Confronting Scottsdale City Council – Where’s the Evidence Your Laws Apply?

Posted on February 28th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

As mentioned on the No State Project last week, I confronted the Scottsdale city council February 25, 2014 and asked for evidence.  They declined to answer.  Can we be surprised though?  Procedure will always be used to cover up a lack of evidence.

A brief history for those not following updates on the radio show: Just like those in Tempe, I’ve been investigating the politicians in Scottsdale, it’s the same racket.  I asked the media cops for evidence, and predictably they could not answer, though Mark Clark did wish me well on my “quest.”  I asked to speak to with the assistant chiefs and chief, and was given a run around.  They lied to me saying I had to go through internal affairs.

I have been emailing the mayor and council for a couple of months and have not gotten a responsive answer.  Though I did get this:

Dear Mr. Stevens,

Mayor Lane wonders if you can produce evidence that the City does not have jurisdiction over you?  There are fairly straight forward answers to your questions…in part, the issue of “jurisdiction” only arises in the context of the courts seeking to exercise authority over an individual, so there is no free-floating jurisdiction, but rather it is determined based on the facts giving rise to a particular governmental action.

Mayor Lane is not interested in debating this with you and won’t respond again.  Perhaps you should speak to a lawyer or a law student to discuss in further detail the merits of your argument.

Best of luck,

Rachel Smetana, Management Assistant to the Mayor.

This prompted a response from J.P. Twist, the mayor’s Chief of Staff:

What was the reason for you being so harsh? What did this guy to do you/mayor?

Rachel apologized but she did not even try to set up a meeting with Mr. Lane or try to get an answer to the question.  I spoke with Rachel on the phone February 12, 2014.  She was hostile and even though I introduced myself as a journalist investigating how those called the “city” do business, she questioned my motives.  She said she didn’t understand why I was focused on Scottsdale, I didn’t live in Scottsdale and I was not asking about an incident personal to me.  I won’t lie, I was pretty put off by this evasion to a simple question.

So I asked if I had to be living in the Philippines and personally damaged by the storm to then be able to investigate.  She saw the logic, but I was not getting any time with Mr. Lane.  I even changed my question and removed the offending word “jurisdiction” and they still won’t answer.  This is the last email I sent them:

“I asked a question, what in my email led you to believe I was looking to debate or argue?  Also, jurisdiction is not limited to the courts, if you believe the constitution and laws apply to me just because I am physically in Scottsdale, then that’s an issue of jurisdiction.  But, as a journalist I’m used to such tactics, so I will remove the word so we can get closer to an answer.

“What evidence if any, does the mayor and council rely on to prove the constitution and laws of the state (including Scottsdale city ordinances/laws/regulations) apply to me just because I am physically in Scottsdale?”


On February 25, 2014, since I was at city hall early, I would try to speak with the city attorney and manager again.  Mr. Washburn, the city attorney, refuses to speak to me.  His secretary could not give me a reason.  But, Fritz Behring, the manager did speak with me.  Unfortunately, even though I thought I was getting an audio recording (with permission) there was an empty file on the phone.

When asked for evidence the constitution and law apply to me, he was honest and said: “I don’t know.” Fritz did evade the question: “If I did business in the same manner as you guys, the government, and forced the community to pay me, would you consider me a criminal?”  He tried to make a distinction between private people and government, so he’s implying I am a criminal because I’m not called government.  I pointed out that the government is just men and women like himself, no different than me.  I even asked if they were somehow different from me, endowed by god with special powers to do what I can’t, and he denied that.  But he would not come out and directly answer that he’d consider me a criminal if I did business like he does.

Fritz then claimed they (government) had the constitution and laws, that the community had agreed to them.  I had to point out he had already agreed that all support (taxation) is compulsory, so there is no evidence the community agreed to anything.

There’s not much to say about my three minutes before the council, it’s all on video below.  I’ve already followed up with them and continue to ask for evidence.  I’m working on getting this issue on their agenda so I can ask questions and expect an answer.  Last, I’m also waiting for a copy of the insurance policy from risk management.


18 Comments For This Post

  1. Latimer the Cat Says:

    What a ballzie statement!

  2. Keith Says:

    Good to see Marc in action pushing, pushing, pushing, at every opportunity to bring to public notice, the contempt these ‘statute/code mekers’ have by declining to give meaningful responses to Marc’s questions. Instead Mayor Lane hides behind: ‘This is a public commentary, it is not of an agenda item where there is a discussion or even a response’.

    So Mayor Lane, ‘When and where do you engage in discussions and responses with people over whom you claim to have jurisdiction?’

    Aussie Keith

  3. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Keith, thanks mate. Working on getting it on the agenda and contacting their insurance company.

  4. Andrew Says:

    Good video marc, always find them enjoyable, but such approaches will never yield results that are legally binding – even if they did answer your questions.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to gain answers by due process via an administrative process that is legally binding v’s the process of confrontation? Maybe they won’t respond – then you’d be all set and have an agreement!

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ andrew, I’m doing it more to educate the victims. When people get tickets they can fight them tooth and nail knowing there is no evidence and they can point out in court the obvious collusion.

  6. AL Says:

    The reply I received about evidence

    Thanks you for your request for empirical evidence that the California and Chino Hills laws, ordinances and statutes apply to you and other persons. The simplest empirical evidence I can provide that a person within the jurisdictional boundaries of a country, state, or city is subject to the “laws of the land” is the fact that these laws are not arbitrary, are enforceable, and an independent judiciary exists to ensure laws are administered objectively.

    As an outline of the process, the United States Constitution establishes State powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, in the 10th Amendment. The California Constitution establishes the boundaries and legal authority for counties and cities in Article 11 of the California Constitution. And a majority of the local laws are set forth in a city’s Municipal Code which is adopted by democratically elected members of the city’s governing body (City Council).

    A variety of law enforcement agencies uphold the laws of the land and the judicial system interprets and applies the law. The judiciary also has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review.

    It is this balanced system that sets boundaries for a society while protecting the liberties of members of that same society.

    I hope this information is valuable. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at 909-364-2715

  7. ITC Says:

    I love people that think outside the box,
    Good for you

  8. Andy Says:

    “There are fairly straight forward answers to your questions…” If that were true and Lane believed it, why was it prefaced by, “Mayor Lane wonders if you can produce evidence that the City does not have jurisdiction over you?”?

  9. Tz Says:

    Freakin’ sweet!! Marc you need to bottle those Kahonahs then sell em’ online and make a NSP army.
    This was very inspiring so thanks a lot for posting it, it is truly appreciated.

  10. sam schrenker Says:

    Hi Mr Stevens,

    I have been a follower of your videos and have read your book adventures in legal land. However I have been thinking about how to take these bureaucrats to task when you are railroaded in court. Me thinks I figured it out. All bureaucrats have one thing in common other than they are scum, they all need to be bonded, from dog catcher up to the president. After you are railroaded in court how about taking the evidence (hearing transcript) and filing a lien against the bureaucrats bond certificate? Am I the only one to have thought of this?

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Sam, we’ve been taking claims against their insurance. I would not file a lien though.

  12. mitch Says:

    love it

  13. Jack Says:

    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” (Barak Hussein Obama) Most of these bureaucrats are Democrats so they should be provided this “feedback” and offered the opportunity to be forthright, ie. tell the truth. Failure of the bureaucrats to provide the “evidence” is prima facie evidence that they don’t have such documentation or proof and thus is foundation for disregarding their “orders” or assertions. It would be great if everyone had on file such documents so that the government is exposed for their dishonesties. Going to court with this kind of documentation will make it very difficult for any honest juror to bring in a guilty verdict as the court is exposed as being without jurisdiction and is proceeding illegally if it moves forward and it leaves the persecuting/prosecuting attorney with a tough row to hoe!

  14. Boxer Says:

    Can I PLEASE get more information on how to file a claim against persons dba “[Insert Local] County”?

  15. dependable auto shippers Says:

    There is definately a great deal to learn about this
    subject. I love all the points you’ve made.

  16. Jack Worthington Says:

    John Mercer in Beaverton, Or. Muni Court said in court that the Vehicle Code was the “factual evidence” that the constitution and laws apply to me. I should have asked: Is that an opinion? I should have asked is there factual evidence in the form of your sworn affidavit of truth to the alleged fact, not presently in evidence, that the Vehicle Code is factual evidence that the constitution and laws apply to me just because I was present in the geographical location in Orygun? Mercer was and is crooked IMHO and I was not smart enough to trap that scoundrel by his own mouth. Be forwarned everyone who ventures before that criminal judge, IMHO of course.

  17. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Jack W, you can just ask how so? Exactly how does the code prove the constitution applies to me? Listen to the call I played on the live broadcast Jan 23, she pulls that same crap.

  18. Jack Worthington Says:

    Errata: I intended “forewarned,” and not forwarned in previous post.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Feb 22, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [UPDATED PODCAST] | Says:

    […] Marc’s appearance scheduled for this Tuesday with Scottsdale city council questioning what evi…. […]

  2. NSP - Mar 1, 2014 - Co-host: Genia - [UPDATED PODCAST] | Says:

    […] Genia’s thoughts on Marc’s interview with judge John Buttrick and his appearance before the Scottsdale city council. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: 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 he can 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 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. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here