Categorized | Articles, Video

Debunking Dan Evans & Quatloos, Part 3 – More Logical Fallacies

Posted on September 24th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

Time again to debunk more garbage from Dan “super lawyer” Evans and his quatloos group. I’ll debunk two arguments, one is relatively minor, but shows how illogical their thinking is, the other is pretty big.  Debunking it really goes to the foundation of their arguments against me and my work.  This is a screencap of both:

evans-crap

First, a poster called JamesVincent quotes me:

These written instruments apply as a matter of law. In other words, the law applies because the law says so. Dan Evans fails to understand that is a common logical fallacy, circular logic.

JamesVincent disagrees with my statement and counters with razor sharp logic in an attempt to show I am somehow wrong about Dan’s argument being circular:

Funny, the courts commonly refer to this as precedent, not circular logic.

Yes, and judges commonly refer to themselves as “honorable”.  What’s the point here?  This is called an appeal to authority: Marc’s argument is wrong because the courts use a different word.   Maybe JamesVincent is unaware of what “precedent” is and more importantly, what it is not.  Precedent means (emphasis mine):

n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, “the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case.” The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis

Stare decisis is a doctrine for settling issues of opinion, not fact.  Lawyers, especially prosecutors, constantly conflate stare decisis with res judicata which does regard issues of fact.  Conflating is a logical fallacy whereby two distinct concepts are treated as the same thing.  Dan Evans, his quatloos posters and prosecutors use this incessantly.  When a question of fact is raised such as:

What facts do you rely on proving the constitution and code apply to me?

They will lie saying the question is a “frivolous argument long rejected by the courts”, usually quoting an opinion several decades old, such as US v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014.  They conflate stare decisis with res judicata to answer a question of fact.  It’s not only a logical fallacy, it’s dishonest.  Another reason the courts call themselves “honorable”.   Precedent is about issues of law, not issues of fact.  This is a case of conflating, just another logical fallacy.  The “frivolous argument” mantra is just a lame attempt to avoid answering the question; questions are not arguments even if super lawyers argue the contrary.

And as we see from the definition above, precedent is just another opinion.  It doesn’t change the fact the argument above is circular and invalid.  The structure of the argument is what makes it circular, not whether I say so or some lawyer does.  “The laws apply because the laws say so” is circular logic:

Circular reasoning…is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with…

And as far as precedent, it’s also precedent that non-whites were property.  So much for precedent (opinion) regarding the validity of an argument.  There the precedent is the constitution was to protect slavery.  Read the opinion, I’m not making it up, it’s the Dredd Scott opinion all supporters of the constitution should be proud of.

It’s so clearly circular logic it may be why Dan tries to show it’s not circular:

The fact that a law applies because the law itself says so is not “circular” because the law did not create itself. It was enacted by the legislature, by enacting a law that specifies to what it applies, the legislature is simply specifying how it has chosen to exercise it’s legislative power. (E.g., it has declared that this law should apply to this thing, but not that thing.)

The legislature has the power to enact legislation because the constitution says so, and the constitution can say so because it was ratified by the people, and the people have the power to govern themselves.

First, the argument is circular regardless of who makes the argument or who created the “law”.  And “laws” are not magical, they’re just rules written by men and women.   Dan then pulls the history card here in much the same way as Nicholas Cort, senior deputy attorney general in New Hampshire tried with me.  Dan doesn’t do research about a subject or target of his attacks; if he did he would have heard how badly the history argument turned out for Nick.  Nick, despite being a deputy attorney general, couldn’t provide facts and a logical argument so he avoids the discussion, just like Dan has all these years.

Like Dan, Nick agrees the constitution and laws apply because they say so, but he adds it’s also the “history” of how they came about.  So my question to Nick that really spelled the end of the call was:

Is the history you’re talking about the fact everyone in New Hampshire is forced to pay you?

Nick didn’t like that, after all, do “honorable” people force others to give them money?  So when I asked Nick if I did things like his organization, and forced people to give me money would he consider me a criminal, Nick hung up on me.  And the answer to that question is one of the reasons Dan “super lawyer” Evans will not confront me publicly and bring his evidence.  Big Dan has no evidence, only opinions and logical fallacies.

I agree in part though, the people do have the power to govern themselves, but Dan and I see things very differently.  Dan doesn’t mean the people are free to choose who they pay for services, he doesn’t believe that, he’s a statist, not an anarchist.  No, he must mean the people called “government” have a right to force other people to give them money.  He defends that position every day.  But let’s debunk Dan’s actual argument that seems to be the support for the circular argument: the laws apply because the laws say so.  Dan’s argument is:

The legislature has the power to enact legislation because the constitution says so, and the constitution can say so because it was ratified by the people, and the people have the power to govern themselves.

super-lawyer2You never see Dan (or any statist) provide any actual proof of this argument though.  I have lots of examples of prosecutors and other bureaucrats unable to provide any proof, Nick Cort is just one and my latest is Jerry Cobb.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against Dan, and being a “super lawyer” is just not enough to negate that evidence.

What does Dan mean by “ratified by the people”?  History, the actual proof, is the people have always been coerced to give those people called “government” money.  You pay or go to jail, that’s a fact from 1776 and today, see 26 USC 7201:

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Forcing people to give you money makes you a criminal.  Yes, the same criminals can call their crimes “taxation”, but that doesn’t change the act and make it any less criminal.

Any argument claiming the people consented, agreed or “ratified” anything when being coerced to pay is irrational and just wrong.  Why is the argument wrong?  Because when you force people to pay, they are not agreeing to what you are doing, they are doing it to avoid further aggression.  This is not defeated by calling me a “run of the mill anarchist”,  a wacko or an idiot.

consent

If your argument is: the people agreed to having a “government” and a constitution, then you need to support that argument with facts and sound, logical reasoning.  Here, the facts and logic are all against any agreement.  Pay or go to jail is not agreement.  And if you think coercing people to give you money is agreement/consent, then you just may be a psychopath as well as a very misinformed.

cort-1080Nick Cort, a professional litigator who argues before the supreme courts, hung up on me because he could not support the same argument Dan “super lawyer” Evans relies on as proof I’m an idiot.  If you haven’t heard this call yet, I highly recommend you do as it’s very instructive and illustrates very well just how wrong Dan Evans is.  I’m certain Dan would hold Cort is very high esteem, yet Cort failed to support his argument.   The call is embedded below for your  convenience.

Dan’s entire position against me really hinges on his argument the people “ratified” or agreed to have a “government”.  If the people are forced to pay, then they’re not agreeing to anything.  And that doesn’t change because those profiting from the coercion (such as judges) claim it is agreement.

The argument the people agreed or “ratified” government and the constitution is thoroughly statismdebunked by the fact support is coerced.  This is why Dan, Nick, Jerry and all the other politicians and bureaucrats are unable to provide any facts, only more opinions/arguments supported by logical fallacies.  Some of them are:

1.  It’s not stealing when we force people to give us money.  Why?  Because it’s the government.  This is an appeal to authority.

2.  The laws apply because the laws say so.  This is circular logic.

3.  The laws apply because if you don’t don’t comply you’ll go to prison.  This is argumentum ad baculum, an appeal to the stick, or consequences.

There is no “government”, there are just men and women who coerce us to give them money.  Those are the facts whether you accept them or not.  The best a Dan Evans can do is launch into the logical fallacy known as the double-standard, or special pleading as support. This is why as a “run of the mill anarchist” I describe belief in “government” as a religion because people like Dan Evans see men and women called “government” as very different from non-government people.  The same standards that apply to non-government types like me, do not apply to people called “government”.  Ask them, they’ll tell you.  I’ve heard it hundreds of times.  Those called “government” are special; basic principals of right and wrong do not apply them, they are above the principals that apply to us, the little people.

I cannot verify that Dan Evans actually wrote what was quoted  on another website, but his use of the double-standard fallacy is clear if he did write this:

Dan Evans: Yes . . .in fact, when you come right down to it, almost everything that governments do would be crimes if committed by individuals.

Other appeals to authority are “the courts have rejected your argument as frivolous”.  An argument is wrong because someone Dan considers an authority said it was wrong.  Dan doesn’t bother to examine the argument and the facts and reasoning it’s based on to show an error in the facts/logic, he just points to another lawyer who rejected the argument without any explanation.  Again, saying an argument lacks merit does not refute the argument.  Showing the argument lacks supporting facts and logical reasoning is the way you refute it.  That’s how honest people looking for the truth do it, not people like Evans and the quatloos bunch.

There is also the standard personal attack, the quatloos default, the ad hominem.  This is a standard Evans/quatloos tactic, because when all else fails you defeat the argument by calling someone a “cockroach”.  Evans and the quatloos posters will appeal to authority as proof my argument is wrong and then claim I’m incapable of understanding simple logic.  Some lawyer said my argument was “sophistry” and I refuse to accept an unsupported conclusion not because the conclusion is unsupported, but because I’m an idiot.  They fail to point out anything from the “authority” refuting the arguments I put forth.

Unlike Dan “super lawyer” Evans and those at quatloos, I don’t accept arguments just because someone said so, there has to be evidence and sound reasoning.  So to summarize: Dan’s argument is completely debunked by the facts we can all verify.  The argument is (emphasis mine):

The legislature has the power to enact legislation because the constitution says so, and the constitution can say so because it was ratified by the people, and the people have the power to govern themselves.

The fact debunking this garbage is: we’re coerced to give people called “governments” money.  Pay or go to jail is not agreement.  Don’t hold you’re breathe waiting for Evans et al., to bring facts and logic to try and refute this, they can’t.  They won’t despite my open invitation to publicly confront a panel of experts on a live broadcast.  They’ll use the same logical fallacies as I presented above from behind their computers.  Maybe I’ll also be called a “cockroach”, that will prove coercion is agreement.

Last, as the argument the people “ratified” anything is debunked as the nonsense it is, it follows that such arguments do not support arguments the “laws” apply to anyone because they are physically in Pennsylvania, Arizona or where ever.  If you think there are facts proving the constitution and laws apply because I’m physically in Arizona, then do what no politician bureaucrat and even Dan “super lawyer” Evans cannot do: present them publicly and call into the show with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

              

36 Comments For This Post

  1. desertspeaks Says:

    Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
    “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.”

    The alleged authority over us flows from the CONstitution although we are not parties to it.
    Since it has been decided that we, as “private persons” are not parties to either the state/fed constitutions, then what is the nexus that enslaves us to their dominion? keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal! When, where, why and how did we consent to serve the government?

    As noted in Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah , the CONstitution is a compact!

    Blacks law 5th edition page 351
    COMPACT, n. An agreement; a contract. Green
    v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L.Ed. 547

    A contract between parties, which creates obligations and
    rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such
    between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters.
    Story, Const. b. 3, c. 3; Rutherf.Inst. b. 2, c.
    6, § 1.

    Above, we can clearly see that a compact is a contract and since the CONstitutions “fed/state” do/does not contain a severability clause/clauses, any breach of the contract NULLIFIES the contract in it’s entirety!

    Can you think of one of the MANY breaches of the contract??

  2. Martin Padilla Says:

    Desertspeak, my true respects to you, your knowledge about the “fraud” the government did is very well explained and coherent.

  3. bradley Says:

    Good video Marc, Super Lawyer huh…. don’t think you mentioned that enough. Just thinking super lawyer with super powers one assumes must have a very impressive cv.

  4. Martin Padilla Says:

    Thanks Marc for educating us in what really the “LAW” is and how “applies/disapplies to all of us. You are 100% correct, how in the world we can do business with the government with the threat of a gun and called that “honorable” ?? how in the world we can accept this behaviour of complying with the “fines” and other money related issues or face terrible consequences of loosing property, prison or both and said we choose to be governed this way?? Of course we did accept with a barrel of a gun.

  5. Fake_Ear Says:

    Went over to that Quatloos blog last night and read a bit of it. One of the attorneys there made the statement that one being a taxpayer is a matter of law and is therefore a matter to be determined by the court (judge or magistrate). If that is the case, then why are people pre-determined to be taxpayers by unqualified people. Shouldn’t these government agents go to the courts first in order to get a determination that the person they are seeking to harass is indeed a “taxpayer”? Then maybe an appeal could be made to challenge the determination if one is made. Isn’t that how due process works? Or is that they do the process they prefer?

  6. Fake_Ear Says:

    Don’t want to be a downer here but as someone who took Latin in high school, I would be remiss if I did not correct Marc on his pronunciation of stare decisus. It’s not duh-eye-sis, it’s duh-see-sis. The i has a long e sound in Latin.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis

  7. minister Edward-Jay-robin Says:

    The laws in countries only apply to persons as a word of planned deception. Once you know the King James Scriptures regarding “persons” the corporate code is washed away… Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17 2 Samuel 14:14 Matthew 22:16 Acts 10:34 Romans 2:11 and the big finale James 2:9….Now if after reading those KJV scriptures you still wanna be a statute defined “Person” then you deserve all the punishment they give you as only “persons” make appearances and whereby they formerly submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court like good little repenting sinners dead in law…..The whole dam scam is based upon that word and the word “includes” “unius inclusuis est exclusius ad alterum” but most were to busy arguing to realize that arguments are dishonor…Christ said get an agreement with thine adversary quickly,…Matthew 5:25 18:15-20 is the formula that most arrogant I wanna show off my ego argument skills types miss or ignore… We just filed a federal law suit against the heads of the HSBC and the head judges of British Columbia along with their lawyers in their private capacity.. you can find it on http://www.allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com

  8. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ minister, no the laws do not apply, they coerce compliance. There is no need to look at any book, let alone the bible, to see the facts. People force us to give them money, they make rules, and with the stolen money, pay henchmen to coerce compliance to those rules. It’s really that simple.

  9. minister Edward-Jay-robin Says:

    Persons are forced Marc…only persons are intimidated forced and threatened not men and women as in the eyes of the Talmud operation that uses that word person so successfully your not worthy of being called a man if you accept the title of a person…I got 7 judges disqualified from the bench with this knowledge Marc and then got redflagged on the nations CPIC “Do not apprehend Do not detain” as of the judges not wanting my stand up ministry in their faces again..I just administrated a federal lawsuit ecclesiastically styled against the President and chairman of the board of the HSBC in their private capacity and the Head Judge of the British Columbia Supreme court and one of his inferior judges as well as all of the HSBC lawyers. If you send me your email I will send you a copy. owlmon@gmail.com

  10. RAD Says:

    Saying x is true because it was ratified is a fallacious appeal to numbers.
    It’s basically asserting “enough guys said so” as proof. Can the legislation outlawing magic be presented as empirical proof of supernatural? When a jury weighs facts and evidence and then puts the verdict through a ratification process is the ratification itself the evidence upon which the determination of guilt/innocence is based? No, saying something was ratified just means “some guys said so”. We already know that, but what facts support what those guys said, if any?

  11. euripides pants Says:

    i would also point out that “ratification” occurs when enough “citizens” of a “state”(principals) vote in favor to allow their “congressmen”(agents) to make decisions on their behalf. but as lysander spooner points out in “constitution of no authority” that no congressmen can claim to be the “agent” of anyone because the secret ballot makes it impossible to determine just who is his “principal”. therefore he cannot act as an “agent” for anyone. his alleged “principals” cannot necessarily fire the “agent” when he does something against their interest. further, if he cannot determine for whom he serves, he cannot show that anyone agreed to his actions. so the idea that “the people” agreed to anything is moot. as no one can prove there is a principal/agent relationship, especially one between me and a guy who was dead 200 years before i was born.
    by the way, “the people agreed” argument contains two distinct logical fallacies.
    1. appeal to popular belief(argumentum ad populum):”a million Frenchmen cant be wrong” “god exists because so many people believe he does”
    2. equivocation: “the people”: what people? me and my friends? every man woman and child on planet earth? any landowner between 15-65? who are “the people”?

  12. Kevin Reno Says:

    It would seem that government does have the consent of the people. If there were no consent, they would not be in power.
    The Declaration of Independence says, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”
    So, either everything is good, or the people are derelict in their duty.

  13. Pete Says:

    Great job, Marc! I think when two people are having a debate, and one of them resorts to using lame logical fallacies and childish personal attacks, the debate is probably already over and victory has already been decided.

    Have you ever considered having your listeners contact Super Lawyer and offer to pay him to do the legal research that proves the constitution and codes apply, with payment for his services withheld until completion of documentation? This would be an interesting challenge that would document the lack of evidence, similar to your traffic ticket study.

  14. marc stevens Says:

    @ Pete, thanks and that is a good idea.

  15. Boxer Says:

    Based on what I recall, someone on quatloos stated that “no evidence would suffice for mark”. This is how they avoid the issue, by making another fallacy that they have the evidence, just not the kind that Marc is seeking.

  16. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Boxer,
    I’ve had conversations with a few lawyers and I have received the exact same reply once all their superfluous bs opinions were shot down. “no evidence would suffice for you” My other favorite reply from lawyers is. “you’re not a lawyer so you don’t understand” My reply was and is to both obfuscating answers is, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! that is where they end the conversation.

  17. desertspeaks Says:

    Off topic but worth remembering.
    A Florida woman was held more than a month in jail while her attorney tried to arrange a plea bargain. For what turned out to be the residue of SpaghettiO’s Sauce on a spoon found in her car by paranoid criminals with badges!
    http://news.kron4.com/news/woman-busted-for-possession-of-spaghettios-sauce-may-sue/

    Her paid state liar “atty” tried to plea bargain for a fricking month for spaghetti sauce!! If this won’t make you avoid lawyers, NOTHING WILL!

  18. Kurt Says:

    @ Boxer – so the lawyers have some kind of evidence that the code applies. Isn’t this like claiming there is evidence that a woman is ‘kinda’ pregnant? Or do the lawyers suggest that the jurisdiction that “the State” has over us is parallel to the divine right of kings, only different? Or maybe it’s the divine right of democracy: if 51% of the plebs who live here believe they need us, then we have jurisdiction over you.

  19. Martin Padilla Says:

    My Friend Rosendo used an Affidavit of Negative avernment, (telling them they have no STANDING and there was no Party of interest in their ticket/claim) and his case was STRIKE IT from the Docket.

  20. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ martin, stricken from the docket? How do you know it was stricken?

  21. Socratic Jeff Says:

    Let just make a documentary No State community. Mark we can all sent in $50.00 a month and start the project in February 2015 based on the book “Government Indicted” I will work on getting sponsors to get it on the independent film channel. We need a boost Mark!
    Who has all them call of shames on YouTube again?

  22. Socratic Jeff Says:

    I asked the lawyers on that bullshit “Ask Lawyers” website. These morons either attacked me with their military service record or told me to move out of the USA. One lame tried to give me a history lesson! No one could come up with factual evidence providing proof the codes are applicable to anyone. It is amazing how people are so stupid into buying the political fictions and blindly believe in the crock of s#%t call a constitution. Did you see the video of the cop who shot the young guy for a seatbelt violation while he was parked at a gas station? The onlookers should have shot the criminal called a police officer for trying to execute and innocent human minding his business. I know I would have just to play it out in the news media.

  23. Martin Padilla Says:

    Marc, He went to court, and in the second floor, there is an officer with paperwork and with lists displaying in the wall, my friend’s name was not in the list, on the room he was supose to be or in any other room. He ask the officer and he said he did not know nothing, he did not have his file. Tomorrow I am going to see him for a copy and I will be sending you to your e-mail a copy of his paperwork.

  24. Rod Says:

    The idea they keep going back to that the “legislature” is “agreed upon” and so it’s not circular logic; basically is saying they are the Masters and we are the Slaves.

    Otherwise, there is still no way they gained the ability to have jurisdiction over us and there is still no factual evidence that ‘this legislature’ code/rules/garbage they speak of applies to anyone other than idiots consenting to be governed by criminals.

    I still think using the word SLAVE shocks them and at the very least can throw them off… but my experience is still limited…

  25. Rod Says:

    I didn’t mean to imply that “idiots consenting to be governed” proves anything for their argument against us. That sounded like the appeal to the stick, and I was merely showing annoyance toward those that won’t question the govtards so called “authority” by at least asking for evidence.

  26. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Rod,
    All employee’s of the private for profit corporate fiction commonly called “THE STATE OF __” all insist that the constitution/laws “automatically” apply to everyone within the exterior boundaries of corporate fiction aka”THE STATE OF __”.
    HOWEVER, if as they claim, the constitution/laws automatically apply to “everyone” then why are those same employees REQUIRED to take an oath that obligates them to the fed/state CONstitution and laws of the state??? would it not make sense that if the CONstitution/laws were automatically applicable, there should be absolutely no need to be bound by an oath to the corporate fiction, because it automatically applied already!

  27. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Here’s the original source for Dan’s statement that I copied to your site from Jackney Sneebs website.
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/misc.taxes/vvTIDG3gGyU/MjSQXVOgUocJ

  28. Boxer Says:

    @Habenae Est Dominatus:

    “Society authorizes the government to do a number of things that
    individuals cannot do.”

    So weird.

    1. He never defines “society”.

    2. Where is the evidence to prove that? Maybe he means that because people who call themselves “society” are violently dominated, it is somehow “proof” in his warped mind that they authorized it? Isn’t this like saying because a woman who was raped just lied there she somehow authorized it. I’m still unsure what that would have to do with you and me……

  29. minister Edward-Jay-robin Says:

    Depends on if your a person or not but some do not like the cut ti-=o the chase simplicity of that ,,as If one does not know they are and cannot in reality be a person then they will spin their wheels on the ice of escape perpetually….Such a simple word folks yet it is your chains

    Deuteronomy 1:17;10:17,2 Samuel 14:14,Matthew 22:16,Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, James 2:9 James 2:9-11King James Version (KJV)

    9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors….See More

  30. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Hey, I’m just giving Mr. Stevens the link to the original source of the quote. I’ve crossed words with Mr. Evans before. He is the special kind of scum that Mr. Stevens is too polite to call him.

    I lay it out by the numbers and the quatloosers still can’t follow.

    1. All ‘government’ authority stems from the constitution.
    2. All constitutional authority is said to originate with “we the people.”
    (Ignoring for the sake of this post, Lysander’s No Treason)
    3. If “we the people” don’t have a particular authority, Then we simply can not delegate that authority to anyone or anything else. If I don’t have the authority to tell you that you can’t smoke weed or drink booze, then I can not give that authority to anyone else. “We the people”, is a collective of individuals with equal authority. If no one in that collective has the authority to prohibit smoking or drinking, then NO one can give the collective that authority.

    The quatloosers are quite inventive in creating that authority out of nothing. Something about voting. However, that fails for the same reason. If you don’t have authority to tell me what to do, then you can NOT choose somebody to tell me what to do.

    With that said, this says it best:
    http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=535.0

  31. NonEntity Says:

    I always like bands that throw off showers of syncopatic sparks! 🙂

  32. Kurt Says:

    @Habenae “Something about voting.” Are they then suggesting that 51% of voters have some kind of DNA backed human livestock ownership over me? I’d love to see the proof.

  33. bruce sloane Says:

    Hi there, Habi … 🙂

  34. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Snicker…
    @ Kurt:

    Uh, I’m the choir here.

    Voting is the superstitious ritual by “the people” by which statists magically create authority out of nothing.

    Check my logic:
    If I vote for a legislator, I am consenting for that legislator to issue commands (called laws) that I must follow. If the legislator I voted for loses the election, I have NOT consented for the opponent to command me.

    This important point is overlooked by the ignorant naked apes.

    Their belief is that the majority have a right to choose politician to command someone else. Superstitious Idiots. I won’t vote because voting legitimizes an illogical belief.

    If I can’t tell you what to do, I certainly can not choose someone to tell you what to do. You (they) don’t have a right to choose somebody to command me. Only I can do that, and I haven’t.

    This short story should help illustrate the point:
    marcstevens.net/board/thread-4196-post-29190.html

  35. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Hi guys, Bruce,

    All I wanted to do was give Mark the original source of the quote.

    Wife wants my attention. Later

  36. NonEntity Says:

    YO! Habby! You ‘member when you were little and yer muther constantly nagged and corrected your piss poor little kid grammar? No? Well itz bleeding obvious that no one else duz either… BUT nonetheless it is true that you ard sorely confusing what a person CAN do and what a person MAY in your above mini-diatribe. Nanner nanner nanner. 😉

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Dan Stevens Net WorthAmazon 4U | Amazon 4U Says:

    […] Debunking Dan Evans & Quatloos, Part 3 – More Logical … […]

  2. NSP - Apr 25, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Dismissive critics. […]

  3. NSP - Jul 25, 2015 - Co-hosts: Vin James and Matthew - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Debunking the poorly-founded criticisms of the folks over at Quatloos! [Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos!, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3] […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : 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