Categorized | Articles, Video

Dissent Welcome – Prove States/Citizens/Governments Actually Exist

Posted on March 3rd, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Dissent and criticism of my work is always welcome.  You may call into a live broadcast, there are four hours a week, check times here.  I’m happy to record a show with you also.

If you want to set up a live broadcast on another show, I’m happy to  be confronted with your evidence/logic, but you have to set that up.  This also goes for a live debate/discussion where you have the opportunity to discredit me and save legions of people from being harmed by my work.  You have to set it up.

What you need is evidence though, and not arguments that presuppose the system is valid.  You have to prove there are citizens, states, and governments are real, and their rules (“laws”) actually apply to us and created obligations.  Using their legal “logic” presupposes all of that.  It doesn’t matter if no judge has ever accepted the argument/facts, they are hardly impartial and they are presupposing their system is legitimate.

You have to prove reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection were created and exist to be able to prove there are citizens; then you can prove there are states and governments.  If you can prove that, then you need evidence that their rules, called “laws” actually apply to us and create obligations on us just because we’re physically in Arizona, or wherever.

Good luck with that.  No one, not even a Supreme Court Chief Justice could prove it.

              

18 Comments For This Post

  1. juan galt Says:

    Given the parameters of the “evidence” you “require”, it is not evidence as defined in Law. You reject that evidence which is based on Law and governed by the rules of evidence. Therefore, this “evidence” must be based elsewhere – outside of the discipline of Law. It appears the evidence you demand is philosophical evidence, although I can’t be sure. You make philosophical statements about the existence of certain philosophical concepts(“citizen”,”states”, “govt”). Since I can only address your demand from a legal standpoint, I can do you no good philosophically. However, I have provided some scholarly works with great sources which addresses BOTH sides of the argument –

    “You have to prove there are citizens, states, and governments are real, and their rules (“laws”) actually apply to us and created obligations.”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

    Enjoy

  2. Marc Stevens Says:

    You keep insisting it’s philosophical when it is not. And if I’m going to prove an organization is criminal, why would I be limited to the rules of that criminal organization to do so? Proving the organization is criminal is done by applying basic principles of logic to the facts. Even with the rules of the criminal organization, there are no facts, legal opinions/citations are not evidence and therefore, not proof. You seem to think that facts that are relevant to proving a proposition are different when in a legal context. They are not despite what the crooks in black robes declare. All you’re doing is trying to use a double standard to prove historical and contemporary things/events happened and are true. It’s the same as prosecutors conflating stare decisis for res judicata.

  3. Boxer Says:

    @Marc

    “Using their legal “logic” presupposes all of that.”

    To ICBM and juan galt’s credit, they admitted that reason and logic do not apply within “legal land”; only fictions and opinions. I would presume the word “legal” would mean, simply, “without logic or reason”. Therefore I find your statement above to be somewhat paradoxical.

  4. desertspeaks Says:

    @ boxer, juan and icbm are either paid to be as blatantly stupid as they are, and or, they’re suffering from stockholm syndrome

  5. juan galt Says:

    ” And if I’m going to prove an organization is criminal, why would I be limited to the rules of that criminal organization to do so?”
    It’s YOUR opinion the “organization” is criminal and your opinion is based on your philosophical political beliefs as presented in the links I provided. Who and what is “criminal”, in this discussion, is open to interpretation. There are philosophers that agree with you and philosophers that disagree. Your fellow believers will also agree with you. And the debate with go on ad infinitum – just NOT in Court.
    “Even with the rules of the criminal organization, there are no facts, legal opinions/citations are not evidence and therefore, not proof.”
    Absolutely incorrect. You just don’t understand what is considered evidence by the “rules” you refer to and therefore you reject what IS evidence. If you were knowledgeable and experienced in legal procedures and rules you would know your claim is false.
    “You seem to think that facts that are relevant to proving a proposition are different when in a legal context”.
    The rules that govern facts in a legal context ARE different. You seem to think they are not which is a faulty conclusion – your naked denials notwithstanding.

    Attempting to ‘prove’ established facts and reality to someone who stubbornly denies them is irrational and futile. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, cannot be proved. If massive conspiracies are believed to determine the content of textbooks, law, court procedure, govt, etc, – boogeymen and “criminals” will be seen everywhere.

  6. spooky2th Says:

    “It’s YOUR opinion the “organization” is criminal and your opinion is based on your philosophical political beliefs as presented in the links I provided.”

    Nope, you’re dead wrong! His opinion is based on facts, not any kind of philosophy or any kind of beliefs. The actions of the ones dong business as govt are as criminal as can be.

  7. spooky2th Says:

    Just as criminal as any mafia, I should have said!

  8. Peep Says:

    Hi Marc.
    What about dead body, black eye, empty wallet?

  9. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “It’s YOUR opinion the “organization” is criminal and your opinion is based on your philosophical political beliefs as presented in the links I provided. Who and what is “criminal”, in this discussion, is open to interpretation.”

    And it’s YOUR opinion the “organization” is not criminal.

    http://synapticsparks.info/government/Government.html#truth

  10. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Given the parameters of the “evidence” you “require”, it is not evidence as defined in Law.”

    Would that be the law you can’t or won’t prove applies?

  11. James Wilson Says:

    Does these rule apply to those who have a commercial license, and ticketed while operating commercial vehicle. Should I file a motion of jurisdiction.

  12. Marc Stevens Says:

    Yes, it’s all under threat, duress and coercion. I start with the motion to dismiss.

  13. Daniel Dean Alvarado Says:

    I had two idiots assuming false report that I beat them up. Stopping a fire a fire in my home. Early am.one morning in Visalia. We rent from a judge who owns this home, a man im aquaited with good. David Mathias. I went to jail twice over these two idiots. The second time in jail I got a head injury and took x rays on my head. Aug 2, 2015. Upon my release the deputy had me sign release form. U.C.C. 1-207 1-308 under duress before my signatures. I was told not to and then the assumed threw this pencil at him and ran me into a cell wall inbob Wiley detention facility. A corporation I suffered in with plausible presentable evidenceon my head.my copy rights are violated. I have my recordings all rights reserved. I beat Stephanie Shirk inasupreme court. She was under the assumption that they had jurisdiction. Under copy rights infringements on my recording and that court room script. Video has it all . 1 million per frame. 24 frames per second copy rights infringements upon me and injuries under this whole code of Law with Tulare,county and Visalia city. I’m the Treasury coordinator now.for the real Mooney Grove Project. Daniel Alvarado on Facebook you can find me. I asked Shirk on record many questions was detained for an hour . see sovereign authority. The warrant was lifted. They had no evidence of any kind of injuries. So under. U.S.C. ASSUMING JURISDICTION Title 18, sec,1 chapter 13. 241 242. U.S.C. 17, 501 606 COPY RIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
    MY PHONE NUMBER PERSONALLLY IS: 559 300 1048. daniel. Marc, you call me any time.

  14. Jarrod Says:

    Hey Juan, Nobody is trying to prove that the government is a criminal organization (it is but that is besides the point). If you are drug into a court of law (say for a victimless crime like smoking a plant in the privacy of your house or perhaps you didn’t come to a “complete” stop at a sign that recommended it), Then you will need to use the rules of the court to defend yourself. However, when you try to do so, you will usually get railroaded.

    The reason why Applicability of the law is so important is because it is related to Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the “Right” of the court to impose upon you. If you are in the military, and you ask them for evidence of jurisdiction (evidence the law applies) they will whip out your recruitment contract so fast it will make your head spin. But in the civilian world, No such contract exists. It’s just a group of people, who have a bunch of arbitrary rules written down, and imposing their will on the rest of society. I didn’t agree to those rules. It’s no different than a mafia imposing it’s rules onto a business because of it’s geographic location.

    However, since they don’t actually have any evidence of jurisdiction, they will try and do anything they can to get around it, including lying and claiming that the “law applies because the law says it does”. However, a legal citation is also a legal opinion. Some people wrote down an arbitrary rule and are enforcing on you.

    This is important, because you cannot raise a claim in a court of law unless you have evidence to do so. So if you are going to raise the claim that the court has jurisdiction to impose upon you, but they don’t actually have evidence to back up that claim, then the prosecutor is making a claim without evidence. It’s a BIG no no, and the correct motion is a motion to dismiss for a lack of evidence, or failure to state a case (stating a case without evidence to back it up).

  15. NonEntity Says:

    Jarrod sez: ” If you are drug into a court of law…” — now if ever I’ve heard a case for drug laws, this is it!

  16. juan galt Says:

    Jerrod – You’re just regurgitating the standard “internet lawyer” BS. It has basis in the reality of Court procedure and rules. You’ve bought into the “There’s no evidence of jurisdiction” BS which is faulty legal reasoning. You assertions have no basis in law – they are based on political theory. The rules of evidence that govern Court procedures clearly establish what evidence is REQUIRED to prove jurisdiction – and yours and Marc’s “legal” interpretation of the REQUIRED evidence is wrong. Your problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know.

    Only people who know absolutely nothing about legal procedures, believe your faulty premise.

  17. spooky2th Says:

    Cannot prove the code applies, means lacking foundation. A cause of action is required for all courts criminal, civil and all around & in between. Rights violated and harm done is in all of them. No harm done, no case! This is why the prosecution can never prove jurisdiction in victimless crimes! Prosecutors rely on their partners, dishonest judges to relieve them of their burden of proof. Objection, COLLUSION!! Collusion is a federal offense! If the judge & persecutor break laws in their court, all the immunity/protection they think they have goes out the window!

  18. Randall L Says:

    Im not really trying today to enter the debate. I have more respect for you as
    an anarchist than the conmen and swindler who try to use your concepts which ironically align aling criminal self-interest. Anyway I thought that this story from bbc would be of some interest to you. I couldnt post the lunk in the comment box so I placed it in the website box

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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