Categorized | Articles, Video

Criminals of the Washington Department of Revenue – No Evidence Constitution Applies

Posted on January 17th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

I mentioned this on the 11 Jan. 2014 edition of the No State Project.  The fix was in from the start, nothing was fair about this and I didn’t expect it to be.  Like other prosecutors, Frank Fulton stands mute for the entire discussion of jurisdiction and his qualifications to testify.  You’ll notice Purrington, the hearing officer, was very adamant about Frank testifying, so much so she lies I’ll be able to address jurisdiction.  Predators in traffic court do the same thing, making things up as they go to get the cop of the stand.

She claims Frank has to be on the stand to provide evidence of jurisdiction.  This is two-fold lie.  One, as shown at 35:03 & 38:17, she never had any intention of addressing jurisdiction, she claims jurisdiction is not the purpose of the hearing and outside the scope of it.  Second, she pretends to not understand that Frank is not just the witness, he is the WDOR representative.  Reality be damned, Purrington has an agenda and it’s not to hold her teammate to his burden of proof.  Below is what we call evidence that Frank was not just a witness:

hearing

When directly confronted on cross about the evidence (facts) he presented to prove the constitution and laws of the “state” of Washington apply, he pulls a Bill Clinton, and eventually claims a statute is a fact proving the constitution and laws apply.  Frank also claims evidence does not mean facts at 44:47.  Has to be some of the stupidest things I’ve heard in a while.  Like a true criminal Frank insists he doesn’t have to explain how a statute is a fact proving the constitution and laws apply.

Despite insisting the constitution was the foundation of their jurisdiction and authority, Purrington makes the claim that evidence proving the constitution and laws apply are not the purpose and definitely outside the scope of the hearing.  Listen to the recording if you don’t believe adults make such stupid statements.  Purrington doesn’t let this stand in her way to then determine there is jurisdiction.  They may as well say: Well jurisdiction is outside the scope of this hearing, but not so outside we can’t say we have it and then block challenge.  Like the bureaucrats in New Hampshire, jurisdiction is an issue that is “off the table” yet they insist they have it.  This based on the testimony of Frank Fulton who asked what jurisdiction means at 32:04.

This is the same garbage we routinely see with the predators in traffic court, it’s probably the main reason they don’t want recordings.  It’s the Achilles Heel of politics and these cowards run from it every time.  It’s a sacred cow; challenge to the applicability of the constitution and laws is forbidden as a blasphemy by these bureaucrats.

cow2

If you doubt this, then find out for yourself and ask a bureaucrat for the evidence the constitution and laws apply to you just because where you are physically located.  And don’t fall for the misdirection when they ask if you’re a citizen or resident, that is based on the same argument that the laws apply just because of your birth in a certain physical location.  When this happens just wait for the inevitable circular logic.

 

              

17 Comments For This Post

  1. james Says:

    look at – negative averment as a technique to require them to overcome a hurdle.

    I have no reason to believe that I am subject to the jurisdiction of such and such.

    1. statute: this code applies to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of &state.

    2. alleged defendant: I have no reason to believe that I am subject to the jurisdiction of &state.

    3. judge: why not? answer: I have no evidence before me that would give me reason to believe such.

    4. why are you here then? answer: I am here under duress, threat of bodily harm, imprisonment, as armed uniformed agents of the state ordered me here before you.

    NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted.

    2. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; 1 Phil. Ev. 184; Bull N. P. 298; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. Gilb. Ev. 145. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is, incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. 2 Selw. N. P. 709.
    3. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes. 2 Gall. R. 498; 19 John. R. 345; 10 East, R. 211; 3 B. & P. 302; 3 East, R. 192; 1 Mass. R. 54; 3 Campb. R. 10; Greenl. Ev. SS 80; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3089. Vide Onus Probandi.

    NEGATIVE

    This word has several significations. 1. It is used in contradistinction to giving assent; thus we say the president has put his negative upon such a bill. 2. It is also used in contradistinction to affirmative; as, a negative does not always admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable. When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him and he must prove the negative. Although as a general rule the affirmative of every issue must be proved, yet this rule ceases to operate the moment the presumption of law is thrown into the other scale. When the issue is on the legitimacy of a child, therefore, it is incumbent on the party asserting the illegitimacy to prove it.

    NEGATIVE AVERMENT

    An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted.

    It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale. For example, when the issue is on the legitimacy of a child born in lawful wedlock, it is incumbent on the party asserting its illegitimacy to prove it. 3. Upon the same principle, when, the negative averment involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty, whether official or otherwise, it must be proved, for the law presumes every man to perform the duties which it imposes.

  2. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    Just wanted to let everyone know about a review I wrote of Marc’s new book, here:

    http://strike-the-root.com/government-indicted-book-review-6

    Thanks,

    Alex

  3. Jameson Weatherford Says:

    Fucking… Brilliant… Your patience with these people is astounding.

  4. Greg Says:

    Most crooks will try to hide the fact that they are crooks. These crooks make it obvious that they are crooks especially the way they couldn’t answer any of Marc’s questions.

  5. NonE Says:

    Alex,
    I’m not sure that I can almost taste the collapse of government, but aside from that, an excellent review of Marc’s latest book. I still have the second half to work through. The first half bowled me over with the breadth and depth of his observations and documentation. I agree, everyone should own this book.
    – NonE

  6. Jameson Weatherford Says:

    Especially when the “hearing officer” is absolutely cornered, …dead silence…. We’re going to end the hearing… WHAT?! You can just refuse to answer questions as to the fundamental cause and nature of the alleged offense? Yup. I rule here. Good luck with your appeal. Good day.

    Effing Priceless.

  7. Mike Says:

    16 minute mark is gold

  8. Incubus Says:

    Marc, you heathen fool. Doth not thou understand? For it is written:

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    And thus,

    COERCION IS CONSENT
    OPINION IS FACT
    NO JURISDICTION IS JURISDICTION

  9. Ben Says:

    That was flippant AWSOME!! X-D

  10. PistolPackingPatriot Says:

    The fact that we have a statute defining rape as a crime establishes evidence and facts that you are a rapist. And, since we are referring to you as “rapist,” you are automatically decreed a rapist. So, at this time, the court will hold a hearing with the rapist to create the illusion of fair process in assessing a penalty for his many rapes. How do you plea, rapist?

    I wish I could handle myself 1/100th as well as Marc.

  11. Martin Padilla Says:

    Just like a little kid; “I don’t want to play with You anymore, and good luck with your appeal”, Mark You are simple our modern Moses, and showing us the road of freedom, You make it look simple but is not, we need Your patience and determination, thank You.

  12. Dan Gould Says:

    Wow Marc, from a schmuck from New York to Moses. I am impressed for sure 🙂

  13. Robert Says:

    Marc, you did a great job, just want to lend encouragement, I have just started listen to you, wow, what a rabbit hole, glad I chose the green pill, your word pictures, are amazing. You have a real gift. I am amazed with how you handle yourself, a true teacher.
    What is amazing, is just how few people need to know what is really going on, to keep the system working, it is almost self-sustaining.

  14. ITC Says:

    WoW,
    Marc had brought into question the Hearing Officers Ms, Purrington independence & Impartiality. She states that she is not swayed one way or the other, But, @ 46:04, Ms, Purrington demonstrates she is Not independent & Impartial. ” WE, don’t want this business to continue to operate & continue to operate ”
    This statement alone demonstrates bias
    I really hope you keep us up to date.
    Thank you for this eye opener.

  15. Incubus Says:

    Robert,

    Perhaps you meant the red pill? The green pill is for constipation, I think.

  16. Tin Man Says:

    This is so painful to listen to. I don’t think these people are necessarily engaging in nefarious conduct so much as they’re simply rude and stupid.

  17. NonE Says:

    Tin Man Sed:
    This is so painful to listen to. I don’t think these people are necessarily engaging in nefarious conduct so much as they’re simply rude and stupid.
    ——-
    One part of me wants to say that this is the natural state of human beings when they have no repercussions to any actions they make. But then another part of me wants to believe that there are people who will treat others with respect even if they are totally without responsibility. But the truth is still waiting to be revealed I think. Marc calls them psychopaths, Eye2 has a hissy fit and says that is broad brushing the matter… I think Eye2 is more wishful than realistic. I do believe that all people should be held responsible for their actions and choices and that Darwin would then have something to work with. But as it is now, the true psychopaths are getting the upper hand, it seems. Google “political ponerology” for a serious examination of this phenomenon.

    – NonE

4 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jan 18, 2014 | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Latest article: Criminals of the Washington Department of Revenue – No Evidence Constitution Applies. […]

  2. NSP - Jan 25, 2014 - Co-host: JT | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] How and why bureaucrats turn criminal and psychopathic when you question them on the evidence of the…. […]

  3. NSP - Feb 15, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Delilah | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] law applies because the law says so circular-logic […]

  4. NSP - Jan 3, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the Same ‘ol Lie World Tour, Ian Freeman’s Administrative DMV hearing, and the Washington Tax hearing as guiding examples of how to counter courtroom misdirection and logical […]

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 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