Marc Stevens – NSP – Sept 28, 2013 – Guests: Jan Irvin and Adam, Plus a NSP Group Chat

Share

MarcStevens.net-583x100
http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20130928.html

NSP show for 9/28/2013

Guests: Jan Irvin of GnosticMedia.com joins the show to discuss how to improve one’s critical thinking using the trivium method. Adam from AZ also climbs aboard to share his latest AiLL resulting in a not-guilty verdict. And in the last segment of the show, Bill, Keith, Al, and JT debrief us on the morning’s courtroom shenanigans just after yet another NHES hearing.

 

Guests: Jan Irvin of GnosticMedia.com joins the show to discuss how to improve one’s critical thinking using the trivium method. Adam from AZ also climbs aboard to share his latest AiLL resulting in a not-guilty verdict. And in the last segment of the show, Bill, Keith, Al, and JT debrief us on the morning’s courtroom shenanigans just after yet another NHES hearing.

Show Notes:

  • Jan Irvin’s speech “The Trivium – How to Free Your Mind” at the 2011 Free Your Mind Conference.
  • Larken Rose’s relationship to Jan.
  • The defensive use of force to protect yourself against violent intruders [costumed or not] as discussed by Larken, Chris Cantwell, and on the No STATE Project.
  • Identifying government thugs and thieves and calling them out on it.
  • Murder & Mystery In Laurel Canyon by David McGowan.
  • We have to put up with the coercive world we live in today because there is a massive deficit of critical thought.
  • The development of MKULTRA programs within select STATE universities and some of the key players involved.
  • Manufacturing the Deadhead: A product of social engineering.
  • Dodgy interviewees.
  • Examining the Establishment origins of famous band members.
  • Using the trivium and quadrivium to develop a complete methodology for telling fact from fiction and as a guide for critical thinking.
  • Classical trivium used by social engineers to exploit and manipulate individuals or collectives.
  • The Trivium Method vs. The Classical Trivium.
  • The trivium is the process of understanding the logical sequence of 1) grammar, 2) logic, and 3) rhetoric.
  • The fraud of quantum physics and the “New Age” movement.
  • “Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.”
  • Pursuing truth by purging contradictions.
  • Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”
  • Eliciting the deer-in-the-headlights response from bureaucrats by asking them if they hold “an objective standard of proof.”
  • Handling pseudo-critics that refuse to examine the body of work they are criticizing but want to continue on with their baseless, emotional personal-attacks.
  • Pseudo-critics using the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule to substitute their lack of real criticism.
  • Countering using logical fallacies by utilizing logical self-checks.
  • Bringing back the questioning and inquisitive nature inherent in children that facilitates genuine self-discovery.
  • Prussian educational systems that are designed to dumb-down its pupils.
  • Using the trivium method to dispel logical fallacies, erroneous thinking, and conditioned programed responses.
  • Verifying the information you have taken as valid before spreading an invalid virus among others.
  • The more personal investment one has in a invalid concept, the harder it is for them to recognize their ***
  • Bureaucrats routinely deploying circular reasoning when questioned on the evidence.
  • The pseudo-consensual social-contract swindle.
  • Compulsory education is the basis of why people accept the arbitrary, violent monopoly commonly known as the STATE or government as legitimate.
  • Bureaucrats coming to terms with the criminal nature of their jobs when questioning them on the facts as they come to say things like “I’m the last friendly face you’ll see.”
  • Striping away corporate fictions to deal with bureaucrats as individuals.
  • The quadrivium is the higher stage of the seven liberal arts: arithmetic, geometry, harmonic theory, and astronomy.
  • P2P information sharing to further develop more refined critical thought and a more accurate model of reality.
  • Conducting yourself on terms of “your rules” in a courtroom.
  • Critical thought not being applied in certain adolescent lessons like “citizenship” and “hiding under the desk in the face of a nuclear detonation.”
  • The shifting from monarchic rule to ethnic slavery to gender oppression to debt slavery to citizenship/STATE slavery that obfuscates master-slave relationship. [*not in chronological order.]
  • Challenging cops in court is much more effective and safe as opposed to the inherent dangers of challenging them on the side of the road during the stop.
  • The alleged personal relationship between the people and a sheriff.
  • Holding men and women D.B.A. “government” or “the STATE” accountable for their wrongful actions.

  • Effective damage control: Adam’s unverified “consuming alcohol in public” charge concluded with a “not guilty” verdict.
  • Formally raising and filing paperwork on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.
  • The prosecutor did not even read through the police report before digging her heals in to mount a legal attack against her victim.
  • The prosecutor’s flimsy standard for factually establishing jurisdiction by just deferring to the cop’s verbal confirmation that the defendant was in the city in which the ticket was issued.
  • Attorney’s deflecting away from the inquiry of evidence of jurisdiction by mischaracterizing the question as an argument to avoid their lack of evidence to support the essential elements in their [lack of a] case.
  • Judges wrongfully accepting testimony from a witness that the court determined was “unqualified to testify.”
  • Outcome based proceedings where everything the judge says has to conform to the predetermined conclusion of guilty.
  • The judge claims that jurisdiction and corpus delicti are issues for trial [which he'll predictably claim they're pretrial issues during trial: more bailing out the prosecutor by relieving them of their burden of proof by any and all means of deception necessary.]
  • The psychopath Michael King stated that Marc repeating jurisdiction is an issue and burden to be proven by the prosecution before there is any kind of hearing “doesn’t make it true” despite that its a basic principal of fairness and that the higher courts are uncontroversially in agreement with such a basic principal.
  • More nonsense from Michael King’s bench: “You’ve presented no authority, because there is none.”
  • The presumption of innocence is not explicit in the constitution, but does that mean its not a basic principal of law and its “so well established, it requires no citation.”
  • If a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations by competent proof” which goes hand-in-hand with “he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.”
  • The judge claims “you’re not allowed to bring up fourth amendment [a.k.a. due process] violations” and “jurisdiction is self-evident on its face and does not need to be discussed” despite the procedural matter that nothing in a trial is self-evident.
  • Exposing the perverted double-standard the judge holds on the issue of evidence.
  • The allegations within a complaint, or law, is not evidence in of itself; it must be supported by evidence.
  • Judges accepting testimony from the cop as pure fact.
  • “Is jurisdiction and element of the crime?” Judge: “That’s for the trial to determine.”
  • Rare moments of truth in the courtroom: the judge blurts that “everyone in the is courtroom is victim,” which he’s right if you simple examine the nature of the tax system or arbitrary monopoly on the use of force by the corporate fiction know as “the STATE.”
  • Speechless prosecutors after being asked simple questions of evidence that get bailed out by the judge when they are left stone-faced.
  • Catching the cop in his blatant lies on the stand.
  • Credit card company cancels the charge because the court did not follow through their service.
  • Filing a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct and seeking reimbursement for damages and time lost.
  • Asking for the person who actually made the tax assessment to demonstrate they are doing no investigation into the initial facts of the basis for their legal attack.
  • Asking the judge if it’s discovered that this citation isn’t valid or there’s no evidence or there’s a conflict with the constitution or higher courts, would you do the right thing and dismiss the complaint?
  • The difference between not guilty and case dismissed.
  • Government’s lame attempts at holding any form a legitimacy when they relentlessly attack people despite a gross lack of evidence.
  • Bureaucrats projecting their flaws on the one pointing their flaws out as a desperate attempt to distract from the issues at hand.
  • Max Stirner‘s (who had inspired Lysander Spooner) ideas about philosophical abstraction, or reification as its referred to on the NSP, as equivalent to believing in ghosts.
  • The insanity of “asking the same question from 10:30am to 4:30pm and not getting an answer.”
  • Unhinged circular logic during the many hours of Bill’s hearing.
  • The threat that “if you don’t comply, there will be severe consequences and it would be unpleasant.”
  • Feeling the wrath of the STATE for questioning why it was mandatory to have to get unemployment insurance.
  • “How can you possibly stop this witness from answering whether he can confirm that the constitution of the STATE apply?”
  • Natural law and voluntary trade.
  • “This time its different; you can’t just hang up on me. Do you have evidence, yes or no?”
  • Picking an choosing your objections wisely.
  • Choosing an effective questioning style to get the answers you’re seeking.
  • The judge begins to testify and directs testimony in a case he’s hearing. :/
  • The judge was highly reactive and did not allow certain truths to be brought up. e.g.: violence, jurisdiction, ect.
  • How short would the hearing have been if fairness were actually being honored?
  • Demonstrating the conflict-of-interest and bias of the judge.
  • How much truth came out during the hearing?
  • Court hearings are provably more inquisitional that adversarial.
  • The judge attempted to shift the burden of proof on the defendant.
  • Judges making rulings without seeing any evidence first.
  • Attorneys conflating constitutionality (matters of law) with matters of facts and evidence to evade having to address the issue.
  • Massive face-palming in response to persistent objections.
  • Don’t give them any excuse to focus off the issues being raised by reacting to their irrational nonsense.
  • Even though the witness was on the stand for 4 hours, the defense was still denied effective cross-examination because the judge would not allow certain questions of evidence.
  • It is not due process just because you were physically there and you “had your day in court.”
  • Do you give up your right to speak if you have someone else represent you in court?
  • Dealing with stress inducing bureaucrats.
  • Calling and asking bureaucrats if they have any evidence to demonstrate the code they violently enforce upon their victims actually applies.
  • An attorney claims Marc is making a circular argument, but the attorney couldn’t identify it.

Leave a Reply