Brad from Kansas joins Marc for a prerecorded segment about his exercising effective damage-control yielding a favorable plea agreement. However, that broadcast failed to happen because the storms that set-off Brad’s weather alarm during the recording also took out Calvin’s networking hardware later that night as the lightening storms moved through Missouri. Despite the forces of nature, we still have new content for you visitors to this here website to better learn and benefit from; enjoy.

Show Notes:

License suspension for a “failure to appear” to a court summons for a truck-overweight citation, which led to a subsequent traffic stop resulting in a “driving while suspended” charge.

Initially challenged the validity of the claim.

The judge entered a plea on the defendant’s behalf because, in this instance; the defendant was actually refusing to plea. That’s why we use the unsigned plea of guilty to avoid this situation.

The mistake of making affirmative statements and legal conclusions that unnecessarily putting a burden-of-proof upon yourself.

Ditching the fail-straight-to-jail “right to travel” legal-defense theories.

The advantage of challenging the prosecutor’s facts and evidence, as opposed to arguing various interpretive legal theories.

Debunking the Claim the Applicability of the Constitution is a Matter of Law, Not Evidence.

Making a best defense by sticking to non-discretionary issues as much as possible.

You arguing matters of interpretive law in court is virtually handing the prosecution an easy victory.

The impossibility of getting a fair, impartial, and independent hearing from a third-party that forces people to pay them.

An affidavit is simply a statement of facts that you have personal firsthand knowledge of.

Filing revised paperwork with a court you already filed inferior motions into.

Special appearances are reserved for civil proceedings, not criminal.

Stopping the head-spinning when the judge ignorantly claims that “no one is forcing you to be here.”

Calling-out immoral and unethical instances of prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecution begins to argue and make assertions outside the facts and evidence.

Eventually, the defendant was able to square-away the originating offenses and able to exercise effective damage-control to reduce the many citations down to a $50 fine and time-served.

Weighing the cost-benefit-analysis of court activism.

The crucial importance of doing role-playing and/or participating in the SoLWT before going toe-to-toe against a prosecutor and judge.

The prosecutor knows to shut-up and let the judge do the heavy lifting when the questions get tough.

Overzealous and passive-aggressive law enforcement.

Appealing to a local commissioner who is libertarian-leaning.

Unwinding the government mess from within and using it as a media platform for dissent.

Marc on the Power Hour radio program.

Boston T. Party’s “Molôn Labé!” book.

The post NSP – Sept 9, 2016 – Guest: Brad from Kansas appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Sept 9, 2016 – Guest: Brad from Kansas appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

If you are new to exercising effective damage-control, make sure to read through the free resources as minimal preparation: NSP Skype group-chat for role-playing, podcast archives, success stories, call-of-shame, and the forum to name a few.

The mechanics behind challenging whether there’s an actual adversary and a valid case or controversy.

As an addendum to the constitution is not philosophical article; we’ll continue to debunk their assertion that “the application of their laws doesn’t require any evidence” to be true.

The international successes [Ireland, England [+1], Canada [+1], Israel, Poland, Deutschland, and Australia] that collectively demonstrate that there’s no evidence to prove any government’s laws apply.

Defending yourself by way of having the prosecution verify their own foundational claims.

Do not make any affirmative statements (or legalese), allowing them to invoke their jurisdiction, unless its to say the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence to substantiate their assertions.

Using an attorney or filing a motion doesn’t mean you are accepting their jurisdiction.

Avoid using ineffective FMOTL/UCC/Sovereign Citizen interpretive legal theories.

How to disqualify a witness that isn’t qualified to testify.

Using Ian Freeman’s administrative DMV hearing to learn how to handle hostile judges who claim they don’t need evidence to prove their laws apply.

Anarchy means simply no ruling class and not accepting dangerous double-standards.

If you feel compelled to make an affirmative statement, at least put it in the form of a question of confirmation.

Judges are at least much smarter than juries.

“A denial of voir dire is an automatic reversal.”

You are not going to persuade many of those drawing six-figure incomes from the statist legal extortion complex.

“Without a proper foundation, it doesn’t matter what the statute says.”

Avoiding discourse regarding legal interpretation and sticking to just the facts.

Pro-tip: if you want to call them criminals, then do it in the form of a question.

Debunking the claim the applicability of the constitution is a pure issue of law, not evidence.

Caller’s Topics:

Curtis from TX: thanks for all the resourceful YouTube content that has had led to multiple successes in the local courts simply by verbally asking questions of evidence to prove their jurisdiction <> currently engaged in a number of legal-attacks and wants to again exercise effective damage-control <> how do you go about filing paperwork (motion to dismiss, ect…) with the courts? <> and his cellphone signal failed before the end of his call.

Darren from AZ: needs some serious help for an upcoming hearing, needing to better prepare for litigation <> deciphering legalese <> filing notices for a verified claim/complaint with the court <> and responding to the prosecution team’s questions about the challenges and issues raised in your paperwork with “my paper speaks for me.”

Bill from WV: did not initially use the motion to dismiss he paid for <> an officer forced his way into his victim’s home based on an anonymous complaint; the case was ultimately dismissed on grounds of perjury from the officer lying about signing a document in front of the judge <> a state trooper actually claimed that the defendant “had no rights” <> [uh-oh] making an affirmative statement invoking the constitution <> the judge denied the motion to dismiss citing that it was “baseless” (you know; kind of like the prosecutor’s assertion of jurisdiction), the defendant objected and asked for grounds for denial <> the judge said the prosecutor has shown evidence to prove the constitution applies based on where the defendant is physically located <> “every time you see ‘STATE O[...]

Show Notes:

Doing a cost–benefit 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.

The post NSP – Aug 27, 2016 – Co-host: Calvin appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Aug 27, 2016 – Co-host: Calvin appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

Jackalope 2016 probably upset the few critics who assert Marc and Calvin are one-of-the-same.

Terrorist organizations do not like their mishaps being presented to the masses.

Breaking down Tenny’s recent atypical success story overcoming an IRS legal attack.

Ditching Reddit in favor of a more logically robust Steemit.

Responding to a critic’s comments on Reddit regarding Joe’s drug charges being thrown out of court by way of Marcratic questioning and effective damage control.

Anarchism is about rejecting the double-standard that is is okay to force people to pay you by calling yourself a government.

The standing $5,000 challenge for anyone who can prove, citing fact and evidence, citizens and STATES actually exist.

The broad and international successes [Ireland, England [+1], Canada [+1], Israel, Poland, Deutschland, and Australia] that exhaustively demonstrate that there’s no evidence to prove any government’s laws apply.

A Texas tax agent surprisingly naturally understood that “an argument is not the same as contention and contradiction.”

How to counter the common judicial lie that “jurisdiction is an issue for trial.”

Pointing-out and documenting blatant prosecutorial misconduct every time the prosecutor makes an argument outside the facts and evidence (due-process violation: irrefutable presumption).

Realizing the power of effective questioning (see the statist double-standard question for reference).

Utilizing a media rep to facilitate better behavior from the prosecution and judge (co-prosecutor).

Always communicating/litigating/responding in a manner that keeps the burden-of-proof on the one making the claim (the prosecutor), never take your eye off the burden-of-proof.

Understanding the risks, terms, and circumstances involved with pursuing effective damage-control.

Joe’s more-serious-than-a-parking-ticket drug possession charges were tossed from court because of his successful utilization of effective Marcratic questioning.

It has been long-held that the US government is ultimately a legal fiction.

Pending video reviewing the necessity of evidence to prove jurisdiction and the strawman responses we continue to defeat.

The prison-industrial complex.

We’re still scouting for a location somewhere in the east Phoenix valley to do the No STATE Project radio show publicly, with post-show festivities. Anyone with suggestions to help facilitate; please contact Marc.

Simple drug possession is a victimless crime.

Filing a motion in limine and complaint of prosecutorial misconduct in instances of aggressively overzealous persecutions.

Learning to stay focused and stick to the issues like in Ian Freeman’s DMV administrative hearing.

Disspelling some NH bureaucrats falsely accusing Marc of “misleading” because of his use of colloquialisms.

To understand the effectiveness and success of Socratic questioning, then you just simply have to be willing to look at the evidence.

MWD‘s ironic statement that “if you speak the truth you will ruffle feathers” when we spoke the truth and ruffled his feathers.

Someone who would cage another person for nothing more than asking a tough question is a antisocial maniac.

Statists do prove, many times over every day, just how terrifying, destructive, and criminal they really are.

Caller’s Topics:

Brad from KS: suspended driver’s license trial coming up this Thursday <> the judge got angry and committed a due-process violation by entering a plea on the defendant’s behalf when the validity of the complaint was questioned <> avoiding inadvertently accepting their jurisdiction <> briefly following Karl Lentz’s material before discovering effective damage control via Marcratic questioning <> filed the motion to dismiss and discovery request with the court last week, but after previously filing other motions to dismiss along similar line[...]

The 2016 Jackalope Freedom Festival “non-event” was another success and lots of fun. Not only did we finally get to interview Adam Kokesh again, but Calvin was also able to attend for the first time. You’ll want to make sure you make it next year; it’s just beautiful in Baca’s Meadow, Arizona!

We also spoke about Joe’s drug charges being tossed out. That video is with the article for that.

with Calvin:

Adam Kokesh’s August 9th hearing was postponed pending an offer of an alternative resolution from the prosecution (a.k.a.: effective damage control).

Brainstorming what specifically led to the bureaucrat’s sudden decision to cancel their hearing in Adam’s complaint.

Filing a claim with the municipality’s risk management when you get steamrolled by a judge.

But for the motion to dismiss, how else do you explain the dismissal of the complaint?

Looking beyond the current monopolized justice system.

Developing the ability to reflexively counter non-responsiveness by role-playing with others before your hearings.

Sadomasochistic people who claim they are happy being forced to pay for government and their services.

The improvement automatons could provide a psychopath-corrupted justice system.

Making the distinction between a taxpayer and a non-taxpayer.

Exposing the STATE’s lack of evidence to prove their laws apply.

A critic teasing a grand expose of Marc’s work has pulled his videos down after a few comments about his lazy, unobjective analysis.

Reviewing Joe’s success story and finally getting documentation of his dismissal from him.

Speculative critics have claimed that Marc hasn’t given the basis for the judge’s grant of the motion to dismiss, even though the grounds are stated within the motion to dismiss.

Book virgins.

Witnesses must have personal firsthand knowledge to be allowed to give testimony.

The cross-application of effective Socratic questioning.

Using role-playing to desensitize yourself from their predictable intimidation tactics.

Consider a the success stories section on the website as a proof-of-concept.

Avoiding contempt charges.

Leveraging your pressure point to move for dismissal.

with Adam Kokesh:

Adam Kokesh joins us to discuss updates to his ongoing legal attack.

The positive and negative fruits born from passionate activism; “do you have any principals worth standing up for?”

The peace-of-conscience from utilizing a non-lawyer over being stuck with an minimally-appeasing attorney.

Marc’s unbookability on mainstream and many alternative media.

Why do you choose to live autonomously without permission?

Using low-risk opportunities to challenge and undermine the legitimacy of the STATE.

How and why are we trapped in debt bondage?

Putting fear in perspective and living without complacency.

Committing to end the last generation of soldiers-turned-mercenaries sent to war on behalf of the ruling class.

Valuing and maintaining a life of real, quantifiable integrity.

Useless pursuits such as pursuing a law degree or playing the lottery.

The consequences of effective mass activism: dozens of arrests, raids, enhanced and targeted scrutiny, ect.

The impossibility for attorneys to challenge all of the STATE’s assertions and claims. i.e.: evidence to prove jurisdiction

Newspeak: extortion ≅ civil asset forfeiture.

Growing the market of challenging authority and legal dogma.

Debunking critics who attempt to make the case that Marc is some kind of scammer.

Persuading STATE agents why it is imperative for them to quit their STATE jobs and provide their valuable services voluntarily via the free market.

Breaking down the statist double-standard to STATE agents to help them understand the institutional immorality that they are perpetuating and perpetrating.

The Six Pillars of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden.

Gary Murphy’s internal directive to not take Marc’s calls because they are “quite embarrassing to the ag[...]

Show Notes:

Deciphering the recent wave of so-called “terror attacks” and criticizing the official script peddled by the government sponsored media. Cui bono?

Tracking and verifying responsive answers from your questions to politicians.

Debuting and analyzing a new Call-of-Shame with an overzealously evasive senior-level Canadian attorney.

People’s lives are destroyed every day based on the feelings of bureaucrats that directly contradict reality.

Defeating political dogma and irrefutable presumptions of legal opinion.

Bill’s multi-pronged legal attack and working towards building a solid RICO case.

The BIG difference between “responding” and “being responsive.”

Preempting the psych eval attack from the prosecution team (judge and prosecutor) by getting a third-party evaluation before your hearings.

Update on Jennifer Rubin‘s false-claim complaint.

Update on Terry’s petition for habeas corpus on the heels of a 6-day false imprisonment for asking questions before pleading guilty to the local “angry authoritarian” Noble up in Michigan.

Join Marc out at the Jackalope Freedom Festival, “where spontaneous order happens naturally, without any force, coercion, or aggression,” during the first weekend of August.

Adam Kokesh’s hearing in Prescott, AZ on August 9th.

Epidemic levels of prosecutorial misconduct.

Dean Clifford reportedly back in jail[?]

You need a legal citation to explicitly say it’s unfair to argue outside the facts and evidence?!

5 cops caught in lies on witness stand by the judge.

Update on Ralph’s trial: strong back-to-back witness impeachments don’t have a rational reaction from the sumitizen jury.

The prosecutor admits he is “not that familiar” with the applicability of the code before suddenly suspending the hearing during Ralph’s trial.

Fresh success story reported from “V for Voluntarism” in the Skype group chat, details pending, along with Joe’s.

Fleetwood Mac’s live rendition of “Rattlesnake Shake.”

How to counter when they claim that the evidence to prove jurisdiction is on the ticket.

Mastering Socratic questioning in a real-time courtroom setting.

“Nothing else in that courtroom is relevant until after the prosecution has first sufficiently proven jurisdiction.”

Countering common judicial lies.

Making proper objections and keeping the burden-of-proof on the prosecutor until they produce evidence to prove their assertions.

Learning interesting, new things about yourself from the likes of YouTube commenters.

Caller’s Topics:

Arlo from OH: can I fire my attorney and represent myself? <> first time pro per on DUI charges <> and role-playing courtroom procedure.

Sebastian from CA: feedback on the paperwork was ruled on by the judge <> calling out the “gun in the room” <> avoiding the trial tax by requesting O.R. <> objecting to and reversing a bad decision <> the judge refused to clarify if the hearing was civil or criminal <> the driver’s license as a contract <> and filing the proper paperwork at the proper time.

Greg from CA: busted for driving without permission and not paying the travel tax <> mixing raising interpretive issues of law with challenging the facts <> can I move for dismissal if the witness doesn’t show up for the hearing? <> and building litigation skills by role-playing in the NSP Skype group-chat to better challenge the facts and evidence to prove jurisdiction.

The post NSP – Jul 23, 2016 – Co-host: JT appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Jul 23, 2016 – Co-host: JT appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

Scotty Moore passes at the age of 84.

Royce Larson files a false privacy violation claim with YouTube, even though all the information in Marc’s video is available publicly within all of his correspondence signatures.

The double-standard on challenging jurisdiction depending if the defendant is a fellow bureaucrat or not; if you’re a team member, they’ll consider your motion to dismiss legitimately, but if you aren’t then they’ll dismiss your challenge pretty much out-of-hand.

The only way the prosecution can overcome a motion to dismiss that’s based on a lack of evidence is to produce the evidence in question, else they have failed to present a justicable/ripe case before the court and any fair and impartial judge should grant the dismissal.

Do we need a ruling class to enforce basic rules of right and wrong?

“Their rules don’t require evidence to prove they [their rules] apply and create real-world obligations.”

“The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist,” “claims made without evidence may be dismissed without argument,” and “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.”

Rules for Evidence: “If a judge testifies against someone, then you do not have to formally object to preserve the issue for appeal.”

Despite lawyer’s criticisms that “challenging all of the prosecution’s evidence isn’t effective,” the record or success speaks for itself and quashes such intellectually lazy criticisms.

Debuting a new Call-of-Shame with an IRS agent: conflates a question as an argument, appeal to consequence logical fallacies, feigns ignorance, and surprisingly says “I don’t give a damn” about the evidence to prove their jurisdiction.

The majority of the population that willfully turn a blind eye to the flashing-red levels of authoritarianism.

Previewing a small part of Marc’s recent interview on the Kate Dalley Show as he’s opening minds by examining the statist double-standard.

“People who are willing to kill you to get your property are just not the type that are going to follow the rules.”

The fallacious arguments for having a ruling class maintain order in society.

The four types of jurisdiction, territorial, personam, subject-matter, and in rem, all hinge on your physical location, legal injury, actual damage, and redressability.

“If they’re going to force you to appear, then there must be evidence on the record.”

Watch out for common judicial lies.

Why should we be obligated to constitutional documents drafted by slave owners without anybody’s consent?

Suggesting that defendants refrain from unnecessarily taking on a burden-of-proof by answering their questions [a.k.a: forfeiting your 5th amendment rights] is not lying, its following simple logic.

Following traffic safety best practices without the need to violently enforce enhanced traffic taxation.

“If you have a judge or hearing officer yelling at you “I don’t need evidence!”, it was never in the cards for you to get a fair hearing in the first place; you’re talking to a crook.

Caller’s Topics:

Gabe from OR: update on his latest adventure in legal land; the judge denied the petition for writ of mandamus, no grounds stated across the board <> the condescending comments from the judge during the trial <> the judge said he “doesn’t have to respond to every soliloquy” in the motion to dismiss and that his grounds for denying the motion to dismiss is that he “doesn’t have to give grounds”  <> “This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful” <> the judge disallowed nearly all objections from the defense during the hearing intimidatingly threatening the defendan[...]

Show Notes:

Pro-tip: despite a lair’s advice to “file an answer” as a first response to a summons complaint; better logic and strategy dictates “never address the merits of the case before the issue of jurisdiction has been cleared.”

The motion to dismiss challenging the prosecutor’s lack of evidence to prove their jurisdiction has proven it’s effectiveness many times over the years.

Responding to a critic’s poor excuses for not confronting Marc on a live broadcast.

What are the essential elements for a valid cause for action?

“A court considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” – ASHCROFT v. IQBAL

An argumentum ad baculum and “philosophy“ do not prove there is a legitimate obligation to obey a group of stranger’s rules. Also, “numbers are arbitrary“?!

Courts are limited to hearing only justiciable cases and controversies.

The inherent gratitude and pride for being able to help people help protect themselves from bureaucratic legal attacks.

The huge, sometimes lost, significance of the statist double-standard question.

Jurisdiction has been accurately described as a “blunt assertion of power” by some authoritah on the subject (law professors and the like).

Supporting fellow crypto-agorists like Bill from Twin Mountain Country Store.

What is it called when our leaders steal from us? Taxation/stealing.

Self-defensive force against democidial sociopaths.

Responding to the pseudo-criticism of cherry-picking, again.

There is no legitimate duty of allegiance or citizenship when you are being forced to pay.

All your questions for the witness should be leading questions, but you must role-play to hone-in your delivery in court.

“How does the code prove the constitution applies?”

“Just repeating your claim doesn’t make it true.”

The absurdity of the so-called impartial judge arguing (prosecuting the case for the prosecutor; huge due process violation and an obvious conflict-of-interest) outside the facts and evidence, and then turning around and claiming the defendant has “never challenged jurisdiction” despite that being the single issue raised and challenged by the defendant (see: motion to dismiss).

Marc got a recognition letter this week that the Maryland state bar association has his complaint filed against the professional liar Jennifer Rubin.

Utilizing emerging p2p media distribution outlets, such as BitTube, to fight against the censors. [just be cautious out there]

Pro-tip: instead of making the affirmative statement (and taking a burden-of-proof upon yourself) you’re not a citizen, ask them what evidence they have to prove you are a citizen.

Mirroring their non-responses to see how well they work for you and expose the statist double-standard in all it’s glory.

Explosive new twist in Idaho sex assault case as federal prosecutor’s stern warning ‘threatens free speech’ of citizens and media.

The complete appeal to authority despite what the letter of the law actually dictates.

Update on Richard from MN’s AiLL: learned that “issues of fact and conclusions of law are different in a jury trial than they are in a bench trial” the hard way, but is still moving forward with his questions and objections.

If there’s a lack of evidence, by definition it’s speculation.

Pro-tip: issues of objective fact and empirical evidence are much more effective to challenge than subjective issues of legal interpretation.

What makes questioning the eviden[...]

Show Notes:

Defending Against a Tax Audit – Strawmen and Bad Logic.

Adventures in guacamole shopping in the sizzling, dry Phoenix valley heat.

Update on Jim’s IRS legal attack in Fresno: beat-cop turned judge, Lawrence O’Neil, gives the defendant an ultimatum of “comply with the order to show cause or go to jail“, then later disallowed the defendant from showing cause.

Recognizing and objecting to breaches of fair and meaningful hearings.

Listener question: “what do you do if the legislator passes a law that explicitly states that the law applies to everybody within the STATE?”

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill by Bruce Levine, PhD.

Distinguishing between a naked claim and a substantive argument.

Questioning the qualifications of a judge to make psychiatric evaluations.

The chilling-effect of expression of free speech by threatening psychiatric evaluations against defendants questioning the applicability of their laws.

The CRA agent Ron claimed Marc was “violating international treaty” by questioning the applicability of their laws.

Disproving a Common Argument – Law is Philosophical, it Requires no Evidence.

Brute assertions of mallogic: no evidence required to support your assertions “because we say so.”

“The law” is referred to as a “science” in the Gideon v. Wainwright ruling.

Rare events of real justice in the courtroom.

“You cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I violated your law if you cannot first prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that your laws apply to me in the first place.”

Learning to re-frame their fallacious responses so that it’s clear how ridiculous and absurd they’re being.

Countering broad generalizations.

The behavioral traits of a bureaucrats.

Fitting the statist double-standard question into your verbal interactions with bureaucrats.

Turning around and using their rhetoric and logic in your responses.

Attempting to get courts to recognize exceptions under the anti-injuctive tax act.

Following a number of petitions for writ of prohibition to demonstrate how similar their form-automated non-responses are.

Responding to proclamations of idiocy made using a strawman fallacy.

Editor’s note: between a failure of Skype to reliably transfer messages and assumptions that there was no prerecorded audio; I nearly missed this, almost lost, podcast that was meant for last Saturday’s broadcast. Lessons were learned and contingencies set in place to avoid a repeat in the future, apologies for the lack of scheduled content. NonEtheless, there is plenty of updates and good ground covered in this installment, happy learning y’all.

The post NSP – Jun 18, 2016 – Co-host: JT appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

The post NSP – Jun 18, 2016 – Co-host: JT appeared first on MarcStevens.net.

Show Notes:

Hockey legend Gordie Howe passes.

Larry Smuckler’s circular logic: “The applicability of the duly enacted laws is a matter of law, not fact.”

Countering common courtroom logical fallacies such as “the laws apply as a matter of law” and “because we said so.“

The universal lack of evidence to prove their constitutions and codes apply to us.

You do not have to call-in to the show to win the $5,000 challenge to prove that there is a citizen or state.

“Doing the right thing is never answering a police officer’s uninvited questions.”

Taking the proper steps to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.

A big thanks to Dan Gould for making it to a local court hearing as a media rep.

Going head-to-head with top-teir attorneys on what evidence can they produce to prove their laws apply: Scott Bales, John Buttrick, Earle McCormick, John Patrick, ect.

Them claiming “an element of the crime does not need to be proven” is evidence that it is a rigged, rather than a fair, hearing: openly ask in court “doesn’t this make this a rigged game if I cannot defend myself?”

Prioritizing which of the prosecutor’s arguments to focus on.

Avoid making affirmative statements by keeping the burden-of-proof on the one making the claim and stick to only asking them questions to prove their assertions.

Brady’s Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the Prosecution Team.

You are not accepting their jurisdiction by formally challenging their jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss.

The witness must have personal, firsthand knowledge of everything they are testifying to.

Modeling effective litigation techniques based off what has worked well in the past.

There are no silver bullet legal defense strategies.

The objective isn’t to “win,” but to achieve effective damage-control.

Alan Rodbell – Chief Scottsdale Police – No Evidence Laws Apply.

Pending petitions in New Hampshire, Maine, Toronto, and Calgary to halt the tax agencies from proceeding with their legal attacks when they admittedly don’t have evidence to prove jurisdiction.

Due-process violation for lack of discovery.

Family court hell.

Caller’s Topics:

The Infamous Witt from AZ: thinks JT was the rude one on his last call-in to the show <> requirements to show cause for a libel and defamation case <> plans to sue LRN.fm for their facebook page and accusations of multiple DUI’s, even though all of the material is quoted directly from James Wittekind <> smear victim complaints <> making sense of multi-jurisdictional requirements <> and sends his “love” to JT.

Daryl from MO: various past adventures in legal land <> hasn’t had a driver’s license since 1988! <> success story: first attempt applying the Marcratic method in the courtroom; won by default because the prosecutor couldn’t actually respond to the motion to dismiss <> business deal from hell resulting in indictment charges <> in Missouri you apparently do not get a preliminary hearing when indicted <> overcoming the propaganda that police are always there to help you <> filing a motion to quash the indictment <> the prosecutor’s boisterous public remarks on her aggression towards victimless defendants fuels courtroom activism <> corrupt grand jury in Missouri <> talking jury nullification <> and joining the Skype group-chat to benefit from the frequent role-play sessions.

Brad from PA: the motion to dismiss is a bit cumbersome <> following Karl Lentz’s material <> reducing the motion to dismiss down to it’s necessary language <> what was the conclusion of Ian Freeman’s administrative DMV hearing? <> filing a claim against the the court (or with risk management) [...]