Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame, Video

CoS – May 30, 2014 – ME State Tax Supervisor: “Evidence Laws Apply? It’s Assumed”

Posted on June 3rd, 2014 by Marc Stevens

This is a Call of Shame that should lead to more civil disobedience to these people called “governments”.  It so perfectly demonstrates not only the complete lack of evidence, but also the lack of empathy that is so common with government types.  This is not an isolated incident, it’s indicative of the institutional dishonesty and lack of integrity by those called “government”.

The tax agent, a supervisor named Phil, agrees the laws apply if one physically in Maine.  This is the foundational argument used to justify every act of aggression done by these predators.  His initial response when I ask if he has any evidence to support his argument?  Laughter; yes, he laughs.  Because truth be told, the question is hilarious.  He then says he doesn’t really know how to respond to my question.  So, he tried to deflect the attention away and goes for the old dodge we’ve heard so many times here at the No State Project, he says I’m making a legal argument.

This is where you need to stop the evasion and keep the burden on them, it’s their argument, I’m just asking for the evidence and they lie saying it’s an argument.  No matter how many times they try, a question is not an argument; don’t let them get away with this nonsense.  He again tries to divert attention away by asking me what I’m looking for; this is a silly tactic and you should just keep going back to the question.

When pressed he says he basing it on what he’s been taught over the years.  So I plug away asking if he bases it on any actual facts.  He again asks what would be acceptable to me.  This is the same distraction that didn’t work the first time.  Their argument is the laws apply to those physically in Maine, they operate by that argument everyday, they justify their actions with it and they bear the burden of proof.  Unless they want to be honest and admit they have nothing, keep plugging away asking for the facts.

I point out that since he cannot support his argument and prove jurisdiction, then the tax assessment should be vacated.  After a short pause Phil just restates his opinion, “in my opinion it does apply to him.”  I agree, it’s his opinion and ask again if he has any facts and he recycles the earlier dodge that didn’t work by asking what I’m looking for.  I’m looking for the facts you base your opinion on, how much clearer can I make this?

Phil makes a clear confession of immorality at the 2:55 mark: “I don’t see where I need to come up with facts to support that.  Do you?”  It was a long morning already and I was almost speechless.  I tell him I do, explain why and then ask him: “Because otherwise what would separate what you are doing from common theft?”  His response?  The classic predator retort: “The law? (It sounded like he was responding with a question.)

Of course, we already established he had no evidence, and didn’t see the need for evidence, the sacred writ actually applied to Dan.  So I restate that there’s no evidence of jurisdiction and there should be a stay at least until someone at the tax agency can prove jurisdiction.  Listen to the call,  I made a strong case and used his own admissions against him.

Phil tries to use my statement Dan is in Maine with his opinion the laws apply and refuses to stop proceedings.  I again ask for evidence and he comes out with another diversion asking if I have evidence the constitution and laws don’t apply.  This is illogical of course, the burden is always on the one making the argument.

I ask him if he has a problem taking someone’s property by force when he has no evidence of jurisdiction.   He says he is because of the policies and procedures they have in place.  I ask about whether jurisdiction should be established before they proceed against someone and Phil hits me with this gem at the 5:52 mark: “I think it’s assumed.”

So what we have here is an example of someone with a callous disregard for others, he doesn’t care there is no evidence of jurisdiction, he will not stop the attack.  Honest people would at least stop the attack until there was evidence of jurisdiction, but those calling themselves government are not honest and they just don’t care about silly things like proving jurisdiction.

The call ends when Phil refuses to stop and I ask about speaking with his supervisor. I deleted the end where I give my contact info.  Phil would not give me the supervisor’s direct contact information, he wanted to speak to him before I did.

This is another objective example of a direct confrontation of a bureaucrat about their foundational argument:  If you’re physically in Maine, then the laws of the state of Maine apply.  He readily agrees and insists this argument is true: “Definitely”.  When asked for evidence, he has nothing, he claims he doesn’t need evidence, and has no problem just assuming it’s true.  He maintains the assumption despite having no facts at all to support the argument.

What does this brief interaction with Phil tell you about him and those he works with?  I ask that this, and other Calls of Shame, be posted and distributed as much as possible as it is a great example of the immorality and cruelty that is the direct result in the belief in “government”.  It’s empowering to know your opponent has no evidence to support their arguments.  If you know people who still believe there are governments and citizens/residents, then tell them about this call.  Listening to this and the other calls should be enough to at least convince people there is something seriously wrong going on.

As always, if you think you can do what this professional tax man could not do, if you think you have facts proving the constitution and laws of the “state” of Maine apply just because one is physically in Maine, call the show.  The No State Project is live every Saturday on LRN.fm.  I’ll even schedule you as a guest or appear on another live broadcast so you can present your facts.

YouTube Preview Image

YouTube Preview Image

 

              

18 Comments For This Post

  1. Al: Beyer Says:

    Marc, I am not trying to be funny but do you believe that you are a person of any kind?

  2. ANDY Says:

    Al; I hope you’re not going to proclaim that the ALL CAPS NAME is corporation or corporate entity. It has been spewed dozens of times here. If you feel that you must proceed, please do us* all a favor and take it to the forum.

    *I know I’m not the only one that’s tired of the ALL CAPS NAME is a corporation BS.

  3. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Al, in a lay, non-political sense, I guess. I’m a man, homo sapiens. Stateless, res nullius.

  4. Gaylan Says:

    It doesn’t matter if you claim the ALL CAPS NAME is a corp or not, since you can’t prove anything. Likewise can they prove anything either when facts are on the moon? No state and Surely no citizen, but some how one claims they are standing IN IT. Really?

    Why create an argument in the first place, when they are giving legal advice and they are not an attorney licensed by the state to do such a thing?

    So counselor are you saying that if I am the pope the same laws apply to me simply because I exist? Isn’t it true government is a benefit for the people, and isn’t it also true NO ONE can be forced to accept a benefit against his consent?

    But to get back to that NAME crap. It has nothing to do with all caps or anything else. It has everything to do with one claiming they OWN that damn thing to begin with. Get over your egos! It doesn’t belong to you! It never belonged to your dad either. Your dad can not give you HIS DADS last name, and likewise HIS dad can not either. So you enter fraud voluntarily.

    That last name is a secular thing and secular thing ONLY. And has nothing to do with you. So if you think you are a “name” then by all means ~ happy trails to you… enjoy serving the dead (corp)because man can not create anything alive.

    ALL entered the world the same way. And in due season we quickly vanish away. Is it not true that we ALL will die one day?

  5. Kurt Says:

    “He again asks what would be acceptable to me.” How about a certificate of Human Livestock Ownership? That should suffice. Maybe that would get the point across. I’ll have to try that one the next time I am forced to deal with these criminals.

  6. Daniel Says:

    No matter how we look at it. Marcs questions are at the up most effective. This guy thinks that ruining a mans life is ok. But when called out on it he thinks its a joke. I assure you and anyone who listens to this. My life and the ruining of it from these people is not a joke. This goes to show us that when you cut the legs out from which they assume they stand on. It becomes clear they really don’t have anything but the gun.

  7. Steve Says:

    Only the youtube video works. The standalone audio popup and download doesn’t work, There’s no file available.
    Thanks
    Steve

  8. Pete Says:

    “That’s a startling confession considering the circumstances, Phil.”

    LOL

  9. RequiredReading Says:

    http://sciencenordic.com/how-ask-right-questions

  10. jack Says:

    Marc,

    I see a problem with your approach. The problem being that you’re educating all of us about the arbitrary nature, because we were taught so differently. What makes you think that these regular people working in government positions had some secret meeting to the contrary?

    They don’t know either. If you read this story and look at this tax collector’s point of view, he honestly has no freaking clue. He’s not trying to dodge or distract you, he just doesn’t know any different.

    I see that the whole problem here is TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. This jurisdiction is not a Common Law jurisdiction, it’s a statutory jurisdiction.

    I think you would be more effective if you explained to these people that there is no such thing as statutory jurisdiction and even tried to locate some federal court cases that discuss it and then educate the bureaucrats as well as us.

    Think about it, if you ask them for evidence EVERYBODY assumes that territorial applies. But if you show them a evidence that it doesn’t, then they will see it from your perspective.

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Jack There is no evidence of any jurisdiction. Most times we do get to someone who does pull the plug because they admittedly have no evidence. Do you think it’s better to tell them there is no such thing as statutory jurisdiction as opposed to having them admit they have no evidence of jurisdiction, statutory or otherwise?

  12. Joshua Says:

    It is assumed because your there. So now it is your duty to prove your not under their jurisdiction. I know, innocent till proven guilty blah blah.
    Gaylan asked,
    “and isn’t it also true NO ONE can be forced to accept a benefit against his consent?”

    Yes it is very true. Did you accept a benefit?

  13. Daniel Says:

    @ Joshua. Even if we have accepted a benefit. Even for a little while. Your telling me thats grounds for the assumption of a life long agreement to be dictated? Its like someone offering you a 5 oz jar of gold. You take it. Than the guy who offered it. Up and decides. He took what i offered now i get to tell you what to do till your dead? If im misunderstanding im open to correction.

  14. Abe Val Says:

    LAW=Contract. Question; Did this guy enter into any type of contract with another man where at one one point there was a meeting of the minds, etc? If he never realized or did but failed to question those terms and or conditions of the contract(law) or conditionally accept prior to agreement by action then there should be no surprise the breach of such a law(contract) would be enforced regardless of opinion. The evidence was expressed at the very beginning and only between the one who was making the offer and him who became the acceptor.

  15. Incubus Says:

    Law = Opinion backed by a gun. Answer: No, he did not.

  16. NonEntity Says:

    Oh incubus! What are you, some kind of radical? :-D

    – NonE

  17. NonE Says:

    LAW=Contract.
    Abe Val=Disinformation Agent.

    Let’s see, what else can we redefine to suit our propagandistic needs?

    – NonEnemyAgent

  18. Martin Padilla Says:

    Abe val is not a Disinformation Agent, I think he is one of those “Paytriots” learning the ropes. Nothing wrong but that Patriot bull is not too efective in court because they do not research the law and their “knowledge” of the law doesn’t exist in a real courtroom.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - May 31, 2014 - Co-host: JT - [DRAFT VERSION] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Marc’s, to-be-soon-released, EPIC Call-of-Shame with a “veteran” mid-level IRS supervisor Phil from Maine: “Evidence Laws Apply? It’s Assumed.” […]

  2. NSP - Jun 21, 2014 - CoS Analysis & Court Preparation | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] and critique of a CoS with tax agent Phil, Phil’s Supervisor, from Maine, who believes they have evidence to prove jurisdiction […]

  3. Marc on Disclosure Media with Rex Bear - Sept 3, 2014 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Marc’s Call-of-Shame with Maine State Tax Supervisor: “Evidence Laws Apply? It’s Assumed.” […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, October 25th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be broadcasting another LIVE edition of the No STATE Project radio show again this week from deep within the 'fortified compound.' If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. 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 role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here