Categorized | Articles, Video

Debunking Barry Cooper’s Hit Piece – Logical Fallacies, Misrepresentations and Ad Hominen

Posted on October 1st, 2016 by Marc Stevens

I wasn’t going to respond to this, but think it’s necessary as it may score high on a search.  I didn’t expect to ever have to debunk Barry Cooper though, but given how erroneous he is about me and that he was on my radio show, I probably should.

Barry emailed me after posting a video about me.  I did a search for the video and was a bit surprised Barry lumped me in with the sovereign citizen/freeman on the land/common law crowd.  That is Barry’s first of many fallacies, but when you don’t investigate first, you have to expect errors.  Below is a screencap of his video.


I’ve done many shows debunking strawman/UCC/FMOTL/common-law/sovereign citizen/right-to-travel law stuff for years.  I’ve stated I’m an anarchist many times, my videos have the black flag.  The fact Barry lumps me in with them is bad, but his motivation is not honest.  He thinks my position is “crazy” and in the email tells me he’s interested in collaborating with me.  This seemed odd, so I asked him why he wants to collaborate with someone who’s selling crazy?  Barry responded with profanity and now seems to be on a mission to discredit me.  He’s done a poor job of it as I’ll show.

Barry strawman’s my position claiming all I do is tell the judge he has no jurisdiction.  The judge then throws you in jail proving he does have jurisdiction.


First, we use the Socratic Method, we ask questions regarding the prosecution’s burden of proof, e.g.,

Has the prosecution submitted evidence proving the constitution and code apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?

Second, if a judge does throw someone in jail for asking for evidence of jurisdiction, that’s not proof the constitution applies, it’s evidence the lawyer with the robe is a criminal with an anger management problem.  I’ve heard that fallacy before.

My jurisdictional challenge is a question/issue of fact, what Barry brings up in his video are questions/issues of law.  The strawman/UCC/FMOTL/common-law/sovereign citizen/right-to-travel people are arguing legal interpretation, I’m asking questions of fact.  They are two different things, one has proven to be very successful, the other hasn’t.

Also, the jurisdiction challenge is only part of what I teach people.  For example, we learn about objections and cross-examinations.  Many people I’ve worked with have impeached police officers and tax agents.  Rebecka in Chandler, Arizona, not only had the cop declared incompetent, but she got a not-guilty verdict from the jury on one of the two charges.

Barry makes the claim the only reason I get so many tickets kicked out is because we’re too much trouble.  Apparently we’re seen as porcupines, so the prosecution just gives up and dismisses.  The same could also be said of any of success Barry claims.

The claim is false, it’s a generalization at best and speculation.  The motion has been granted, that is direct evidence the jurisdictional challenge was effective.  Anything else is speculation.  Even if circumstantial evidence, it’s very strong and rules out any other explanation.   Below is an order where the judge wrote the ticket was dismissed for a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction:


But even that is not enough for Barry, he wants a transcript.  Barry claims as a cop he lost a probation case on a jurisdiction issue, but it wasn’t because they could not prove the laws applied.  That may be true, but, did the defendant raise the same jurisdictional challenge I do?  If not, then I fail to see the relevance of his anecdote.

Barry claims I am lying in the article about Joe in Hawaii.  He thinks I “flat out lied” that the charges are dismissed because of Joe’s defense, challenging jurisdiction.

First, the main point of the article was that contrary to some critics’ claims, I have helped people get more serious charges kicked out.  I helped Joe, he defended himself against drug charges and they were dismissed.  Barry emailed for proof the charges with dismissed because of the jurisdictional challenge.

I wrote Barry telling him I didn’t have direct evidence, but there was very strong circumstantial evidence.  There was the motion and what Joe reported on the show, his constant objections and asking for the prosecutor’s evidence.  Barry thinks this means I’m lying, Barry insists it’s because Joe was causing too much trouble, despite the fact he has no evidence to prove it.  Again, the same could also be said of any of success Barry claims.

Barry claimed I make an assumption and should google logical fallacies.  Admittedly, I made an inference based on evidence, that’s what the evidence bears out.  I did not assume based on prior accounts or absent evidence, that is ironically what Barry does in his video.

Barry claims the dismissal was only because we’re too much trouble, it had nothing to do with the motion and Joe’s defense, there is only one explanation, his.  Barry is so absolutely certain there are no other plausible claims that he claims I’m a crazy liar.  Barry is speculating and ignoring the circumstantial evidence.  While I openly admit there may be cases where there are other plausible explanations, the circumstantial evidence strongly favors it was our defense.

Making an inference based on strong circumstantial evidence doesn’t mean I “flat out lied” about the dismissal.  All one needs to do it is look at the successes from three continents to see many others have replicated my success.  There is no evidence I’m trying to mislead anyone because I’m not.

Barry should investigate prior to condemnation as this next piece of evidence further shows.  Barry repeats the claim there’s no evidence anything has been dismissed because of the jurisdictional challenge.  A little time spent in the Successes part of my website may have stopped him from doing that video about me.  This document is direct evidence the IRS dropped their attack based on my jurisdictional challenge:


I don’t care if Barry wants a transcript or tries to marginalize this evidence, I’m posting this article and video so people are not misled by Barry.  Anyone reading this and investigating more on my website can make up their own minds, I don’t need Barry Cooper to vouch for me, the evidence is here.

A few other examples are Helen and Bradly in England that not only had the charges dismissed, but had costs awarded against the prosecution.  Their defense was challenging the applicability of the constitution and code.  Helen prevailed by proving the prosecution was guilty of an abuse of process; meaning the prosecution did not have any evidence of jurisdiction and wrongdoing and should not have pursued the charges.

So the evidence is against Barry; he’s wrong I’ve never helped anyone get anything more than a minor traffic ticket dismissed and that we’ve never been successful challenging jurisdiction.  That’s a lot of being wrong, but wait, there’s more.

Barry, who teaches people how to hide drugs from cops, is claiming I’m hurting people with what I’m teaching.  He presents no evidence of course, just an accusation.  However, following what Barry teaches, attempting to obfuscate an ongoing investigation of a police officer, can put one in serious danger and can produce several unintended consequences.

Barry claims I don’t handle criticism well, he’s wrong again.  I welcome criticism, I do a three hour live broadcast most Saturdays and I don’t screen calls.  All are welcome to call in and correct me if I’ve presented something that’s not true.

Barry insists I’m getting his argument wrong.  I don’t see how lumping me in with the SovCit/FOTL/common law people, strawmaning my position, then calling it “crazy” and hurting people is mistaking his argument.  Again, the screencap from his video where I’m the only one he names:


Barry is claiming that I “got angry” when he asked for evidence, again he has his facts wrong, kind of backwards actually.  I provided circumstantial evidence and asked why he would want to collaborate with someone he thought was selling people lies.  Barry is the one who responded by calling me crazy and telling me to go “f**k myself” a few times.  He then told me not to contact him any further.  I thought that was funny as he contacted me first and I don’t communicate with people who tell me to “f**k myself”.

I have no problem with criticism of my work, you have to actually address my work though.


18 Comments For This Post

  1. Mark Niebauer Says:

    I have always wondered if Barry was some kind of shill myself. . .

  2. indio007 Says:

    A judge throwing you in jail does not prove jurisdiction.
    It proves the judge is willing too gamble you can’t prove he doesn’t have jurisdiction. Judges decide jurisdiction at the own peril. It’s the only so-called judicial decision in which there is no immunity for being wrong.

  3. Mark Niebauer Says:

    I agree with Indio007. This is why it is so important to challenge them with evidence if anyone is to maintain any level of liberty in their life.

  4. Dr Hypno Says:

    Dear Barry,

    You seem to provide evidence that once a cop, always a cop.

  5. Andy Says:

    From the two videos, Barry’s video and Marc’s thorough Debunking video, it seems anecdotal evidence that Barry confirms they don’t hire individuals to be police with IQ over 100. That’s my observation, fwiw.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    Which, by definition, is below average.

  7. Andy Says:

    Absent having a valid cause of action, how many people has Barry kidnapped? ‘Arrest’ is euphemism for kidnap. Absent a valid cause of action, how many, if any, individuals has Barry killed via the comply-or-die use of force continuum? Absent a valid cause of action, how many individuals has Barry assaulted? Barry is a criminal, is he not?

    Barry, if I did as government types do and forced perfect strangers to pay me, would you consider me a criminal? ‘Tax’ is euphemism for extortion or stealing — pay or go to jail.

    Barry, if I did as you have done and kidnapped individuals and put them in cages, would you consider me a criminal? ‘Jail’ is euphemism for cage.

    It seems to me police/cop is euphemism for criminal.

  8. Andy Says:

    Perhaps/maybe LEO (law enforcement officer) is a euphemism for criminal.?

  9. TOM MIXX Says:

    “the judge is willing too gamble you can’t prove he doesn’t have jurisdiction”.

    Can you?

  10. NonEntity Says:

    Tom, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. Or am I missing something here?

  11. NonEntity Says:

    Marc sed: “I have no problem with criticism of my work, you have to actually address my work though.” … Marc’s work, “You SUCK!” … Like that? 🙂 (cue up the laugh track here)

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    Now THAT is valid criticism NonE, unlike the garbage Barry offered.

  13. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Tom, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. Or am I missing something here”?
    No you are not. I believe the fella that wrote the statement that I asked the question about may be confused.

    “the judge is willing too gamble you can’t prove he doesn’t have jurisdiction”

    you cant and why would you? “the burden of proof lies with the accuser”.

  14. NonEntity Says:

    Tom, had you quoted or somehow referenced the original material it would have made it easier for the reader* to chase down your incomplete thought, should he care to pursue it.

    *you know, that pesky bored Nazi

  15. Jake Witmer Says:

    Barry Cooper admits fault and apologizes:

  16. NonEntity Says:

    Jake, sort of. One of the maxims of law in this country is that the burden of proof lies with he who makes the accusation. Just like the cop that he so effectively was, Barry wants Marc to prove innocence, turning the entire concept of justice on its head. Also note that he starts off his “apology” with this: “The specific defense strategy I am referring to is known as the Common Law or Freeman Defense. Believers in this…” Give me a break. But I do thank you for posting this link.

  17. Jake Witmer Says:

    Barry is a reformed criminal servant of a criminal state. For that reason alone, I like him: he ultimately chose the right side, in spite of countervailing social pressures. (…and a tip of the hat to his ex-wife for pressuring him to make that shift!) There are many criminals that are never reformed, and champion tyranny to their dying days. Barry had the personal integrity to rise above that sorry fate. If he has no more integrity than that, he’s still far better than the rest of them.

    However, Barry does retain the habit of telling everyone he talks to to fuck off on a regular basis. (I don’t recommend this as a way of engaging others in stimulating intellectual debate, and he claims he’s trying to work on the habit.)

    In spite of this characteristic, I think he actually does bring value to the battle against the police state, by providing a “realistic perspective” grounded in a “what is likely to happen” pragmatism. Where his predictions about Marc’s likely results deviate from reality, this is an area of real value that Marc provides. (And I’m a huge fan of Marc’s, and think he brings real value to those battling totalitarian bureaucrats.)

    So: Though Barry may not always follow conventions of politeness, it’s still worth debating him. (Preferably with a moderator who accepts the same starting premises, so the two sides don’t have to agree for a half hour on “drug prohibition is bad” and “this government is stupid and evil.”) Of course, Marc is right that “collaborating” with someone who regularly tells you to fuck off is probably not likely to happen, and likely “too big a hurdle.” There’s no onus on Marc to accept abuse from Barry (or anyone else).

    But I can’t deny that Barry’s knowledge of America’s largest criminal street gang (from the perspective of having been a member himself) is valuable. Barry’s knowledge demands that we not delude ourselves about the value of certain strategies, and likely future counter-measures to them.

    To sum up my position: Barry’s knowledge is more “street” than Marc’s is. While Marc is not unrealistic (as Barry claims), Marc’s face-to-face experience with police is more limited than Barry’s is.

    My “normative” .02: Prior to artilects (google it) taking the side of classical liberals or “an-caps,” people like Barry can help us fill in certain knowledge and procedural gaps we inherently have, due to our own cognitive biases. We shouldn’t exclude them or fight them because they are “coarse and unmannerly.”

    Barry has admitted to much fault, though he continues to improperly categorize Marc’s approach. Though this is irritating, I think it’s worth debating him with someone like Doug Casey as moderator. In fact, if the moderator can get through to Barry, it’s likely that Barry can provide some additional high-level value to Marc’s approach (maybe a little, maybe a lot –this is just a suspicion of mine).

    I don’t downplay Barry’s intelligence: Kevin Kelly is also a very bright guy, but it took a moderated debate between him and Kurzweil before he realized he had mischaracterized Kurzweil’s position, due to his own failure to comprehend it. He admitted this on stage, and adopted Kurzweil’s position on the Singularity, and then addressed the remaining areas of difference.

    I think something similar is likely between Marc and Barry if Barry can stop mischaracterizing Marc’s position, and make a real effort to understand it, as well as reviewing Marc’s material. For Marc’s part, though it’s not necessary to know a lot about how police operate, their psychology, etc., …it would often help his analysis.

  18. Jake Witmer Says:

    FWIW: Barry’s no longer a cop, Higgs’ maxim holds fast. There are no good cops.

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 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