verbalizing the obvious courtroom intimidation after the court failed to respond to the defendant’s effective questioning <> the prosecutor said evidence of jurisdiction “doesn’t exist” <> another judge refused to identify himself and the court staff became frozen when the judge couldn’t state an injured party and forced the defendant to plea <> made the mistake of making an affirmative statement of establishing jurisdiction <> the judge kept trying to shift the burden-of-proof on the defendant <> asking about the double-standard of making arguments outside the facts and evidence <> and filing a motion to disqualify the crooked judge.

              

35 Comments For This Post

  1. Steven Richards Says:

    [7:01:59 AM] Alan: Fuck the name game.
    [7:02:04 AM] Steve: (y)
    [7:06:41 AM] Steve: Fuck bringing up evidence of jurisdiction, and fuck bringing up evidence that the constitution applies, too. Why bring any of that shit up?
    [7:15:47 AM] Alan: Because there is no evidence that jurisdiction appiles which comes before a claimant making a claim. Night.
    [7:16:12 AM] Steve: which comes before a claimant making a claim.marc tell you that? (chuckle)
    [7:16:30 AM] Alan: No. It is self evident.
    [7:16:44 AM] Steve: whatever helps you sleep at night 😀

    Anyone here willing to explain why they believe evidence of jurisdiction comes before a claimant making a claim?

  2. NonEntity Says:

    Because if the court does not have jurisdiction making a claim is like calling out to a deaf man, there’s no “there” there.

  3. Steven Richards Says:

    “if the court does not have jurisdiction”
    when did you last speak with “the court”, or did you speak with a “representative”? if you accept a representative as being one and the same as the claimant, could that be guilt?
    where did you get the word jurisdiction? could bringing up that word, or words like constitution, be evidence of guilt?

  4. NonEntity Says:

    Yeah, Steven, when I ask a robber where he gets off thinking it’s okay to demand my money, of course that’s evidence of my guilt. WTF?

  5. Steven Richards Says:

    could claiming to own money be all the evidence of guilt that’s needed? as for accusing of robbery, or anything really, i hear when one points the finger, three point back… could it be?

    “Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”

  6. Steven Richards Says:

    “where he gets off thinking it’s okay to”
    ever consider asking a brother or sister who told them what they seem to believe, and/or actually ask to speak with the one that’s claimed to say such things?
    someone might say the state of such and such says so… would it be most honorable to then ask to speak with him? or are you going to assume he believes in something that doesn’t exist, and is acting unjustly?

  7. NonEntity Says:

    I’m getting little snippets of code to ideas for which I’m given no referents. If you actually want to communicate something why not actually paint a picture with words such that the context and your thinking about it is clear and unambiguous. Otherwise I’ll remain as I am, confident that you’re just an angry self righteous blow hard.

  8. Steven Richards Says:

    very common to blame and accuse… why be so common?

  9. Andy Says:

    NonEntiy said: “I’m getting little snippets of code to ideas for which I’m given no referents. If you actually want to communicate something why not actually paint a picture with words such that the context and your thinking about it is clear and unambiguous. ”

    Echo that.

  10. Steven Richards Says:

    what snippets of code would you guys like given referents on, exactly? seems like such a simple concept, to me…
    someone claims Santa Clause says “you” must do this, or can’t do that… someone else gets defensive, and claims innocence and/or blames Santa for being unfair, instead of asking to speak with Santa Clause…
    someone claims Santa Clause says “you” owe… someone else gets defensive, and claims no i don’t/not that much and/or blames Santa for being unfair, instead of asking to speak with Santa Clause. if/when you meet him, he might show you how he proves to own what he’s claiming to be owed for, so you can then prove to own dollars and pay him with them.

  11. TOM MIXX Says:

    I pity yer offspring…you are abusing them mentally.

  12. TOM MIXX Says:

    YOU are one fucked up individual “Steve”..we have spoken and at this point you are even more in need of “help”. Not Government of course. I know you are on Michigan maybe I could “help” you and your offspring…

  13. Steven Richards Says:

    In what way do you believe you could help? If you want to chat, have Alan on skype connect us, if you can’t find me (search: masterchiefa)

    Why encourage children to be just another common blamer?
    You think it’s better that children believe people are out to make them pay at the barrel of a gun, as I believe I always hear you guys obsessing about?
    Is it the republicans or democrats that are to blame, conspiracy child? It’s actually both! Armed with all this great info, all we need to do is convince enough people, so we can overthrow the government. Healthy stuff to pass on to children, there.

  14. Andy Says:

    “Armed with all this great info, all we need to do is convince enough people, so we can overthrow the government. ”

    WE includes Steven Richards. The only individual here that I know of that wants to overthrow the government is Steven Richards. ‘We’ excludes myself and several other individuals that post on the forum at marcstevens.net.

    Poison from the link given at Steven Richards name: it’s a recorded phone call with imbatman57: “The two share many similarities, I believe, at least when compared and contrasted with Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land strategies.”

    Sovereign citizen and freeman on the land ideology is poison. There is no honor among thieves. If I were to do as government types do and forced strangers to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

    marcstevens.net: “Bringing about a Voluntary Society one visitor at a time.”

  15. Andy Says:

    “Healthy stuff to pass on to children, there.”

    What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
    The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
    Government public “education”/indoctrination is child abuse.

    Teaching children that there is honor among thieves is child abuse.

  16. Steven Richards Says:

    Claim whatever you like, could the talk of “anarchy” speak for itself?
    By claiming, blaming and accusing, like “thievery”, could you be inviting a sexually aroused cat into your house, just as Cain does, in the story of Cain and Able?
    Cain lays out a pretty good argument as to why the world is unjust (“no honor among thieves”)… Cain is sacrificing and it’s not paying off, but his brother Able doesn’t seem to sacrifice near as much, but always does well, in every way, regardless…
    “Look. You know, that’s a pretty good argument, but here’s how I look at it; you’re like a man who’s inside a house and, at the door of the house, there’s this predatory cat that’s sexually aroused… you have invited it into your house voluntarily so that it can have its way with you, sexually” -Dr. Jordan B Peterson

  17. Steven Richards Says:

    “the Sexual cat impregnates Cain with resentment and gives birth to the idea that destroying Abel will be the right course of action”
    claimants claiming “anarchy”/”volunteerism”/utopia?

  18. Andy Says:

    @Steven Richards: You could sign on to the forum where it is a robust means of conversing, having a discussion. Having said that, no one around theses parts except for YOU writes of anarchy as being utopia. Thus a red flag signal of your nefarious/dishonest intent.

  19. Steven Richards Says:

    Of course nobody here but me calls “anarchy” a utopia dream… you all seem to believe that “anarchy” is a good goal.

  20. Andy Says:

    “Bringing about a Voluntary Society[/anarchy] one visitor at at time.” Apparently Steven Richards prefers an INvoluntary society. If individuals interacting on a voluntary basis, aka anarchy, isn’t preferred, what’s the alternative? Wouldn’t it be initiation of violence/force, threat of violence/force and fraud?

  21. Steven Richards Says:

    How about we discuss the way things are, and what to do about that, rather than discuss theoretical utopias? Those common things no longer interest me…
    The “alternative” seems stupidly simple.
    “initiation of violence/force, threat of violence/force and fraud?”
    why still insist on inviting that sexually aroused cat in, to have it’s way with you?

    Commoners:
    “Santa says doing that is against his rules, on his roads”
    “I didn’t do that”, “not his roads”, “his rules are unfair”

    Marc Stevens’ Methodists:
    “Santa says doing that is against his rules, on his roads”
    “where’s the evidence his rules/constitution/jurisdiction apply?” aka what you’re doing is wrong aka judge me, please

    or…
    “Santa says doing that is against his rules, on his roads”
    “how might I speak with him? maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning the roads”
    “Santa says ‘you’ owe”
    “how might I speak with him? maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning what he claims to be owed for, so I can then prove owning some money and pay him”

    What would a Marc Stevens’ Methodist accept as sufficient evidence of jurisdiction?
    can’t cite the writings, circular logic. can’t cite people in jail, ends justify means, or some shit. can’t cite opinion, obviously.
    If you can’t think of an acceptable answer, why ask? To prove someone else “wrong”?

    If you bring up the terms jurisdiction and constitution, could that be evidence that you believe in the same things those judging you do?

  22. Andy Says:

    Take it to the forum.

  23. NonEntity Says:

    Eagles: Take it to the limit.

  24. TOM MIXX Says:

    Hey “Steve”

    What’s the difference in asking for “evidence” that Santa is aspousing and asking what your sophism?
    ” maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning the roads”?
    OR
    “maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning what he claims to be owed”

    Same shit just your “sophistry” Wake up numb nuts..

  25. TOM MIXX Says:

    Hey “Steve”

    What’s the difference in asking for “evidence” that Santa is espousing and asking with your sophism?
    ” maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning the roads”?
    OR
    “maybe when we meet, he’ll show me how he proves owning what he claims to be owed”

    Same shit just your “sophistry” Wake up numb nuts..

  26. TOM MIXX Says:

    “And surely contend we must in every possible way against him who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything. “

  27. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Of course nobody here but me calls “anarchy” a utopia dream… you all seem to believe that “anarchy” is a good goal”

    It may in fact be a “dream” but is it wrong not to want rulers?

  28. spooky2th Says:

    Is it wrong to want to be free?

  29. Kali K Says:

    I would have to ask one question of those thinking that just because it’s on paper, it applies to everyone.

    I own 20 acres. It is mine. I make the rules for those who come on my property. The rules apply to everyone who wishes to come on my property. BUT, I cannot, even though written down, force a fine or penalty from anyone who breaks those rules UNLESS the person has signed an agreement to such. The ONLY thing I can do is ask them to leave and not return.

    What makes the ‘government’ so different (other than the fact they do not ‘own’ anything as it belongs to the tax payer/citizen/resident/PEOPLE?) I never signed any agreements to be held under such penalties for breaking their rules, therefore, the rules DO NOT APPLY to me.

  30. Steven Says:

    I believe I’ve been there; I used to consider myself an anarchist, and put every waking second into achieving that. There’s nothing wrong with it. Once you begin to realize changing the world starts with yourself, instead of someone else, anarchy/politics/conspiracy theories/sjw/(cultural) marxism just don’t interest anymore…

  31. NonEntity Says:

    Kali K, does the baseball bat apply to your kneecap?

  32. NonEntity Says:

    Steven, well said. I don’t see that your approach is in conflict with being an anarchist.

  33. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said of Steven: “Steven, well said. I don’t see that your approach is in conflict with being an anarchist.”

    NonEntity said of Steven: “Ah, cool… Habby’s found another brick wall he can throw words at.” Brick wall, got it!

  34. Andy Says:

    Here’s a link to the source of the above quote: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8945-post-66398.html#pid66398

  35. NonEntity Says:

    Andy,I was commenting on that one specific post. Sorry if that was not made explicit. I thought, and still do, that it was well said.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : 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 youtube.com. 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