Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jun 17, 2017

Posted on June 22nd, 2017 by Calvin

This podcast we spend a considerable amount of the show on the topic of impeaching witnesses by challenging their qualifications to make legal determinations. This information should be especially useful for those preparing for their upcoming court hearings and trials; so take notes and make sure you role-play until you are snappy and confident with your litigation and defensive strategy.

Show Notes:

  • A big thank-you for the continued support of the show; Marc will be installing some new acoustic panels later this week and you will be enjoying even better sound quality from No STATE Project media productions.
  • Join us out at the Jackalope Freedom Festival 2017.
  • The Facebook comment mentioned in the June 3rd podcast is updated in the show notes.
  • Responding to Juan Galt‘s critical forum posts regarding the ‘fatal flaws‘ of Marc’s “legal approach,” the difference between logic and ‘legal reasoning, and ‘applicability of the law is not an element of a crime.’
  • “How can you be violating a law that isn’t proven to apply to you in the first place?”
  • Kim Dotcom is a great example of how those calling themselves government don’t have to have a criminal violation before they’re targeted with threats of violence and jail.
  • The minimum standards for sound ethics and morals are verifying whether “the means are consistent with the ends” and by not accepting the statist double-standard.
  • Three basic litigation pillars behind effective damage-control using Marcratic questioning: 1) zealously challenge all the allegations against you, 2) do not give the prosecution a free-pass on any of their assertions, and 3) prioritize the claims that the prosecution is making.
  • Every once in a while there are moments of clarity from the courts when they admit such disasters as their Brady due-process violation epidemic.
  • 9/10th’s of the battle is questioning whether the prosecution’s claims irrefutable.
  • The limp-wristed attempt of the free-staters elected to the NH legislature to defend a fellow FSP member against an extremely aggressive, and well documented, bureaucratic legal-attack.
  • Striking the root of the prosecutor’s assertions.
  • “A cross-examination is not limited to what’s said at trial; it’s also all of their prior statements that are relevant to the testimony given;” like their legal-determination that the laws apply.
  • You can get them to admit they do have (or need) evidence to prove their laws apply, then all you need to do after that is just follow-up with “what specifically is that evidence?” and don’t settle for their logically fallacious non-responses.
  • Cory from CA recently had a success story where the witness (cop) was a no-show after he (the defendant) put tough questions of evidence and filed the motion to dismiss to verify all the claims being levied against him. Congratulations!

Caller’s Topics:

  • Jamison from TX: Virginia is trying to collect taxation when the defendant has probably lived in Texas for the past 2 consecutive years; Virginia thinks the defendant’s car is garaged in their STATE <> don’t mess with Texas <> and exploring differing philosophical thought to debunk and defeat the pseudo-promises and romanticism of Marxist socialism and statism.
  • Eric from CA: what to expect when defending yourself against restraining order violation charges after an initial railroad hearing <> questioning the evidence that prove the prosecutor’s and witnesses’ assertions and legal determinations are deemed ‘nonsense‘ by the judge <> accepting a public defender as standby counsel <> how should I handle entering a plea? <> how could I effectively challenge the witnesses’ personal firsthand knowledge and testimony? <> how to strike a coerced-signing of a restraining order from the record? <> and Eric’s brother, who is a practicing criminal defense attorney, affirmatively asserts that your “physical location” is the basis of the “social contract” that obligates citizen to the STATE.
  • Mike from TX: a brief summery of crisis management and disaster relief through FEMA and CERT <> appealing to the city for permission to operate a fund <> the judge is also a prosecutor in 3 different cities <> falsely accused of being arrested for impersonating as a first-responder, unauthorized solicitation of money, and lying to a police officer <> the judge denied the motion to dismiss <> stating the grounds you intend on bringing up on appeal <> and mitigating escalated bureaucratic harassment.
  • Brian from VT: being railroaded through a recent court hearing <> the court failed to provide discovery because of a mailing address discrepancy <> granted an extension to prepare for the next hearing <> and needing to role-play before getting back into the lion’s den.

29 Comments For This Post

  1. juan galt Says:

    Marc –
    Thank you. You made my point with your examples. That point being the law applies to, is directed at, action (actus reus) not people.

    In being a sarcastic ass you mentioned that the traffic laws say “Any person who is driving…” See what you did there? You proved it was the act of driving. It’s always the action that the law regulates or prohibits. And of course, a person not an animal performs the act. Your example of the “shed” also makes the point. It’s the act of building that is regulated. If I never want to build a shed the law doesn’t apply.

    It’s not myopic or how logic works on a legal issue – it is how legal logic reasoning works. Legal logic reasoning is used for solving a legal issue. Yes you may be accused of a violation, but before you can be prosecuted there has to be “strong” evidence of guilt or at least there should. And they should be able to prove mens rea, actus reus and concurrence. Only upon conviction is the law applicable.

    A logical question to me is “How can anyone be subject (have the law apply) to a law if they haven’t violated any? Have you been subject to any laws today that you have not violated? If yes, how can you prove it?

    Now to your issue of law applying in the first place. That is NOT a legal issue – that is a POLITICAL issue, a govt issue. And political (govt) issues have been with humans for millennia. They have been the subject of many varied philosophies. One only has to look around the world and see all the varied govts to know this is true. Govt, whatever its form may be, sets up legal systems and govt is a POLITICAL creature. If you try to argue political philosophical issues in a legal argument you will always lose because the disciplines do not cross.

    If you want your political philosophy to be adopted, you either have to start your own “govt-type” or conquer some existing govt. That’s been proven throughout human history. Hell, we had one of those type of conflicts in the 1800’s. One political philosophy conquered the other. And war has consequences for the conquered.

  2. M Says:

    Juan Galt, you are wrong. You are using the gov’ts improper and unfair, unethical approach used in their theft of personal property via civil asset forfeiture. They charge the thing of a crime. The thing can not defend itself and thus makes fighting these criminals to get your illegally seized property back difficult to the point many people do not even try to recover their property due to litigation costs and time costs. The application of the law is applied to the man defending themselves and is NOT being applied to the act accused of. To do so would mean the man would not get a ticket but the act charged of committing would be ticketed and required to show for court. Your assertion that an act is what the law applies to and not the man accused of committing the act is absurd and I have easily refuted your ridiculous philosophy regarding the legal system. Nice try though. You still lose.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    Juan sed:”And war has consequences for the conquered.” And, as Lord Acton suggested, for the conquerors.

  4. juan galt Says:

    So is NonE claiming that what I said was incorrect? Is it NonE’s position that war does not have consequences?

  5. spooky2th Says:

    By juan’s reasoning, one breaks a law only if caught? Know any other jokes, juan? How can you break a law that the prosecution cannot prove that it applies in the first place???

    Prove your sacred cow, the territorial argument! What facts do you rely on to prove it???

  6. spooky2th Says:

    Correction for above, “Prove your sacred cow, the territorial jurisdiction argument! What facts do you rely on to prove it???

  7. Andy Says:

    I’ve posted a new thread on the forum — — titled: NSP – Jun 17, 2017 — Marc Stevens debunks Juan Galts legal “reasoning”

  8. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    My Jurisdictional argument will be much like Marc’s. I was never asked to be a citizen, nor did I volunteer. If they ask me if I am renouncing my citizenship, I will simply answer their question with a question…”how can I renounce that which I never applied for?” I will also rely on Marc’s geographical argument.

    How can I be born under the auspices of an artificial entity? I can’t! I can only be indoctrinated or brainwashed into believing I can!

    If I were born in Disneyland, would that mean I belonged to it? NO!

  9. Dave Beaulieu Says:


  10. NonEntity Says:

    Dave sed: “If I were born in Disneyland, would that mean I belonged to it?” — PRICELESS! 🙂

  11. NonEntity Says:

    I wonder how many children are citizens of Yellow Cab.

  12. juan galt Says:

    spook tooth asked, “How can you break a law that the prosecution cannot prove that it applies in the first place???”

    I guess he/she couldn’t comprehend my answer clearly provided above..

  13. spooky2th Says:

    gault, still hasn’t proven applicability with any real facts. We all know that the supposed laws say all sorts of things but none the less, how do they apply???

    Ya still haven’t proven your territorial jurisdiction argument, gault!!! Legal, political, govt issue or what ever ridiculous lawyer’s excuse you want to make up, prove it with some real facts, gault!

    Forget about your BS political philosophy or theoretical BS, prove it with facts!!! If you don’t have the facts to back up your tyrannical argument, there is no case and shame on you, gault!

  14. juan galt Says:

    Spook –
    I don’t have a “territorial jurisdiction argument”, just facts and reality.
    Whose definition of FACTS that prove jurisdiction are you relying upon?
    What FACTS prove jurisdiction?
    What FACTS prove that the laws don’t apply?
    If you don’t have FACTS to back up your argument that the laws don’t apply, your argument fails.
    The only way the laws don’t apply – is if you have the power to overcome the power that enforces the law. THAT’S A FACT.

  15. spooky2th Says:

    gault, is such a terrible liar!

    I have asked you gault, “what facts do you rely on to prove the territorial jurisdiction argument that you typed about in the forum. I have lost count how many times and you always come back with moronic lawyer dodges to the question like you did just now. How people as dishonest as you can sleep at night is a mystery to me.

    You must be totally psychopathic, I’d bet! Maybe worse…

  16. NonEntity Says:

    FACT: “Juan” is playin’ y’all like a cat with a mouse and it’s painful to watch, a good example of why, even if voting were moral, it’d be a really bad idea.

  17. juan galt Says:

    SPOOK –
    YOU call it a dodge. I call it reality. What amazes me is how you can function in the 21st century being so ignorant.

  18. juan galt Says:

    M sez –
    “The application of the law is applied to the man defending themselves and is NOT being applied to the act”.

    Well M, how many laws have been applied to you today? How will you prove a law has been applied to you? You have to DO SOMETHING, in other words ACT, for the law to apply.

    READ ANY LAW and it describes an ACT that is regulated or prohibited and if you are caught doing the ACT, you may be charged. Nobody is charged without an ACT being committed.

    You must have “learned” law from an internet “lawyer” to have everything so backasswards.

  19. spooky2th Says:

    The simple reality is gault, that you don’t have any facts that prove applicability much less the territorial jurisdiction argument or else you would spit it out long ago. Practically each message you post shows your total dishonesty and your severe irrationality of it all.

    that is the real “reality!” With no dumb-ass double standards…

  20. juan galt Says:

    Snoopy er, spookity –

    I get it – you don’t accept the evidence I presented. The problem with that is, in court, nobody cares if you accept the evidence or not. You have to rebut the evidence by proving the laws don’t apply – and you cannot do it. How can you prove the laws don’t apply? You can say they don’t, but you can’t PROVE it. Why? Because of your “neighbors”. You don’t have the power to overcome your “neighbors” will to use their power to enforce their laws. The people who own the territorial area where you live – your “neighbors” – decided how they wanted to run their community way before you were born. And they decided how they would realize their ideas of productivity, order, peace and harmony. They decided to hire people to enforce their codes of conduct while people were on their property – their territorial jurisdiction.

    If you don’t understand the history of human development into civilized societies with laws – then you are unenlightened and might as well live in a cave. If you want your political philosophy, of “no laws apply without consent”, to be adopted, you either have to start your own “govt-type” territorial jurisdiction or conquer some existing govt. I don’t think your “neighbors” are going to buy into your BS. Now there are some FACTS that cannot be denied.

    Claiming I’m dishonest because I give facts of history and reality indicates how weak your argument is.

  21. spooky2th Says:

    gailt’s post is, as usual

  22. juan galt Says:

    spunky –

    So you’re claiming my above post is false? You DO know how humans came to develop communities and countries? Your “neighbors” don’t enforce their codes of conduct and make their laws apply? If not, what are you bitching about?

    Is your argument so weak you can’t come up with a response? Just a YouTube vid?

    You’re a funny spook.

  23. spooky2th Says:

    “Objection!” (the adult version of, “afraid not!”)

    Anybody can read a small handful of your tripe and clearly see that you are a 2-faced, dishonest psychopath. And probably worse, IMO.

    Ur not worth the time…

  24. spooky2th Says:

    “Objection!” (the adult version of, “afraid not!”)

    Anybody can read a small handful of your tripe and clearly see that you are a 2-faced, dishonest psychopath. And probably worse, IMO.

    Ur not worth the time…

  25. juan galt Says:

    Poor spook, sounds like a kid who just won’t believe there’s no santa claus.

  26. NonEntity Says:

    Unavoidable insult coming up… how stupid do you have to be to think that yelling “You’re a Psychopath” at a psychopath is going to get him to not be a psychopath and to start being ethical and having empathy? Really!?… Do you go around yelling at dogs because they’re not cats and getting outraged that they don’t BECOME cats as a result of your insane ranting? WTF!

  27. NonEntity Says:

    I guess I shoulda looked in the mirror before hitting the SEND button, huh?

  28. dan Says:

    You would have sent anyway NonE, in my humble estimation.

  29. spooky2th Says:

    I have yelled at dogs to get them back off. Usually works. Usually works with the 2-legged psychopaths too.

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