Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame

Canadian Bureaucrat Proceeding Absent Evidence of Jurisdiction

Posted on June 5th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

This is a call to a lawyer in Canada, she’s part of the traffic bureaucracy.  Her particular agency sends orders to the police to steal (impound in legalese) people’s cars and hold them for ransom (fee).

I’m helping a victim of these predators get his property back.  We spoke with the police, they had no evidence and hung up on us.  So we went to the agency the police claimed gave them the order to forcibly take the car.  When I spoke with the lawyer’s associate earlier, I asked about evidence the constitution and laws applied just because someone was physically in Canada.  She was unable to answer, stating she was not going to argue with me.  I asked her why she thinks we’re arguing when all I did was ask a question.  She backed off the arguing dodge and told me I’d have to speak to one of their lawyers.

I said but you’re the one insisting the laws apply and there is jurisdiction, if you have no evidence, give the man his property back.  She refused to discuss it stating I had to speak to the lawyers.  Yeah, just keep passing the buck.

This Call of Shame is the call I had with the lawyer.  This is an example of the anti-social personality common to so many bureaucrats and politicians.  It’s no problem she has no evidence, she will not stop the attack and she lies saying that despite having no evidence of jurisdiction she is acting in good faith.  Well she was lying or she doesn’t understand what good faith means.

This lawyer states the evidence the laws apply is the cops took the man’s car.  In Canada the laws don’t apply to you unless your car is stolen from you; I was not aware of that.  Turns out Canadian law is different than American law in some ways.

When again asked what evidence the constitution and laws applied, she said they are proceeding “as if” they applied.  I again directly ask if they have evidence the laws apply and the lawyer says: “Uh, nope, I don’t.”   I tell her I’m writing it down and ask:

“So you don’t have any evidence of jurisdiction but you’re not going to give him his property back?”

“Correct.”

“You believe you’re acting in good faith still?”

“Yup.”

“So you have no evidence, you just said nope, I don’t, and you believe that acting without evidence of jurisdiction, you’re still acting in good faith?”

“Yup.”

“Wow.  Can I speak with your supervisor?”

“Nope.”

I don’t call the men and women acting as governments gangs of killers, thieves and liars without a mountain of supporting, verifiable evidence.  This call is only a small fraction of the evidence I’ve gathered and posted.  They admittedly don’t have evidence the laws apply, the same laws being the only thing separating them from common criminals, yet they refuse to stop.  They act “as if” they apply, it doesn’t bother them at all.

I could ask: What separates you from a car thief?  We did it according to the law, that’s what.  But you have no evidence the laws apply.  It doesn’t matter, we are proceeding as if they do.  But they don’t.  That doesn’t matter.  How are you different from a criminal?

The day is coming that we will no longer have to ask the age-old question: Why do so many people cooperate with these psychopaths?  It’s inevitable; the evidence just keeps coming to light; more and more people will stop cooperating with political predators because they’ll know the laws are only excuses to kill us, there is no moral justification to cooperate.

But there is every moral justification to not cooperate.

YouTube Preview Image

              

78 Comments For This Post

  1. Mark Says:

    In my humble opinion if this fellow is agreeing that he is ‘Mr.’ Doe then they do have jurisdiction.

    The attorney may have errored when she said that the rules/constitution.codes apply to ‘anyone’ but if one agrees that he is a Mr. then by what I have found he has given jurisdiction.

    It appears to me that the WAY that Marc asks for jurisdiction actually gives it.

    If you were them would you explain how one gives jurisdiction? Is that their job?

    It would not hurt to try something different would it?

    Here is someone trying something different and a Lawyers attempts to try and get this guy to ‘give’ jurisdiction, in my opinion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuN3J7gExjA

  2. gary Says:

    Marc, again the question arises “so, what do you do now?” I have basically the same situation with California DMV/Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma traffic Division and California FTB.

    Do you take these guys on in California? If so, pm me at applessence @ gmail, or let me know where I can get specifics to you. I have had enough of them and I want to burn their playhouse down. They are violating their own laws!

  3. Al Thompson Says:

    How is it acceptable that a govtard has the right to steal from the man, yet if the man wanted to steal from the govtard, that would be a crime. Government in this fashion just doesn’t make any sense unless the government is intended to be a fleecing or screwing service. What we are seeing is the natural outcropping of an almost completely immoral society. Attempting to reason with these people is certainly a frustrating experience.

  4. DisabledJustice Says:

    Thanks for the emails on what’s going on in the other parts of the world.

    I realize its importance.

    However, I need information how to and what to do here in the U.S. with unethical justices who refuse to respond even after I send my (Affidavit in support of Clarification on Status of Case) with Jurat etc..

    The Circuit Court refuses to reply or even send me back my Conformed copy regardless of me sending postal receipt return self addressed stamped envelope?…

    Daniel B
    DisabledJustice

  5. Al Thompson Says:

    @Daniel,

    Govtards are crooks; they aren’t stupid in the classical sense, they are just evil and extremely dishonest. When you attempt to speak rationally with them, or put in reasonable paperwork, they respond with idiocy. There’s really nothing more to it than that. You aren’t crazy; they are. I would recommend that you never, ever, use any affidavits as they are sworn documents which have little to no effect. You have to shift the burden of proof like Marc has demonstrated over and over. With that, you’ll get a little more traction.

    Govtardment in my view, is nothing more than a satanic cult that is not useful to anyone. Just try reasoning with one and then tell me I’m wrong.

  6. Mark Says:

    Maybe the problem is your idea of reasoning?

    I am assuming that you are talking about your reason for talking to them.

    If you do have a reason, and your talking to them the WAY you do does not get you the result you wanted, the reason, then I assume you would stop doing that?

    It is easy to just say it is them and pretend that you have nothing to do with it.

    I am suggesting that the WAY you talk to them is part of the result you get.

    I see little responsibility here or anywhere else for that matter. I took responsibility for the results I was getting and then investigated how I may be contributing to those results and found that without MY doing things in a certain way that they cannot move forward with what most here call THEIR WAYWARD doings.

    I am sure that most of you would agree or would have used the saying,, “It takes two to tango” but then seem to want to put it all on THEM when it comes to your interaction.

    It reminds me of something I read from a wonderful fellow using the name Vernon Howard.

    The Difference Between You & Me

    1. You are as stubborn as a mule, but I am loyal to my noble beliefs.

    2. You are a blabbermouth, but I am endlessly generous in contributing my wisdom to others.

    3. You are pushy, but I take constructive initiative.

    4. You are a shameless glutton, but I am a daring explorer in the world of food and drink.

    5. You have cunning greed, but I have admirable ambition.

    6. You express childish anger, but I firmly denounce all forms of injustice.

    7. You are rude, but I am not afraid to say what I think.

    8. You indulge in petty gossip, but I discuss other people in order to sympathize and help them.

    9. You are lazy, but I possess relaxed patience.

    10. You think the world owes you a living, but I wish only my rightful rewards so richly deserved.

    11. You have an evil lust for power, but I have a natural talent for social leadership.

    12. You nervously run from one foolishness to another, but I happily pursue many meaningful activities.

  7. Al Thompson Says:

    A crook, is a crook, is a crook, and you can’t reason with a crook.

  8. Mark Says:

    And someone who does not take responsibility for their own actions is a what…?

  9. hanik Says:

    For Canadians check section 52 and section 32 of the charter 1982 also check Canadian heritage site for more info about the sections mentioned and some cases like R. v. Dell 2005 and R.v. Buhay

  10. Pete Says:

    Great CALL OF SHAME, Canadian edition!

    @CALVIN: I would like to share a four-page motion hearing transcript on the forum…can you suggest any good, free file sharing sites that are easy to use and link to? The pages are in jpeg format. Thank you!

  11. Dan Says:

    Mark asked “And someone who does not take responsibility for their own actions is a what…?” The answer is a crook (i.e. government actor).

    @Mark, Do you think extortion and coercion is justified? Do you have personal first hand knowledge of facts and evidence that you and/or a third party have jurisdiction over me or anyone else?

    I do not think you do.

  12. Crazy Says:

    My new strategy.
    1st law.
    Any person who aggresses against me or damages me, or is on my land or in my space is subject to my jurisdiction and laws.
    2nd law………
    etc. etc.
    I will put it in writing and build my own prison to put these people in. Let the black sack kidnappings begin. Maybe they will get it then.

    I will claim that I am operating in good faith……I wonder what they will say then?

    I should be able to get away with this as I am crazy in crazy land.

  13. WhipCracker Says:

    @ Pete:
    imgur.com is the one I use for posting on the forum.

  14. Pete Says:

    @WhipCracker: Thanks!

  15. Mark Says:

    Mr. Dan if you reread what I posted I think that my thoughts are clear. One GIVES jurisdiction so it is by YOUR actions that one can decide.

    Yes I have first hand knowledge as I have more than once, I would estimate 12 times, not GIVEN jurisdiction. It took them 33 months and 16 court appearances to get me to give it to them but I have first of all taken responsibility for MY OWN IGNORANCE of Law and learned from that.

    It is a funny thing. If one continues to blame others for their situation then one is forced to attempt to get others to change in order for their lives to be ok. I refuse to do it that way. If I look to see how I am involved then I have a chance to change my situation without having to beg or grovel or blame others who may or may not change in order to save me from myself.

    So Mr Dan what have you to say to that?

  16. Mark Says:

    For an account of my not giving Jurisdiction to the court one may have a look at my thread at the following link.

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4281.html

  17. Mark Says:

    Hey Crazy it sounds like you want to act like THEM while at the same time complaining that THEY ought not to do that.

    Let’s get you to say what the law/rules/code/acts/statues are and then force others to conform?

    What do you mean by Law?

  18. Dan Says:

    @ Mark, What do I have to say to that? Well good for you but you did not answer my questions. Of course I am ignorant of legalsleeze and fairly proud of that. You see when I ask for facts and evidence of application of your precious law, I am waiting for a responsive answer, yes or no. If yes, I will then ask to see it.

  19. Mark Says:

    Well Dan you first talk about legalese and then you reference Law. I see these as very different. The thing is that if one acts according to Law, then they can get you tied up in legalese.

    Law as I see it is what one agrees to. Most do not understand how they agree so then complain when they have and someone binds them to the legal system by their own actions.

    If you answer to Mr. Dan Doe in court then you have given consent, entered into an arena even if you are ignorant of LAW. They then are acting according to Law by holding you to an Invisible Contract.

    The saying is not Ignorance of the legal system but ignorance of Law. If one understands the difference then it is hard for them to tie you up.

    So there is no extortion or coercion if they get you to enter into a Lawful agreement even if it is by your own ignorance.

    This is very difficult for most to see and is impossible when one is blaming others for their own ignorance.

  20. Al Thompson Says:

    @Mark,

    There’s no such thing as an invisible contract. If it is invisible, then there’s no contract. You may call it a slave system, but never a contract.
    You haven’t learned to say “Massa.”

  21. Mark Says:

    Well Al if you believe that then who am I to disavow you of your ideas.

    There is no helping those who insist on holding tight to the borrowed ideas they have acquired.

    For the rest of us there is remedy.

    Good luck..

  22. Al Thompson Says:

    The remedy is in natural law. Man-made laws must be in harmony with the natural laws. Natural law works perfectly 24/7 and most man=made laws do not.

  23. Incubus Says:

    “If you answer to Mr. Dan Doe in court then you have given consent…”

    You’re basing this off what?

    “…holding you to an Invisible Contract.”

    I don’t recall invisibility being an element of a contract.

  24. Al Thompson Says:

    @Incubus

    This is old “paytriot” nonsense that is still passed along by very ignorant people. It makes me crazy to hear crap like this. If anything, it would be a forced or forceable contract which would mean it is not a contract at all but it would be in the nature of a slave system.

    Slavery is repugnant to the natural law but it is acceptable with man-made laws i.e. The Constipation of the United States which essentially is a bankruptcy, tax, and slave document.

  25. Mark Says:

    Well then you all just keep on doing what you are. Keep asking questions that do not get answered and spending your time clinging to borrowed ideas and claims which seem to fall on deaf ears.

    I feel no need to explain anything to those who are convinced they have it all figured out.

    Gook Luck!

  26. Incubus Says:

    Well, Mark, you’re welcome to cling to your platitudes and baseless assertions. Asking for evidence seems to be a pointless endeavor to you.

    Why exactly do you hang around here so much if you’re so vehemently opposed to Marc’s methods, and feel no need to explain to anything to those of us who “have it all figured out”?

    I’m sure there’s plenty of freeman/strawman sites to frequent on the internet.

  27. Mark Says:

    Well Incubus it seems you have convinced yourself that you understand me and what I am talking about. The fact that you have it all wrong does not seem to phase you.

    Marc is wonderful and I have learned alot from him. Not only to know when to ask and what constitutes an intelligent question but when to stop beating my head against the wall and pretend it is progress or meaningful. Those who go out and try different things are a blessing to others. It is when people cling tight to what others have tried and refuse to see the limits to it that we get stuck in a rut and replies like I see here.

    I was under the foolish impression that some people here might actually try to move past the candle towards the light bulb but have only found a very few with the intelligence to let go of those things others have told them no matter how useless they are.

    If you regard the noise made by the people in this thread as questions then keep making it and/or replying.

    You all seem perfectly suited to asking answers and telling each other they are questions.

    As with any of my posts reading them and relying to them is voluntary. My taking time to reply to those who ask answers is the same.

    Carry on.

  28. Incubus Says:

    Mark, you’ve made some interesting claims. That answering to the name Mr. Doe gives them jurisdiction, and that they are applying invisible contracts (which seems to be counter-intuitive/the antithesis of a contract) to you. They’re claims I’ve heard many others make, but I’ve never seen the evidence to support them.

    Regardless, if you’ve found a method that works for you in your defense against bureaucratic attacks then I applaud and congratulate you. Whatever works. Perhaps Marc and others have found value and results in the methods he uses.

    Your tone however, comes off as very arrogant to me. Less concerned with educating and more concerned with letting us all know how naive and short sighted we are. The odds of you finding many people around here who are willing to entertain the notions you’ve presented are pretty slim. We ask for evidence the law is applicable (hint: there is none). That’s sort of the bread and butter approach in this neck of the woods, whether you agree with it or not.

    At what point do use just write us off as idiots plagued with tunnel vision, and as you say, “carry on”? Surely by now you’re bashing your head against the same proverbial wall you see the rest of us as doing, at the lack of progress you’re making. When do you come to the conclusion it’s just not worth your time and effort?

  29. Mark Says:

    Those who rely on others for proof lack the responsibility to find out for themselves.

    It works for those who need someone else to blame.

    That is how we got into this mess and I guess doing more of it will some how get us out.

    Please prove to me that when one does NOT do something that NOTHING will happen.

    Your reply is evidence that you do not understand the concept of proof.

    This is fun.

  30. Dan Says:

    Mark, from my own personal experience and from many others here from this site there is overwhelming empirical evidence that keeping the burden of proof on the accuser is most effective in these so called “halls of justice”, when in fact they are halls of extortion.

    Mark from your rhetoric it is fairly obvious that you endorse extortion and coercion to get other people to behave the way you wish.

    I did not say legalese, I said legalsleeze.

  31. Mark Says:

    Dan said “Mark from your rhetoric it is fairly obvious that you endorse extortion and coercion to get other people to behave the way you wish.”

    Well then you should have no problem providing evidence for your assertion?

    I will not hold my breath.

    “When the fool finds himself with the same problem he had before he asks, “How do I get out of this?”

    When the wise man finds him self with a recurring problem he asks, “How did I get into this?”

    Fools always find others to blame for their own foolishness.

    Ignorance of the Law is no excuse; unless you have no other.

  32. Dan Says:

    Mark, I cited your rhetoric as evidence in my assertion. I would think either an individual does or doesn’t endorse extortion and coercion to get other people to behave the way he/she wishes. I do not.

    Mark, you said “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse: unless you have no other”.

    Excuse for what, and no other what? I noticed you capitalized the word law, what is that all about?

  33. Mark Says:

    Your rhetoric about what you call my rhetoric is evidence that what you say is valid?

    You seem more like them the more I get you to talk.

    Keep it up I think they are hiring.

  34. Incubus Says:

    “Please prove to me that when one does NOT do something that NOTHING will happen.”

    I’m sorry but those who “rely on others for proof lack the responsibility to find out for themselves”. Please, show some responsibility.

    “Your reply is evidence that you don’t understand the concept of proof.”

    Likewise.

  35. Dan Says:

    Mark you know better than that.

  36. Mark Says:

    I’m confused.

    Which one of you is playing good Cop and which is playing bad Cop?

  37. Incubus Says:

    Mark, I wish you the best in your adventures/endeavors. To reiterate, if you’ve found a method that works for you then hats off. I see a bureaucratic attack akin to that of a home invader or an aggressor in any given situation. When your well being is jeopardized all is fair game. Bite, scratch, kick, punch, go for the testicles. No particular defense is a wrong defense if it neutralizes the threat.

    If you have formulated and honed a technique with consistent success, then at the very most I hope you’ll be willing to come back and share your knowledge with as many people willing to listen and in a way that is explicit and rote enough for even a layman to comprehend and apply.

    I have no desire to argue or banter with you. You have your view/approach. I have mine. And others theirs.

    Dissent is never discouraged, even if it is challenging or uncomfortable. Good luck to you and best of wishes.

  38. Mike staudacher Says:

    Personal and territorial jurisdiction are presumptions of law in the United States courts and need to be automatically challenged.

    All written law in the United States of America and of the United States of America has a starting point and that starting point is the Four Organic Laws of the United States of America.

    The four Organic Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of
    Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15,
    1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of
    September 17, 1787 are the foundation for all written law in the United
    States of America.

    The Declaration of Independence states the case for human freedom–the right
    to live free of government.

    The Articles of Confederation creates a Confederacy wherein the member
    States agree that the status of a free inhabitant is the right of the
    people, provided the claimant is not a pauper, vagabond or fugitive from
    justice.

    The Northwest Ordinance describes a kind of place where the Congress can
    temporarily, pursuant to its proprietary power, make the laws and tax the
    people.

    The Constitution in Article I creates a government for the territory subject
    to its proprietary power. In Article II an executive for the United States
    of America is created, the President of the United States of America. The
    “one supreme court” of Article III is never ordained and established. The
    Union of States subject to the United States of America’s proprietary power
    is described in Article IV.
    So what is the United States versus the United States of America?
    “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” State of California Constitution Article III Section 1
    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And” Constitution of September 17, 1787 Article I Section 8 Clause 18
    These two places are the United States.
    Thus, the United States is the territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the proprietary power, the United States of America.
    English common law is the law for the people of the United States of America and English common law is not accepted in the United States. Therefore if one lives in the United States jurisdiction need not be challenged but if one lives in the United States of America jurisdiction should be challenged. Here is now where it can be said honestly, Ignorance of All the law is no excuse.

  39. Mark Says:

    Hey Mike thanks for the post.

    Personal and territorial jurisdiction are presumptions of law in the United States courts and need to be automatically challenged.

    I have first hand knowledge that the courts are based on presumption. If one investigates ALL the presumptions then one can act intelligently but what if we miss something?

    So this seems correct but what does it mean to challenge?

    You used the word ‘personal’ jurisdiction, what does that mean?

    And you used the word ‘Law’ and not ‘the legal system’ so what is meant by ‘Law’ when you use it and why do most people use those words interchangeably?

    So the problem I see is that Marc moves PAST the ‘personal’ part of this or what the courts call ‘in persona’ and asks if they have Jurisdiction over him without asking what is meant by ‘personal/in persona’ and may have just helped them to gain jurisdiction.

    I challenge, which means ASK about the personal part of that which it appears to me if that does not refer to me then jurisdiction is mute.

    So the presumption of the ‘personal’ or ‘in persona’ seems JUST as important as the Jurisdiction as without one the other seems to fall.

  40. Mark Says:

    Let me ask you all something.

    If you ran a racket and were trying to collect $125.00 and it was going to cost you $300.00 to get the money what sense would it make to continue down this road?

    I have said in many places I appreciate Marc’s work but my experience shows me that when they have a chance to make more money then the SAME methods do not work.

    And if you were THEM then would it not be good practice to let these losing transactions slide with the result being that when it comes to making real money you have fooled people into using a method which will not work when the chips are down?

    It amazes me how people seem to want to jump into an arena or game where the rules are set and then say, “I do not want to play by those rules.’

    It is like the hockey player who asked the referee for evidence that the rules applied to him. He identified himself as a player and then asks if the rules apply? Sounds like unsportsmanlike conduct to me.

    Do you identify yourself as a player? If so then HOW do you do this? Would it not be wise to ask THEM for evidence that you are a player before you ask if the rules apply to players?

    They seem to need ‘something’ to ‘appear’ in court.

    The Magi – strate uses spell ing to try to make something appear.

    Most stand up and say, “Here I am.’ “That is me’ “I am a player”

    IF ‘you’ believe that these courts do not have anything to do with you then why not ask about ‘you’?

    They make out the paperwork to a John DOE and then once they get someone to ‘appear’ then they want to call you ‘Mr. Doe?’

    I want to know that that is about so I ASK.

    Do you have any evidence that I am Mr. Doe?

    They come back with a question.

    “Are you saying you are not Mr. Doe?”

    I asked if there was any evidence before the court that I am Mr. Doe.

    Go ahead and claim that this does not matter but have you tried it?

    I have. Many have. I do not understand what game I may be agreeing to play if I consent to being called Mr. Do you?

    I do not want to be a Mr. just in case that will be my consent to being bound by a set of rules which none Mr.’s are not.

    If you all want to ask for evidence about what Mr. means to them then I ask, “Why do I care?’

    It appears they want me NEED me to answer to, play the role of, appear as this Mr and anything they want, I do not.

    The reason I came to this site and started posting is when I was listening to an NSP one day and a fellow tried to explain this idea to Marc and he was dismissed out of hand.

    I have first hand knowledge that this one question stops them in their tracks.

    Yes it sound way to easy and many want to label this as patriot nonsense or freeman stuff but it seems to me that patriots and freemen are fighters.

    I tried that game and it SEEMED to work when it was unimportant things like traffic tickets but when the chips were down they rolled right over it.

    By simply asking a basic question, “What does this have to do with me?” or “Do you have any evidence that I am Mr. Doe?” they were stymied.

    evidence you say?

    ok ok

    https://sites.google.com/site/wikiofsolutions/autonomy/peaceful-inhabitants

    I would suggest starting with ‘First Hand Testimony (imbatman57 Episode 35)’

    I have used a form of this method and my experience with this has been posted in the forum @ http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4281.html which has seemed to be ignored by most reading this thread.

    Interesting to watch how people ignore and argue without investigation.

  41. Chris Says:

    Mark,
    What have you studed on the subject of jurisdiction?
    Where can I read it?
    Thanks … Chris

  42. Mark Says:

    I have studied in the world of hard knocks first.

    If you look in some Law books like Bouvier and Blacks you can find definitions.

    One thing to know about these rags is that these rules are in CODE.

    Here in Canada they do not hide this as they call them Code.

    So then if you are going to read these definitions then you must understand the code or you are easily fooled.

    One of the most important things to know about this code is the word ‘Includes’.

    expressio unius est exclusio alterius The express mention of one thing excludes all others When items are listed, anything not explicitly stated is assumed to not be included.

    So for instance in the Canadian Criminal code the word ‘Canada is define thus – Canada for greater certainty INCLUDES the territorial water ways and the surrounding Oceans and Seas.

    Most would look at this thinking that this is telling us that it is the LAND as well as the water but the definition is INCLUSIVE.

    So words like understand – person and others are interesting when you know how to break the code.

    If you want to see what me and others have found regarding Jurisdiction you could go to my thread here http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4281.html

    and for information sake someone is now moderating my posts here. Seems I have hit a cord.

    Interesting. Even here free speech is not wanted. WOW

  43. Al Thompson Says:

    The burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the accused. Presumptions are not a factor when you shift the burden of proof. That’s the most effective way to get good results. The problem is to get enough skills to be able to do it effectively in the courtroom. Jurisdiction is simply authority. Marc’s questioning of jurisdiction is fit and proper and it is never responsively answered by any of the govtards.

    Your ideas are warmed over and useless old “Paytriot” nonsense that doesn’t work. Just shift the burden of proof and keep it simple. Let them show you how smart they are instead of the other way around.

    It is also difficult to effectively communicate with a bunch of liars. You can have the best system around, but the fact is they constantly lie, so there’s no end to it. Remember, you can tell when the govtards lie when they are moving their lips. They have zero credibility and should never have any jurisdiction over anyone.

  44. Al Thompson Says:

    Free speech isn’t the issue. The junk you are espousing is as old as the hills. You may have just learned it, but that garbage has been around for years. The “invisible contracts” gave you away. So, most people here aren’t going to give your remarks any serious consideration.

  45. Nomos Says:

    @Hard knocks Mike:

    That’s an interesting response to the question of a name. However, I’m curious, in that scenario, I was wondering how would you respond if the judge said:

    “Well the evidence that it’s your name is the fact that when I called this case by title of the parties you approached.”

    How would you handle that?

    (And greetings to the regs.)

  46. Nomos Says:

    @Hard knocks Mark (apologies).

  47. Kain Says:

    Really Mark? Just cause your bullshit rant wasn’t posted immediately you think your free speech is being stifled? Hate to burst your bubble but “awaiting moderation” happens to the rest of us too. So what is it that’s so controversial you weren’t allowed to say it? Way to whip up suspense so your lies look a little less pathetic. Clearly no one around here is falling for your trolling. The name game is for children. The adults here like to cut to the chase and go straight for the jugular; evidence and the lack thereof. That all caps crap has a gotten a lot of people in trouble and they’re dumb enough to fall for it because they listen to charlatans like you and Rob Menard (or is it Retard?).

    Yes folks it’s really quite simple. You present the birth certificate baring a name similar to yours before the court and ask them for proof you are that name. They will haggle with you back and forth, but after the third inquiry a unicorn will emerge from your butthole. Do not be frightened as this is relatively painless. Almost seamlessly the unicorn will burst into a rainbow, blinding everyone in the court room and sending them into a sort of hypnotic trance. At this point the judge is open to your suggestions and you simply command him to drop the charges. He’ll have no choice but to comply. I’ve perosnally replicated this in court dozens of times, and that’s a fact.

  48. Mark Says:

    Nomos thats for the reply

    First thing is you never want to re-present anything. Check out Blacks Law and see what they say that means.

    You could stand up and say, “Here for that matter.”

    If he asks who are you I have said “I give the court permission to call me Mark.” The rest of that session he called me Mark and even corrected himself when he accidentally called me Mr.

    Others at the link I provided say this.

    I am here for that matter

    “For and on the record,

    I believe there is a mistake,

    as I have seen no evidence of notice, (here they are referring to a meeting of the minds. Have you had a chance to talk to the other party, the STATE?)

    I am here to present first hand testimony and knowledge

    as a friend of the court to help deal with

    and settle this matter honorably.

    Is there a controversy involving the name?”

    “Is there any evidence of a controversy concerning me?”

    Now when they make any reply one just repeats the last question.

    This is shifting the burden to THEM and in my experience and that of many others they NEED you to identify AS that name or AS the defendant or AS a Mr. or AS the Surname/Last Name which are Military designations and GIVE them Jurisdiction.

    Mr. Thompson’s dogma about patriots is simply his misunderstanding and lack of investigation.

    Asking for evidence of Jurisdiction seems to create controversy.

    What is the job of the court/judge?

    Seems they are there to settle disputes or controversy between parties.

    If there are not two parties to an action or no controversy then YOU have just removed any basis for what most think of as Jurisdiction.

    So I do not ask if they have Jurisdiction over ME but ACT in a manner which removes the basis necessary for there to be any reason for a matter in court.

    Here is how another fellow does it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xllp3-_fRPc

    Here is his yourube channel

    http://www.youtube.com/user/PirateBillTurner?feature=watch

  49. Mark Says:

    “Well the evidence that it’s your name is the fact that when I called this case by title of the parties you approached.”

    How would you handle that?

    Are you practicing Law from the bench Sir?

    Should we swear you in?

  50. Mark Says:

    [...] “Laws are just excuses to kill us.” [...]

    When you use the word Law are you referring to Acts/codes/statues or maybe contracts?

    We involve ourselves in what I mean by the word Law every time we enter into an agreement.

    Ignorance of Law/agreements/contracts is what has them pull us into their legal system BY OUR OWN IGNORANCE of it.

  51. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Mark, I’m referring to political laws.

  52. Mark Says:

    I’m referring to political laws.

    In Canada anyways they do not call any of these Law’s.

    They call them Acts and Codes and Statues and sure they have Rules of Court and they even call these places THE LAW COURTS so they are practicing Law in these places once they get you to consent to the policy/acts/codes/statues.

    Most people wrongly call them Laws but I see an advantage in that for them. And where did people get this idea? In the Public Fool System?

    If you call those policies Law then have you not just agreed to them?

    I ask a cop for the Law which says I must provide a name to him.

    He quotes the Motor Vehicle Act.

    I ask him, Did you swear an Oath?

    He says Yes.

    Did you swear an oath to act according to law or to act according to the motor vehicle act?

    He goes silent.

    I then say, I asked if there is an LAW which says I must provide anyone with identification?

    I once asked a Judge if there was any LAW which said I am bound by any of the RULES in the court.

    He held up the Canadian Criminal Code book.

    I said, Sir, I have asked you for a LAW and you have provided me with a CODE and my understanding is that not to differentiate between the two is tantamount to fraud.

    He sat silent.

    This all seems simple to me as I found out that I was not acting in a Scientific manner.

    If you look at Engineers they use a very precise language.

    This is needed as they want CLEAR understanding about what the other is taking about.

    The courts spend a lot of time defining words they use so I ask about these words.

    They also seem to change the meaning of words in different Acts so I do not assume i know what they mean over here just because they defined it over there.

    I see the Scientific Method as this.

    1. Clarity. This is a question about the meaning the other is GIVING to the words he uses. If You and I are not clear on what the other is talking about then this seems the ONLY way there can ever be a misunderstanding.

    It comes across as, “What do you mean?”

    SO Marc may after he asks if they have Jurisdiction and they say yes he may act in a scientific manner and then ask THEM what they mean by Jurisdiction.

    Seems this would stay in line with the idea he has about questioning.

    2. Validity. This comes across as “How do you know?”

    Ok I think I am clear about the meaning you have given to the words you use but how to do you know that?

    3. Is a question of prediction basically. It is an ‘If/Then’ question.

    If what you say is true then what would we be able to see/hear/taste/smell.

    So it seems as I write this that Marc is asking the second question but has moved past the first.

    Would it hurt to try something different?

    Phone them and ask them what is meant by Jurisdiction.

    THEN ask them what is it that makes them think they have it.

    If they cannot even tell you what they mean then how could they claim they have it?

    I am not saying you would get an answer but it seems this would be a more intelligent thing to ask.

    But hey I am just some fool who thinks that one would try something different in a effort to find out that maybe I am the fool.

    I am just some guy who found out how unscientific I was acting and started asking questions in this manner with wonderful results.

  53. Mark Says:

    For information sake this is my first time posting in this part of the site.

    I put the name Mark but use the handle Notsure7 in the forums.

    Anyone who has an inquiring mind might have a look at my threads.

    There we ask questions and provide information so that one can go find find out for themselves, or what I assume many mean by PROOF.

    Asking another to provide you proof seems foolish to me.

    What could another possibly say that would stand over and above what you have found out for yourself?

    Vernon Howard said, “If a man can be convinced of something he can be unconvinced and re-convinced of something else.”

    For me something is proven when I find out for myself.

    For most it seems they are asking for WORDS from others which they then cling to because lots of others agree.

    How many millions agree about this idea called God?

    What does their agreement have to do with the facts or proof?

    The more people agree with something the more I am suspect.

    And anything you can get a Christian and an Atheist to agree on I have real questions about.

    ie. Forced schooling government paying taxes and that acts/codes/statues are Law.

  54. Mark Says:

    Kain Said:
    June 9th, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Really Mark? Just cause your bullshit rant wasn’t posted immediately you think your free speech is being stifled? Hate to burst your bubble but “awaiting moderation” happens to the rest of us too.

    Well Kain I just TESTED your assertion.

    I access this thread on two different computers and was interested to find that one of my posts was not showing up on the other computer.

    That is how I noticed that a post was being moderated.

    The above post was immediately posted with no moderation.

    It happened only once to me here.

    Is this proof that none of you are moderated? NO NO NO. only that ONE of mine was.

  55. Nomos Says:

    @Mark

    That’s interesting. I don’t see how questioning jurisdiction creates a controversy though. To me its the same as your response to the question of your name, or who you are. It’s a challenge to jurisdiction without saying the word “jurisdiction.” Much like Marc Steven’s questions as to what facts does a bureaucrat accuser have that the constitution, code, or statute is applicable to the accused. Those questions are not expressly asking about jurisdiction, but they are jurisdictional questions.

    At any rate, thank you for your opinions and sharing your experiences.

  56. Mark Says:

    Nomos

    I think I see your point about the questions of name and jurisdiction seeming the same.

    It seems a hard concept for us as we take our name as a PART of ourselves and not A PART from us.

    If someone calls you an Elephant that does not MAKE you one. It is something you have been CALLED. Elephant is a WORD and so is MARK.

    The man we call Al Thompson, among others, has said that the Prosecution has ALL the burden so I feel if we place it ALL on them then we can trip them up more.

    IF my assertions about the importance of the name are correct then you could find this out for yourself by asking “Is there a controversy involving me?”

    IF, as I and others have found, they NEED you to identify yourself in order to move forward then you have just found a way to stop them in their tracks.

    IF the burden is really on them then let them have it ALL.

    And my purpose here was to ASK if this asking for evidence of Jurisdiction is a useful exercise.

    What does it gain us? How does it help me?

    When I do something I want a result which is beneficial to me.

    I have found that the courts and cops want three things from me.

    1. They want me to give a name.

    2. They want me to UNDERSTAND the charges.

    3. They want me to get a Lawyer.

    They seem to use alot of energy trying to get me to do these three things.

    Anything they want, I do not.

    While in the holding cells in the back of court they sent the sheriffs (in Canada the Sheriff acts as a bailiff) in 5 or 6 times telling me that my Lawyer was here to see me when I had made it perfectly clear to them I was not going to use one. “Why would I need a Lawyer? was my response.

    Now I assume that since I had not given a name, although they had found ID on me, and since I had not stood under the charges they still needed something to gain jurisdiction.

    By taking a Lawyer my understanding is that one submits to the Jurisdiction of the court as now there is someone to RE – PRESENT the name and you have authorized this, again giving Jurisdiction.

    If they took me into court without a Lawyer the Judge would soon ask if I was going to re – present myself. “I believe I am myself” was my reply. This was followed by more attempts to trick me into GIVING them a name or some how ACTING as if the court had some sort of authority in the matter or over me.

    If a court does NOT have Jurisdiction then why would one EVER file a motion?

    What is one doing when he does that? Have YOU not just shown that the court has the authority/jurisdiction to decide on the motion and then you want to say they have no jurisdiction/authority? This seems very confusing to me.

    “I will let you decide if you have the right to decide anything for me.”

    Marc uses a method where he asks the cop certain questions about ‘crime’ and then he asks how many element are in a valid cause of action.

    SO in essence I am ASKING if one might try asking how many elements are their in Jurisdiction and what are they? Place the burden on them.

    AND JUST IN CASE you may have some of your ideas wrong and just in case you might be willing to find this out and just in case you really want to learn something you may refrain from giving a name to them and SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

    Let me make it clear here I am NOT saying that you say you are NOT that name or something about a Legal Fiction. My Burden is light. I need make NO claims. That is their game.

    I WANT to know when I am wrong. I LIVE to find WHERE I am wrong. When I see that and where I am wrong then I AM IN CONTROL as I stop acting in a manner which gets me into trouble BY MY OWN HAND/MOUTH/ACTS.

    Many of the replies here are frightening at least and disturbing at worst.

    I was under the impression that we were here to share ideas and experience, with the goal to learn something new, which to me involves rooting out what I am doing which is mistaken.

  57. bruce sloane Says:

    @Mark
    ………………………………………………………………
    quote Mark = IF, as I and others have found, they NEED you to identify yourself in order to move forward then you have just found a way to stop them in their tracks.
    ……………………………………………………………….

    How many John Does are indicted / convicted …???

  58. Mark Says:

    @bruce sloane

    I do not understand the question

  59. Mark Says:

    @bruce sloane

    If I am getting you then I might ask you

    “How many men who do not agree they are a name and do not stand under/understand the charges and do not get a Lawyer are indicted or convicted?”

    and I might ask you “Are you a name/word/sound?”

    I give you permission to call me Mark AND I also answer to asshole.

    I have seen no evidence that I AM or HAVE a name. 10 fingers and 10 toes I do have. I CALL them toes but toe is a word not those things on feet.

  60. Mark Says:

    I think it was the Buddha who said,

    “When the wise man points at the moon, the fool stares at his finger.”

    Words are pointers.

  61. Nomos Says:

    @Mark,

    I get where you’re coming from, and the lengthy explanation wasn’t necessary (for me at least). I have always known that EVERY thing in a complaint has to be proven as a fact, including the name. It’s just almost never challenged.

    So, again, I completely get what you’re saying. I was just wondering how you would handle a reply as I hypothesized.

    With respect to the jurisdictional issues and your remaining comments. According to the their rules, of the two types of jurisdiction (personal, and subject matter) only subject matter jurisdiction challenges are never waived. So whether one has given jurisdiction or not, if there’s no subject matter jurisdiction then it doesn’t matter because nothing is valid without it. So filing a motion doesn’t put you in the court’s jurisdiction, because there was never any from the beginning. Like you said, just because someone SAYS something, or that you’re someone, doesn’t make it so.

    With respect to your position re the burden of proof—and I’m not speaking for Marc, just sharing an observation—that’s all that Marc has said, “keep the burden of proof on them.” The specific situation that you mentioned re Marc questioning an officer of crime elements is not where Marc begins from. That line of questioning in that particular situation was, in my opinion, to show that the issues don’t change just because of the actor involved. Elements of legal theories in court actions are what gives or deprives the court of the power to hear a case. If just ONE is missing, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

    I believe you are on point with the Big 3, and I agree with your observations that they seem to get bent outta shape over those.

    The strategy that you have developed (or use), to me, is identical in nature to Marc’s strategy, and could also be used.

    With respect to the replies here. This is really a great forum. Sometimes we get tunnel vision and may respond without really comprehending. However, we as the sole controller of our on communication may need to either figure out a way to communicate our ideas in a way that provokes meaningful dialog instead of discord.

    There are some great people that take part, each with their own unique personality. So you have to be patient, don’t take anything personal, and take it as a project to see if you can improve your communication style. Or not, of course.

    At any rate, thank you for the dialog.

    Until next we communicate . . .

    (I know Marc’s head is probably ready to explode cause at this point it should have moved to the forum. – - Sorry Marc, it seems before you know it you have 2 or 3 responses going.)

  62. bruce sloane Says:

    @Mark ..
    ……………………………………………………………….
    quote Mark =
    How many men who do not agree they are a name and do not stand under/understand the charges and do not get a Lawyer are indicted or convicted?
    ……………………………………………………………….

    this is Your postulation, please support it

    now, my considered Opinion, borne out by Cases, is that if the Court has personam Jurisdiction, and you choose not to ” identify ” or, stand mute

    good luck to ya

  63. Nomos Says:

    NOTICE OF ERRORS

    Paragraph 3 reads:

    So whether one has given jurisdiction or not, if there’s no subject matter jurisdiction then it doesn’t matter because nothing is valid without it. So filing a motion doesn’t put you in the court’s jurisdiction, because there was never any from the beginning.

    It should read:

    So whether one has given personal jurisdiction or not, if there’s no subject matter jurisdiction then it doesn’t matter because nothing is valid without it.

    Paragraph 7 reads:

    . . . we as the sole controller of our on communication may need to either figure out a way to communicate our ideas in a way that provokes meaningful dialog instead of discord.

    It should read:

    . . . we as the sole controller of our own communications may need to either figure out a way to communicate our ideas in a way that provokes meaningful dialog instead of discord.

  64. Mark Says:

    Bruce why is it that I must support your?

    You are the one who opened the discussion so am I then bound to support something that I have not said?

    I simply turned YOUR question back on you and you seem to then say I am avoiding?

  65. Al Thompson Says:

    @Mark,

    Playing this game is a waste of time. ALL CAPS is your slave “name.” The real man is surety for the ALL CAPS or the slave name. In fact, any presentment from these “courts” would flunk 5th grade grammar. It’s obvious that they have some secret voodoo code they are using but will never admit it. Why not tell them that when they can write their presentments is proper English, then you will respond to it.

    I don’t understand the charges. You might want to ask for the definition of a “charge” as they use it in court. You just want facts. What facts do you have that your paperwork applies to me? It is easier and it cuts out all of the code puking.

  66. Mark Says:

    @Nomos

    Thanks for your post.

    Is meaningful dialog something that I alone control?

    I have no way of knowing HOW to interact with someone in a way which is going to be best for them.

    What I find is that most people just THROW opinions/arguments at each other and call it communication.

    In order to commune or come together it seems to me that both sides need to work on it.

    I have found it useless to work with someone who wants to argue or ask me for proof so I come at people in a different manner. Since what I see most people do most of the time does not work then I come off different.

    I take what people say and where it does not make sense to me I question into that.

    So my comments about Jurisdiction and how asking one who you say has no business deciding for you to decide for you is an example.

    NO it is not something that another enjoys but if one is really investigating I would assume he is then willing to find out where he is mistaken.

    I find most times that my assuming that is a mistake on my part.

    It does appear to me that at first you did not like my posts here but then YOU changed your approach and we have been able to come together on some ideas.

    I am not trying to excuse me or say it is all up to you but you may also notice that when your resistance turned towards a more meaningful interaction with me then mine did as well.

    Using the man called AL Thompson as an example here he seems to keep coming at me with the same baseless assertions and accusations demanding that I provide evidence when he has given none.

    The moment I see some actual attempt to interact with me in a way which may be meaningful to both of us then my stance would change.

    So YES I do use a confrontational approach to those who come at me in that manner as my only other option seems to be to ignore them.

    Again since I assume people are here to learn, which to me means find out where they are wrong as well as find out what they have not found out, then I work at it in a manner which I have found works.

    Very few can look at something and then see that they are full of shit and it is those who cannot be helped. It does seem to help others to watch someone continue to act like a damn fool and is much easier for me to see in you then for me to see in me.

    So by my being rude or whatever you want to call it to someone in here who is not going to learn anyways this may well help you.

    It would be a damn boring place if we all came off the same. I enjoy something different and make no excuses for it.

    Well as I have written that last sentence maybe I am just making excuses. I will investigate AND ask for you input and opinion.

    Thanks for your time and ideas.

    And if anyone wants to move this to another place just let me know and I will follow.

  67. Mark Says:

    Look at AL Thompson’s last post. I have said NOTHING about ALL CAPS in this thread. Not a word.

    Thank you Al for providing us with a perfect example of what I just said about you in my last posting.

    I would hope someone here can learn from your actions.

  68. Mark Says:

    Ok here is my last post here. If anyone wants to continue this then follow this link and I will be there with bells and whistles.

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4281-post-33925.html#pid33925

    Thank you all for your input. I have enjoyed myself immensely.

  69. Al Thompson Says:

    The problem for everyone is that we’re dealing with chronic liars. We try to make sense out of it and drive ourselves crazy. Easier to simply shift the burden of proof to the govtards.

    The paperwork us completely deficient in its presentment.

  70. Mark Says:

    Sorry I think this may be the link I wanted to post.

    I posted something there about AL Thompson which may interest some of you.

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4281-page-15.html

  71. Kain Says:

    Mark: Well Kain I just TESTED your assertion. I access this thread on two different computers and was interested to find that one of my posts was not showing up on the other computer. That is how I noticed that a post was being moderated. The above post was immediately posted with no moderation. It happened only once to me here. Is this proof that none of you are moderated? NO NO NO. only that ONE of mine was.

    So instead of showing a little patience and waiting, you decided to whip up a fervor about being “moderated” so your lies would seem a little more attractive/taboo. Way to sell your crap. A turd is a turd is a turd. You’ve been ousted. Troll elsewhere

  72. marc stevens Says:

    there is very little moderation, spam, obvious trolling-sliding, advocating violence and encouraging NonEntity. If you post a link, then it may have to be approved

  73. Nomos Says:

    Mark said: “It does appear to me that at first you did not like my posts here but then YOU changed your approach.”

    @Mark:

    I don’t know where that appears at, I asked you one question, made no comments for or against what you were saying.

    You went into a long explanation. I said I knew what you were saying and was only curious about the question that I asked.

    At any rate, you answered my question. Good luck to you.

  74. Justice Says:

    Why no new broadcasts on LRN? The last one is Helen. Nothing new for like a month. What’s the story? Ty

  75. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ justice, the last few shows have been posted, sometimes within an hour of the live broadcast. I was out of town this past week and could not do a live show. Back live this Sat.

  76. NonE Says:

    From deep within the stomach of tha alligator… Marc Stevens Says:
    Back live this Sat.

    - NonBelivingTheVentrilogator(born in the Show Me State ;-)

  77. F-J, M. Says:

    Simple folks: File a Claim against the living flesh and blood [Wo]Man, not the fiction (title).

  78. Arvid Says:

    I was born on the land mass that has become known as Canada… I’m not a citizen… i have sworn no oaths…

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jun 8, 2013 - Co-host: JT | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] “Laws are just excuses to kill us.” [...]

  2. Canadian Bureaucrat Proceeding Absent Evidence of Jurisdiction - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] post Canadian Bureaucrat Proceeding Absent Evidence of Jurisdiction appeared first on [...]

  3. NSP – Jun 8, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] “Laws are just excuses to kill us.” [...]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturdays, 4-7pm EST: NSP radio LIVE. Tune-in as we discuss the general topics of tickets, tyrants, assessments, and bringing about a voluntary society. The NSP is not live April 19, 2014, but is new recorded material so we will not be taking calls @ (218) 632-9399.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6













Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6




Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here