Categorized | Articles, Video

Dirty Prosecution Tactic – Flipping the Burden of Proof

Posted on March 9th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

This is from a call of shame with a Canadian prosecutor, sorry there is no audio to post.  It’s about the very common, though very dishonest tactic of flipping the burden of proof.  The burden is on the one making the claim, but when you’re full of crap, you try to flip the burden onto someone daring to question you.

This involves a criminal prosecution, so before you can say principles of logic don’t apply in court, the prosecution, the one making the claims, bears the entire burden of proof.  That burden is beyond a reasonable doubt even if you claim basic logic is not used in the legal system.

This is because logic dictates the one making the claim bears the burden of proof:

Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing “side” to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.  Source

That last sentence is very important and key to seeing why evidence is necessary, not just opinions supported by more opinions.   Or as I wrote in Government: Indicted, “It’s turtles all the way down.”

So the prosecutor did agree that he operates under the presumption that if one is physically in Canada, then the Constitution and laws apply, the government has jurisdiction.

When I asked him if he had any evidence (facts having a tendency to support/prove a proposition) to support his claim, he said:

I’d have to think about that…OK, I’m not prepared to answer that right now.

I asked him if he had any witnesses to prove his claim was true, witnesses with personal knowledge the Constitution applied to Max just because he’s physically in Canada.  The prosecutor claimed he didn’t need one, he’s only calling witnesses to prove Max did something contrary to the code.

I asked him to confirm he was calling a witness (cop) to testify Max violated the law.  Mr. Prosecutor said he was not, the witness would only be testifying Max did something contrary to the code.  I had to go back to my original point as I felt a stroke coming on if I continued.

This is where Mr. Prosecutor tried to flip the burden of proof, claiming Max had to prove, with evidence, the prosecutor’s claim was false.  Though I asked some questions he spoke over me and hung up on us.

I did get to ask, Doesn’t the fact that you’re not prepared to provide any evidence to support your claim defeat your claim?  I reminded him that he said he wasn’t prepared to answer.

He insisted Max had the burden.  When you have a prison system at your disposal, there’s no need for logic and fairness.

In court we need to object to this, asking if the prosecutor bears the burden of proof.  They will admit they do, that’s just too obvious and well-known to deny, at least openly.  While it may be argued that the prosecution can make a prima facie case and the burden shifts, this is particularly true in civil proceedings, that is not the case here.

The prosecution cannot make a prima facie case with, “I’m not prepared to answer that right now.”  A prima facie case is not made by citing court opinions and argument, it’s made with evidence, a factual and logical basis to support the claim being made.

I’ve addressed at length many times the false claim that evidence is not needed to prove a written instrument applies and creates obligations; suffice to say arguing without evidence is misconduct and unfair.  When a factually unsupported claim is made and treated as irrefutable, then that’s proof of a rigged game.  This is also considered a serious due process violation.

What a pernicious tactic this is, think about it.  What they are saying is:

Evidence?  I don’t need evidence; you need evidence to disprove my claim.

Evidence is not needed to prove it’s true, only if you want to disprove it.  And that is a big reason such people need a prison system.

A prosecutor is claiming he has no burden to prove the foundation of his case, the foundation setting the relevance of everything else he presents.  He goes a step further claiming he can argue without evidence but we need evidence to disprove his argument.  This sounds like another very common fallacy, the double standard.

Some may try to discourage you, saying a basic principle, such as a double standard, has no place in the legal system.  Really?  Even in the legal system there’s supposed to be fairness and justice.  A double standard is not fair, so don’t let anyone discourage you from pointing out the obvious fallacy.

And you can be certain that no judge or bureaucrat is going to extend you the same courtesy and accept your factually unsupported arguments.  No, that is reserved for criminals called “government”.

So when you encounter these dishonest tactics, call them on it, in court object, and make it impossible for them to make what they are doing look good.  That is why in court they tend to yell and threaten us, and out of court they just hang up.

Stick to asking questions.  They claim to be fair, yet use unfair tactics and we need to ask effective questions to bring out the contradictions.


46 Comments For This Post

  1. doyle Says:

    Marc, u r in the wrong jurisdiction. Burden of proof is common law. u r in admiralty because of the bankruptcy. Read some of Howard Freeman. Reserve your rights via ucC beforehand then move it into commonL.Why do u think the others want to carry on with garbage? It’s a horse and pony show, designed to confuse and anger. Don’t fall for it.

  2. spooky2th Says:

    What facts do you rely on doyle, that prove any kind of jurisdiction?

  3. burt Says:

    Doyle says: “Burden of proof is common law. u r in admiralty because of the bankruptcy”…. LOL that’s funny. Thanks for making my day.

  4. rad Says:

    there is no jurisdiction
    it’s a mystical magical belief

  5. ICBMCatcher Says:

    — BS ALERT —

    No matter how much you fellows my dislike it, jurisdiction is exactly what it’s claimed to be in the law, determined by GEOGRAPHIC location. You can deny and cry … call it “magical” all you want, but if you break the law that you think doesn’t apply to you, and are caught … you will stand trial. Then you can try the lame “challenge jurisdiction/show me the evidence your laws apply to me” defense, LOSE as usual, then pay your fine or get locked up.

    Your theoretical BS is nonsense.

    Reminding anarchists everywhere, the law applies to you because “we” say so. ICBMCatcher

  6. Max Says:

    What ever Russell.

  7. Ronnie Says:

    wow, I thought all government authority comes from pieces of paper.

  8. spooky2th Says:

    Opinions on paper that are backed up by thugs with guns. Notice how the govt apologists use theoretical BS all the time, as if it is factual. Liars believe their own lies, it seems. Sick in their heads full of double standards for everything. Then they claim everybody else is using theoretical BS. A typical 6th or 7th grade mindset.

    on jurisdiction or that the codes apply

    icbm: There can’t be any evidence.

    Marc: So, it’s purely theoretical?

    icbm: No…

    What a joke you are, icbm. No evidence, it has to be theoretical.

  9. spooky2th Says:

    No matter what is on any piece of paper, there are no facts that actually prove territorial jurisdiction. Asking what facts that prove territorial jurisdiction to a cop on the stand and the persecutor will most like “object” and say the cop is no qualified, blah blah blah. A good way to get the persecutor without a witness so he cannot prove anything against you! They couldn’t prove jurisdiction anyways. Simple explanation: “They are lying, thieving criminals!” Their actions and their own words prove it.

  10. desertspeaks Says:

    Doyle, just post your WINNING/DISMISSAL CASE RECORDS.. We have all heard the UCC bs, but oddly, NOT ONE SINGLE DISMISSAL USING IT, EVER! Yes we have also heard the stories.. but they’re just that, STORIES! and when anyone who “claims” to have had dismissals etc.. no one is ever able to post verifiable dismissals..

    Is this where you’ll accept my challenge for value?? LMAO!

  11. desertspeaks Says:

    @ icbm.. DISMISSALS by challenging jurisdiction and lack of evidence thereof SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.. be gone fool!

  12. Max Says:

    icbmcatcher is russell piazza

  13. Max Says:

    What is going to happen when the wrong max is identified? Russell Piazza wanted a fight? I’m inclined to give it. Max Root.

  14. Max Says:

    russ listen to this:

  15. rad Says:

    “ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 13th, 2017 at 8:52 am

    the law applies to you because “we” say so”

    so it is magic, then…?

  16. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Funny how you anarchy boys steer clear of the FACT that if you commit a crime and are caught, you will be arrested and stand trial, yet claim that there is no evidence laws apply to you.

    No evidence? The evidence our laws apply to you, is you cuffed, stuffed and sitting in a cell.

    The anarchist reply to this? “That’s not evidence” Well boys, you can call it whatever you want, but refusing to call it eveidence doesn’t mean it’s not.

    Laws … rules … statutes … codes … they are all theoretical, they are “made-up”… of course they are. The entire concept of law is made up. No shit.

    That doesn’t mean you won’t be arrested, stand trial, be found guilty or not etc etc. if you violate the “law”

    The only tiny sliver of a real argument you clowns have is that you did not choose to be born here. But that falls under the heading of “to bad”

    UNDENIABLE FACT # 64 it all boils down to where one finds oneself on earth – America, France Australia, wherever … geography … an individual will obey the laws of wherever one finds oneself. Like it or not.

    “We” control the land mass known as the United States of America … and “we” say this is how it’s going to be HERE … on this ground we control, AND we have the means of enforcement. Therefor you will comply. And it is 100% arbitrary … damn straight. BUT … we won’t ULTIMATELY force you to do anything, because you can always LEAVE this jurisdiction.

    Our laws absolutely apply to you, but only if you’re here.

    Your arguments are just as theoretical as the laws you rail against. Thing is … we have the means to force you to comply and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it except LEAVE.

    I just stated HOW IT IS … now one of you geniuses will come back with HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. Who do you think is going to win that one?

    Layin’ it down (again) ICBMCatcher

  17. spooky2th Says:

    icbm, the fallacy guy is at it again.

    Now he is using: Appeal to Consequences

    argumentum ad consequentiam
    It is “Logically Fallacious!”

    This is what lying lawyers try to use in and out of court.

    fallacy guy icbm, is also leaning on:

    Appeal to Force
    argumentum ad baculum

    Using fallacies in court, one would be sentenced fast and laughed right out of the court!

    You are such a big help here, icbm…

  18. NonEntity Says:

    Spoomytruth sed, “You are such a big help here, icbm…” — indeed. Keeps people from cluttering up the forum with actual beneficial material.

  19. ICBMCatcher Says:

    It’s hilarious to watch you boys try to Explain away reality.

    Laughing at anarchists, ICBMCatcher

  20. spooky2th Says:

    We already know the reality of it all, icbm. Unlike you, we want to rid the inhuman and criminal nature of it all.

    People using fallacies as if they are facts is hilarious to me! Governments and corporations are called “fictions” for a reason. They exist on paper at best, like a fiction book. Then there’s all the morons that actually “believe” it all. And force their religion’s rules on everybody.

    What if someone knocked on your door and told you to get out because G-d gave me your house and land??? You’d be saying stuff like we are here, too.

    Governments are as criminal as any mafia.

  21. ICBMCatcher Says:

    spooky2th Says:
    March 14th, 2017 at 1:30 pm
    We already know the reality of it all, icbm. Unlike you, we want to rid the inhuman and criminal nature of it all.

    “Governments are as criminal as any mafia.”

    The spookster levels an opinion that is as valid as any other … and as worthless as all.

    You and your buddy stevens absolutely refuse to address a simple point that has been made repeatedly. Could it be because you know if you do it will unravel your entire unrealistic way of thinking?

    It’s pretty safe to say civilization started off in anarchy … “without rulers” also; “a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy”
    synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
    “conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy”
    absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.”

    I don’t think we have any argument here.

    Leaders evolved, as they do in any group of animals. Leaders often turned into despotic rulers. The concept of GOVERNMENT emerged because ordinary people demanded an end to despots and being “ruled”

    Government is not a “ruling class” you guys just call it that to support your ultimately unsupportable position.

    Anarchy simply doesn’t work. Which is why it doesn’t exist on a large scale ANYPLACE and has never lasted. Obviously, despotism would not be tolerated, so the traditional forms of GOVERNMENT came into being.

    The anarchist way of thinking … the notion of a “voluntary society” is absurd, when referring to a large group especially one the size of a nation. Enter, laws … rules … taxes etc. which MUST be universal and applicable to every citizen. Otherwise there would be chaos.

    Those that say there are no citizens … no countries etc, are simply espousing certain views that could be interpreted as valid. But in the end, are impractical.

    You anarchy delusionists know very well that your silly ideas have no basis in fact. You spout this nonsense just to get a reaction. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

    So why don’t you all just stow your foolishness and quit acting like a bunch of whiny children? There is already a system in place to bring about change. Thing is, you guys want to short cut that system. Credentials and qualifications are also real things. Get those first, then people will listen to you … maybe.

    Right now you, stevens, “sovereigns”, anarchists, and anyone else that thinks like this are nothing but loud-mouth, amateur, no-nothings talking nonsense, trying to accomplish your goals just by screaming the loudest. And you scream inane, meaningless bluster. No wonder it hasn’t, doesn’t, and will never work.

    Destroying the anarchist position a little more each day, ICBMCatcher

  22. Andy Says:

    Universal “law”/rule is each individual may accept or decline to interact with any other individual. That is a perfect fit with *do no harm*. When an individual declines/refuses to interact with you, you leave them alone because you don’t know what may harm the person. Perhaps they’re allergic to peanuts, your perfume or cologne, or just looking at you or listening to your voice makes them sick to their stomach. To force yourself on that person may harm them and thus you’ve caused chaos. Voluntary interactions eliminate that chaos,

  23. spooky2th Says:

    Fallacy guy, icbm—Keep up with your irrational posts. People can see for them selves with each post, how ridiculous you are.

  24. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Andy Says:
    March 14th, 2017 at 5:51 pm
    Universal “law”/rule is each individual may accept or decline to interact with any other individual. That is a perfect fit with *do no harm*.

    Simple questions … but so far none of you geniuses have been able to answer, so here it is again.

    If the way of life you describe … the “voluntary society” you dream of … is such a perfect way to live, why then is it not the way we live?

    How do you explain the FACT that these ideas have been around for centuries, yet civilization universally (accept for you clowns) rejects them? If anarchy and the “voluntary society” is such an ideal way of life why doesn’t it exist anywhere? Why does every country on earth have a traditional government of some kind? Why is anarchy not widely accepted?

    It’s amusing how my comments are called “irrational” by those who post comments supporting an imaginary way of life that has failed every time it’s been attempted, and exists nowhere on earth?

    And it’s you same “no state” delusionists that praise the BS stevens tries in court, even though we know it fails MOST of the time. More denial of know facts.

    Yeah right … I’m the one that’s irrational. Proof of your foolishness is all around you, yet you deny it and try to distract by mounting the most ridiculous arguments you can think of. It’s not working. The vast majority of people laugh at your foolishness.

    Laughing and pointing. at the silly anarchists as they just keep failing, ICBMCatcher

  25. Andy Says:

    Individuals who voluntarily interact with each other demonstrate a voluntary society exists. Yes there are still criminals, but their numbers are small and fortunately we know where the most destructive criminals are; they call themselves government and they cause chaos when they persist in not leaving individuals alone.

    Men and women who call themselves government claim they have the moral/ethical high ground while initiating violence and threats of violence against individuals who didn’t harm anyone.

    “the “voluntary society” you dream of … is such a perfect way to live, why then is it not the way we live? ”

    Specifically, “the way we live” — with emphasis on *we*.

    I don’t initiate violence, threats of violence or fraud against anyone — that’s how I live by voluntary interaction with others. That’s me — it’s how I live my life at peace with myself.

    How does ICBMCatcher interact with people? Well that’s obvious, as he said, “the way we live”, thus he must be one who initiates violence, threat of violence and fraud against individuals.

    Mr. Politician/bureaucrat, if I was to do as government types do and forced strangers to giver me money would you consider me a criminal?

    If forcing strangers to give you money is a mortal/ethical way to live, why isn’t everyone doing it?

    Why is it that 97% of individuals interact on a voluntary basis yet it’s a certain segment of the 3% who initiate violence that ICBMCatcher champions? Because he’s on their payroll.

  26. les Says:

    ICBM says:
    “UNDENIABLE FACT # 64 it all boils down to where one finds oneself on earth – America, France Australia, wherever … geography … an individual will obey the laws of wherever one finds oneself. Like it or not.”


    If I was born in the USA and moved to Australia, i would still be required by “US law” to file an IRS tax return. There is no provision in “Australian law” for anybody to submit an IRS tax return. Now that is an undeniable fact.

    Try again ICBM.

    I’ve been busy with my business and beautiful wife, so did I miss you answering the apples & oranges questions I posed you or are you still avoiding it? As a reminder, if a judge ruled that all apples are oranges, from that point on is an apple factually an orange?

  27. les Says:

    PART 2
    ICBM says:
    “UNDENIABLE FACT # 64 it all boils down to where one finds oneself on earth – America, France Australia, wherever … geography … an individual will obey the laws of wherever one finds oneself. Like it or not.”

    Wrong again.

    How do you explain “diplomatic immunity”? What is it they are immune from, local disease maybe or local “laws”? Sure, there may be “local laws” that support diplomatic immunity, but that is just like stating there is a law that says the law dose not apply to you just because you are physically in this “country”… now if that isn’t circular reasoning and arbitrary application of “law” i don’t know what is.

    You consistently conflate “applies” with “applied”. “Laws” are applied to you if you like it or not, this is not evidence said “law” applies to you. As an example, I am physically outside of the USA (Australia), and inline with your argument said laws of the USA should not apply to me, yet the laws of the USA will be applied to me should i fail to submit an IRS tax return.

  28. rad Says:

    “Why does every country on earth have a traditional government of some kind? Why is anarchy not widely accepted? ”
    because the statist religion is so popular
    these magical articles of faith are still so widely believed
    these sacred “undeniable” “truths” and the worship of authority and
    “the state” (the god of government)

  29. desertspeaks Says:

    @ icbm,.. why don’t judges/prosecutors just trot out their evidence?? BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST! Be gone fool!

  30. Ronnie Says:

    Our laws absolutely apply to you, but only if you’re here.

    if they only apply because you’re here, why is the DOJ filing complaints against Russian officials in Russia claiming they broke US rules?????

    Explain away ICBM

  31. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    So who is going to arrest those Russians and bring them to court?

  32. rad Says:

    “Explain away ICBM”

    ====BS ALERT====

    we’re supposed to take the dogmas being proselytized on faith…?

  33. spooky2th Says:

    Russian Hacker

    New excuse:
    But mama, the Russians hacked my homework.

    It seems to be working for the liars that call them selves government.

  34. NonEntity Says:

    LesIzMore sed, “How do you explain “diplomatic immunity”? What is it they are immune from, local disease maybe…?” 🙂 luv it ! I could go to Mexico and use diplomatic immunity to keep from getting “the trots.”

  35. ICBMCatcher Says:

    From Wikipedia
    Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country’s laws, although they can still be expelled.

    From me …

    I swear, you ano-delusionists are so desperate … you defend the indefensible with the most feeble retorts. I would think you would be be embarrassed by now.

    Diplomatic immunity is a special circumstance recognized in international law. Using it as some way to support your still very silly ideas, is ineffective at best … freaking hilarious to watch at worst.

    Reminding anarchists everywhere how foolish their beliefs are, ICBMCatcher

  36. NonEntity Says:

    OMG!!! I’m like SO embarrassed!

  37. Recon Says:

    ICBM must really enjoy our company.

  38. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “I swear, you ano-delusionists are so desperate”

    I swear, you statist sycophants are so logically challenged.

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?

    Then how did authority NOBODY HAD get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    “There is no gun under the paperwork, Move along”
    – Obi Wan Kenobi –

  39. ahjuma Says:

    BM_Catcher, let’s suspend logic for a moment and assume that the Constitution applies to us. Can we agree that it most certainly applies to those who have sworn oaths to serve in ‘our’ Constitutional Republic? Have you read the document? Can you explain the fundamental inconsistencies between the rules of procedure as described therein, and why those rules are flagrantly violated by those most auspiciously beholden to them, by their oath? Consider traffic stops to check for sobriety, registration and license; these are police actions arising with no provocation, no sworn complaint, no warrant, no method to determine whether victims are commercial operators or private travelers utilizing modern technology …and siezure of personal property if not in compliance… all to be adjudicated by agents receiving compensation and title from the same Executive Branch as compensates police, prosecution and prisons, seemingly quite contradictory to several articles of the Bill of Rights. If the Rule of Law means so little to those professing to be its stewards, what is the remedy in your humble opinion? It states in the Constitution that statutes found to be in conflict are not only to be ignored but protested …enabling the integrity of Consent of the Governed to endure. I’ve been reading your commentary and find your ‘defense’ of the Constitution to be in contempt of its very essence. A Constitutional Republic is the nearest thing to anarchy, a formalization of Do No Harm that provides a prescribed means to obtain relief when harm occurs. You are an apologist of Tyranny (either out of fearing it or being compensated by it) rather than acknowledging the corruption of the rule of law as it was intended.

  40. NonEntity Says:

    ahjuma, there is a forum thread for discussions with this trill. Any posts made here will be deleted by Marc.

  41. NonEntity Says:

    I meant to say troll, but trill ain’t too bad either!

  42. ahjuma Says:

    More of my high-school level skepticism…
    If it is assumed that our physical position on Planet Earth submits us to the local legal club’s code of conduct, hence we are (by more often happenstance than virtue) equal in status to the local legal club if we are to believe ourselves subject to their rules …just by our proximity. What then is the purpose of the solemn theatre of administering and swearing of oaths in order to gain access to the club if there’s no way to NOT be a member? Oath-swearing would seem moot.
    No other gang operates on the assumption that all people who happen to make their homes and livelihoods within the confines of arbitrary lines on paper maps or spraypaint on overpasses are members. There is some ritual involved in indoctrination. How does the Mafia or Yakuza treat a run-in with an outsider? Is confrontation with US, Inc. less severe? Would you expect that the gang most engaged in stealing your wealth to stay in control ought to treat you better?

  43. ahjuma Says:

    NonE, just spotted your reply. Thanks. I really don’t desire to feed trolls, found this a good excuse to post my growing list of rhetorical questions.

  44. ahjuma Says:

    Not accepting new members in the forum??

  45. ahjuma Says:

    Oop! Sorry, just catching up.

  46. i.n.rem Says:

    russell pizza I rate even lower that Non-Needed ..

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. LONDON CALLING | there is no debt Says:

    […] Dirty Prosecution Tactic – Flipping the Burden of Proof […]

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