Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame

It Sounds Circular But It’s Applicable

Posted on June 21st, 2013 by Marc Stevens

When you do business at the barrel of a gun, then things like evidence, logic, and of course good faith, just aren’t a part of the game plan.  Violence,  not logic, dictates and that is demonstrated again with this first call.

I say his position is the “law is applicable because the law says so”, and he responds by saying it makes perfect sense to him.  He is either lying, or he doesn’t understand simple logic.  I finally get this bureaucrat to understand and agree that: “The law applies because the laws says so” is circular, but that doesn’t stop him for a moment.  The exchange went like this:

“So when you say the law applies because the law says it applies that doesn’t sound circular though?”

“It sounds circular but it’s applicable.”

Honest people, acting in good faith, when confronted with the fact they have no evidence and only rely on a logical fallacy, stop proceeding.  I can’t make this any clearer.  Lysander Spooner was spot on, these people calling themselves governments are nothing more than gangs of killers, thieves and liars.  Listen to the call and make your own decision if this bureaucrat is acting in good faith.  While not entirely clear from the call, this involves the forcible taking of property or in words, the robbery of someone’s property.

I confront another tax bureaucrat (second audio below) on this issue directly by asking if they are taking my property by force, how is that different from stealing?  She says they have legal authority, but is unable to provide any evidence the laws apply.  I ask several times: What evidence do you have proving the constitution and laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Washington?  She is not able to answer.  In the recording she agrees they need evidence the laws apply, yet she would not stop stealing from me if she lacked the evidence.

YouTube Preview Image

              

25 Comments For This Post

  1. Randy Says:

    Marc, ask them this: What section of the code are you applying the assessment from? In my research the code only applies to “U.S. citizens” that are working in a foreign country, Employees of the Federal government or State governments, Officers of Corporations, Foreign Corporations, Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations(I know, how is a foreign tax exempt organization taxable.)and Elected Officials. Get them on their own rules. Not trying to be argumentative, but this is their Achilles heal.

    This will help you formulate a bit better Q and A on them.

    On Motor Vehicle Codes: They only apply to commercial vehicles. Look up the word Motor Vehicle in Title 18, and “Transportation” in older Blacks Law Dictionarys.

  2. Rodney Essex Says:

    Hi Mark,
    I love your COS podcasts. I had a thought that maybe dropping the constitution from your questions would help, as I think it gets people upset and they shut off their brain (or it seems to). It also makes them believe you think you are above the law, which is not the case at all. The fact is they just don’t have jurisdiction. Unless this is part of your strategy I think attacking only the applicable staute(s) or code(s) would be more productive, as you really are attacking their jurisdiction, which they do not have, unless the defendant grants it to them of course…

  3. Bo Says:

    The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other open,
    written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever, by virtue of which the United
    States government, so called, is maintained; and it being well known that none but male
    persons, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, are allowed any voice in the government;
    and it being also well known that a large number of these adult persons seldom or never
    vote at all; and that all those who do vote, do so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to
    prevent their individual votes being known, either to the world, or even to each other; and
    consequently in a way to make no one openly responsible for the acts of their agents, or
    representatives, — all these things being known, the questions arise: Who compose the real
    governing power in the country? Who are the men, the responsible men, who rob us of our property? Restrain us of our liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary dominion? And devastate
    our homes, and shoot us down by the hundreds of thousands, if we resist? How shall we
    find these men? How shall we know them from others? How shall we defend ourselves and
    our property against them? Who, of our neighbors, are members of this secret band of
    robbers and murderers? How [*47] can we know which are their houses, that we may burn
    or demolish them? Which their property, that we may destroy it? Which their persons, that
    we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants and monsters?
    These are questions that must be answered, before men can be free; before they can protect
    themselves against this secret band of robbers and murderers, who now plunder, enslave,
    and destroy them. ~ Lysander Spooner

  4. Bo Says:

    The answer to these questions is, that only those who have the will and power to shoot
    down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this, as in all other (so-called) civilized
    countries; for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.

  5. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Rodney, actually it has been more effective not be specific regarding a particular law. It’s much more difficult for them to justify the constitution or code is applicable when I don’t refer to income tax or driver’s license. They believe ALL the laws apply, let them present their evidence. Glad you like the calls :D

  6. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Randy, as I mentioned to Rodney, much better to not be specific, who cares what the law says, where are the facts the code itself applies to me at all?

  7. Randy Says:

    @Marc: Okay :)

  8. Rodney Says:

    @ Marc: Good point about being non-specific… Have you ever tricked them into saying the codes/laws apply to all Citizens? When I was listening to this newest podcast I was thinking diplomats have immunity to laws like this, so they are lying when they say ALL people in X county or whatever… Then, if they say “yes, all citizens” I’d tell them you’re not a citizen (no such thing, right) and when they ask what I am, I tell them I’m one of the native born people of where you’re from… I get some strange looks from that one… LOL…

  9. Latimer the Cat Says:

    Breaking through years of reinforced contradictory assumptive capital is no easy task. Maybe giving an example of a **voluntary** formal contractual agreement in the positive sense could help her see what you’re looking for as evidence. Once she grants validity to the voluntary contract, she’ll probably admit that the assumed state con-struct doesn’t maintain that.

  10. derrick Says:

    I have a link to my story of corruprion and what I deem as SEXUAL ASSULT by 2 male officers, one of which will yet to identify himself now has his identity been released to me on my fiancee along with my KIDNAPPING COMMITED BY the EULESS TEXAS POLICE DEARTMENT,, this article was written for me by Randy Stroud

    http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1310

    I thank him very much for the time and effort he took to listen
    I apologize for just throwing this out there but I have to get my story out there as many places as possible and to any one who would listen

    If the article you hopefully read interests you please contact me
    Derrick Edel; DeGraw
    D.degraw415@gmail.com

  11. Clive-Albert: Dodd Says:

    Trained slaves at their very best…thanks Marc every time you put out these podcast more and more people are realising that they have no evidence just the law of the jungle, big cats eat small cats, no rule of law exists anywhere as far as I can see.

  12. RadicalDude Says:

    All these corporate authoritarians have is their superstitions, logical fallacies, and of course their primary tool of the trade: violence. They think their political status relative to a corporation gives them a “right”
    to violently attack peaceful people. Yet, when confronted, they can’t really explain how it is so in logical terms, which exposes the superstitious nature of their fallacious belief in their “right” to initiate violence(jurisdiction).

  13. Chuck Renault Says:

    Hey Marc, I can’t comment on the podcast as it won’t play for me. There is another matter of how to approach these dunces. Try this; “Do you agree that everything today, is contractual, including the Constitutions both state and federal? They have to agree with that.
    Do you agree that all contracts must be entered knowingly, willfully, and intentionally, under full disclosure? Does it not take two or more parties to enter a contract? Contracts are obligations, can you please provide the contract signed by you or your employer and me.
    Almost all of their crap is derived from their so-called “Revised Statutes”. Anything a “statute” is written on is a “statutory Instrument”. Look up “statutory instrument” in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 1424, lower left hand corner. What do it say?
    My my, why are we being subjected to British Regulations or Orders?
    Sorry my friend, but unless they can produce a valid contract their corporation has absolutely NO authority, unless you give it to them.
    They need your consent for everything. That’s why they ask for your signature on everything. Your signature is your consent or agreement with whatever it is they want you to sign. One way to put a stop to this nonsense is simply write these words across the top of the page, in red ink if available; “OFFRE TO CONTRACT, REFUSED FOR CAUSE”. And if they insist on a signature, simply print the capital lettered name in the box or on the line. I do suggest very strongly to copyright the entity name and your signature. You should also register a rescission of ALL signatures, past, present, and future that do not follow to the letter your registered copyright, a contract.
    Yes they will try to say that you can’t contract with yourself, which is true. However, you are contracting with an artificial entity that coincidentally has the same letters in its name as your true name, however, the letters DO NOT follow or conform to proper English grammar. All proper nouns and sentences begin with capital letters. Remember that from the fourth grade? I rest my case…

  14. Incubus Says:

    More all caps BS. Wonderful. Why this site attracts such nonsense so often I’ll never understand.

    Copyright the signature, Chuck? Copyright? Apparently you’re not familiar with this site, at all.

  15. bruce sloane Says:

    R4C …??
    is that a recognized Pleading …?… outside of the UCC that is
    oh wait …
    that’s where you are going next

  16. eye2i Says:

    Forum member Robert has his “Paperwork of Shame” posted, which includes this: [quote]
    … 6. Additionally, whether the Constitution and Code (presumably the Internal Revenue Code) apply to the Respondent is a question of law rather than of fact, and so no information was required to be provided to Mr. Barnett and the failure or refusal to provide “factual information” has no impact on this Court’s jurisdiction. …
    For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction should be DENIED.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    EDWARD L. STANTON, III
    United States Attorney [/quote]
    [excerpted from here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4641-post-34373.html#pid34373

  17. Chris Says:

    @ Marc,

    This is all about PRESUMPTIONS. That is how the protection racket escapes answering the jurisdictional issues that they violate and that the courts “cover-up” for them.

    So why don’t you ask her what evidence she has to uphold the LEGAL PRESUMPTION that the statutes and laws apply?

    … Chris

  18. Randy Says:

    Ahhh, there ya go Chris. Nice One! :)

  19. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Chris, I’ve noticed I get better responses when I ask for evidence their argument is based, as opposed to opinion. I’ll try using presumption tomorrow, there will be plenty of opportunities.

  20. Chris Says:

    @Marc,
    How’d you make out using “legal presumption” w/these criminals?
    Got any audio footage to listen to?
    … Chris

  21. eye2i Says:

    @Chris:
    What evidence do you have, for our consideration, that this “criminal racket” (your words) is “all” about presumption, “Legal” or otherwise? Personally, i’ll counter that it’s all about distraction, indoctrination, threat, coercion and violence (hence it is a racket). Part of the distraction? Having us off chasing notions like “legal presumption” like it’s the silver bullet/”all” the bullet one needs? Are there Some scattered about who believe it is “all” about presumption, and thus if They hear the magic words, They’ll withdraw their power? Maybe/likely (it’s a mammoth, long running system/racket after all; compare Lloyd Long’s judge & jury with Larken Rose’s regarding IRS verdicts). But “all”? Or even most? Again, where’s the (f)actual evidence to back that up?
    Granted, in one aspect it is about presumption: so many presuming these delusional intoxicated despots (aka Bureaucrats) are honorable regarding Their word(s) “Legal” –if We just find the Right aka magic one(s)… For my two cents worth, it’s more about the ignored indoctriNational coercion behind ‘signed’ declarations (aka “Forms”) than presumption [see the blatantly, patently ignored words in Their Sacred Declaration for starters].
    Marc is getting at the crux of the matter with his evidence questions classic responses: it is because They say it is (aka based on Faith). The more etymologically sound usage of jurisdiction: to dictate law. To say what is, as the way it is. Just as it’s always been with natives disagreeing with Their Word(s) posited as Sacred –offered as evidence here rather than more presumption (see “Native American Treaties”, see “Code”, see “Law”?).

  22. bruce_sloane Says:

    did You mean the over 500 broken Treaties with my forebears, Eye2 …??

  23. Dan Says:

    @eye2, Just reify the legalsleeze and everything will look much better.

  24. eye2i Says:

    @Dan, reify, deify… well blow me down & shiver me timbers, that’s what i’s been trying to stopsk me self doin’sk! [assuming my sarcasm meter pegging here was your doing?]

  25. Chris Says:

    @Marc,

    Yeah, I’d like to hear how they respond to you asking them for evidence of their “legal presumption” that the “statutes” apply.
    That’s something the US gov’t “denied” me compelled discovery on during my tax court proceedings. Apparently they don’t want anybody knowing what their presumptions are, nor what “evidence” they base them on (nor what “elements” they consist of). It’s amazing how “unknown to the common man” all this “legalland” stuff is. “Trust us, we’re the experts” (http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html).

    … Chris

4 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jun 22, 2013 - Co-hosts: Calvin and JT - [UPDATED PODCAST] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    [...] New 2-part Call-of-Shame: using a tax return as evidence of a voluntary act and using it against them is the same as saying a woman wanted to be raped to avoid being murdered. [...]

  2. It Sounds Circular But It’s Applicable - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] post It Sounds Circular But It’s Applicable appeared first on [...]

  3. NSP – Jun 22, 2013 – Co-hosts: Calvin and JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    [...] New 2-part Call-of-Shame: using a tax return as evidence of a voluntary act and using it against them is the same as saying a woman wanted to be raped to avoid being murdered. [...]

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

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

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, August 30th 4-7pm EST: Marc will be away from the 'fortified compound' but we will have new content to broadcast LIVE. We will be back next week, so if you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP group chat where you can engage in some role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

------------------------PAYMENT NOTICE------------------------

I'm working on getting a paypal alternative, for now, you can use Dwolla for payments, use marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

WeAcceptBitcoin

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6









Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here