2014 Phoenix Freedom Summit Report – Interview with Federal Magistrate

Posted on February 25th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

My main objective attending the 2014 Freedom Summit in Phoenix, Arizona was to get a few minutes with John Buttrick.  John is a federal magistrate in Phoenix and was speaking on Sat. Feb. 15, 2014; it’s an anarchist function.  I was able to speak with John for about 23 minutes.

As I mention in the intro to the interview, John seems to believe the law may be applied without any regard to evidence.  He believes written instruments called constitutions and laws apply because judges say so; actual proof is not necessary.  He even admits several times the applicability of law, jurisdiction, is only an issue of law, not evidence.  He seems to accept that laws are magical, that there doesn’t have to be evidence proving the laws apply.  John insists there doesn’t have to be any proof the laws actually apply.  The law applies because men and women say so.  We’ve heard this claim before.

As I also bring out, the applicability of the law is not just about proving jurisdiction, it’s an element of any code violation.  You can’t prove a code/law/statute/regulation was violated without first proving the laws apply in the first place.  There is no violation without the code, so the applicability of the code is an element that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  And you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt with facts/evidence, not unsupported argument.  Evidence; it is jurisdiction’s Achilles heel.

He justifies the lack of evidence by stating the alternative is a collapse of the system.  This was interesting as we were at an anarchist conference and you’d think abolishing government was a goal we all had in common.

My position is: if there’s no evidence the law applies, then they don’t apply.  It’s not a difficult concept.  I don’t accept the argument the “law” is magical; that people can write rules on paper, claim they apply to everyone and they just apply.  The law does not apply because you are willing to kill me to get compliance.  Compliance is to avoid being killed.

Spoke with Pete Eyre, co-founder of copblock.org.  Pete’s a great guy and has done an excellent job spreading the principals of voluntaryism.

Davi Barker is co-founder of BitCoins not bombs and runs Daily Anarchist.  Davi gave an excellent talk about authoritarian sociopathy.  I highly recommend you check out his writings.

Catherine Bleish gave us an update on her and her husband John Bush’s reality show Sovereign Living.

I could spend hours talking with Paul Rosenberg.  Paul was on the show at the 2012 Libertopia and his talk was great, another home run.  Hopefully it’s going to be posted at Freedom’s Phoenix soon.  We talk about history and why it’s so important there be a separation between government and education.  Though we both agree there should be no governments period.

 

 

              

9 Comments For This Post

  1. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    Wow! What a lineup of great people…the magistrate notwithstanding. 🙂 Got to hang out with Davi and John Bush at the AltExpo #15/NH Liberty Forum in Nashua, NH last Saturday.

  2. bruce sloane Says:

    nice spin, J. Buttrick … 🙁

  3. Ken Graves Says:

    I’m surprised Marc did not mention a loop-hole to Magistrate Buttrick, such as a foreign dignitary committing a crime in the U.S.; ergo no jurisdiction. Now the law does not apply to one person, so where’s the evidence the code applies to me? PS- the conversation was enlightening yet very “circular”. 😀

  4. RadicalDude Says:

    Would have been interesting to just ask Buttrick:
    Is the constitution the highest law of the land? How do you know that’s true?

    The constitutional authoritarians use magical thinking to make that “logical leap” from “words on paper” to “law” without any legit explanation of how that mechanism actually works. In my opinion, it is based on wishful thinking.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

    In addition to being a cognitive bias and a poor way of making decisions, wishful thinking is commonly held to be a specific informal fallacy in an argument when it is assumed that because we wish something to be true or false, it is actually true or false. This fallacy has the form “I wish that P is true/false, therefore P is true/false.”[8] Wishful thinking, if this were true, would rely upon appeals to emotion, and would also be a red herring.[citation needed]
    Wishful thinking may cause blindness to unintended consequences.

  5. RadicalDude Says:

    Wishful thinking as a fallacy is when you make an argument along the lines of:
    “x is true because I WANT it to be true.”

    And I have literally had authoritarians tell me the “evidence” the law applies is that “we the people” “want” it to.

    I think this wishful thinking is really where authoritarians get their notion the laws apply.

    They really, really, really WANT them to apply.

  6. RadicalDude Says:

    But would we argue the law of gravity applies because we WANT it to? When used in this context, it makes it easier to see why this kind of argument is so absurd. Or “Alchemists can make lead into gold because I WANT them to be able to”?

  7. kevin Says:

    Firstly, the people determining the laws apply, judges, have a vested interest (conflict of interest) in reaching the legal determination that the laws apply, as essentially admitted by the judge here. Because if they did not come to that decision most of them would be out of work. Second the murder question is a distinction between God’s law and mans’ law. God’s law being the highest authority in the land. Man did not say thou shalt not kill God did! There is a victim and harm has been done, therefore there’s a loss to be atoned for. Most of mans’ law there is no victim, no loss or harm done and therefore no actual crime for example you did stop at a sign that read STOP or you fail to wear a seatbelt etc.

  8. Tony Says:

    Marc, I would like to first say I like what you are doing and that you stand up to the establishment. I like the argument. However I think it needs to go deeper at some point to have more validity. In a society there needs to be some sort of rule. You must be governed by God or you will be ruled by tyrants (William Penn). Most people that you present your argument to do not respond well with any logic. In the interview with the magistrate you go round and round. He finally puts it back on you and says, if the law does not apply than what if in the case of murder. You said, well that was different. You did not explain why that was different. Your argument loses traction at that point. Any competent person at that point would be able to see your argument but also can see that society cannot be without law, even though there is no evidence that the law applies. In any society there has to be laws and yes they have to be enforced with the barrel of the gun. Our constitution applies because it is what our founders gave us and yes it is just that magical and is enforced with a gun. However it gives any one individual the most freedom. That said the question you should be asking is “what evidence do you have that Statutes apply to us?” The constitution gives way to common law and admiralty law. It does not give way to statue law or civil law that only the judges and the attorneys know about. There is a common law principle which states for there to be a crime there must be a victim (corpus delecti) and the state cannot be the injured party. In the absence of a victim there can be no crime. At some point someone will say “what proofs due you have that the statue laws do not apply to us?” Well you have the constitution that supports common law/ natural law. The constitution is our friend. It holds our government and officials in check (well it is supposed to when we the people enforce it). You are right about jurisdiction. Under statute law they have none unless we give our consent. Under common law our laws come from nature. Statutes come from government and are intended to tell government employees how to do there job. Statutes do not apply to We the People unless we voluntarily give our permission. We are the sovereign. The servant government cannot rule over the master who created it. “Governments are instituted among men, deriving there just powers from the consent of the governed”. If you do not give consent then they have no jurisdiction and this is the principle of liberty. Government has no authority to control your behavior and therefore neither do judges or legislators without your consent. Everyone decides for themselves whether they want to participate in the institution of men or not. When a judge asks you “do you understand” and you say “yes” this really means do you stand under our authority. “Every man is independent of all law, except those prescribe by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow man without his consent”. (Cruden v. Neal).
    “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan)
    “All laws, rules, and practices that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void” (Mabury v. Madison)
    Our system is messed up. Our constitution is trampled on every day. Well here is to fighting the good fight.

  9. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Tony, I don’t think there is any reason to bring a god into the discussion. There is a simple principal, do no harm. Murder can be dealt with without having a “legally” sanctioned gang of killer, thieves and liars running things. Call into the show about this, we have more time to discuss it.

6 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Mar 8, 2014 | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] ol’ Lie World Tour: challenging the rationale of the game and exposing the gun in the room by contacting bureaucratic authoritarians and asking them what evidence they have to prove their constitutions […]

  2. Same Ol' Lie World Tour - No Evidence Laws Apply | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] It’s as if they don’t realize what they are really saying.  They are saying, as John Buttrick admits, the law applies because the predators called government said so.  Remember, Kolby Granville […]

  3. NSP - Jun 14, 2014 | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] of dealing with bureaucrat’s opinion and precedent on the applicability of the code such as Marc’s objective questioning with Judge Buttrick <> hiding additional legislation within legislative bills sent to capitol hill <> […]

  4. Clueless Tax Agent? No, There Just Isn't Any Evidence Laws Apply - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the fact that my calls include a federal magistrate and other very educated bureaucrats such as John Buttrick and Nick Cort.  Even prosecutors have been unable to provide a single fact to support their […]

  5. NSP - May 23, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James and Guest: Clint Richardson - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the assertion that “government is voluntary” based on the actions and admissions of the beast […]

  6. NSP - Jun 6, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] judges and attorneys have admitted that they can’t cite evidence to prove the laws […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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