Bruce Washburn Refuses to Say if He Has Evidence

Posted on March 25th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

Screen shot 2014-03-25 at 8.00.25 PMScottsdale city attorney Bruce Washburn, while insisting the laws apply to everyone physically in Scottsdale refuses to answer yes or no if he has any evidence to actually prove that.

I got to speak with Bruce this afternoon right before the Scottsdale city council meeting. Unfortunately there was no public comment today.

I was surprised he would speak to me at all, though he refused to be recorded.  After agreeing he believes the laws of the “state” apply to everyone physically in Arizona, I asked if he had any evidence to prove that.  Bruce refused.

As I mention in more detail in the below video, Bruce wanted to ask me questions, so I turned the camera on to record.  Unfortunately I did not turn on the external mic.  But, I took notes.

Now good faith dictates that whether it’s part of the job description to answer questions from the media or not, if there is evidence, then it should be disclosed.  When you claim and operate on the presumption the laws apply to me because I am physically in Scottsdale, then you need to articulate evidence.  I pointed out I’ve confronted his employees regarding this evidence and have been threatened with contempt.  While at the city council meeting he could not do that, all he could do it sit there an refuse to answer and also direct his staff not to answer.

This man is part of a group of people who attack peaceful people everyday.  They threaten the entire community- pay us or go to jail-under the pretense their laws apply and they have jurisdiction over us.  When asked for evidence to prove it all we get hostility, to the point of directing his staff not to communicate with me.

They have no evidence and the more people that know should stop complying with them.  I encourage everyone to challenge the predators in their area also, post the results here.  When they don’t have evidence, then stop complying with them and encourage others to stop.  If they attack you with a complaint, then resist and challenge them every step of the way.

“No one rules if no one obeys.” TaoDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AbfN9Bs6qw]

              

21 Comments For This Post

  1. Martin Padilla Says:

    Bruce Washburn attorney for the city of Scottsdale, You are Mercenary, and also a good for nothing and the record support that, You feel protected by your “laws” how long more? Your time will come and your own laws will not be enough to defend you, you will be convicted and put as an example to the rest of your species.

  2. Gaylan Says:

    I would like to pose a question for anyone claiming to be a bureaucrat/politician etc. If you claim all laws apply to everyone, and that they apply because YOU say they apply, then q: do they apply to the pope while he is traveling, and do they apply to people who otherwise have “diplomatic immunity” of sorts? Of course not which makes your claim that they apply to EVERYONE moot.

    We all KNOW they do not apply. Also, if the laws do apply to everyone, then how come you don’t obey even your own? Does the very maxims of law not say “A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null” and “what otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust”? or do you hypocrites deny maxims of law too?

    Just sayin…

    lol

  3. Andy Says:

    The same two possibilities are at play, to be questioned:

    Either
    1) He is incompetent, thus unqualified to do the job.

    Or…
    2) He is dishonest, not in good faith thus he knows better but choses nefarious intent. Which again means he’s unqualified to do the job.

    From the killers, thieves and liars perspective he is a competent killer, thief and liar. Thus he is qualified in inflicting malevolence on his victims.

  4. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Hey Marc,
    I wonder if you need to start following the lack of evidence (or reticence in answering) with a question about “so how is it, that the law applies to someone in Scottsdale”. If they can’t provide the evidence, you could perhaps lead them explicitly to the reasoning (gun).

    Give them some more rope…

    Cheers,
    Jonathan

  5. Martin Padilla Says:

    I love your sense of humor Jonathan, Remember the old adage… ” If is not broken, don’t fix it.

  6. Roeh Ben Isra El Says:

    All I can say is keep up the Good Fight….Your Comrad in Arms, Bro.Roeh!!!!

  7. Iz Says:

    Hey Marc…What is the name of the song at the end of this video ?

  8. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Iz, it’s Echoes from Live at Pompeii, Pink Floyd

  9. uhclem Says:

    Speaking of knowing the laws, AZ is a “one-party” state regarding secretly recording conversations.

    http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can-i-record-calls-in-my-state

  10. Jason Says:

    Hi Marc, So I tried to use the civil court scripts in traffic court today. The judge wouldn’t even let me ask her any questions. She kept saying if I need questions answered that I should to talk to a lawyer or duty council. I did state “according to the constitution I’m entitled to a fair hearing and answering my questions would help me understand these proceedings. Proceeding without my understanding would not be fair.” Again she tried to divert me to legal council.

    Because I wouldn’t get passed the issue she kicked me out of the court room until I was ready to plea. After some time I decided to plea…but under duress and coercion. The judge did not accept it because I felt I was there under duress and coercion. So she remanded it for two months stating over this time I should get answers to my questions and not return under duress and coercion. To which I replied “I won’t be returning voluntarily”. And that was it. Any suggestions?

  11. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    Jason,
    This is probably not the appropriate location for your query.
    Join the forum and post your question there. You’ll just have to dodge some of the egos that reside there.
    I’ll post a comment, for sure.
    Cheers,
    Jonathan

  12. Don Penners Says:

    Jason, you might present the form offering to plea, after some questions can be cleared up by the court or witness.

    You might take one or two questions to some attorney and ask him to give you a short answer to your questions, which will likely be: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Present that letter to the court, along with the UNSIGNED plea offer mentioned above.

  13. uhclem Says:

    Your comments thing is messed up, Marc.
    I signed up to ONLY receive messages replying to my comment, but now I get every comment posted to this thread instead.

  14. Martin Padilla Says:

    @Jason, write a motion, or state in open court, that YOU are representing yourself, that can be done by adding after your name the words PRO-SE, which means in latin propia persona ( You are representing yourself) than after doing that, ” START THE MARC SCRIPT .” Good luck

  15. NonE Says:

    Martin, As an addition to your thoughts above, how can one “re-present” one’s self? I can see how I can present myself, perhaps.. but REpresent? I wonder if a better tactic might simply be to simply say that “here I am.” I’m not sure what all havoc this might play with their perversion of the idea of “person” and such legal land monstrosities.

    Picture: “And are you representing yourself today?” No sir, I simply AM myself! What kind of an idiot ARE you?

    – NonE

  16. NonE Says:

    uhclem Sed:
    Your comments thing is messed up, Marc.
    ——
    Be grateful you’re getting ANYthing, dude! It’s the nature of the state of the No State World that nothing ever works like we think maybe it oughta! 😉 It’s part of the charm of it all.

    – NonE

  17. Martin Padilla Says:

    NonE, You are correct, We should just PRESENT ourselves, the Re-Presentation is for Lawyers. We have to be careful with their words they have a different meaning. Is kind of interesting where the meanings came from, Republican form of government, RE-PUBLIC, RE-VENUE sending back to venue. Registrations submit information into a book.

  18. Martin Padilla Says:

    I wonder if when a lawyer represent us be give up jurisdiction? Because if he RE-present me it actually means I am not present, what do You think NonE?

  19. NonE Says:

    Just finished watching this. DUDE! Great production values! Good lighting, good set, good sound. 🙂 And of course it goes without saying (which is why I’ll contradict myself and say it) GREAT content! 🙂 🙂 🙂 (Did you rent extra adrenaline just for the show, or was that the coffee?) (Coffee???)

    – NonE

  20. NonE Says:

    Martin Sed:
    …if he RE-present me it actually means I am not present…
    ——
    I don’t think that at all. A lawyer representing you does not mean you are not present. You could “not be present,” but you could also be present and be re-presented by him/her/it. Then there’d be two of you, the real one and the re-presented one. It does seem, from what I understand of “their” laws, that if you give the attorney power then you no longer have certain powers for yourself. That has always seemed strange to me, that one cannot reclaim the “power of attorney” that one has granted. But then it all seems strange to me and it all just reinforces that underneath all of that paperwork is a gun.

    – NonE

  21. Martin Padilla Says:

    Adventures in legal land, where WHITE can be BLACK, and BLACK can be WHITE.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Mar 29, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guest: John from MN | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Bruce Washburn refuses to say if he has evidence and responds by condescendingly questioning whether Marc is a lawyer instead of answering the question. […]

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