Categorized | Articles, Video

Jail is no Substitute for Evidence

Posted on March 17th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”  Putting someone in jail does not prove magical rules called “laws” apply to us.  I can forcibly apply my rules to you, that doesn’t mean they are applicable to you and create obligations on you.  It’s irrational to hold otherwise.

This particular reasoning in this video is even worse though, as it doesn’t take into account that one need not be in jail for bureaucrats to claim their rules apply.  They claim they always apply.  So if the evidence is being in jail, then how does one prove the laws apply when you’re just sitting in your home doing nothing?

So the facts are I’m physically in Mesa, Arizona.  I’m just sitting here, not accused of violating any laws.  The constitution is a written instrument.  Those are the facts.  What facts prove this written instrument applies to me and creates obligations on me?

 

              

443 Comments For This Post

  1. Randall Says:

    ICBMcatcher is just a troll and not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He will never see beyond his own ignorance.

    Constitution and code ONLY apply to elected officials and govt employees. They were written for govt, they apply only to govt. As was proved by Bond v United States. If anything the local authorities should have been the ones to prosecute under local law. And, yes, there was an injured, however slight, party.

  2. Randall Says:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf

  3. juan galt Says:

    Another “internet lawyer” FAIL. Bond v US does NOT establish what you say it does. Here’s what the Court said it was about –

    “The question presented by this case is whether the
    Implementation Act also reaches a purely local crime: an
    amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s
    lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn
    readily treated by rinsing with water. Because our constitutional
    structure leaves local criminal activity primarily
    to the States, we have generally declined to read federal
    law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress
    has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach.
    The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act
    contains no such clear indication, and we accordingly
    conclude that it does not cover the unremarkable local
    offense at issue here.”

    The US Supreme Court simply held that only the States have police power to enforce local law AND this lady’s action was NOT a federal crime, but a state crime. Therefore, the State law would apply to her in this case – NOT The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

  4. Iconoclasm Says:

    I hate being told I am a “citizen” because I NEVER signed up to be a citizen and don’t at all like what is attached to citizenship! I always ask the following question: “If I was not born with any special authority to command you, and you were not born with any special authority to command me, nor was anyone else on this planet. Then how is it that two or more people can combine their ZERO authority and vote me out of my rights? Were did they acquire the authority to vote on anything which would inhibit my rights, beyond the law of trespass? Zero authority plus Zero authority equals ZERO AUTHORITY, no matter how many assholes endeavor to combine!

  5. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    Is not the body of U.S. law established over the 240 years “information”?

    Yeah … I think it is. Point-set-Match. It’s fitting that stevens typed the very words that crushed him. I knew this would happen sooner or later!

    Randall Says:
    March 18th, 2017 at 5:48 am
    ICBMcatcher is just a troll and not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He will never see beyond his own ignorance.

    That’s an odd comment Randall – you call my disagreement with ano-delusionists “ignorant.” I wonder if that’s because I keep kicking the legs out from under the foolish notion that anarchy could ever be anything? Do you call me ignorant because I relentlessly expose the notion of anarchy as nonsense, and it dashes your dreams?

    Am I ignorant because I see past my emotions and realize that a society of any size needs laws that are universally applied to all CITIZENS, and that no law can exist without enFORCEment. It is unfortunate that the use of force is necessary to gain compliance, but it is the case nonetheless.

    Anarchy looks good on paper, and stevens nonsense sounds like a good idea, but here are few facts for you to ponder.

    Anarchy has failed and faded away, every time it’s been attempted.

    There is no known anarchist society of any size in existence anywhere on earth (because people quickly recognize it’s BS)

    If anarchy were such a great way of life, it would be our way of life … or at least it would be SOMEWHERE.

    Anarchy has been displaced by traditional government in every nation on earth

    stevens’ nonsense rarely works in court — UPDATE — even I was OVERESTIMATING stevens’ effectiveness in court! Apparently even the “wins” he claims are not the result anything he did! — now we know why he doesn’t post a win/loss record or the complete text of a judges ruling in the cases he’s involved with.

    stevens’ win/loss record is FAR LESS IMPRESSIVE than he claims … check it out for yourself!

    The laws of whatever country one finds oneself in, do in fact apply to the individual. Commit a crime there, get caught, and see for yourself. NOTE: here’s where the SENSE in which a word is used is important.

    The U.S. constitution was written to put limits on GOVERNMENT … to describe how GOVERNMENT would operate, relative to the people.

    The U.S. government operates with the consent of the governed. In theory, the people of the United States could vote to dissolve our current form of government and go anarchist (fat chance)

    And finally, NOTHING ano-delusionists say … no ridiculous off-the-wall reasoning stevens uses will EVER bring about a “voluntary” society in the form advocated here … not because “statists” stand in the way, but because a “voluntary” society is a pipe-dream … a fantasy … a proven FAILURE.

    Scoffing at anarchist theory daily, ICBMCatcher

  6. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Matter of Law
    Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
    Matter of Law
    That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles.
    In legal actions the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsibility of the court. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury, though a judge may determine the facts if a jury trial is waived or is not permitted under the law.
    The designation of matters of law to the judge and matters of fact to the jury did not develop, however, until the late eighteenth century. Until that time a jury could exercise its judgment over matters of fact and law. Jury instructions, which in modern law are technical and specific about which law to apply, were informal and general. A jury was free to accept the instructions, modify them, or ignore them completely.
    By the middle of the nineteenth century, courts had acquired authority over matters of law and confined juries to matters of fact. Commercial lawyers were particularly influential in bringing about this change, as greater judicial control over matters of law helped produce a stable legal system in which business could prosper.
    Today courts rule on all matters of law, including pretrial motions, trial objections to the introduction of particular evidence or testimony, proposed jury instructions, and posttrial motions. Their decisions are based on statutes, rules of evidence and procedure, and the body of relevant case law.
    When the facts in a civil action are not in dispute, one or both of the parties may request a court to make a Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is purely a matter of law; the court accepts the relevant facts as presented by the party opposing summary judgment and renders a decision based on the applicable legal principles.
    A matter of law can be the basis for an appeal, but generally a matter of fact cannot. Though an appeals court can reverse a decision because of a mistaken matter of law, it will not reverse if the mistake did not affect the verdict. This “harmless error” rule developed, in part, from the recognition that during a trial the court often must make hundreds of decisions based on matters of law.

  7. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Dear ano-delusionists –

    The above posted text clearly explains yet ANOTHER reason why stevens’ is full of hot air.

    The snake oil salesman presents the question of jurisdiction as a matter of FACT when it’s actually a matter of LAW. Another stevens FAIL.

    Then there’s the goof-balls citing court cases that don’t even support their point.

    Exposing stevsn BS is like getting a guy to shoot himself with his own gun.

    Unraveling stevens Gordian knot of BS a little more each day, ICBMCatcher

  8. rad Says:

    You still havent identified any specific bs. He said there are no facts proving the law applies. You still haven’t actually provided any…

  9. rad Says:

    all you’ve done is present a bunch of legal opinions and it seems as though you’re trying to conflate ARGUMENT with EVIDENCE…all you’ve done is present an ARGUMENT. You still haven’t cited any EVIDENCE the argument is actually true.

  10. Boxer Says:

    You got my violence-free vote, Marc!

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/09/mit-civil-disobedience-award/

  11. rad Says:

    it’s turtles all the way down you back up your own opinions…with are based on other opinions…which are themselves based on other opinions…when do we actually get to the foundation of FACT that any of these OPINIONS are predicated upon…

  12. Randall Says:

    @juangalt: Jeez, you just proved my point dumbass.

  13. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Look guys — your goose is cooked, and stevens did it to himself.

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.

    The INFORMATION conveyed through the text of … not only the constitution … but the entire body of U.S. law (all of which springs from the constitution), has developed over more than 240 years, and is widely accepted by 10’s of millions (not to mention every other country on earth), CLEARLY … UNDENIABLY … INDICATE that the belief or proposition(s) expressed in that document applies to anyone on U.S. soil, if only by inference. Furthermore, since the people of the United States could VOTE OUT OF EXISTENCE the current form of government, but have not, and have no intention to, it’s CLEARLY another INDICATOR of consent to the form of government currently in place.

    And finally … simple common sense. The U.S. government (and our laws) is/are the foundation of what could easily be called the most successful country on earth. The whole concept of law (any law) is that it applies equally to anyone within a particular jurisdiction, and jurisdiction IS determined by where a person is … physically … no matter what kind of spin one might want to put on it.

    stevens … you’re done. Fold up your tent and pack it in. You shot yourself in the foot and I’m going to grind sand into the bulls hole. Your nonsense has predictably been it’s own undoing.

    EVIDENCE = INFORMATION and the U.S. Constitution is undeniably INFORMATION.

    Your BS has always been BS, but now your house of cards has collapsed because of one-to-many dollops of dung, fittingly plopped on by your own hand.

    Your amateur lawyer act is over, your silly legal antics are kaput. Any more nonsense out of your supposedly “fortified compound” (actually a 3 bedroom stucco rancher with a dirt front yard) will only be an embarrassment to you, so stow it, and find some other way to make a living. And don’t forget to pay your taxes!

    Delivering the coups de gras, ICBMCatcher

  14. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Another nail in stevens quickly closing coffin –

    stevens’s electricity is provided by the city of Mesa – the govt. And he uses it just sitting at home. Therefore, the laws of Mesa apply to him as a nexus is established.

    Definition of nexus
    plural nexusesplay \ˈnek-sə-səz\ or nexus\ˈnek-səs, -ˌsüs\

    1: connection, link the nexus between teachers and students; also : a causal link the nexus between poverty and crime

    2: a connected group or series a nexus of theories a nexus of relationships

    3: center, focus
    The bookstore has become something of a nexus for the downtown neighborhood. — Jane Smiley

    I did not dig up this info. But I guarantee the source has FAR more credibility than ANYONE in this forum. Most importantly, the source of this information is FAR more credible than the snake oil salesman that’s the source of the “no state” nonsense

    Soon to be kicking dirt on the coffin lid of the “no state project”, ICBMCatcher

  15. Randall Says:

    ICBMCatcher = 🙄

  16. ICBMCatcher Says:

    And ANOTHER nail in the lid … again provided by someone who KNOWS what he’s talking about (certainly not me)

    Please explain this one away …

    While stevens is sitting in his house, the property tax laws apply to him, the taxes on his utilities apply to him, the gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! He can even pay them without leaving his house! Even more proof the laws apply to him, just because he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    And how about this … IF stevens were arrested for … say … “impersonating a lawyer” (is that a crime?) He would be read his rights, given a speedy trial, be presumed innocent until proven guilty … the whole due process thing … there’s the constitution being applied to him. So tell us again how it doesn’t apply, please.

    This is like when they garroted Luca Brasi in that bar, he struggles, but eventually he … just … goes … limp ………. and ……………. dies

    For your viewing pleasure.

    https://youtu.be/sw2dJmwm-64

    It’ll be over soon …. just relax, ICBMCatcher

  17. juan galt Says:

    Here’s what Randall wrote –
    “Constitution and code ONLY apply to elected officials and govt employees. They were written for govt, they apply only to govt. As was proved by Bond v United States”.

    The Court did NOT say that “Constitution and code ONLY applies to elected officials and govt employees”- anywhere in the decision of Bond v US. Like Stevens, Randall adds words to the Court “decision” to falsely support his narrative. Every middle-school child knows that the Constitution’s 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments AND the Commerce Clause applies to people’s actions OTHER THAN govt employees. Only a dumbass who thinks they can read and comprehend a Court decision, would write what Randy wrote. Just a quick glance at Title 18, 23, or 49 US CODE would show anyone who could read English, that these “CODES” apply to people other than govt employees.

    Randall is a great example of what happens when you let someone else do your thinking for you. It clouds his ability to discern Court cases.

  18. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You know fellas … I didn’t even watch the video at the header of this string until now. stevens singles out my comment, and again makes small “adjustments” to what I have actually said to make it fit into his unique “ano-dilusionist dictionary” … notice stevens trademark tactic …

    He ignores one sense of the word apply and focuses on the sense that supports his ever-weakening position. Also, notice how he won’t address this point because it really does sink him.

    Once again, we go back to linguistics, and stevens trademark “word mincing”

    Maybe another example will help drive home the very solid, undeniable point I make … and that stevens won’t touch.

    stevens amusing views on applicability are a bit like when someone says “you CAN’T do that”

    Let’s say someone is … smoking a cigarette in a non smoking establishment … I might say “hey, you can’t do that” … well obviously the smoker can, because there he is doing it. Maybe he “can’t” legally … or “can’t” in terms of consideration for others etc, but he certainly CAN smoke there, because there he is with a lit cig … inhaling and exhaling smoke. So, on one hand he “can’t do that” but on the other hand … he obviously CAN because there he is doing it.

    That’s how different SENSES of a word are used.

    Now, continuing with the dismantling of stevens absurd views by pointing out his “unique” use of the English language;

    His ever popular saw … “what evidence do you rely on to prove the constitution applies to me” inferring that it doesn’t, further inferring that he doesn’t have to obey U.S. law (?)

    The constitution absolutely APPLIES to ANY individual on U.S. soil (even foreign diplomats) Proof = if a person commits a crime and are caught, they will be taken into custody, and stand trial (the diplomat will just get turned loose and expelled) while the native gets what he gets after trial.

    There it is … the constitution (laws) have been applied. It’s done … In that SENSE of the word “apply/applied”

    Now let’s take a look at the OTHER sense of the word apply … from the ano-delusionist point of view; “there’s no evidence the constitution / your laws apply to me etc etc …. as in they are not applicable to me … as in I don’t have to pay taxes because I didn’t agree to, and your laws don’t apply to me.

    If one choses to look at the use of the word apply/applies from one point of view … they come to the commonly accepted conclusion, that the U.S. constitution applies to anyone on U.S. soil.

    If one chooses to look at it from a different point of view (ignoring one sense of the word) … we get the ano-delusional point of view.

    Conclusion: As I have asserted many times, stevens whole schtick is based on word games … sticking to either super-literal interpretations of commonly understood words and concepts, or commingling legal terms and principals with matters of fact, then calling it “logic”

    But let’s not forget the recent (fatal) slip-up that lays bare stevens nonsense …
    INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE

    Then there’s the whole common sense thing, and 100’s of millions (billions) of people around the world that have rejected anarchy.

    Regarding stevens inane comment at 4:20 … “as I’m sitting here” (making this video, desperately trying to counter another crushing comment by ICBMCatcher) … he is sitting in his house, the property tax laws apply to him, the taxes on his utilities apply to him, the gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! He can even pay them without leaving his house! Even more proof the laws apply to him, just because he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    So waddaya say there stevens … wanna have me on the show again now? You knew I was calling in the other day and you conveniently “didn’t get to” me. A little worried to try your BS on me again, now that I got your number? Word of advice … don’t have me on again.

    Taunting, ICBMCatcher

  19. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You know fellas … I didn’t even watch the video at the header of this string until now. stevens singles out my comment, and again makes small “adjustments” to what I have actually said to make it fit into his unique “ano-dilusionist dictionary” … notice stevens trademark tactic …

    He ignores one sense of the word apply and focuses on the sense that supports his ever-weakening position. Also, notice how he won’t address this point because it really does sink him.

    Once again, we go back to linguistics, and stevens trademark “word mincing”

    Maybe another example will help drive home the very solid, undeniable point I make … and that stevens won’t touch.

    stevens amusing views on applicability are a bit like when someone says “you CAN’T do that”

    Let’s say someone is … smoking a cigarette in a non smoking establishment … I might say “hey, you can’t do that” … well obviously the smoker can, because there he is doing it. Maybe he “can’t” legally … or “can’t” in terms of consideration for others etc, but he certainly CAN smoke there, because there he is with a lit cig … inhaling and exhaling smoke. So, on one hand he “can’t do that” but on the other hand … he obviously CAN because there he is doing it.

    That’s how different SENSES of a word are used.

    Now, continuing with the dismantling of stevens absurd views by pointing out his “unique” use of the English language;

    His ever popular saw … “what evidence do you rely on to prove the constitution applies to me” inferring that it doesn’t, further inferring that he doesn’t have to obey U.S. law (?)

    The constitution absolutely APPLIES to ANY individual on U.S. soil (even foreign diplomats) Proof = if a person commits a crime and are caught, they will be taken into custody, and stand trial (the diplomat will just get turned loose and expelled) while the native gets what he gets after trial.

    There it is … the constitution (laws) have been applied. It’s done … In that SENSE of the word “apply/applied”

    Now let’s take a look at the OTHER sense of the word apply … from the ano-delusionist point of view; “there’s no evidence the constitution / your laws apply to me etc etc …. as in they are not applicable to me … as in I don’t have to pay taxes because I didn’t agree to, and your laws don’t apply to me.

    If one choses to look at the use of the word apply/applies from one point of view … they come to the commonly accepted conclusion, that the U.S. constitution applies to anyone on U.S. soil.

    If one chooses to look at it from a different point of view (ignoring one sense of the word) … we get the ano-delusional point of view.

    Conclusion: As I have asserted many times, stevens whole schtick is based on word games … sticking to either super-literal interpretations of commonly understood words and concepts, or commingling legal terms and principals with matters of fact, then calling it “logic”

    But let’s not forget the recent (fatal) slip-up that lays bare stevens nonsense …
    INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE

    Then there’s the whole common sense thing, and 100’s of millions (billions) of people around the world that have rejected anarchy.

    Regarding stevens inane comment at 4:20 … “as I’m sitting here” (making this video, desperately trying to counter another crushing comment by ICBMCatcher) … he is sitting in his house, property tax laws apply to him, taxes on his utilities apply to him, gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! Even more proof the laws apply to him, even when he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    So waddaya say there stevens … wanna have me on the show again now? You knew I was calling in the other day and you conveniently “didn’t get to” me. A little worried to try your BS on me again, now that I got your number? Word of advice … don’t have me on again.

    Taunting, ICBMCatcher

  20. Max Says:

    Why does a bicycle salesman turned pressure salesman care?

  21. ICBMCatcher Says:

    https://youtu.be/gQYqfjSHvig

    look familiar?

  22. ICBMCatcher Says:

    how does one sell pressure?

  23. ICBMCatcher Says:

    sorry folks … double posted …

  24. Max Says:

    Did you sell bicycles with no air in the tires? Being a pressure or high-pressure salesman should be a natural progression of course. If you truely believe Marc is tilting his lance upon windmills, here you are tilting a lance upon Marc, so what’s up? From where does authority come? Unless you are the author of everything, there is no authority, only an expression of power. Even you must be able to appreciate this, as the misuse of power has appeared repeatedly through history. So who authorized the authorities?

  25. Max Says:

    Max Root, 86 Wheeler St. Pepperell, Massachusetts

    AND FUCK YOU

  26. Max Says:

    russell, give them your name as you are their savior?

  27. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Whoa … what’s with the FU Max ? And what are you even talking about?

    To clarify my position vs stevens;

    I do not think he’s tilting at windmills. I think he’s a charlatan … a wannabe lawyer … a snake oil salesman … pushing a ridiculous ideas based on a weird interpretation of widely accepted concepts and ideas. I am dismantling his act, and exposing his nonsense for what it is, because he makes money off encouraging people to shirk their responsibilities as American citizens, ignore laws in place (ostensibly) for our collective benefit, and get out of paying taxes.

    The whole stevens schtick is really just a tax dodge. This nonsense has little to do with rights or principals, it’s about getting out of paying taxes … that’s his main thrust.

    And it’s nothing new. This BS has been around for many decades. It’s little like the clowns that claim the earth is flat, the world is going to end on some fast-approaching date or that they are “sovereign” …. it’s all nothing more than alternative view hogwash.

    The other reason I am shutting this guy down is because he’s a “down-state mutt”

    I am from Upstate NY and have dealt with these Long Island … NYC loudmouths all my life. It’s hard to understand unless one has been around these guys for a while. They make outlandish claims … advance utterly ridiculous views, then just stick to them like pit bulls. The primary tactic is to just keep arguing until the other person gives up in exasperation. They also use selective definitions of words, and phrase things in super-literal terms … “show me a broken law”

    Then there’s the whole silly notion of anarchy as a way of life … this “move to a voluntary society” BS … all theoretical nonsense.

    But your question is a valid one. “Why do I care?”

    I guess I just don’t like seeing people that enjoy the benefits of being an American, and at the same time badmouth the country that protects the freedom to express their views without interference.

    Just sayin’ ICBMCatcher

  28. NonEntity Says:

    My groceries are provided by Natural Grocers and so it’s obvious that they own me.

  29. Randall Says:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

  30. ICBMCatcher Says:

    ==== SILLY STATEMENT ALERT ====

    NonEntity Says:
    March 19th, 2017 at 7:45 am
    My groceries are provided by Natural Grocers and so it’s obvious that they own me.

    == SILLY STATEMENT DECONSTRUCTION AND REBUTTAL FOLLOWS ====

    The above SILLY STATEMENT apparently refers to comments in this forum asserting that anyone that uses public services and enjoys the benefits of living in a governed society, guided by rule of law, has certain responsibilities to fellow citizens, and to the state, as long as the individual lives in said society.

    The silly commenter inaccurately characterizes the true meaning of the above rational assertion, and changes it to fit the ano-delusional body of propaganda.

    Anyone that lives among others in an ordered society MUST obey the laws of that society whether they have personally and specifically agreed to them or not. Allowing for the fact that every human being has absolute free will, the individual may choose to ignore laws they are well aware of, but they then risk suffering the associated consequences.

    Individuals are always free to go where there are no laws or where they are out of reach from the powers that be. But one will not be allowed to live in a society and ignore it’s laws at the same time. That does not mean the society owns the individual. It simply acknowledges that citizens that choose to remain in a given society have certain responsibilities that are sometimes at odds with absolute person freedom.

    So endeth the lesson, ICBMCatcher

  31. NonEntity Says:

    ==== TWIT ALERT, TWIT ALLERT! ====
    (Oh wait, you knew that already. Nebermind.)

  32. MM8 Says:

    If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?

    If you don’t get caught I guess you’re in the clear to do as you please?

    Am I missing something? Is that really the accepted social norm?

  33. juan galt Says:

    SPOONER HISTORY
    I wonder if many “Spooners” actually realize the genesis of Lysander’s musing of political philosophy.
    It’s interesting to me that in 1838 Spooner forcefully claimed that he was a citizen of the United States and as such had certain rights and protections secured by the US Constitution (even though he never signed it, lol). He recognized compacts with govt going back to the Articles of Confederation. He also recognized the state of Ohio. He had no problem using the establishment of govt for HIS benefit and purposes. Spooner had speculated in land in Ohio. He filed suit to stop the state of Ohio from allowing development in proximity to his land. He lost. See Spooner v McConnell Case No. 13,245 (1838). Having failed at being a lawyer and real estate speculator, Spooner returned to his daddy’s farm.
    Spooner later went into competition with the US Post Office – a great idea that was a commercial success. But alas, through legislation, the govt put him out of business. I have a strong feeling these events forever soured ol’ Spooner on govt. But yet as an abolitionist, Spooner defended the US Constitution and Founders. It’s interesting to note that Spooner recognized the right of the South to secede as the “manifestation of govt by consent” (although I doubt 100% of the people of the South consented). He believed the North was using force NOT to abolish slavery but to “preserve the Union”. This further pissed him off at the govt of the Union.
    It appears this belief and his experiences with govt caused Spooner to espouse individualist anarchism. He used Natural Law as his guiding principle. Thus Spooner developed his theory that – The Constitution can not logically apply to anyone other than those who signed it and thus is void. Remember this was just his belief NOT law or reality. His many scholarly writings to me can be summed up in John Lennon’s song “Imagine”.
    Stevens has found a new generation and new way to market and make a buck off Spooner’s philosophy, by weaving Spooner’s philosophical ideas into what Stevens thinks are “legal” questions/arguments and by painting all public workers as evil conspirators in a criminal organization. Obviously there are enough suckers around on 3 continents to keep Stevens’s utilities paid and working.

    Wow, I just read how one “sucker” thinks –
    “If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?” Talk about ridiculous! Yeah, MM8 is missing a lot.

  34. NonEntity Says:

    Juan sed, “His many scholarly writings to me…” — wow! Lysander Spooner has written scholarly stuff to Juan. How cool is THAT?

  35. ICBMCatcher Says:

    MM8 Says:
    March 19th, 2017 at 9:19 am
    If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?

    HOW ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE EVER COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
    I’LL REMIND YOU AGAIN, WORDS OFTEN HAVE SEVERAL SENSES THAT CHANGE THEIR MEANING. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS, IGNORING IT DOES NOT YOUR POINT MAKE.

    === A SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR ANO-DELUSIONISTS FOLLOWS ====

    ‘YOUR LAWS DON’T APPLY TO ME” = THE WORD APPLY USED IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL SENSE.
    “U.S. LAW APPLIES TO EVERY PERSON ON U.S. SOIL = THE WORD APPLY/APPLIES USED IN THE LITERAL SENSE (see that, see how it’s the same word, but an important difference in meaning) IT’S LIKE MAGIC!

    === END SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR ANO-DELUSIONISTS ==

    If you don’t get caught I guess you’re in the clear to do as you please?

    THAT’S JUST ABOUT HOW CRIMINALS THINK. WHAT’S YOUR POINT?

    ==== OVER SIMPLIFICATION/PLAYING DUMB ALERT ===

    Am I missing something? Is that really the accepted social norm?

    NOTICE HOW THE CHILDISH TACTIC OF OVERSIMPLIFYING A COMPLEX QUESTION IS COMBINED WITH PLAYING DUMB. THE SILLY SUPPORTER OF ANARCHIST NONSENSE KNOWS VERY WELL THE “ACCEPTED NORMS” REFERRED TO EARLIER ARE THE ENTIRE BODY OF LWAS/STATUTES/CODES … EVEN THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF HAVING A GOVERNMENT AT ALL. YET BY OVERSIMPLIFYING AND PLAYING DUMB THE ANO-DELUSIONST FOOLS HIMSELF INTO THINKING HE HAS EFFECTIVELY MADE A POINT.

    Calling BS every time I hear it, ICBMCatcher

  36. juan galt Says:

    NonE – You’re funny, in a droll sort of way. You can’t imagine (well maybe you can) how elated I was that the only error you found with my post was in punctuation – not substance. How cool is THAT?

  37. NonEntity Says:

    That’s easy… there WAS NO substance! 🙂

  38. juan galt Says:

    Spoken like a religious drone with no rebuttal. I agree that Spooner’s philosophy lacks substance, however.

  39. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I once heard that a comma in the second amendment changes the meaning of the whole thing.

    Grammatically speaking, ICBMCatcher

  40. NonEntity Says:

    Wow! You made it all the way to third grade? I would never have guessed.

  41. NonEntity Says:

    Religious drone? What, we’re talking a drone that fires scrolls at you? Torah, Torah, Torah!

  42. Randall Says:

    So what, he lost a case big deal. It doesn’t take away that he wrote a scholarly piece that makes sense and is right on target. WHAT I fail to understand is why are you here on this site along with Intercontinental???
    Are you paid or does it give you pleasure to put down people’s right to express themselves, however they feel or think. Closet Marxists would be a great label for the both of you. Not so sure you aren’t from the Quatloos site by the way you react to posts supporting Marc.

    AGAIN, there has to be an injured party to sustain an action in a court of law ……. PERIOD!!!

  43. rad Says:

    “INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE ”

    If you accept it as an article of faith, the same way the bagvad Geeta koran or whatever other scripture…it’s faith in magic paper

  44. rad Says:

    what facts would prove the words on the magic paper are actually true if i dont just take the dogmas of the magic paper as an article of faith…there arent any…youve simply referred to a WRITTEN OPINION which you’ve accepted on faith and then presenting the written opinion as proof of the validity of the opinion for no other reason than it’s written on the sacred parchment of government…where are the FACTS proving
    1.the constitution is the highest law (if we don’t take it on faith in magic paper)
    2. the imaginary magical power of “jurisdiction” actually exists
    3. anyone is a citizen who is owed protection

    if you can’t simply appeal to dogmas written on sacred parchment then all you have left is opinions…
    if you look at the trivium and apply it to icbm’s argument he is basically attempting to ARGUE around his lack of FACTS… to substitute GRAMMAR and LOGIC for FACTS/EVIDENCE because…there are no facts to prove any of this stuff except “such and so piece of paper says so” or “some guy said so”

  45. rad Says:

    or to put it in scientific terms, he has the hypothesis, prediction, and variables but no data to base his articles of faith upon

  46. Randall Says:

    @rad:

    Thank you, well said!

    😀

  47. John Says:

    Folks,
    Seriously, stop wasting your time/effort and ignore these trolls. They really have NO influence in anyone’s life.

  48. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    The statists’ purpose for posting here is attempting to influence anybody who might be on the edge of rejecting their twelve years of government indoctrination.

    What these statists don’t understand is that some of us used to believe the exact same faery tales that they still do.

    The only difference between those who call themselves Santa and those who call themselves government is that eventually somebody tells you the truth about Santa.

  49. juan galt Says:

    “It doesn’t take away that he wrote a scholarly piece that makes sense and is right on target.” LOL. Some people say the same thing about Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and Prison Notebooks.

    “Are you paid or does it give you pleasure to put down people’s right to express themselves, however they feel or think”. So, no one else has the right to express themselves, however they feel or think, if it is contrary to yours?

    “AGAIN, there has to be an injured party to sustain an action in a court of law ……. PERIOD!!!” And that injured party, in the REAL world, can include We the People – regardless of what Spooners believe…..PERIOD!!!!!

    “…youve simply referred to a WRITTEN OPINION which you’ve accepted on faith and then presenting the written opinion as proof of the validity of the opinion…” Spooners refer to Lysander’s WRITTEN OPINION which they’ve accepted on faith, while ignoring the realities in their Life – IE: Spooners talk and talk, but at the end of the day Spooners support the govt they despise causing themselves mental distress.

    I’ve come to realize Spooners are living a conflicted and frustrated Life. This frustration manifests itself in Spooners much like the same way religion affects people. As in all “religious” rantings, there must be “sinners” and to Spooners, “statists” are their “sinners” – according to their prophet Lysander. Govt fulfills the role of evil in this “religion” and must be destroyed before it destroys mankind. Once this evil is vanquished, there will be “Heaven on Earth”, NAP and voluntarism will win the day – forever and ever, Amen.

    Spooners mouth the words of their beliefs, but fund the very “criminal” actions they condemn. To ease their internal conflicts, Spooners project THEIR evil deeds (funding govt) onto others and deny the reality of their actions to themselves. They remind me of the followers of Jim Jones (Peoples Temple) or David Koresh (Branch Davidians). They can fool themselves, but not the rest of us. Spooners, by their deeds, support govt and are statists – PERIOD!!!!

  50. NonEntity Says:

    Torah, Torah, Torah!

  51. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Us trolls have about as much influence as the 10-15 people that actually believe anarchy will someday sweep the globe.

    After extensive research, I have determined the entire anarchy “movement” is really just a big ol’ tax dodge, with a smattering of clowns trying to get out of paying traffic tickets.

    stevens act is nothing more than a glorified “how to get out of paying your taxes” “service” that rarely works.

    Reminding ano-delusionists how ridiculous they are – ICBMCatcher

  52. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – You’re on to something. The “tax dodge” and not paying fees associated with “driving” is the bait, conspiracies are the reasons Spooners are victims and the feeling of self-righteousness is the only payoff.

  53. MM8 Says:

    Some people beLIEve in the magic codes/spells. Others don’t.

    Applied force doesn’t equal the right to apply said force. Those who beLIEve that sort of thing depend on it and will likely defend it till death. Whereas, some people either are or become principled and choose to reject the beLIEf in fictional things that inspire people to harm others in the name of righteousness.

  54. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I would’t even give them credit for being self-righteous. That would indicate they actually believe the nonsense they yak about.

    The whole “anarchy” “your laws don’t apply to me” BS is nothing more than an excuse to try and get out of paying taxes. They know it’s BS … we know it’s BS … the IRS knows it’s BS. Maybe it gives them a little feeling of power, mouthing off to IRS agents, when they KNOW down deep … under the FACADE of “anarchy” … their nonsense isn’t going to work, and they’re going to end up paying in the end.

    Seems to me they fight traffic tickets as a hobby … it makes them feel important to mouth off to a judge in court, especially now that they can get themselves on video doing it.

    Then there’s stevens … he’s the real actor. He actually gets these clowns to pay him to mouth of to officials for them.

    It’s somewhat surreal … stevens is so deeply full of @#$% BUT he slings his nonsense with a straight face, and it works for him.

    Squeezing the life out of anarchy a little more with every post – ICBMCatcher

  55. NonEntity Says:

    Squeezing the life out of anarchy a little more with every post – ICBMCatcher

    apt meta4

  56. juan galt Says:

    ICBM –
    Are you saying Stevens’s flock is not similar to those that followed Jim Jones or David Koresh? Those people believed deep enough to take theirs and their children’s lives. I’ve seen videos of these anarchy fools acting like spoiled kids in front of their children, while some contact Stevens for help on child support arrears. It is surreal that with all the info available, people in the 21st century are so easily conned and misled.

    Having been associated with the Posse in the 1970’s, I can testify that many of our members believed with all their hearts that they were right. Many were just average “Joes” whose lives were not what they expected and were easy to convince that it was the govt’s fault. They swallowed our BS and actually believed that THEY were the ones with principles and the govt had screwed them out of their liberty to succeed. Our info gave them the belief that they knew something the public didn’t and therefore they felt superior – it was probably the only part of their Life where they did. With our “secret” knowledge, we convinced them that they held the “silver bullet” to stop the evil govt in their tracks. They could outwit the criminal judges and lawyers with “magic phrases and questions”, we told them. Stevens is simply the 3rd generation of these “hucksters” – he has discovered nothing – he is repeating old BS and has the wonder of the internet to reach the “world market”.

    I don’t think you would be able to change their minds anymore than you could a member of ISIS. They all believe they are promoting a better way of Life and as those renowned philosophers, the Blues Brothers, said – “They’re on a mission from God.”

  57. Randall Says:

    Definition of Evidence

    Evidence is all the means by which any alleged material fact,
    the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.Investigators obtain evidentiary facts which by
    inference tend to prove or disprove the ulti­mate, main, or principal fact. The latter is a matter for determination by a court or jury. For
    example, a special agent obtains, in connection with a net worth case, documents and oral statements showing that a taxpayer’s bank bal­ance has increased substantially. That is an evidentiary fact from which an inference may be drawn relative to the ultimate or principal fact ,
    namely, that the taxpayer willfully attempted to evade income tax. Legal evidence is such as is admissible in court under the rules of evidence
    because it tends reasonably and substantially to prove a fact. Evidence is distinguished from proof in that the latter is the result or effect of
    evidence.

  58. juan galt Says:

    Legal Definition of Evidence

    evidence (n) – every type of proof LEGALLY presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called “circumstantial evidence” which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against “hearsay” (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

    Congress in 1975 adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence are the official rules in federal court proceedings. Most states now also have codified rules of evidence based on these federal rules. Both state and federal rules of evidence serve as a guide for judges and attorneys so that they can determine whether to admit evidence—that is, whether to allow evidence to be observed by the judge or jury making factual conclusions in a trial.

  59. Randall Says:

    (2) The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to obey a summons issued under IRC 7602 or a court order directing his/her appearance. He/she is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth
    Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, although he/she may exercise it in connection with specific questions. [Landy v. U.S.] He/she cannot refuse to bring his/her records, but may decline to submit them for inspection on constitutional grounds. In the Vadner case, the government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for refusal to obey a court order to produce his / her books and records. He refused to submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion to hold him in contempt, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting point for a tax evasion case .

  60. Randall Says:

    “standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” – Rames v. Byrd 521 US 811

    “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A Plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendants allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” – Allen v. Wright 468 US 737, 751 (1984)

  61. MM8 Says:

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 20th, 2017 at 3:57 pm
    I would’t even give them credit for being self-righteous. That would indicate they actually believe the nonsense they yak about.

    I was talking about you. Lol. BeLIEving in the voodoo you revere. It’s laughable.

    Go ahead and mock. Your opinions are worth every penny. $0.

    I’m curious. Do you and Juan sit in opposing cubicles at the same IRS branch?

  62. juan galt Says:

    It’s hard to know Randall’s reasons for quoting these cases. But they both say that the “plaintiffs” in these cases did not personally, individually suffer a concrete and particularized “injury” by the acts of the defendants – thus no case. Therefore, they did not have standing per Article III of US Constitution to bring suit. For the sake of transparency, here’s the complete quote from the case of Allen v Wright (which Randall edited) –

    “The “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III
    doctrine of “standing” has a core constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. The concepts of standing doctrine present questions that must be answered by reference to the Art. III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the last resort and as a necessity, and only when adjudication is consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.”

    Here’s the decision of Raines v Byrd (nowhere does it say “standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction”) –

    “We therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do not have a sufficient “personal stake” in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing.”

    No, the IRS wouldn’t hire this ex-Posse Comitatus associate of Irwin Schiff. Irwin and I were taking on the IRS before most of you guys were born. Don’t know about ICBM.

  63. Max Says:

    See I love this ICBM and Juan every good thing I have done counts as a positive only for society, every bad thing I may perpetrate counts against me. Am I getting this right? If I score we all score, if I lose I lose. This is a game where you count the points but include my points amongst yours? Just not the ones you want? I mean your doing so well,right?

  64. Max Says:

    ICBMCatcher the reason I think the cops saving us from ourselves is bullshit is that they deem it impossible. I don’t believe that, I do believe I can weather a deprivation, I know those practicing such deprivations will soon run out of luck. It is the way. When a cop relieves someone of their mortgage payment to satisfy their own, is that justice? Justice only exists when when injustice is eliminated, justice has no existence.

    The worst I have heard is you have no property save that which the state allows you. The state is aboard so long as you pay.

    So property is theft against the commons.

    No property, no theft.

    If property is owned you owe.

    An owner of property is held to be that person who holds the power to dispose of property.

    If someone interferes with the disposal of property, are they becoming an owner by this action.

    Communists and socialist despite their altruistic intentions are liars, and fucking you feels good?

  65. Max Says:

    I have also seen and heard this or that would never happen without the government, the fact remains it did, with paychecks, private individuals and nothing the government has has ever originated for without itself. They hire.

  66. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/Police.html

  67. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

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

  68. NonEntity Says:

    Max, where have you been hiding out? 🙂

  69. NonEntity Says:

    https://youtu.be/ufVJ7J7j_h4

  70. Randall Says:

    “Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” – Barshop v. Medina Under. Wat. Cons. Dist., 925 SW 2d 618 – Tex: Supreme Court 1996

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5566571311140648897&q=Barshop+v.+Medina+County+Underground+Water+Conservation+District,+925+S.W.2d+618,+626+(Tex.1996)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38

    Corrected case. Marc you might want to make a note for this.

  71. Randall Says:

    This is where I found it:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-supreme-court/1283623.html

  72. Jarrod Says:

    Hey ICBM, How come you don’t call in on the show? I would like to see if any of your logic makes sense when challenged rationally.

  73. Randall Says:

    @Jarrod

    Oh trust me, he won’t. He’s too scared.

  74. juan galt Says:

    Randall and Marc – In Re: Raines v Byrd. You’re welcome. That’s why I’m here – to reveal the truth and correct the false. This case is only one of many.

  75. Randall Says:

    @juan galt

    Well it was a wrongly cited case. But the statement was correct even if a case wasn’t cited.

  76. Andy Says:

    @Jarrod & Randall, Here’s 2 hours and 46 minutes of discussion with Marc Stevens and ICBMCatcher: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65660.html#pid65660

  77. Randall Says:

    Ahhhh, thank you Andy.

  78. juan galt Says:

    Randall – You’re welcome.

  79. JOHN COKOS Says:

    All the “proof” you need that the laws apply is when a Court Room Bailiff with a Gun and as big as a linebacker has you by he scruff of the neck escorting you out of the Court Room. It starts there and gets worse as you get into the mix…LOL
    “Proof? We don’t need no sinking proof”.

  80. Randall Says:

    I just figured out how ICBM thinks. He’s going on the whole FRN thing. If we didn’t believe that FRNs have value we wouldn’t be using them. The only fact that they are used is that everyone believes that they can exchange them for goods and services. (And this very fact can be read in Modern Money Mechanics, at least I think that is where you can find it.) Therefore, in his mind, the laws only exist because people believe that if they are broken they are prosecuted under them. Did I get that right, Mr. Catcher???

  81. Randall Says:

    The freeman guy from Canada, not Menard, but the other guy, sorry forgot his name. He said only one thing that makes total sense regarding Fiat Currency. “If fiat money has no value, then give me 100 dollars.”

  82. staljanski Says:

    ICBULLshitter is a CityZen CON-troll-er, re;s not the body of U.S. law established over the 240 years “information”?..THATS 240 years of tyrannical OPINIONS, still no evidence any of that voodoo applies to me or anyone.

    re: Anarchy has failed and faded away, every time it’s been attempted, EYES that you do not see with, we ARE in anarchy today, cept we got the 1% that hired guns to control the masses.

    re: the consent of the governed…are you on glue? this is an oxymoron might as well say consent of the slave, and slaves never gave consent.
    re:The snake oil salesman presents the question of.. the question is how HARD you SELL your vomit.

    re:The U.S. government (and our laws) is/are the foundation of what could easily be called the most successful country on earth. …hahahaha , your delusional , and a blind moron, the UZZA is another Nazi experiment, freedumbs like you I feel is the reason this is the biggest animal farm prison experiment.

    re:Your BS has always been BS,..exactly, your BS is just that, look in the mirror…either your a gov troll, or a real idiot, none of you arguments are worth the bag of crap you carry around.

    re:this information is FAR more credible than the snake oil salesman that’s the source of the “no state” nonsense WHAT? information?, do you have evidence of a “state”?.. is it anything like the santa clauses north pole?, i bet you have evidence Santa also exists.

    ahhh this has been a long and usless waste of my time reading two fools tag teaming making CLAIMS without a shred of evidence, just more claims on top of claims.. this is an example of the useless eaters.. marc you need to delete all these morons from this place, its to difficult to read idiot comments, remember they (idiots) had a lifetime of practice.

  83. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 21st, 2017 at 8:56 am
    Hey ICBM, How come you don’t call in on the show? I would like to see if any of your logic makes sense when challenged rationally.

    I called in once and a had a recorded convo with stevens. Now that I’m zeroed in on him he won’t let me on the show anymore. I have called in 3 times since. Every time he see’s my area code a cold chill goes up his spine. I’ll get on again … this guy will not escape.

    RATIONAL ? Let’s be clear. The ano-delusionists advocate a “voluntary society” “no government” and all sorts of other nonsense that would and has, NEVER WORKED long term, and does not exists anywhere on earth, further proving it doesn’t work. Anarchy has been displaced by traditional governments in every country. Anarchy is nothing but a fringe element of society (been around for centuries) in the same class as “flat earthers”, “conspiracy theorists” of all sorts, “sovereigns”, etc.

    A common trait among those with these silly mind-sets is “everyone else in the world is wrong and we (all 25 of us) are right”

    Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.

    Reminding anarchists everywhere their ideas are nonsense – ICBMCatcher

  84. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 21st, 2017 at 8:56 am

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 18th, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    FROM A PREVIOUS POST

    Look guys — your goose is cooked, and stevens did it to himself.

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.

    Evidence provided by stevens himself — ICBMCatcher

  85. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” was a very successful example as well. Random killings were almost non-existent, rape was unheard of, and most of the deaths were feuds between ranchers, and law men. Ranchers created land associations to settle disputes. Wagon trains signed constitutions so that thousands of wagons could make the journey to CA, even if conditions were near-starving. People actually solve their problems very well (even better in most scenarios) absent the violence of the state. Both are good reads and there is a youtube documentary floating around on catalonia. I recommend doing some research into both, as it debunks your claim that anarchy cannot work.

  86. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 22nd, 2017 at 10:12 am
    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” …

    There is tons of historical evidence for anarchy … evidence that it comes and goes … sprouts up and fades away. Evidence that it doesn’t work in large (nation sized groups) Evidence that it’s nonsense.

    Evidence that republics … democracy … even communism is/was more successful.

    But the burning questions, the ones that DESTROY all the current anarchy nonsense … the ones ano-delusionists avoid EVERY TIME THEY ARE ASKED …

    If anarchy is such a great way of life why isn’t our way of life? Why isn’t it ANYONE’s way of life anywhere?

    — This is where ano-delusionists insert some obscure example, and call it “evidence” —

    Civilization started in anarchy … before there were laws, before there were governments. But the concept of government took hold. The concept of laws evolved, anarchy faded away, and here we are. Why?

    So why did not anarchy stick and displace other forms of government? Why do not individuals band together world-wide and demand we move to a “voluntary society”? Why is anarchy nothing in current civilization?

    Why is there always one or two crack-pot, snake oil salesman, every decade or so that come along, start in with this BS (as if they have discovered some long-lost religion buried in the sand) only to have it fade into obscurity, as it always does?

    Why?

    Reminding you again, anarchy looks good on paper, but never lasts – because it’s BS – ICBMCatcher

  87. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 22nd, 2017 at 10:12 am
    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” …

    the “wild west” … just curious Jarrod?

    Are you saying there were no laws in the U.S. or territories soon to be U.S. soil … 1864 (ish) to 1899?

    Are you saying that?

    Smelling more ano-dilusionist foolishness — ICBMCatcher

  88. Randall Says:

    @ICBMCatcher

    Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.

    Its not a tax dodge if the code does not apply. The income tax (IRS) is an excise tax on privileged activity. Selling alcohol, tobacco and tobacco products, firearms, and oil. Or privileged occupations such as senators, representatives, or federal employees either hired or under contract.

    Read the affirmation from the 1862 form here: http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9134d0498e7c820085256e4400040844?OpenDocument

  89. Randall Says:

    Read the first page of the jpg 1 and 2 on the taxhistory.org site. More evidence.

    1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.

    2d. Every citizen residing abroad and not in the employment of the Government of the United States.

    last part of affirmation: “…and subject to an Income Tax under the excise laws of the United States.”

  90. les Says:

    ICBM said: “But the burning questions, the ones that DESTROY all the current anarchy nonsense … the ones ano-delusionists avoid EVERY TIME THEY ARE ASKED …

    If anarchy is such a great way of life why isn’t our way of life? Why isn’t it ANYONE’s way of life anywhere?”

    The issue here is that you constantly ignore the answers you’ve been given to that question. Your repeating the question only reinforces the views of people here that you are just dumb. Perhaps you re-post your post here somewhere else but “forget” to post the answers to your questions.

    also

    ICBM said: “Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.”

    You simply just don’t understand reification at all do you. So I guess in your mind, if I had a piece of paper that said “The constitution does not apply to me”, you would consider that “absolutely irrefutable” factual evidence to support a claim of such? BTW, my 18 year old son spotted that flaw in your mental workings.

    Just because something can be termed “information” this does not automatically make it evidence thereof or of any applicability whatsoever. Think about it, when you watch Star Trek, do you believe they are actually in space in the future? After all, there is information available to support they are in deep space with Captains Logs etc all dated by the main governing authority aboard the Enterprise… oh and further, that the Enterprise is a real warp speed capable spacecraft? Heck, there’s even video information available of them flying through space with a guy with pointy ears so that must be evidence it’s all real and factual. Not to forget all the people who dress up in Star Trek “uniforms” here on Earth…. these people would provide information (being “absolutely irrefutable” evidence) that Star Trek is actually reality… right? OR could it all just be BS? If a piece of paper can be termed information then so can a video.

    You make such a fool of yourself time after time. Give it up, spend time with your family.

    Still not tasting goose yet. Les

  91. Max Says:

    “Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.”

    “SEMI-SOPHISTICATED”, now I’m a bit lax upon the use of semi and hemi, there are no MOPAR 426 SEMIs so I’ll leave that be, SOPHISTICATED now there’s a word to suss out, root of sophisticated is sophist, a sophist:

    a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.

    and,

    a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

    Mr. Piazza, you accuse someone of sophistry while making up compound words yourself?

  92. Max Says:

    I could be wrong, but “complex” might have been the better choice.

  93. Max Says:

    Can someone be half a sophist?

  94. Max Says:

    I suppose they might be a partial sophist, even a fractional sophist. Nevermind there can only be sophists.

  95. Max Says:

    “Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)”

    Another strange concept is beliefs and propositions are speculations.

    The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.

  96. Max Says:

    “SENSES of a word”, argue the definition or meaning of a word, people and animals have sense. Definition is still a speculation, why would you want a definition if you knew what you were talking about? Is this like the mean sophist, where you make up half of any reasoning?

  97. Max Says:

    The word feels just feels

  98. Max Says:

    Definition, disambiguation – define – de (un) fin (end) ition (state)

  99. Max Says:

    “De” also means “of”, de mexico, “of mexico”, “indirect” and “income”?

  100. Max Says:

    Any “isms” are presupposed to exist within this mode of reason which is unreasonable. I am a traitor to your treason.

  101. Randall Says:

    @les:

    NICE!!!, couldn’t have said it better myself :D:

    You simply just don’t understand reification at all do you. So I guess in your mind, if I had a piece of paper that said “The constitution does not apply to me”, you would consider that “absolutely irrefutable” factual evidence to support a claim of such? BTW, my 18 year old son spotted that flaw in your mental workings.

    Just because something can be termed “information” this does not automatically make it evidence thereof or of any applicability whatsoever. Think about it, when you watch Star Trek, do you believe they are actually in space in the future? After all, there is information available to support they are in deep space with Captains Logs etc all dated by the main governing authority aboard the Enterprise… oh and further, that the Enterprise is a real warp speed capable spacecraft? Heck, there’s even video information available of them flying through space with a guy with pointy ears so that must be evidence it’s all real and factual. Not to forget all the people who dress up in Star Trek “uniforms” here on Earth…. these people would provide information (being “absolutely irrefutable” evidence) that Star Trek is actually reality… right? OR could it all just be BS? If a piece of paper can be termed information then so can a video.

    You make such a fool of yourself time after time. Give it up, spend time with your family.

    Still not tasting goose yet. Les

  102. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You guys are always good for a laugh.

    It never ceases to amaze me how the “anti-state” delusionists keep using the same old tactic, even after it’s been foiled by realists like me.

    THE ANTI-STATE TACTIC: oversimplify, ignore context or any aspects of an issue that don’t support the anti-state position. Like different senses of a word.

    EXAMPLE: refer to the U.S. constitution as “just 4 pieces of paper” … you guys love act as if the constitution was jotted down on a (parchment) cocktail napkin in a tavern outside Philadelphia, by a couple of guys over tankards of ale … or rum … or whatever the hell they were drinking.

    CRUSHING ANO-DELUSIONIST POINTS WITH REALITY: even you know it’s not simply “pieces of paper” calling it that makes your argument though. Consider the context in which it was written, and it’s effect on world events since it was created … watch your weak argument wilt.

    EXAMPLE: your babble about Star Trek … the context of the TV show is obvious … it’s set in the future, it’s sience fiction etc. Is it really “information” or entertainment?

    OBJECTION, POINT OF REALITY: any rational person would agree the U.S. constitution could easily be called “information” … it could also be called nothing more than 4 pieces of paper … but the argument for the former is a hell of a lot stronger than that for the latter.

    You fellows are so desperate to rationalize your absurd views, you loose site of the fact that you’re wrong and “we” (the whole rest of the world) are right.

    Les said;
    The issue here is that you constantly ignore the answers you’ve been given to that question. Your repeating the question only reinforces the views of people here that you are just dumb. Perhaps you re-post your post here somewhere else but “forget” to post the answers to your questions.

    No answers have been provided to the questions I posed, only attempts to explain them away.

    There’s no argument with the facts … civilization started out in anarchy, realized it didn’t work and moved towards government. The evidence of this evolution is clear all over the world. Still haven’t seen a rational explanation for this.

    Somebody said: You simply just don’t understand reification — holy cow, if anybody is trying to make that which is not, concrete, it’s you fellows! Here’s why …

    As I have stated many times; laws … the constitution … the magna carta … common law … even ‘natural law”, are all arbitrary in nature. Who is anybody to tell anyone thay can’t, or must do anything … ever?

    Thing is that’s not how the world works. When a person or group controls a geographic area and has the means to force compliance if necessary, that’s just how it is. Like it or not … whether an individual thinks it’s right or wrong. And no … it’s NOT a matter of “might makes right” … right and wrong have nothing to do with it. It’s just how it is. But you are only forced to comply if you decide to stay “here”. “Majority rules” is organic to human nature.

    Once again, I’ll point out … here you all are talking about “anarchy” … “show me the evidence
    your laws apply to me” etc. … actually trying to say “states don’t exist” when they obviously do if only as concepts. You try to make a rational argument for a way of life that has failed repeatedly, while railing against one that has flourished for centuries. Yet you say I’m making a fool of myself. Ano-delusionists desperately trying to rationalize that which cannot be, and I’m the fool. Only in Spoonerville does that hold water.

    Trouncing anarchist nonsense in this forum almost every day, ICBMCatcher

  103. spooky2th Says:

    “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

    “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

    http://rense.com/general69/paper.htm

    The govt sure does not “obey” the constitution. Pretty much everything the govt does is un-constitutional.

  104. Max Says:

    Speaking of cocktail napkins, did you know Napoleon invented the napkin? He accomplished this feat a couple of decades after the witnessing of the signing of the constitution.

  105. Andy Says:

    “Because it printed right dere in words, dat make it true.”

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/jfboyd/3362151/172681/172681_original.jpg

  106. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You fellows are so desperate to rationalize your absurd views, you loose site of the simple fact that you’re wrong and “we” (the whole rest of the world) are right.

    Anyone come up with a reason there’s … like … 20 of you, and gazillions of those that don’t even take you seriously … anyone … anyone?

    Anyone have any thoughts on why anarchy has failed every time it’s been attempted?

    Anybody know why stevens nonsense practically never works in court … why do you think that is?

    Just a little reminder from your reality check expert – ICBMCatcher

  107. Marc Stevens Says:

    There is a very large prison system set up for those who wish to be left alone and not have rulers. That is one reason (of many) we don’t have voluntary societies at this point. Violence is used against those who would rather be left alone and live in peace.

    Now you can spend the rest of your day posting walls of text moving the goal posts and otherwise wasting your time. If you want to post walls of text, you’re gonna need to join the forum ICBM. It’s not appropriate here.

  108. Berry Allen Says:

    ICBMCATCHER is a profile created by the government. He’s full of BS stop reading his comments, he’s not even good opposition on account of his lack of. His points aren’t great, other skeptics make way better points.

  109. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM, Laws were irrelevant. The wild west did not have any centralized enforcement, it did not have the things that people claim you need in a “civilized society.”

    When you don’t have the government forcing its way on people, they will figure out a way to solve their problems. Usually better and cheaper than the “violence option.”

    That is part of why governments need to steal… ahem tax so much of the wealth, is because maintaining violence is extremely expensive.

  110. NonEntity Says:

    Butler Shaffer turned me on to a wonderful book about total absence of law on the Oregon Trail years ago and how people for the most part acted with great respect and honor in resolving conflicts. It’s called “Law for the Elephant,” and is totally based upon the letters and diaries of actual travelers for historical accuracy.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873281640/

  111. Randall Says:

    @NonEntity:

    Being a fellow Oregonian, I have bookmarked that there book for future order. Thanks 😀

  112. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 23rd, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    ICBM, Laws were irrelevant.

    AHH YES IRRELEVANT … LAWS ARE IRRELEVANT … IS THAT SO? PlEASE GO ON … LOVE TO HEAR THE REASONING BEHIND THAT ONE. TELL US HOW A WORLD WITH NO LAWS WORKS THERE, GENIUS. GIVE HIM A HAND stevens … THIS AUGHTA BE GOOD.

    The wild west did not have any centralized enforcement, it did not have the things that people claim you need in a “civilized society.”

    AND THEY CALLED THE WILD WEST THE WILD WEST … WHY EXACTLY?

    When you don’t have the government forcing its way on people, they will figure out a way to solve their problems. Usually better and cheaper than the “violence option.”

    SO WHEN PEOPLE ARE “LEFT TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS” … THE STRONGER AND LESS MORAL WON’T PREY AN THE WEAKER, AND JUST TAKE WHAT THEY WANT Eh? SURE ABOUT THAT?

    That is part of why governments need to steal… ahem tax so much of the wealth, is because maintaining violence is extremely expensive.

    MAKE SURE YOU KEEP SPEWING THE COMPANY LINE (EVEN IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF YOUR OWN MOUTH)

    Continually destroying ano-nonsense -ICBMCatcher

  113. Jarrod Says:

    Typically, the stronger tend to protect the weak. And there is so much more wealth to go around when you aren’t giving half your productivity to an economic parasite. I know it seems counter intuitive, but the evidence supports it. Besides, which is better, to deal with freelance criminals, or deal with freelance criminals AND organized criminals?

  114. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM: You can always figure out “How” if you have a good answer to “Why”

  115. ICBMCatcher Says:

    — ALERT — ALERT — THE END OF stevens BS ACT IS NEAR —

    Watch/Listen to what we have here folks. Please take a listen to stevens flailing away on this one!

    https://youtu.be/wv9xZqjKcw4

    He obviously posted this in DIRECT RESPONSE to my post in which I absolutely crushed him with his own words. But alas … you can’t take it back buddy, your cooked!

    Now, let us look at a few things in this vid …

    First check the date. My post that caught stevens flat footed and absolutely destroyed his whole act WITH HIS OWN WORDS, was 3/18 …

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 18th, 2017 at 6:47 pm
    Look guys — your goose is cooked, and stevens did it to himself.

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    It took him a few days to come up with a response, but look how quickly he felt the need to get that long rambling explanation out there on YouTube SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS MY POST (THE POST THAT ROCKED HIS WORLD)

    Obviously I struck a nerve … bigtime

    Why else would he respond so quickly … so adamantly … so desperately? !!

    Listen to the high-pitched tone of desperation in his voice through the whole video!

    Listen to him ssstttrrraaaiiinnniiinnngg to defend against my devastating attack!

    But listen to the FAIL … listen to the clear FAIL in that video! There’s not enough damage control in the world to help him recover from my crushing blow.

    He’s down for the count … and he did it to himself (with a little help from
    me)

    Even disabling the comments on the vid won’t help you.

    You said it yourself … INFORMATION = EVIDENCE and the U.S. constitution is absolutely information. GAME – SET – MATCH

    Victoriously – ICBMCatcher

  116. ICBMCatcher Says:

    stevens … you better block me from here too … it’s only going to get worse.

    Go to a contingency only fee schedule and post a win/loss record.

    That’s all I’m demanding — it’s a perfectly reasonable demand. If you’re so confident in the effectiveness of your “methods” this should be no problem.

    Unless you’re afraid it will reveal you as the snake oil salesman I have claimed you are all along.

    Challenging you to prove the effectiveness of your act – ICBMCatcher

  117. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher spewed: “it’s a perfectly reasonable demand.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-agrx9U-as

  118. Max Says:

    Russell, I think this video was posted for clarification. Your hubris is palpable.

  119. Andy Says:

    @Max, That’s twice you have made reference to Russell. There’s no one by that name commenting on this article.

  120. Randall Says:

    Oh yes, perfectly reasonable demand. Make us believe what HE wants US to think, nothing wrong with that …./sarc. (pfffttttttt)

  121. Andy Says:

    The “gift” that keeps on giving, ICBMCatcher, a one-stop shop for all your irrationality needs.

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65860.html#pid65860

  122. NonEntity Says:

    All of the writings about unicorns over the years provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of these magnificent creatures. doG is great! signed, Hugh Briss

  123. Max Says:

    @Andy, Ever wonder where they come from? “Our newest member ICBMCatcher”

    https://www.google.com/#q=Quatloos+icbmcatcher&*&spf=1

    Of discretion and caution should be practiced, it might just be coincidence.

  124. Jarrod Says:

    Ok so information is evidence. The constitution is information. What evidence do you present to prove that your evidence applies to me?

  125. NonEntity Says:

    Jarrod sez:” What evidence do you present to prove that your evidence applies to me?” — that born in the middle of your forehead of course! Sheesh, some people are REALLY slow. ;-p

  126. NonEntity Says:

    horn/born…whatever

  127. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Randall Says:
    March 24th, 2017 at 3:41 am
    Oh yes, perfectly reasonable demand. Make us believe what HE wants US to think, nothing wrong with that …./sarc. (pfffttttttt)

    I am simply demanding that stevens post an accurate win/loss record. How is that “trying to make anyone believe” anything? He claims his methods are effective … according to his own rules isn’t it incumbent for stevens to “prove” his claim.

    I don’t doubt his methods meet with success sometime. I’m just asking HOW OFTEN? 1/2 … 1/10 … 2/10 … 70/100 ??

    I know for a fact that 75% of the time stevens “wins” a traffic case he’s involved with, only because the cop doesn’t show up, not because of anything he did.

    I also know that in MOST cases, when he is “involved” with a poor unfortunate that actually hires him, he not only is INEFFECTIVE, he often makes the tax payers situation WORSE. Thing is, I’m working with incomplete information. stevens claims his methods “work” … all indications say they “work” but INFREQUENTLY at best.

    All I’m demanding is some EVIDENCE of his success rate … why is that not a reasonable demand?

    Furthermore, if stevsns is as successful as he claims, why would going to a CONTINGENCY only fee schedule be such an unreasonable demand?

    Here’s the answer to my own question: stevens is FAR LESS successful than he leads us to believe, otherwise he would be bragging all over the internet about his success rate, his business would be growing by leaps and bounds, and his “methods” would be sweeping the nation (the nation that doesn’t exist of course)

    You fellows are all about “truth” etc. Well, what about the fact that stevens is FAR LESS successful than he leads us to believe … why would you not want to get to the bottom of this? Imagine how awesome it would be for you to put me in my place … prove me wrong!

    So do it.

    Challenging stevens to prove his claims, and taunting him because I know he’s full of @#$% – ICBMCatcher

  128. Max Says:

    He won’t remember this right?

  129. Max Says:

    I see clam being relaxed. be your own squid.

  130. Max Says:

    Plaintiffs get “wins”, judgements and decisions, am I right?

    Defendants get “lose” choice and options and adoption.

    are you right?

  131. Max Says:

    defendant losers get dismissals annd absolved

  132. Max Says:

    defendants dismissed to kill you.

  133. Max Says:

    Russell piazza is a pile of shit.

  134. Max Says:

    people asked why does inflation exist? So payment happens

  135. Max Says:

    Prove me wrong? We are expeccted to help you?

  136. Max Says:

    What is your problem?

  137. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “I am simply demanding”

    That’s exactly what criminals calling themselves government do.

    In terms a five year old can understand: Who made you the boss of any of us.

    In terms a lawyer can NOT understand: You are not born with command authority over me, neither is anybody else, no one can delegate an authority they don’t have, So by what magic did you get your imagined authority over any of us?

  138. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    P.S. That’s what an anarchist’s society looks like.

  139. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Dear Habenae …

    A demand is not coercion, it’s simply stronger than a request. Sorry if I upset you, didn’t realize you were so sensitive.

    I have found a fatal flaw in stevens shtick and intend to put it out there for others to consider. It’s just another nail I am pounding into his coffin.

    I say the entire “no state” thing is just a rouse … it’s BS, and that his wannabe lawyer act is FAR less effective than he claims. I say this based on what I have seen and heard. But, I’m not 100% sure, so I am asking for evidence of this success, some kind of proof his claims are true.

    Here’s the question; Dear Mr stevens, there’s no doubt your “methods” have been successful in court and with the IRS to some degree, but HOW successful have they been? Saying they “work” is not enough, HOW WELL they work is important to know. This is what he calls “moving the goal posts”

    stevens uses false claims of success to persuade people to engage his ineffective services. I first politely asked for evidence, and he ignored it. I asked several more times and he continued to avoid answering … I smelled a rat. Now I am demanding an answer, because I now know he is FAR less successful than he claims. I see an opening and I’m exploiting it. What’s wrong with that … scared?

    stevens is making a living off encouraging people to shirk their responsibilities as Americans, and he’s making money off it. His entire act amounts to nothing more than a tax dodge. I won’t tolerate that.

    Continually enlarging the hole in the dike – ICBMCatcher

  140. Randall Says:

    @ICBMCatcher:

    What is your username on Quatloos?

  141. NonEntity Says:

    And Habby gets sucked back in again! Let the lectures flow fervently forth.

  142. juan galt Says:

    “So by what magic did you get your imagined authority over any of us?”

    By your birth on US soil, your public education, your participation and use of public accommodations/institutions, your submission and acquiescence to said “authority” and your continued support by funding the experiment called the govt. We the People thank you for your continued support, your whining and political philosophy notwithstanding.

  143. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus Says:
    March 25th, 2017 at 6:17 am
    “I am simply demanding”

    You are not born with command authority over me, neither is anybody else, no one can delegate an authority they don’t have, So by what magic did you get your imagined authority over any of us?

    ANSWER: IN AN AREA I CONTROL (PHYSICALLY) YES I AM — UNLESS YOU CAN OVERCOME MY POWER WITH YOURS. I KNOW YOU GUYS HATE TO HEAR THIS BUT IT’S TRUE … HUMAN NATURE, BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING, NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

    YOU SEE Habenae – HERE’S HOW IT WORKS.

    YOU ANO-DELUSIONIST think you can TALK people into doing what you want. You seem to think that you can speak some magic words … some incantation, that will make someone (who doesn’t have to) do what you want.

    Then ! You seem to think telling them they’re “illogical” … “you have no authority over me” “your laws don’t apply to me” etc etc … WILL MAKE Those that DO have authority over you suddenly relent and see it your way. Good Luck with that.

    You’re still counting on someone doing what you want them to do VOLUNTARILY … and I think we all see how well that works. A judge listens to all stevens “reasoning” … and just does what he wants any way … tyrant, logical fallacies, no evidence … but stevsns still loses. Still say they have no authority over you? Still say our laws don’t apply to you? Evidence or not, right or wrong, logical or not … you’re paying your fine or sitting in a jail cell. That’s reality vs your fantasy of a “voluntary society”

    Crushing anarchist souls almost daily – ICBMCatcher

  144. Andy Says:

    Mr. Politician/Bureaucrat, if I did as government types do and forced strangers to give me money would you consider me a criminal? What are the four elements of a contract?

  145. Andy Says:

    Judges are co-conspirators with the men and women (law enforcers) they send out to kidnap (arrest) individuals.

  146. Andy Says:

    “Be the change you want to see in the world.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Lead by example.

    Two choices.
    1) Interact with individuals by initiating violence, threat of violence and coercion against them.

    2) Interact with individuals on a voluntary basis.

    1 is anti-civilization, anti-freedom and anti-peace.
    2 is pro-civilization, pro-freedom and pro peace.

  147. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Andy Says:
    March 25th, 2017 at 10:03 am
    “Be the change you want to see in the world.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Lead by example. UNTIL THEY ASSASSINATE YOU BECAUSE YOU FAILED TO ACCEPT REALITY AND DEFEND YOURSELF

    Two choices.
    1) Interact with individuals by initiating violence, threat of violence and coercion against them. REALITY

    2) Interact with individuals on a voluntary basis. FANTASY

    1 is anti-civilization, anti-freedom and anti-peace. BUT REALITY
    2 is pro-civilization, pro-freedom and pro peace. BUT FANTASY

    See how that works?

    Never letting ano-delusionists lose site of reality – ICBMCatcher

  148. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “And Habby gets sucked back in again! Let the lectures flow fervently forth.”

    @ NonE
    Maybe later. They’re illogical idiots. I just tossed that post in there to show I’ve been following the bullshit… er, the statist’s posts.

  149. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM, A “Win Loss record” would be great, but the thing is, if you are given a ticket to go defend yourself for a victimless crime, you really have already lost. Even if you get the case dropped, you are damaged both emotionally, physically, and reputationally, but the state.

    What you want is a “Dismissed/convicted” record. Marc did already mention on the radio show that 70% (approx) were dismissed because the cop didn’t show up. That’s a really hard thing to get, because a lot of people may be attempting to use macrs methods without being “counted” or “participating”.

    Another factor to consider is the ability of the individual to ask the necessary questions in the face of an intimidating judge, or the ability of the individual to stay on track.

    If you really want to see how well it works, it will cost you some money, because you will need to get some tickets (i really like parking tickets for being in a park or at the mountain after sundown, but that’s just me), and try the different methods in court.

    I can tell you from personal experience that when you start to ask the questions marc recommends you ask, judges and prosecutors tend to get upset (which they shouldn’t unless you were poking at something they didn’t want you to poke at). Why would the get upset if the questions were “irrelevant” ?

    Also, marc did mention damage control, trying to get away with the lowest fine possible, unless you are just trying to get some good youtube activism videos, but i’m not that good at getting my questions out yet or countering the judge’s distractions.

    If you really want to get a good “win” loss ratio and see what you are up against, most people recommend parking tickets. No victim, no corpus delicti, the fine is probably between 30-60 dollars depending on where you weren’t supposed to be parking, just make sure you are somewhere that doesn’t tow it immediately. Like I said, I have good luck parking at the mountain preserve (squaw peak – dreamy draw – in phoenix) with a park ranger writing you a ticket for being there after sunset.

  150. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Interesting. Your example — I have good luck parking at the mountain preserve (squaw peak – dreamy draw – in phoenix) with a park ranger writing you a ticket for being there after sunset.

    I’m going to choose not to believe you go there and park purposely to get a ticket. That’s just … forget it.

    So, I know most parks have signs that say “PARK CLOSES AT SUNSET” at every entrance/exit

    If you are parked there after sunset, why should you not get a ticket? You knew the rules when you went there. And realistically, if you’re sitting in your vehicle, a ranger will tell you to hit the road, not just whip out his ticket book and write you up while your sitting in the car. If you’re not in your vehicle, and it’s after sunset … to bad, ticket city for you.

    Great example of anno-BS … you guys think you can just do whatever you want. Well think again.

    Reminding ano-delusionists everywhere, you will comply – ICBMCatcher

  151. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Win/Loss record —

    stevens CHARGES people $$ to show them how to avoid paying what they owe. He vandalizes the legal system, wasting the courts time with his nonsense.

    I say he’s FAR less effective than he claims to be.

    He’s so fond of posting “success stories” …

    OK … forget a win/loss record … anything … any way to gauge exactly HOW effective his methods are, would be fine. I say he’s full of @#$%

    I say stevens is nothing but a charlatan … a snake oil salesman … and I’m right.

    Another friendly reminder – ICBMCatcher

  152. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher made clear with his last post (March 25th, 2017 at 10:20 am – http://marcstevens.net/featured/jail-no-substitute-evidence.html#comment-205150 ) above that he is anti-civilization, anti-peace and anti-freedom. He’s also wrong. Outside of government, roughly 96% of individuals interact on a voluntary basis. That’s reality. The other 4% have anti-social personality disorders such as sociopaths, psychopaths and narcissists. Is it not clear to you that ICBMCatcher champions the 4% because he is one of them?

  153. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Hey kids … look at the baseless claims and silly statistics Andy just made up!

    Andy is flailing around … trying to figure something to say that will counter my repeated, crushing blows to his way of thinking. He’s desperately trying to maintain his admiration for the snake oil salesman that leads his cult. But alas … he fails.

    Andy Says:
    March 25th, 2017 at 11:56 am
    ICBMCatcher made clear with his last post (March 25th, 2017 at 10:20 am – http://marcstevens.net/featured/jail-no-substitute-evidence.html#comment-205150 ) above that he is anti-civilization, anti-peace and anti-freedom.

    AS LONG AS ONE OBEYS THE LAW, WE’LL HAVE NO PROBLEMS.

    He’s also wrong. — HOLLOW CLAIM MADE IN DESPERATION — Outside of government, — BS STATISTIC FOLLOWS — roughly 96% of individuals interact on a voluntary basis. — END BS ALERT — That’s reality — NO, IT’S SOMETHING YOU JUST MADE UP —. The other 4% have anti-social personality disorders such as sociopaths, psychopaths and narcissists. Is it not clear to you that ICBMCatcher champions the 4% because he is one of them?

    Nice try Andy …

    Pointing out another FAIL by the anarchist crowd, ICBMCatcher

  154. Jarrod Says:

    Why should I not get a ticket? Because “land” doesn’t “close”. Public land is public land. Why should I be required to give money to the state when I haven’t injured anybody by parking and utilizing public land? They say that it closes at sunset… Why? Why can’t I go around hiking with my headlamp in the dark? What harm or crime am I committing? If you believe you should go home at sunset because “somebody’s opinion is that you should”, or because “no lifeguards are on duty”, then you are more brainwashed than I realized.

    Why should I not get a ticket? Who’s land exactly am i on? Is it public land, or is it owned by somebody who is imposing these rules?

    My point is, do you think I should be required to give the state money when I haven’t harmed anybody, and my infraction is “trespassing” on “public” land? And if you want to get a ticket to try out marc’s methods with a small financial risk to yourself, I recommend getting a parking ticket. If you haven’t tried are aren’t willing to try out marc’s method to test it yourself, then you don’t have the experience to determine that marc is or is not selling snake oil.

  155. Andy Says:

    AS LONG AS ONE OBEYS THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE, WE’LL HAVE NO PROBLEMS.

    In his book, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, Harvey Silverglate (a lawyer, no less) shows how essentially every “American” is violating the law at least three times a day.

    According to their laws we’re all criminals a thousand times over. A system that breads vandals on the inside and criminals on the outside was broken at the outset in its foundation.

    If essentially everyone was apprehended for breaking federal laws — everyone includes judges, prosecutors, LEOs and etc — society would come to a screeching halt.

    More here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65674.html#pid65674

  156. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Waiting in the q again on stevens show … he knows it’s me … wonder why he doesn’t take my call?

    Waiting to devastate you directly – ICBMCatcher

  157. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 25th, 2017 at 12:34 pm
    Why should I not get a ticket? Because “land” doesn’t “close”.
    THE AGE OLD TACTIC – REDUCE SOMETHING EVERYBODY KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS, TO A SUPER-LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

    Public land is public land. Why should I be required to give money to the state when I haven’t injured anybody by parking and utilizing public land?
    BECAUSE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARK HAVE DECIDED IT WILL BE CLOSED AFTER SUNSET. DON’T AGREE WITH THAT ORDINANCE ? GET IT CHANGED. UNTIL THEN, IF YOU PARK THERE AFTER SUNSET YOU’LL BE TICKETED … AND YOU WILL PAY A FINE. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE UP YOU OWN RULES AS YOU GO.

    They say that it closes at sunset… Why? Why can’t I go around hiking with my headlamp in the dark? YOU CAN, JUST NOT THERE. AND, BECAUSE “WE” SAY SO – PARKS CLOSE AT DUSK FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. SAFETY, SO PEOPLE DON’T START LIVING THERE, TO DETER CRIME, SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR 24HR PARK RANGER PATROLS, LIABILITY ISSUES — MANY REASONS, WHICH DO NOT HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO YOU. THE SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE THAT SAYS ‘PARK CLOSES AT DUSK” IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. IGNORE THE SIGN, GET A TICKET. THEN, THE ONLY QUESTION WILL BE – WERE YOU OR WERE YOU NOT THERE AFTER SUNSET? NO BS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK OF THE RULES.

    Layin it down AGAIN!- ICBMCatcher

  158. ICBMCatcher Says:

    — NEWS ALERT —

    stevens LET’S ME ON THE SHOW JUST SO HE CAN SAY HE DID, BUT RUNS AWAY AS SOON AS I START TO DESTROY HIM !!

    OHH ! WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE — ? stevens on his heels ? !

    He actually hustled me off the show so I couldn’t say anything — he is afraid of me, he really is!

    Another crushing blow (with more to come) delivered by ICBMCatcher

  159. Marc Stevens Says:

    I said you need to take your posts to the forum. I’ll create the account for you, do not email me back.

  160. NonEntity Says:

    Jarrod sez, “land” doesn’t “close”. Public land is public land. — of course it duz, silly man. Donchu remember those times when the government ran out of money and the first thing they did was to close all of the public parks and highway rest areas? Obviously the public can’t go traipsing about on their own land without parasites being fed. Sheesh! They might hurt themselves and then they’d have to sue themselves and if they lost (or won, or something) they’d have to PAY themselves. Damn man, think of the horrors.

  161. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Damn man, think of the horrors.”

    They’re legal in Nevada where there isn’t gambling.

  162. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM, Why is somebody responsible for public land? Do they own it? What gives them any more or less right to be there or throw me off of it? It’s not a literal interpretation, it’s a logical one.

    So what facts in evidence do you present to prove that the rules that those people in their government buildings downtown apply to me when i’m using “public” land? Or is the land not, in fact, public?

  163. NonEntity Says:

    It’s their there. Just ask them.

  164. Randall Says:

    Please stop feeding the troll, who has come to our beautiful shore of the NoStateProject and muddied it with his propaganda. He originally hails from the land of Quatlosia. He hasn’t denied it, so it must be true.

  165. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    The lack of logic proves that.

  166. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    When the combat resumes, Kirk works at his bonds and manages to partially untie them. Getting his hands in front of him, he eventually gets Kloog in a strangle hold and is about to defeat him when a voice from above says “Hold!” It is the voice of Provider 1. He, Provider 2, and Provider 3 begin bidding for the newcomers. They eventually are sold to Provider 1 for the price of 2,000 quatloos. Kirk asserts that they are free people and belong to no one. Providers 2 and 3 then place a series of wagers: fifteen quatloos that Captain Kirk is untrainable, twenty quatloos that all three are untrainable, five thousand quatloos that they will all have to be destroyed, all of which Provider 1 accepts. Galt’s eyes light up and the color of the three Starfleet officer’s collars changes to red. Galt tells them that they now bear the mark of a fine herd and that any disobedience is now punishable by death making escape unlikely.

    Quatloosia is all about Quatloos, the currency of the realm of Triskelion. Triskelion is the planet of the “Providers” who use quatloos to buy and sell people (thralls) and place wagers on the battles the people are forced to wage in an arena… Just like the Romans did with their slaves.

    That certainly seems like the characteristics and traits of statists.

  167. Randall Says:

    @Habby,

    RIGHT!

    😀

  168. NonEntity Says:

    Randall, stop feeding the trolls! 🙂

  169. Randall Says:

    @NonE

    Yes, sir right away. Oh wait, you’re not holding a gun to my head.

    🙂

  170. Andy Says:

    What is government if not organized crime? Delete government’s monopoly on initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion against individuals and it ceases to be organized crime and no longer a government.

    When men and women who call themselves government attack, the safest place to do battle is their courts… first at a distance via motion to dismiss then if necessary, in their courtroom — face to face with the prosecutor and judge to expose the contradiction in Goliath’s public relations juxtaposed to Goliath’s actions.

  171. NonEntity Says:

    Oops. Nevermind. :-$

  172. NonEntity Says:

    Mothers everywhere, take note: this is what happens if you don’t give your children love.

  173. Randall Says:

    ICBMCatcher sed:

    “So, I’m off to the forum … where I will continue to destroy anarchy, crush stevens snake oil business, and defeat each of you, one post at a time.”

    Randall sez: Good Luck!

  174. ICBMCatcher Says:

    —– FLASH —-

    stevens tried to trick me into leaving here! I tried to respect his wishes, and take my assault on the forum as he asked, but when I tried to register, got a message … “NO NEW MEMBERS ARE BEING ACCEPTED” Of all the dastardly, underhanded …

    Who do I contact in the anarchist “organization” (that doesn’t exist) to report this gross breach of trust? Is there a head anarchist … a council on fair anarchy?

    Very disappointed, ICBMCatcher

  175. Andy Says:

    http://marcstevens.net/board/user-32287.html — user 32287, aka ICBMCatcher

  176. Jarrod Says:

    ICBMCatcher, Wow, Marc tried to trick you? You sound hella paranoid!
    And read the forum where marc doesn’t have any spam control so he gives you a username based on an email. Under sitewide notifications. You are waaay overreacting to technical issues.

  177. ICBMCatcher Says:

    —- FLASH —

    Everything OK !

    Silly me, thought for a moment anarchy and finally wrested power from the U.S. government, and it was a brave new world, ano-delusionsts running the show and me on the outside looking in!

    We will now resume our regularly scheduled program.

    ICBMCatcher

  178. NonEntity Says:

    Awaiting the deafening silence about to descend upon this thread. 🙂

  179. :)(: Says:

    The fact we have governments proves anarchy is fine and dandy bcatcher(You can deflate thy head a tad, or not whatever sir). Is this your perfect world catcher? You must be god then and need get to work on the real problems we ALL face please!! Or don’t ;)…b glad your governments are fronts for the anarchists in charge lmmfao. You take a nationalists viewpoint, not bad of course just your choice. Last I remembered we have quite a few disgruntled countries who don’t care for our “government” even most of its own citizens included mind you.
    Us tiny ants don’t raise brow one of that which RULES!!! funny how they always relate it to similar words…antichrists, anarchists, etc etc. Back and forth, over and over…blame and deny…and more, hey one more thing, one last word, hear me or admit defeat!?!?!? Maybe we all should stfu and find solutions not create arguments?! Or not!! Hey this is how it already works right? Wow sounds pretty unorganized, disheveled, chaotic, ummm what’s the word I’m looking for here?! Lol oh yeah anarchistic hahahaha. Call it whatever you like but it works/is quite fitting, evidential, factual(lawful? ie law of reality?) Etc.

    Closed eyes see nothing, open eyes see others, a conscious eye perceives self in others.

    The comedy is the drama, and vice versa, of the depth we blind men will go to destroy each other over!!

    Just sharing, I’m sure to be analyzed and prescribed a remedy 😉

  180. Randall Says:

    @NonE:

    😀

  181. Keith k Says:

    If we Americans can just remember 2 things.
    1. Do not hurt anyone
    2. Do not create damages

    The man has no boundaries, they are consistently looking for ways turn everything into a privilege. Its clear they even want the education of law to be so called lawyer licensing. Even tho illegal aliens have more rights then Americans do the matter of fact is that we have all been deprived of a real education by our state and its elected leaders. Law is in our lives 24/7 yet they expect us to know and deprive us of knowing. Its some secret to them to build there empire of a artificial, violently directed system that typically evolves into additional damages to the person once there convicted, example get a ticket for loosing a garabage can on fwy, i quickly paid for the damages to the persons car but now the state wants to claim damages also. Apparently my empty plastic garbage can injured the asphalt on the fwy?28-1098
    If i am found guilty i will then have to pay additional damages monthly to insurance. That ultimately creates damages to my loved ones who need the money. Not corporations designed to take… if i win i guess the dps has to pay the court. im unsure of the amount tho but someone is gunna pay.

    Lets do a class action lawsuit for them depriving yet enforcing these rules, we can sue them every dollar they took from us, time taken too plus interest on the money the clerk managed in there account. We should also include a audit so everyone could get what is owed. Sooner or later they will have to answer! And if they cant silence is fraud so its time for them to get a taste of some real food.

  182. :)(: Says:

    Just delete my post if it takes this long to “moderate” my comment. Thanks

  183. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    ” :)(: Says:
    March 27th, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Just delete my post if it takes this long to “moderate” my comment. Thanks”

    http://marcstevens.net/board/announcement-1.html

  184. :)(: Says:

    Hab: thanks for the info! Apparently I wanted to jump right into the conversation lol.

    Keith k: sounds all too familiar, the horror experience’s and denial of them by the “inexperienced”! My thought on using a system to change a system is as such;

    Unless those with the upper hand within the “system” recognize and adhere to the need of reorganization, then no amount of punishment, by any means, will create the change desired. Hard to sit in the golden chair and be convinced to give it up, darn right delusional to think anyone would willfully give away their golden goose! So the game of force prevails over peace. How then does change happen to such a system, without using the tools the system provided? As if any system would give freely, the keys to its own demise. Peaceful protest? What a joke, this only produces those first letters…PP lol. Can there be such a thing as peaceful force? Maybe your class action stuff could benefit that cause…exposing the fraudulent pillars of an otherwise solid foundation in “for the people, by the people”. This would take surgical precision in removing ALL the cancerous cells before they reproduce in self defense. Remember, to cancer it’s healthy cells that are considered enemy #1! What is it these “cancers” are feeding on? Money? Power? Privilege? All of those and then some? So what then? Ugh, can it be turned on itself somehow? Or could peaceful force be applied by people? Why has it been so difficult to even get like minds to correspond with these,so called, leaders? EVERY person I’ve ever talked to knows we need change, yet why oh why will we not gather to the cause?! FEAR? FEAR my brothers and sisters keeps us bound to our chains :(. Many are facing it and as we overcome maybe then answers will follow?! We could march to capital of all States and peacefully, yet physically remove these cancers. Who could resist a peaceful yet present show of election, or impeachment by the people those offices were commanded to serve? These are far from perfect suggestions, yet refined by all interested people could produce ideas?

    In hope of a future our children could be proud to participate in :)!!

  185. NonEntity Says:

    wall of te…

  186. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    :)(: Says:
    March 28th, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    Hab: thanks for the info! Apparently I wanted to jump right into the conversation lol.

    You’re welcome.

    This might be of interest to you as well.
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8888-post-65886.html#pid65886

  187. :)(: Says:

    NonE: OK I’m caught up enough to know walls of te… Are not your thing lol. Interested in “..the defening silence..” Comment though

    Hab: again thanks for the info. A bit confusing how it’s formated but I believe I figured out who said what from when and where but why? Jk jk

  188. Andy Says:

    “Jail is no Substitute for Evidence”

    I watched the video. Conclusion? ICBMCatcher is no substitute for intelligence.

  189. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher wrote: “The evidence our laws apply to you, is you cuffed, stuffed and sitting in a [jail] cell”

    Does ICBMCatcher still stand by that statement.

    In regards to ICBMCatcher’s post here: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20170318.html#comment-206074

    If a bunch of guys in a bar decide to take a vote on whether or not to rape a girl, and the majority vote ‘Yes’, will the guys that voted ‘No’ be violently/forced to rape the girl?

  190. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said: “Mothers everywhere, take note: this is what happens if you don’t give your children love.”

    “Moshe Szyf: How early life experience is written into DNA” – TED Talk
    https://www.ted.com/talks/moshe_szyf_how_early_life_experience_is_written_into_dna

  191. :)(: Says:

    I must retract a previous statement for the good of my sanity(as if such word differentiates anyone ;))…”a solid foundation in, ‘for the people, by the people’…”. This statement itself is setting the same “foundation” as the current belief of “appointed government” having some magical “right” to control others. Good day all

  192. KCK Says:

    “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Dec. of Independence.

    I would have to ask; “Show me where I consented, please.”

    I did not consent by the mere fact of my birth nor my continual habitation on this land.

  193. :)(: Says:

    Slave or Master?

    Only that which is incapable or unwilling to govern itself demands government for itself over others.

    Please go attend to your masters(plural intended) DIC, DICtations, jurisDICtions, preDICtions, contraDICtions, etc and anarchist’s will send their valeDICtions to ya on the way out 🙂

    Fuckin crybabies are afraid to defend themselves from their own fears to have some “comfort” in letting others protect their own sorry asses! All while being robbed blind!! Govern THAT Mr ReDICulous!!!(yes you ICBM-UR A-“catcher”)

    There would be no government without anarchy to force chicken shits to band together to fight it, geesh and you call them stupid, ignorant, rediculous, etc.

    Problem is, you don’t even know which side is which, as to who will actually treat one another with respect and dignity that is. Go ahead beLIEve your government!! Let someone else decide for ya! I’m outta here y’all

    @nonE- yeah yeah “wall of te..” Lol peace out

  194. ICBMCatcher Says:

    —- APEAL TO THE RIDICULOUS ALERT —-

    :)(: Says:
    April 9th, 2017 at 12:26 pm
    Slave or Master?

    Again … so this clown chimes in with the same old BS.

    Anarchy applied to groups larger that a few dozen people quickly turns to chaos. Anarchy ONLY works if EVERYONE behaves themselves, which will never happen.

    Reminding anarchists that their views are ridiculous – ICBMCatcher

  195. Max2 Says:

    I don’t think anarchy is applied, it is rather the lack of application of its opposite, whatever. Chaos could be described as a condition where anything might happen, like how it is now, right? So you prefer anarchy with the added bonus of enforcement of other stuff also? 😉

  196. juan galt Says:

    ICBM –
    I’ve never seen so much filibustering on the wonders of anarchy by people who do not practice it – they are all just statists posing as anarchists. They quote Spooner (from like 150 years ago) and others but yet they all live in a State society ruled by the majority and admittedly submit and support the State. They whine and cast aspersions on their fellow humans, but accomplish nothing. They continue to submit. This “no state” project appears to have been around long enough for at least SOME Spooners to have banded together to establish their voluntary society somewhere. Why hasn’t Stevens put something together? Limited ideas?
    There’s a new TV show called “Jungletown” that Spooners should watch for inspiration on starting a community. There’s 394 acres around where I live with an abundance of water, wildlife and other natural resources and no city within hundreds of miles – a perfect place for Spoonertown, IF Spooners were serious. Then there’s the Alaskan bush, not many gubmit people around. Granted it work take work – no ready made utilities, water system, sewer system, roads or other things an evil govt society provides. But hey, nobody to f**k with you.

    Do Spooners do anything besides just bitch and moan? Stevens has been doing his “court” thing for over almost 20 years and no laws have been changed. What the hell has been accomplished in all this time? It’s one thing to sit around complaining and criticizing and another thing to put your words into action and create a real voluntary community – somewhere.

    Juan “living the dream” Galt

  197. Max2 Says:

    #5 If prehistoric anarchy were an absolute lack of any civility, there would never have been any advancement, the first thing would be to drop the clubs and then discuss mammoths, pelts, wampum….
    #4 Do you really follow the regimented reality of volumes of legislation, all day, everyday? I venture it is an impossibility to live that way. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” should be recognized as the abuse/pitfall that it is. To state this another way: “I can’t be responsible for my own ill-conceived position, you get to bear it regardless.”
    #3 Why is it alright to put responsibility for this “deal” upon those who have expressed dissatisfaction with it. Even the dissatisfied have interests and wealth mired among that of the satisfied, do they get a refund? A dividend for that which can’t be refunded? They still owe even after the fact according to you.
    #2 Like the cavemen in #1 through agreement.
    #1 This isn’t the position you seem to have been arguing, as you must realize it doesn’t exist.

    Boner queue, none.

    Boner train, no.

    A boner for you:

    “You are under no obligation to be the person you were five minutes ago.”

    -Alan Watts

  198. rad Says:

    “#5
    SINCE ANARCHY EXISTED FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG BEFORE THE FIRST GOVERNMENTS WERE EVEN THOUGHT OF, WHY DID CIVILIZATION UNIVERSALLY DECIDE TO FORM THE TRADITIONAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TODAY?”

    what makes you think that “CIVILIZATION UNIVERSALLY DECIDE[D] TO FORM THE TRADITIONAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TODAY?

    i mean, what actual facts would you be able to point to that would possibly support this assumption…

  199. rad Says:

    “#4
    WHY HAS NO ANARCHISTIC SOCIETY OF ANY SIZE EVER SURVIVED INTO MODERN TIMES?”

    there are several, one example is zomia

  200. rad Says:

    “#3
    HOW WOULD AN ANARCHIST (“VOLUNTARY SOCIETY”) DEAL WITH THE SOCIAL DIVIDE THAT WOULD SURELY FORM BETWEEN THOSE THAT VOLUNTEER AND THOSE THAT DON’T?”

    another (unsupported) assertion we are expected to just assume…

  201. rad Says:

    “#2
    stevens HAS MADE IT A POINT TO SAY THAT ANARCHY DOES NOT MEAN THERE WOULD BE “NO RULES”. IF THIS IS TRUE … WHO WOULD MAKE THOSE RULES AND HOW WOULD THEY BE ENFORCED (IF THEY WOULD BE ENFORCED AT ALL) WOULD NOT THOSE WHO MADE EVEN THE FEW RULES THERE WOULD BE, AND THOSE THAT ENFORCED THEM, BE “AUTHORITY”?”

    Let’s see ICBM, you simply walk in and cut to the front of the line everywhere you go, or do you follow the rule to wait in line like everybody else? Or you only do it when a guy with a gun makes you do it?

  202. rad Says:

    who makes you follow the rule to wait to allow others a chance to speak? Who enforces the rules of grammar we use to communicate?

  203. rad Says:

    “WHO WOULD MAKE THOSE RULES”

    Whoever agrees to them
    “AND HOW WOULD THEY BE ENFORCED (IF THEY WOULD BE ENFORCED AT ALL)”

    It would be based on nap

  204. rad Says:

    ” WOULD NOT THOSE WHO MADE EVEN THE FEW RULES THERE WOULD BE, AND THOSE THAT ENFORCED THEM, BE “AUTHORITY”?””

    no, they would simply be humans exercising defensive force

  205. rad Says:

    “#1
    WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT ANY RULE/LAW/STATUTE ETC. APPLIES TO ANYONE … ANYWHERE ? THERE IS NONE SO … WE SHOULD IGNORE ALL LAWS?”

    Depends on your guiding principle…anarchism is based on do no harm…non aggression…peaceful cooperation….

    is “just following orders” a better guiding principle? How’s that working out?

  206. Venson Cursey Says:

    Marc my Texas update. Motion hearing reset I spoke with the Judge and we verb battle from about ten minutes to which She said ” I will not stand for this mocker of Justice and demand you tell me why we are here today!”
    I said” I’M here to defend my right to travel unmolested and without telling anyone why I’m in use of a public way privately. Does this court recognises me as a flesh and blood man standing on land. All I want is the prosecutor to proof this applies to me. They have yet to answer any affidavits I have submitted.” Judges denies motion to dismiss I ask about Due process then She apology to me and says you need to speak with the attorneys in a side room where they offered me a conditional dismissal of all Five cases but I had to pay my warrant fees and court cost or 1 conviction with a dollar fine. I don’t sign anything and they were unprepared.

  207. Marc Stevens Says:

    Don’t make affirmative statements, just ask questions holding the prosecution to their burden of proof.

  208. Max2 Says:

    It amazes me the certainty that you ascribe to so much speculation. You allude to a progression of wilderness and barbarism to the what is seen as the civility of today. Continuously making mis-steps and corrections, but still advancing. When I was younger I thought the idea of change through political process, although slow as molasses seemed appropriate. Maybe we can pick exsanguination over the bolt-gun the fact remains it is still a slaughterhouse chute. What I see in Marc’s work is a disengagement from this paradigm. Statecraft people will always build these edifices because thats all these things are, prisons of the mind. In a more primitive age there would have been raiders and highwaymen, now we still have those, but there are also those who utilize the edifice of the state to pillage their own neighborhoods, not every time, but when it does people feel like you may, indignant and contempted. How can something predicated upon protection, utilize violations of the protected to protect? I don’t think it can, unless you recognize the only protection it desires is for itself. No one part is always going to be in control or necessarily aspire to, but there it is. Maybe you believe the readers/writers here are potential “Jerry Kane types” or something like that? There are people like Irwin Schiff, Larkin Rose, Alfred Adask and a slew of others who never hurt anyone and were treated like trash. They don’t always get it right, but they ask a lot of difficult questions, informed questions even. As people they come to many logical conclusions anyone else would because they are people. The reason they are brushed off as whacko is that they are a threat to the status qou. It can’t be contemplated that twelve plus years of indoctrination was just that, laws and taxes are how we exact justice upon our neighbors. Just where did this bossiness of yours originate, why should I even entertain it? It seems to me you desire this edifice that has no reciprocal respect, gets a pass on proper fairness, what is the problem with you? Most people listen to “calls of shame” and initially get angry because they want believe it’s not all BS, and there it is, just a bunch of gophers doing as they’re told, go out and fuck with your neighbors. You are obsessed because to quote Tom Wolfe about Marshall McLuhan: “What if he’s right.”

  209. Marc Stevens Says:

    Walls of text are more appropriate for the forum max2. Please take it there and break up the text, I will start deleting such comments.

  210. Max2 Says:

    Pardon anyone reading, NIN, head like a hole?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao-Sahfy7Hg

  211. Max2 Says:

    ICBMCatcher and Jaun Galt here is an entirely separate missive:

    How dare you attempt to interfere with my laziness, I’ve worked for years at attaining this level of doing exactly nothing. Yet here you are attempting to tell me I’m selfish for being so lazy, as you want lay a bit of your guilt and responsibility upon me. It seems selfish to me, for you to lay your obligations upon me. Like you might be evading them, you might like someone to assume them for you, perhaps? Maybe if your moms and pops didn’t volunteer you for a discount on theirs you wouldn’t be still be carrying theirs, right? And like an uninformed idiot attaining the age of majority you utilized a benefit you didn’t recognize as such. That’s why I won’t allow your laziness to interfere with mine. Who are you to tell me my laziness is a conflict of my own interest, when it is likely you who benefits from my renouncing it.

  212. Max2 Says:

    Just to entertain an idea for a moment, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Caesar buys an ice cream cone, gets the ice cream cone, vendor accepts the Caesar coin, is the coin the vendors property or not? Within the edifice of government, Federal Reserve note leaves this legal arrangement as soon as it is spent outside the government itself. I would define it as fugitive, but not criminal, China likes to buy Buick cars, the mechanism exists, to exchange Buick cars for bucks. Think about how abused the Render unto Caesar quote is.

  213. Max2 Says:

    Is this for real?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWd9Q7TODiY

  214. juan galt Says:

    Max2

    I knew Irwin Schiff. I worked with Irwin Schiff. Irwin Schiff was a friend of mine who suggested I go to law school. You sir are no Irwin Schiff.

    Glad to see you admit you’re lazy. The rest of your posts are incoherent rants that accomplish NOTHING. You are a statist by your actions and lifestyle.

  215. JOHN COKOS Says:

    And what of these proposed Anarchist’s ? Fly’s on an elephants ass. lol

  216. Andy Says:

    When the founding principle of members of a society is do NOT harm there is no ruling hierarchy, no rulers.

    When the founding principle of a society is DO harm, there is ruling hierarchy, rulers.

    Rulers = DO harm = do as the rulers say or the rulers will kill you.

    Anarchy = do NO harm = when a person tells you to leave them alone you leave them alone.

    Still no evidence their constitutions and laws/codes apply to anyone.

  217. Andy Says:

    When the founding principle of members of a society is do NOT harm there is no ruling hierarchy, no rulers.

    When the founding principle of a society is DO harm, there is ruling hierarchy, rulers.

    Rulers = DO harm = do as the rulers say or the rulers will kill you.

    Anarchy = do NO harm = when a person tells you to leave them alone you leave them alone.

  218. juan galt Says:

    ICBM
    LOL Kinda sounds like one of my grandkids telling another “You’re not the boss of me!” I guess Spooner grandkids will say “Where’s the evidence I agree with you?”

  219. Max2 Says:

    Juan, From where did you draw the comparison of Irwin and myself? As to lazy, you don’t do satire apparently. I am a Statist? Again from where are you drawing these inferences?

    Amused, g’day

  220. juan galt Says:

    “Juan, From where did you draw the comparison of Irwin and myself?”
    By your excessive use of the word “edifice”, over-exaggeration of govt employees’ motivations and reverence for ex-cons. While Schiff may have acted on his “heart-felt” beliefs, his actions were misplaced and caused others to share in his misfortune. Attempting to obtain a legal remedy for a political issue (taxation or jurisdiction) is a fool’s errand.

    Unless you live in Freetown Christiania, Zomia or Bir Tawil Triangle, I assume you are a member a Statist society.

    There is only ONE thing on this Earth that establishes “human” or “civil” rights – FORCE (or should I say might).

  221. Randall Says:

    @Rad

    who makes you follow the rule to wait to allow others a chance to speak? Who enforces the rules of grammar we use to communicate?

    Excellent Point!

  222. NonEntity Says:

    Randall sez: “Who enforces the rules of grammar we use to communicate?” — the Grammar Nazi! Haven’t you been paying attention? Sheesh!

  223. Max2 Says:

    Hey Marc! Calvin!

    Forum is glitched.
    I posted a message in Site-Wide Notifications to apprise you of the problem.

    It didn’t show up. So I’m putting it here.

    Screen Caps:

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Glitch1.png

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Glitch2.png

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Glitch3.png

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Glitch4.png

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/Glitch5.png

    Delete this post when fixed so I can unload those images.

  224. Max2 Says:

    I noticed the forum is failing to close the last login or user on April 10, I forget who is “synapticsparks”, but it is not I.

  225. Randall Says:

    Marc,

    Regarding ICBM, thank you. I see his posts in my email alert, but they don’t show up here. He really is a distraction and totally off base with his rants. He does not get it at all.

    @NonE, Oh sorry, forgot about that one, my bad. 😀

  226. Marc Stevens Says:

    You’re welcome Randall. And for the obsessive ICBM, I told you to take it to the forum where you can freely post. Stop whining about censorship, it’s not censorship when you have a platform. But you do like to lie and characterize things. Let me know about that open debate you’re supposed to be getting set up, but do it on the forum.

  227. NonEntity Says:

    Randall, you’re forgiven. I’m perfect, but I understand some others aren’t, so it’s only fair to make allowances. (Note that ICBM is not in that group.)

  228. NonEntity Says:

    And by the way, yes, I’m extremely proud to know Marc.

  229. Randall Says:

    @NonE: Why thank you sir you are perfect gentleman and a perfect scholar. Unlike some other poster (cough cough IC cough cough BM) on here.

    Marc? Who is this Marc you speak of? /my lame attempt at humor.

  230. Max2 Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWd9Q7TODiY

  231. Tony Says:

    ICBMcather I listened to the show you were on and you didn’t dispel anything Marc puts forward. In fact you just showed any that listened how deluded and controlled those who can’t think rationally are. The Prussian education system is a truly wonderful piece of propagandist artwork. Once the Trivium is understood the fabric and illogical thought process of a Prussian educated person can be looked at with woeful disdain. Taught how to think, taught what to think, taught when to think & all prescribed by the state propagandist mind washers. As you are NOT taught to question, you are taught to answer their questions that they prescribe, but if you do ask questions that are not on the prescribed list and flip the situation, you are deemed to be a disrupter, WHY ? Because questions are hard to answer apparently. I find it ironic that the Trivium is still taught in the elite private educational establishments. So if you have money you can pay to learn how to financially rape your lesser educated man. Your unwillingness to see that to threaten some one with violence to get compensated, is not immoral shows you have no empathy. If I was to walk up to yourself and demand money on behalf of someone, stating you had done something my employer deemed wrong would in your eyes constitute a crime & it would be a crime as what right do I have to impose my will upon you. I don’t have that right. Violence is what it is abhorrent wether physical, mental or coercive & to have that enacted upon you by total strangers is even more so. Your position is unjustifiable if nobody is harmed then nobody has any right to even speak to you and lets not forget that those that write these rules also write rules to protect themselves. I or you have no say in these matters the club of take and it’s members protect themselves first & foremost this is just factually & evidentially true. I admire your stupidity as it strikes me it’s your one & only redeeming feature, peace be with you brother I’m lovin’ your fallacies…

  232. Max2 Says:

    Famspear and the

  233. NonEntity Says:

    Aha! More timeless wisdom from MaxToo.

  234. juan galt Says:

    ICBM
    I think that great philosopher, Brad Pitt, described this debate pretty well when he said in the movie “Fury” –

    “Ideals are peaceful, history is violent.” I would restate –
    “Spoonerism is peaceful, reality not so much.”

  235. Marc Stevens Says:

    ICBM wrote: The open debate is set for July 2nd In Baltimore MD. Please RSVP ASAP.” I started a thread on the forum, respond there, all of your posts on articles will be deleted. http://www.marcstevens.net/board/thread-8910.html

  236. Randall Says:

    AND he, ICBM, doesn’t listen to directions very well either. I’m still getting his posts in my email.

  237. NonEntity Says:

    I don’t know,I think he is probably listening very well to directions, and being well paid for following them.

  238. Randall Says:

    In his CIA/NSA cubicle?

  239. Randall Says:

    Wait, DOJ cubicle! Fixed it.

  240. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    If anarchy / volunteerism is such a bad idea, why are the statists working so hard to keep statist indoctrination in place?

  241. NonEntity Says:

    Habby! Kudos! (Whut, did someone break your typing fingers? 😉

  242. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I’m drafting a post for the forum. I’ve exceeded the character limit once already and had to split the post.

    By the way, it WAS a question for the statists.

  243. NonEntity Says:

    Habby sed: By the way, it WAS a question for the statists. — Oh. Well what is it NOW?

  244. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Not a question for the statists.

    Have you seen any statist answers?

  245. Max2 Says:

    Jaun, called me a statist, I guess I exist in this state. I feel so dirty, some roofing shall cure that which ills. Except for mesothilioma nothing cures that.

  246. NonEntity Says:

    Habby sed: “By the way, it WAS a question for the statists.”
    Habby also sed (regarding the same material): “Not a question for the statists.”

    I think he thinks he’s a rational thinker and communicator.  

  247. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Dude! Things change, ya gots to be flexible.

  248. NonEntity Says:

    I ain’t f’ing believing you just said that! Have you considered a career in law?

  249. NonEntity Says:

    https://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU

  250. Randall Says:

    @NonE,

    😀 😀 😀

  251. Randall Says:

    …. but so true.

  252. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “I ain’t f’ing believing you just said that! Have you considered a career in law?”

    So what?

    Galt believes that one can take an empty envelope; seal it shut with nothing in it; and send it to the recipient; where the recipient unseals and opens the envelope; removes the content; and the recipient now has a permission slip giving the recipient the right to command, control, and order others about as if he or she owns every body else.

    Galt calls that the philosophy of Majoritarianism.

    Why don’t you go fuck with him for awhile. <– No question mark. It's a rhetorical suggestion.

  253. juan galt Says:

    “Galt calls that the philosophy of Majoritarianism.”

    Habby gives me too much credit by misstating my comments. I simply gave him the standard dictionary definition of Majoritarianism and pointed out that where Habby lives the Majoritarianism philosophy is practiced and he supports it. Here’s where credit should be placed –
    Definition of Majoritarianism: 
    the philosophy or practice according to which decisions of an organized group should be made by a numerical majority of its members. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.  Wikipedia

    ma·jor·i·tar·i·an·ism (mə-jôr′ĭ-târ′ē-ə-nĭz′əm, -jŏr′-) n.
    Rule by simple numerical majority in an organized group. A form of democracy which upholds the rule of the majority. The Free Dictionary

    ma•jor•i•tar•i•an•ism n.
    rule by a majority, esp. the belief that those constituting a simple majority should make the rules for all members of a group, nation, etc. Random House Unabridged Dictionary

    Majoritarianism n.
    Rule by simple numerical majority in an organized group. American Heritage Dictionary

    You’re welcome.

  254. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Hey Galt, Thanks for the laugh.

  255. Andy Says:

    Pip squeak alert!!!

    Who is juan galt, a champion of the status quo? Well, not ALL the status quo, Rather, the most prolific, malevolent status quo — the initiation of violence. He derides Lysander Spooner; probably for his masterpiece, No Treason: The Constitutions of No Authority. http://marcstevens.net/interviews/notreason.html

    malevolent: Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.

  256. NonEntity Says:

    Mal E. Volent

  257. Randall Says:

    Males are pretty violent /sarc 😛

  258. NonEntity Says:

    I.C. Clast sed, “Then how is it that two or more people can combine their ZERO authority and vote me out of my rights?” — Easy! 363,000,000 X 0 izza REALLY BIG NUMBER! And besides,.if they didn’t take your money to pay for my schooling, how would I be able to figure this stuff out?

  259. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    He claimed he is a lawyer. That makes him an officer of the court. An officer of the court is, by definition, a statist.

  260. juan galt Says:

    Who is Juan Galt? Good question. However, you’ve answered it incorrectly. Actually, I consider myself a minarchist. My legal practice, for the most part, has been fighting govt overreach and violations of individual rights. Some cases I’ve worked on are considered kinda famous and are still hot topics of political debate today. The one I’m working on at present has been and will be in the news as we progress to SCOTUS. Spooners better hope we win again (and with Gorsuch we should). The bottom line is – I’ve done more to reign in the “State” than all the prolix Spooners put together. Talk is cheap, successful action takes knowledge, skill and effort.

  261. NonEntity Says:

    Galt sed, “I’ve done more to reign in the “State” than all the prolix Spooners put together. Talk is cheap, successful action takes knowledge, skill and effort.” — as someone said, we can’t get out of the mess we’re in using the same tools which got us into the mess. What you express, Galt, is a desire to control. The desire to control is the core mechanism which enslaves all of us. Yes, it is natural to want to control those who seek to control us, but look where that leads us psychologically. Conflict resolution which seeks to satisfy the needs of all parties to a conflict rather than to crush the opposition is the paradigm with the greatest potential for long term success and satisfaction, I do believe. Crushing one’s enemies does not bring about community, it breeds terrorists. The adversarial system is named that because that is exactly what it is. Conflict resolution is different from opponent destruction. – My thoughts at the moment. (I sadly note that some here appear to want to crush their opponents with logic rather than leading them with an open heart. I’m sure I’m guilty of this myself at times. It’s not a worthy attribute, in my opinion.)

  262. juan galt Says:

    NonE sez – “What you express, Galt, is a desire to control”.

    Again with the restatements to support a narrative. What I expressed was a resolution of a conflict of interests – those of the State and those of individuals. Again, with the drama – “Crushing” involves violence, making a persuasive legal argument does not. Conflict resolution as you describe affects only the “rights” of those involved, my approach affects the “rights” of all individuals BEFORE they are harmed. I don’t know how many “conflict resolutions” you have been involved with, but I’ve been in many and there’s little difference from litigation in reaching a conclusion (resolution).

    Yes, I have noticed that Spooners choose to attack instead of persuade. They offer no clear resolution of conflicts. In other words how to get “there” from “here” – what different “tools” are needed. I’ve read stevens books and they are not solution-driven. They promote conflict, not resolution. Of course, stevens livelihood depends on conflict not resolution. Whereas, my livelihood depends on resolution of conflicts.

  263. Andy Says:

    I’ll extend an olive branch to government bad guys/gals — those that actually initiate violence. If when he or she continues to apply a double standard I’ll pull my hand away olive branch in hand. Benefit of doubt given, for example: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8386-post-59520.html#pid59520

  264. Andy Says:

    What is, is. Identify it. Integrate it honestly. Act on it. Idealize it.

    There is no state. There are men and women who call themselves government that force strangers to give them money. So called government is organized crime.

    When they attack, Marc expose the reality that their means — forcing innocent individuals into their courts — is not consistent with their ends as stated in their PR. If “government” employees were truly intent on protecting so called individual rights they wouldn’t be the most prolific violators of individual “rights”. Marc begins with, follow your rules and show evidence that proves the alleged jurisdiction you claim to have. If you can’t do that, follow your rules and dismiss the “case”. In other words, be fair and honorable. They created the conflict, not Marc. Conflict resolution doesn’t equate to being unfair and DIS-honorable.

    Succinct summary: If I did as government types do and forced strangers to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?

    Marc has said a few times, and on the most recent posted podcast (http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20170412.html), that a half dozen or so cops have read his book(s) and quit the police force.

    A modified version of, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink… you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him not piss in it. Which is what most prosecutors and judges do — they piss on fairness and honor.

  265. Andy Says:

    And there’s this: “The Most Dangerous Philosophy: What The Oligarchs Don’t Want You To Know”, via the Corbet Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFHnidObbc

  266. Andy Says:

    I can’t look an innocent individual in the eye, who harmed no one, that has unfortunately been attacked by those who call themselves government; I can’t tell the innocent individual that it’s necessary that he/she suffer/compromise their integrity and conscience for the so called greater good of the group/society/majority. To compromise good ideals for bad ideals diminishes the good while increasing the bad.

    I’ve very briefly written about the impossibility of fight or flight from men and women who call themselves government: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65674.html#pid65674

  267. NonEntity Says:

    Galt, you use the fiction “the state” to obfuscate the fact that violent individuals agress against others and seek to control them, to enslave them. This is either delusion on your part or outright dishonesty.

  268. Andy Says:

    If you have cancer, do you want the doctor to eliminate some of the cancer or all of the cancer? Do you want to reign in the criminal organization that is men and women who call themselves government? Or, do you want to abolish the government-mafia?

    How much money and energy have many individuals saved by using Marc’s methods? Not gone to prison or been fined thousands of dollars? It’s difficult to make an accurate accounting of how much Marc’s work has helped people. Meanwhile juan galt claims/asserts that he has done more than Marc to reign in the state. Which I suppose is true because juan’s goal is to reign* in the so called state, yet maintain the existence of a state. That’s not Marc’s goal. Marc’s goal is for the so called state to provide it’s services on a voluntary basis. In other words, abolish the ruling class which is in essence founded on the initiation of violence, threat of violence, coercion and involuntary interaction.

    *Reign in the state to what? The U.S. constitution which says, we’re allowed to rob you?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

  269. NonEntity Says:

    The fact that you, Galt, deride Lysander Spooner leads me to believe you are deceitful. If you could find honest fault with his logic you would not have to resort to ad hominem attacks. So while you are rather articulate you have shown yourself to be unworthy of common respect.

  270. juan galt Says:

    NonE the Mindreader, the Purveyor of Restatement.
    I use “the state” to describe govt here in the US. And yes both are “fictions” that I use to represent the “will” of the People of the US (of the People, by the People, for the People, etc). Call it what you wish. Being a “fiction”, the State is not evil, corrupt, power hungry, doesn’t wage war, doesn’t inflict harm, put people in jail, steal people’s money, doesn’t kill people, accept bribes or have sex for influence. PEOPLE are and do those things. Yet Spooners (anarchists), who claim to be rational and logical, choose to ignore inherent human frailties and believe that at some magical time, people of the world will deny their human emotions, desires and frailties and adopt NAP and voluntarism. Now THAT’S delusional IMO! Humans are imperfect and thus their institutions are imperfect. DROs and ostracism are even more imperfect ideas. Utopia is a wonderful thing to “Imagine” and there have been many theories on how it can be realized. I’ve chosen to create my own Utopia, my way. I decided not to wait for the rest of the People to act – instead of just talk.

    Juan “living the dream” Galt

  271. juan galt Says:

    UH oh. I’ve “derided” the prophet. Should I be stoned? Oh wait, I already am.

    The only thing I’ve said about Spooner is that I think his “philosophy” was driven by his loss in Court and business. I’ve also said that before his loss he was a “devout” believer in the Constitution and he claimed rights as a US citizen. I’ve simply said that I don’t totally buy into his and others political philosophy. So, to NonE, disagreement is an indication of a deceitful person. Because I have chosen a different way to “make a difference”, I am deceitful? You’ve exhausted your credibility.

  272. NonEntity Says:

    Utopia no. Rationality and integrity on an individual basis are the best we can hope for. To support preemptive violence as a solution because perfection, whatever that could possibly mean, is not possible is to become the problem not the solution.

  273. juan galt Says:

    Perhaps if the drunk driver, that killed my first wife, had experienced the preemptive “violence” of a safety checkpoint, my wife would still be alive. I guess to you, her sacrifice for his “freedom” from “evil” police intervention is justified. Oh wait, there has to be injury before a crime is committed – endangerment notwithstanding.

  274. NonEntity Says:

    I can’t imagine the pain of your loss.

  275. Andy Says:

    Do no harm.
    Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
    When an individual tells you to leave them alone, you leave them alone. Otherwise, you may suffer the consequence of them using defensive violence against you and harm you. To not leave the individual lone could be putting yourself at unnecessary risk of harm or death.

    Anarchy means no rulers. That includes rapist, murderers, thieves and con”artists” who initiate violence, threats of violence and fraud to rule over their individual victims.

    If I were to label myself it would be a voluntaryist. Simply because it more readily applies to rejecting ALL criminal acts, not just those in a “government”/”state” ruling class. Eliminate all the cancer as best you can. There will probably always be some criminals — individuals who violate the NAP — yet none will be considered legitimate as they are now with “State” “governments”.

  276. Andy Says:

    I too had a loved one killed by a drunk driver. I don’t have anywhere near all the solutions for all of life’s problems.

    There are 7+ billion people that I’m sure all solutions will come. For example, car manufactures selling cars with optional anti-alcohol control device. Breathe in the tube or the car won’t start. Too much alcohol and the car won’t start. Insurance companies adjust their prices according to whether a car has an anti-alcohol device. Knowing that possible solution will not be fail proof anymore than police enforced alcohol check points are fail proof.

    With a voluntary society prices plummet, thus the additional cost of the anti-alcohol device would be negligible; as would be taxi cab fares. “States” that have legalized recreational cannabis/marijuana have seen a reduction of alcohol-related fatalities. There’s a high probability that in a voluntary society alcohol consumption would decline.

    From the most recent podcast, queued to start at 24:16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXPl42you_Y&feature=youtu.be&t=1456

  277. Andy Says:

    Do police at their alcohol checkpoints in attempt to stop drunk drivers pay money to individuals who don’t drink alcohol for their time and inconvenience for being threaten with violence if they don’t stop? They’ve never paid/reimbursed me. Time lost that I’ll never get back.

    These topics would be best served taking them to the forum.

  278. Andy Says:

    If human frailties equate to individuals being incapable of self governing, not capable of limiting themselves to voluntary interactions, how is it they could be capable of governing others. Forcing strangers to give you money is a failure of self-governing.

    Voluntaryists lead by example; they want more people to follow their lead.

    “Government” employed statists, men and women forcing strangers to give them money are a bad example, not to be followed.

  279. juan galt Says:

    The US Constitution was a “self-governing” document as originally intended. It only applied to those who “ran” the “operations” of govt –
    NOT to individuals. Human frailties have perverted it by People looking to govt to solve problems – social and economic. My God, look how People accept income redistribution – and there’s no revolution? Look at the college campuses – demonstrations against free speech. Over half the voters in the last election voted for “socialism”. And you just want to single out govt employees? As was said in “Soylent Green” – IT’S PEOPLE! They’re the problem with the “system”. Govt hasn’t put a gun to any one’s head – it doesn’t need to – People demand more govt. They’re hooked on the “goodies” – especially the freeloaders.

    The problem is that your ideals, no matter how noble, will fail, at least in our lifetime. Unfortunately, the majority, for better or worse, has the power, force and will to enforce what they consider THEIR rights to others property. Everyone on this thread forgets that I was a member of the Posse Comitatus and gave seminars like stevens over 40 years ago. I’ve kept my beliefs and succeeded in Life to where I could have my personal Utopia – my “no state project”, if you will.

    Juan “living the dream” Galt

  280. Randall Says:

    @juan sed:

    “The US Constitution was a “self-governing” document as originally intended. It only applied to those who “ran” the “operations” of govt”

    Would you then say that the W-4 is fraudulent document? I think it is. Look at line 7 then look at Title 26 3402(n). The two sentences don’t match thus misleading the signer. Fraud in the factum or fraud in the inducement???

  281. juan galt Says:

    First off the Constitution originally did NOT allow taxing of individuals. Second, I haven’t seen a W-4 in 35+ years, so I couldn’t comment. I haven’t filled out my own taxes for over 40 years, so I haven’t looked at Line 7 (I just did). I haven’t paid/filed Income Tax for about 8 years, but I’m sure there can be typos, but I think you’re referring to the misinterpretation of section 3402(n) floating around. Fraud? No, misinterpretation. The two sentences are describing two different things – that’s why they don’t match.

  282. juan galt Says:

    OOPS. Sorry, forget what I wrote about 3402(n). There should be no misinterpretation as 3402(n) deals with withholding, not reporting amounts on Line 7.

  283. Randall Says:

    @juan

    Ummm, no the 3402(n) sez:

    (1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year,

    and

    (2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

    the W-4 Line 7 sez:

    • Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability, and

    • This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability

    3402(n) language is what I think they meant to put in Line 7 but instead they decided to be misleading and put the other.

  284. juan galt Says:

    Thanks for clarifying the two in question. I was mixed up, I was looking at Line 7 of the 1040.
    Section 3402(n) are instructions for employers when they receive a W-4 with Exempt on Line 7 and what Exempt means.
    Line 7 on the W-4 is where the employee claims exemption from withholding, because, he swears, he owed no taxes in the previous year and doesn’t expect to owe taxes for the current year either.
    Section 3402(n) is instruction, Line 7 is a declaration.

    Back in the day when I was associated with Irwin Schiff, we had 2 people who filed Exempt W-4 and the corp honored them until the IRS contacted them. They began withholding and we sued them for breach of contract. The IRS came in and tried to fine them $500 each for filing a false or frivolous (I forget) W-4. The case was removed to US District Court and the IRS flew in 3-4 attorneys as amicus curiae. At this time I’m not yet an attorney, and the Federal Judge thinks I’m a law student, so he lets me be “counsel” for my 2 “clients”. My 32 page brief proved (in my opinion) that withholding applies only to govt employees. What a hoot that case was!!

  285. NonEntity Says:

    Galt sed, “Govt hasn’t put a gun to any one’s head…” — sigh.

  286. juan galt Says:

    NonE, the editor, quoted Galt incompletely to fit the narrative – sigh while smh.

    Galt said (unedited) “Govt hasn’t put a gun to any one’s head – it doesn’t need to – People demand more govt”. Meaning, in context, that the govt hasn’t had to use force to increase their control in the US – the People have allowed it and continue to demand it.

  287. NonEntity Says:

    Galt is obviously a liar or an idiot. Evidence? The fully expressed quote.

  288. NonEntity Says:

    Cops don’t shoot dogs either. Nor do politicians order entire civilizations to be destroyed. Nope. Never happens. Nope.

  289. NonEntity Says:

    The bright spot on the horizon is that when the radiation from Fukushima wipes out all “higher level” life on earth it will take all the voters and other violent scum along as well.

  290. Andy Says:

    If human frailties prevent individuals from self governing how is it then that they’re capable of governing others?

    What differentiates statists from minarchists? Minarchists champion statism-lite. Akin to telling a doctor to remove SOME of the cancer but not all of the cancer.

    Minarchists, as well as minarchist lawyers, have no evidence proving the argument that just because an individual is in Ohio the Ohio constitution and laws apply to the individual.

  291. juan galt Says:

    And the radiation will finally rid the Earth of mamby pamby, excessive talking, hypocritical numbskulls who waste time feeling self-righteous because they think they are “moral” and anyone who thinks differently are “evil”. They use the word ‘statist” as a pejorative, yet they are members and supporters of a statist community – thus revealing their cognitive dissonance.

    What evidence can Spooners produce that prove their argument that they have individual “rights” just because they say so? NONE. What evidence can they produce that proves their argument that the State has no authority over them? NONE. What evidence can they produce that prove their ideas of anarchy can and will work for the US or the world? NONE. What have they accomplished or changed as a group or as individuals that prove their political philosophy isn’t bullshit? NOTHING.

    NonE previously said – (I sadly note that some here appear to want to crush their opponents with logic rather than leading them with an open heart. I’m sure I’m guilty of this myself at times. It’s not a worthy attribute, in my opinion.) – a rational thought. NonE is now exhibiting inconsistency. As I said before, NonE’s credibility is exhausted and Spooners suffer from cognitive dissonance.

    Oh well. I remain happy and successful,
    Juan “living the dream” Galt

  292. Randall Says:

    @juan,

    Sooooo, what was the outcome of the case???

  293. juan galt Says:

    Randall –
    The corp’s defense was that they were following IRS regs. The IRS said they “merely gave advice” to the corp. I challenged that not only was there no law that required the corp to disregard a W-4 claim of Exemption, but the corp was bound by law to honor it per 29 USC 3402(n). I then challenged if withholding applied to my clients or anyone but govt employees.

    The judge set on the case for over 6 months and then decided that to rule in our favor would be against “public policy” – no mention of law. The corp moved to sanction us with their costs of litigation – $7500. I countered with – they had caused their costs by illegally ignoring our W-4. The judge denied their motion. My “clients” and I were not equipped with necessary funds or knowledge to appeal to the 10th Circuit, however I think we had grounds on the “public policy” thing. I realized that if the judge had ruled in our favor, the process of “withholding” would have been in jeopardy. I believe after this case I became one of the IRS most wanted, although I couldn’t prove it.

    There were a lot of twists and turns that made the case a real learning experience and shortly thereafter I decided to go to law school to gain the necessary knowledge to fight on the legal battlefield.

  294. Andy Says:

    Rights are mental constructs of obligations intertwined via contract. Negotiating the four elements of a contract is where and when the mental construct of rights are created.

    Men and women who call themselves government have the same SOF (standard operational foundation) of initiating violence/force, threat of violence/force, fraud and coercion that their private non-government criminal “colleagues” that rape assault steal murder kidnap cage and con/defraud innocent men women and children. Criminals in and out of so called government have the same SOF — do as I say or I’ll hurt you.

    The highest authority resides with each individual. The closest I can get to an external authority is a guardian. Even then the guardian’s foremost priority is to guard against harm being done to their client. Thus, when the guardian tells another individual to leave his/her client alone that authority is the same as that of telling the client what to do and or not do; with the intent of protecting the client from himself or herself. Think of hiring a nanny to look after your children; would it be Hillary Clinton or Betty White that you’d chose?

    Knowing that humans are flawed, the real question is, do you need a flawed human as a guardian? Especially one who forces you to give them money — Hillary Clinton — to protect you from other people — Betty White — forcing you to give them money; regardless of the near zero probability that Betty White would steal your stuff? Even then, those who call themselves government have no duty/obligation to protect you from anyone.

    Can a fact be a flaw? In offering to interact with another individual, I don’t know whether my proposed actions with the individual, as benign as I intend my actions to be, I don’t know that my actions may harm the individual. Thus, I trust the individual to know best and respect their authority when they decline my offer to interact — telling me to leave them alone, I respect their authority. It is by my authority that I chose to leave them alone.

    It’s somewhat ironic that in that scenario, by the other individual telling me to leave them alone they have guarded me against harming them for which I would have regretted had they not stopped me — that is, declined my offer to interact with them.

    And of course there’s this… for me to force myself onto another individual would be putting myself at unnecessary risk of harm due to the individual using violence in self defense against me.

    The thing is, individuals interacting on a voluntary basis does no harm to anyone.

    Ask a hundred individuals, do you want all your interactions with other individuals to be voluntary? That is, do you want the freedom to chose whether to accept or decline to interact with anyone who offers to interact with you? Do you want no one to force themselves on you?

    Addendum.

    For a defense lawyer to fight on the legal battlefield he/she must never challenge the prosecutor to show evidence to support their argument that because his client was in Ohio their constitution and laws apply to the lawyer’s client and the court has jurisdiction, which is an essential element of the charge against his client. That is, the defense lawyer doesn’t protect/defend his client from prosecutorial misconduct — he gave the prosecutor a free pass for cripes sake!

    I remain happy, successful and most important of all, honest.

  295. juan galt Says:

    ALL participants on the legal battlefield are governed by the rules of that forum. Included are the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure. The Rules of Evidence determine what is to be considered by the judge as “required and sufficient” evidence. If you were knowledgeable of the these rules, you would know WHAT evidence is sufficient to prove the laws apply and the Court has jurisdiction. Any claims to the contrary are legally frivolous because, honestly, there exists no legal authority to support said claims. Therefore, no knowledgeable and skilled professional would assert a losing or even frivolous claim – exposing their client to potential damage. However, a non-professional like stevens has no problem exposing his “clients” and that’s honest?

    Juan “the honest legal scholar” Galt

  296. juan galt Says:

    ALL participants on the legal battlefield are governed by the rules of that forum. Included are the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure. The Rules of Evidence determine what is to be considered by the judge as “required and sufficient” evidence. If you were knowledgeable of the these rules, you would know WHAT evidence is sufficient to prove the laws apply and the Court has jurisdiction. Any claims to the contrary are legally frivolous because, honestly, there exists no legal authority to support said claims. Therefore, no knowledgeable and skilled professional would assert a losing or even frivolous claim – exposing their client to potential damage. That would be misconduct. However, a non-professional like stevens has no problem exposing his “clients” and that’s honest?

    Juan “the honest legal scholar” Galt

  297. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Galt wrote: “Back in the day when I was associated with Irwin Schiff,”

    H.E.D. wrote: “Back in the day when I was associated with Alan Greenspan,”

    Q. What do these two statements have in common?

    A. No evidence.

  298. NonEntity Says:

    Some point in the future when Habby and I elope. …

  299. NonEntity Says:

    Notice the similarity here… “ALL participants on the legal battlefield are governed by the rules of that forum.” … “Fuck you, PAY ME!”

  300. Randall Says:

    @NonE

    And those participants are also know as “Goodfellas”.

    😛 😀

  301. Randall Says:

    sorry, *known*.

  302. juan galt Says:

    “Fuck you, PAY ME!”

    How funny. I was in a dispute resolution (mediation) 2 years ago and one party said that exact thing to the other party.

  303. Randall Says:

    @juan:

    Have you read Tommy Cryer’s Motion to Dismiss?

    http://wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/Cryer/CRYER–MotiontoDismiss.pdf

  304. juan galt Says:

    Randall:
    Thanks for the link, I had not read it. In fact, it has just been recently that I became aware that a lot of what I used to give seminars on, was still around – so I’m not up to date on IRS cases. I practiced constitutional and tort law, didn’t do any criminal or tax law.
    I liked the motion and arguments. Some I had made 40 years ago. I liked his rationale regarding his revenue. However, since it was his FOURTH motion to dismiss and since it was about 10 years ago and there have been no media coverage of his win, I assume his motion was denied. It would be interesting to see the Court’s reasoning for denial.
    Thanks again for the knowledge.

  305. Randall Says:

    @juan

    Well he actually won his case.

    https://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php/law-library/brief-legal-summary/there-is-no-law

  306. juan galt Says:

    Randall
    As well he should! Too bad he died so young, I would have enjoyed meeting him. His legal research and writing style is similar to mine. Yes, even back in the 70s & 80s there were some wins at jury trial. The right jury could see through the IRS BS. I think he had a great argument for his legal revenue only being subject to State taxes (for the privilege of practicing law) and not the fed. However, my practice has always been interstate – commerce clause you know. I notice it was found he did owe a goodly amount to the IRS, but with his death I assume they would go after his estate.
    https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexID=5975532

  307. Andy Says:

    It’s amusing the way juan galt pretends he’s not a statist. A statist lawyer who gives a free pass to prosecutors on their prosecutorial misconduct, at his clients’ expense, no less. A lawyer who allegedly defends his clients by giving a free pass to prosecutorial misconduct. How can that not be defending the statist quo?

    Goodfellas are wise guys in bed with the mafia. Here’s the video clip: Paulie, fuck you pay me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48

  308. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Unsupported assertion:
    “His legal research and writing style is similar to mine.”

  309. juan galt Says:

    It’s amusing the way people in this thread pretend and have convinced themselves they are not statists but consider others are. It must be their feeling of self-righteousness. Galt, for instance, has done NO MORE than they have to promote statism. However, Galt has taken action, whereas Spooners in this thread just talk about how evil govt employees are. What’s funny is that Galt has never been a govt employee. To the contrary, he has actually participated in holding govt employees responsible for their “evil” deeds and overreach. Galt’s actions have not just been for his benefit, like Tommy Cryer or Larken Rose, but has benefited all others in the US as well. No one is helped if people can be still be damaged by govt fines or imprisonment because the law remains “on the books”. Success is measured by whether other people can be harmed by the same govt action or whether the govt action is stopped and can no longer “do harm”. Cryer, Rose, Stevens and others in this thread have changed no laws nor have they stopped any govt “evil” acts. So what good are they to the “cause”? Anyone can just parrot what others have said or written. I notice all Spooners “mechanically” repeat the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over – like robots.

    I don’t expect legally ignorant ideologues, who have no idea what constitutes “prosecutorial misconduct”, rules of evidence or procedure, to recognize my work as benefiting them – even though it has. To recognize this fact would upset their narrative. So while you Spooners sit in your mom’s basement, typing how logical and moral you are (compared to others in your opinion) – we, people of ACTION, will continue to do the heavy lifting. AND you freeloaders will continue to reap the benefits of our efforts.

    Juan “a man of action” Galt

  310. juan galt Says:

    Unsupported assertion –
    “Too bad he died so young, I would have enjoyed meeting him”.

  311. Andy Says:

    What’s the website address of jaun galt’s body of work that he has achieved and the means to achieve it. The way I see it Marc’s website shows his means are consistent with the ends; “Bringing about a Voluntary Society one visitor at a time.”

    And, Marc is spot on explaining prosecutorial misconduct as well as judicial misconduct. Not to mention exposing their contradictions; their means being inconsistent with their stated ends. In other words, exposing how their actions are inconsistent with their stated ends. Simply put, if those who call themselves government were intent on protecting you and your property they wouldn’t be the first to take it by force.

    Why is galt even here if not that he sees it as competition? He hasn’t warned people off using Marc’s methods, such as ICBM has? Discussion of nonexistent individual rights notwithstanding, galt has essential warned people off of reading Lysander Spooner without identifying any flaw in, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    The question is no longer “who is jaun galt?”* Rather, why is jaun galt here?

    *The phrase, “Who is John Galt?” was asked several times in Ayan Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Who+is+John+Galt&t=ffcm&ia=web

  312. juan galt Says:

    “Rather, why is jaun galt here?”

    Asked and answered in past comments.

  313. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Unsupported assertion:

    “Galt’s actions have not just been for his benefit, like Tommy Cryer or Larken Rose, but has benefited all others in the US as well.”

    Unsupported assertion = No evidence provided.

  314. juan galt Says:

    Unsupported assertion = No evidence provided. Unsupported assertion:

    “galt has essential warned people off of reading Lysander Spooner…”

    To the contrary Galt said on February 19th, 2017 at 11:56 am –
    “It’s clear Marc and his follwers are die-hard believers in the political philosophical musings of people like Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Walter Block, et al. I have no problems with that, in fact I was a member of the Mises Institute for 20 years as I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics. I am, though, more of a pragmatist than an idealist. At this point in human development and interaction, I just don’t fully accept the propositions of those philosophers mentioned above. I don’t think it could work with 300 million people – at least not at this time – although I do believe the size and scope of our present govt could reasonably be reduced by 95%”.

    What makes habby think that I think he would accept any evidence from me? He has rejected that which I have provided previously. And if habby can’t see similarities in my writing and that in Cryer’s motion, that is not my problem.

  315. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Another claim without proof:

    “in fact I was a member of the Mises Institute for 20 years”

  316. juan galt Says:

    Here, debate Shayne Wissler, who has devoted time to the subject, I haven’t –
    https://forindividualrights.com/essays/against_anarchism/
    Enjoy

    Unsupported assertions? No evidence? Don’t make me laugh.
    habby (or anyone here) has provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE that proves that a “no state” would or could function better than the present “system”. OR function AT ALL with 300+ million people.
    No evidence that a no state would or could last over 200 years like the present “system”.
    No evidence that DROs would operate better than the present civil court system of dispute resolution and cannot be corrupted.
    No evidence that private “law” enforcement would not become corrupt or violate “rights”.
    No evidence that a private system could or would provide comparable services.
    No evidence that a “no state” would or could operate as claimed.

    Plenty of quotes, theories, possibilities, philosophical musings, criticisms, and ad homs – BUT NO EVIDENCE. Don’t bother responding without evidence, I’ve had enough of the incessant parroting.

  317. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I’m not debating anything.

    When I observe you make a claim, statement, or assertion without proof,
    I’m simply calling out that there is no proof.

  318. juan galt Says:

    OK, knock yourself out. Just be sure to ignore the lack of proof of “rights”, stevens successes and the “no state” assertions to maintain your inconsistencies.

    In the alternative, you might want to get a Life that doesn’t include me. Thank you for the attention (flattery?), but it is creepy.

  319. juan galt Says:

    habby
    My invitation to “debate” Wissler, if you noticed, was not directed to you. It was an open invitation to those with inquiring minds, a level of curiosity or maybe are just viewing for the first time and are not commenting. Nothing wrong with diversity in information, right?

    Juan “spreading diversity of information” Galt

  320. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Having been associated with the Posse in the 1970’s,…”

    Another claim without proof.

  321. Randall Says:

    OK, knock yourself out. Just be sure to ignore the lack of proof of “rights”, stevens successes and the “no state” assertions to maintain your inconsistencies.

    lack of proof of steven’s successes? How do you figure that Galt?

    Lots of proof on the Successes Page, my dear reader.

  322. NonEntity Says:

    I see the porcine singing lessons are proceeding apace.

  323. NonEntity Says:

    Habby “creepy?” I hadn’t looked at it that way, but now that you mention it… 🙂

  324. juan galt Says:

    Randall – What you call proof on the Successes Page doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
    First, stevens has admitted that 75% of his cases are dismissed because a witness doesn’t show up – that’s common no matter who you are.
    Second, for the remaining 25%, stevens just shows a paper that indicates dismissal. Computer generated?
    Third, he NEVER shows the page that has the REASON for the dismissal – could be a witness didn’t show up or a deal was reached.
    Fourth, I have obtained some of those pages that explain the REASONS for dismissal and,
    Fifth, NOT ONE case has been dismissed because of stevens “legal” tactics” – no proof of jurisdiction, the laws don’t apply, etc. This includes cases by judge or jury. In at least one case stevens “client” was sanctioned $6000 for using stevens “frivolous and merit-less” “legal” claims.
    As I’ve said repeatedly, stevens “legal” claims and tactics are based on his political philosophical beliefs NOT based on law – that’s why they fail – NOT because of any “evil” or “corrupt” system (although there are some corrupt people in govt as in any human institution).

    I am amazed that people in this thread, who demand evidence for everything, totally accept stevens claims without evidence that his “legal” tactics actually work. Now, since I’ve come along, stcvens takes extra care in redacting his “proof”, so no one can find the truth. It’s funny but yet pitiful, to me, that you and others here are so emotionally invested concerning how “evil” and crooked govt is, you can’t see the con man feeding you propagandized BS – it’s called diversion.
    That’s how I figure that.

    Juan “tellin’ it straight” Galt.

  325. NonEntity Says:

    Juan, regarding “rights,” Marc is very clear in his position that, outside of contacts, “rights” don’t exist. In fact, that’s his whole foundation. People claiming to have government authority are claiming the right to cage others, to steal from others, to control others… Marc simply asks them for evidence that they do indeed have the right to do these things. Funny how they get all flustered and filled with rage when confronted with their own bullshit.

  326. NonEntity Says:

    Sure, they have the power to do these things, but that does make their actions “right” any more than it does any common thug. If you want to claim that predation is a natural part of the world, I have no argument with that. That doesn’t make it “right,” it simply acknowledges that predators exist.

  327. NonEntity Says:

    It is investting to observe how successful Juan’s legal training has been. He’s able to twist reality to fit the narrative he’s trying to sell with no apparent conflict with any sense of honor. I don’t know if this qualifies as psychopathic behavior or not, but it quacks like a duck.

  328. NonEntity Says:

    “investting” = interesting

  329. NonEntity Says:

    “but that does make their actions…” = but that does NOT make their actions…

  330. juan galt Says:

    NonE – Here’s an interesting take on this “rights” thang.

    http://freenation.org/a/f31h4.html

    Enjoy

  331. juan galt Says:

    Geez NonE – calm down and you won’t be so flustered.
    Please explain what you perceive as the narrative I’m trying to sell. My narrative is that stevens “legal” tactics don’t work in a legal forum AND that everyone in this thread lives in a place where the political philosophy of Majoritarianism is practiced and they all contribute to and thus materially support said Majoritarianism. Whether anyone here “buys” into my narrative or not, is of no consequence to me.

    Juan “even without legal training I could spot bullshit” Galt

  332. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “stevens just shows a paper that indicates dismissal. Computer generated?”

    Yep, must be a computer generated circuit clerk’s stamp mark.

    http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/dismissal-with-prejudice.jpg

    The image is evidence of Galt being Galt.

  333. Andy Says:

    “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

    Do those who advocate statism lite (aka minarchy), such as juan galt, think that when so called government employees fail to protect an individual who was robbed or assaulted that the individual has a valid claim for a lawsuit against the government for failure to do its duty to protect? Or, does the ministatist (aka, minarchist) think the so called government should be given a free pass when it fails in it’s duty to protect the individual?

  334. Andy Says:

    “What’s the difference between the government and the mafia? The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime.” ~ Brett Veinotte

    Trial lawyers are like wiseguys. They’re not employees of the mafia. Whether it’s the Gambino crime family or the government mafia, they’re in bed with organized crime for which there are certain unwritten rules for wiseguy defense lawyers that they must not breach. Just as mafia wise guys must never touch a “made man”, wise guy defense lawyers have certain rules they must adhere to if they want to remain in good standing with the government mafia.

    For example, wise guy defense lawyers must not object to a prosecutor’s prosecutorial misconduct for putting an unqualified witness on the witness stand; a wiseguy defense lawyer must not object to a prosecutor’s prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor makes an argument without evidence to support his argument. A wiseguy defense lawyer must not object to a judge’s judicial misconduct when he or she allows to stand (doesn’t strike) the testimony of an unqualified impeached witness; a wiseguy defense lawyer must not object to a judge’s judicial misconduct when he denies the defense an effective cross examination.

  335. juan galt Says:

    Way to come to stevens defense, wondered who would be the first when I added “Computer generated?”

    But what’s important is, I have the other pages that show the REASON on which that order is based. And it was NOT because, as stevens leads people to believe, “there’s no evidence that the laws apply”. In fact, Ms. Leeson NEVER made that argument in her motion. The REASON her case was dismissed was due to an error in procedure by the Magistrate’s assistant. Ask stevens to post those 4 pages. If he won’t and you want to see them, just give me your email and I will provide them – circuit clerk’s stamp and all.

    Juan “Galt being Galt” Galt

  336. juan galt Says:

    The Luria quote is a paragraph of “historical” dicta, not a court ruling. The next sentence, conveniently ignored, explains what kind of case Luria was.
    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

    At issue was whether Luria, a naturalized citizen, had “fraudulently and illegally procured, a certificate of citizenship theretofore issued to George A. Luria by the court of common pleas of the city and county of New York.”

    You make a common “internet lawyer” mistake of quoting dicta, not holding.

    Juan “setting the record straight” Galt

  337. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Way to come to Stevens defense” is Galt’s errant assumption and projection regarding H.E.D.’s motivation. Galt is wrong.

    “wondered who would be the first when I added “Computer generated?””
    Is just another claim without proof.

  338. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “You make a common “internet lawyer” mistake of quoting dicta, not holding.”

    And when SCOTUS quotes dicta?

  339. Andy Says:

    Do those who advocate statism lite (aka minarchy), such as juan galt, think that when so called government employees fail to protect an individual who was robbed or assaulted that the individual has a valid claim for a lawsuit against the government for failure to do its duty to protect? Or, does the ministatist (aka, minarchist) think the so called government should be given a free pass when it fails in it’s duty to protect the individual?

  340. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Galt implies that these words should be ignored as if never written:

    “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)”

    Is citizenship not membership in a political society?
    Does citizenship not imply a duty of allegiance on the part of the member?
    Does citizenship not imply a duty of protection on the part of the society?
    Are these not reciprocal obligations?
    Is one not compensation for the other?

  341. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Just in case he missed it Andy:

    Andy Says:
    April 21st, 2017 at 7:39 am

    Do those who advocate statism lite (aka minarchy), such as juan galt, think that when so called government employees fail to protect an individual who was robbed or assaulted that the individual has a valid claim for a lawsuit against the government for failure to do its duty to protect? Or, does the ministatist (aka, minarchist) think the so called government should be given a free pass when it fails in it’s duty to protect the individual?

  342. juan galt Says:

    Sooooo, you DON”T want evidence that proves stevens has mislead you? OK. Instead you want proof of my “wondering”. You’re either weird or sick.

    Juan “smh” Galt

    PS: When SCOTUS quotes dicta, it’s still dicta – unless it is included in the holding thus making it binding.

  343. Andy Says:

    citizen definition: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=citizen+definition&t=ha&ia=definition

  344. Andy Says:

    citizen: 1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/citizen

  345. Andy Says:

    “Wiseguy defense lawyer”… What does that even mean? answer here: http://marcstevens.net/featured/jail-no-substitute-evidence.html#comment-212058

  346. NonEntity Says:

    My thoughts on the “reciprocal agreements” issue:http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8923-post-66143.html#pid66143

  347. JOHN COKOS Says:

    Calvin: You sound like your quoting from Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book.” and Chairman Marc Said….”.LOL

  348. juan galt Says:

    Immigration, naturalization, citizenship are not areas of law that I practice.

    Unlike “internet lawyers”, my legal training (and common sense) dictates that one should not talk out of their ass on shit they don’t know or understand. IE: “internet lawyers” that are ignorant of or don’t understand: the difference between dicta and holding; prosecutorial or judicial misconduct; proper witness examination; rules of evidence and procedure.

    Juan “growing weary of the parroting and misconceptions” Galt

  349. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Juan “growing weary of the parroting and misconceptions” Galt”

    But not weary enough to just go away.

  350. Andy Says:

    Galt argues law because he has no facts to support the argument that to an individual that is physically in Arizona the constitution and laws apply.

  351. juan galt Says:

    The comic relief is worth staying. Don’t reference me or my words and I will stay silent. It’s obvious you have no use for information of how the legal system works (other than a juvenile caricature) or evidence that proves stevens has misled people. At least it’s out there now in this thread for the open minded to see and ponder.

    Juan “sticking around for the comedy” Galt

  352. juan galt Says:

    The application of law is a legal issue and question. Therefore, it is answered with the facts required by the rules which govern the evidence required to establish whether a fact is admissible and thus allowable to be considered. Once the fact meets the requirements it can be used to support the legal argument. I refer you to my prior comments on the 5 types of legal arguments.

    Juan “giving free law lessons” Galt

  353. Andy Says:

    Galt still has no facts to support the argument that to an individual that is physically in Arizona the constitution and laws apply.

    Talk about comedy, galt claims he’s trying to “reign in”/reform the government mafia, yet he’s against those who call themselves government offering and providing their services on on a voluntary basis.

  354. Andy Says:

    Tongue-in-cheek lawyer joke told in sincerity by a lawyer. When you don’t have the facts on your side, argue the law. When you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, pound on the table.

    Absent facts/evidence proving the constitution and laws apply to an individual, discussing the laws is moot, irrelevant.

  355. juan galt Says:

    The facts of being at a physical location, at a specific time, doing or not doing a prohibited or required act is sufficient proof, according to the rules of evidence and the 5 types of legal arguments, to make a legal conclusion that the law in question is applicable. Other evidence considered factual is of a statutory or other legal authority nature. This way of reaching a conclusion may not satisfy those who do not understand or just don’t agree like marc and andy, but that’s how a legal conclusion is reached nonetheless. All the whining, anger and ad homs will not change the rules or methods.

    Outside of the legal forum and its rules, you can make all the arguments you want based on your opinions and beliefs. You can even call legal professionals “wiseguys” and judges killers with impunity.

  356. juan galt Says:

    LMFAO Andy doesn’t get when that joke it applicable.

  357. Andy Says:

    If prosecutors had evidence to prove their argument/claim that, to an individual that is physically in Arizona the constitution and laws apply, they’d show the facts/evidence.

    If prosecutors had facts/evidence they would show the facts/evidence and, it would be consistent from one prosecutor to the next. In other words, all prosecutors would use the same facts and evidence to support their argument; not a plethora of obfuscations and evasions, such as, because we put people in prison or, because we said so or, you’re here in this courtroom, aren’t you, or, you have a driver’s license don’t you, and etc.

  358. Andy Says:

    I repeat: Absent facts/evidence proving the constitution and laws apply to an individual, discussing the laws is moot, irrelevant.

    Law is opinion backed by a gun.

  359. juan galt Says:

    “Law is opinion backed by a gun”. ALL “rights” that survive are backed by a “gun”. Without force to claim and assert “rights” they cease to exist. The majority, which has the power and force to enforce their “rights”, here to prosecute an “offender”, have decided that people within their “property” boundaries will obey their customs and laws or will be subject to consequences. Now without superior force or choosing to leave their “property” – your assertions that their laws don’t apply to you just because you’re on their “property” – will be met with the necessary force to exact punishment. Now, I’ve never been involved with criminal law, but I’m pretty sure this is how it works.
    For further consideration about survival of rights see –
    http://freenation.org/a/f31h4.html

    Juan “you’ve got me mixed up with a criminal attorney, I’ve only done dispute resolution” Galt

  360. NonEntity Says:

    Andy sed, “I repeat:…” — brick wall, m meet brick wall. 🙂

  361. Andy Says:

    Okay, NonEntity show the facts that prove the argument. What’s that, you have none. Your narcissist boredom got the best of you, again, didn’t it?

  362. juan galt Says:

    FYI –
    None of my clients have ever challenged jurisdiction of the Court. They want to go to Court and sue someone for damages they suffered. They aren’t afraid of the legal system, they want to use it. There is no govt prosecutor and there is no threat of being put in a cage or having a gun pointed at them. To further clarify, for those who have been under a misconception or misunderstanding, my area of practice has been –
    Tort Law – liability, negligence, damages to person or property. IE: personal injury, malpractice, product liability, insurance bad faith. Opponents: Corporations, insurance companies.
    Constitutional Law – violations of protected individual rights. Opponents: Govt and business institutions.

    You are free to believe the above or not, especially habby.

  363. Andy Says:

    Juan furiously-backpedaling Galt said the above.

    Statism lite is still statism. It’s not anarchy. Thus minarchy is a misnomer. Accuracy is that it’s still statism. Anarchy is no rulers, not some rulers.

  364. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Government: for your protection… NOT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgixrRZ-Avg

  365. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Without force to claim and assert “rights” they cease to exist. The majority, which has the power and force to enforce their “rights”, here to prosecute an “offender”, have decided that people within their “property” boundaries will obey their customs and laws or will be subject to consequences.”

    What rights did these people violate?

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pogrom&t=ffnt&iax=1&ia=images

  366. spooky2th Says:

    More like, what unnecessary harm did these people cause??? Rights are a govt (a fiction) construct.

  367. Randall Says:

    @juan:

    Could you link the case where Marc’s legal theory was sanctioned and or fined whatever you said, for $6000. And the judge said that “Mr. Stevens legal theories are frivolous”? I need proof.

    And who cares whether the cop doesn’t show up, you still win by not having to pay the “man”.

    So the case where there needs to be an injured party is frivolous????

    And just my .000000000005 cents worth, cause god knows I don’t shit about anything: The Constitution is a limit on government, not a limitation on the people.

    And the dismissals just being computer generated got a big LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL out of me, as I do see someone’s markings on the dismissal tick boxes or what have you. For me that assertion from
    you is a big FAIL.

    Juan “tellin’ it straight” Galt. — Sounds kinda familiar, are you friends with ICBMcatcher. Maybe one and the same???

    I think you are also jealous. And prove you are a lawyer. Gotta a website or something???

  368. Randall Says:

    You know if I get a ticket and the cop doesn’t show up I am going to have him subpoenaed. He ain’t getting away from me that easy.

    😛 😀

  369. Randall Says:

    Juan “setting the record straight” Galt

    Example: ICBMCatcher “pounding the nails in Marc and his followers coffins”

    Sounds realllllllllly similiar.

    One person – Two accounts.

  370. Randall Says:

    “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)”

    THANK YOU HABBY! I couldn’t make out what Marc said on the video with Aage Nost. Thanks!!!

  371. Randall Says:

    Hey JG what is your BAR number?

  372. Max2 Says:

    If people are being relieved of the burdens of law, by challenging jurisdiction, is this a function of the law? To relieve the irresponsible?

    ICBMCatcher, Jaun Galt,

    ?

  373. Max2 Says:

    Yes or no works.

  374. Max2 Says:

    Maybe the shit the world has shit fed you has always been that, exactly shit?

  375. Max2 Says:

    douches.

  376. juan galt Says:

    “Could you link the case where Marc’s legal theory was sanctioned and or fined whatever you said, for $6000. And the judge said that “Mr. Stevens legal theories are frivolous”? I need proof”.
    http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2006/03/05-8085.htm

    “So the case where there needs to be an injured party is frivolous????”
    Civil cases NOT criminal cases have “injured” parties.

    “The Constitution is a limit on government, not a limitation on the people”.
    Agreed, as it was originally written and intended.

    I am NOT ICBMcatcher and do not know him. I just decided to be “creative” in my sign-offs.

    Being a member of a bar association and having a bar number is not mandatory in the state in which I practiced law. I joined one when I first graduated from law school for about a year, but I thought it was BS so resigned. For the last two decades I have been a “hired gun” specialist, which of course requires no law license at all – only my stellar reputation among my peers.

    Don’t have or need a website. The right people know me and how to contact me. Also, I have no need to prove to someone who is not a paying client my C.V.

    PS: I haven’t been jealous of anything since I was in my 20s and it would have involved a female or an exotic sports car.

    Juan “answering questions” Galt

  377. Max2 Says:

    “So the case where there needs to be an injured party is frivolous????”
    Civil cases NOT criminal cases have “injured” parties.

    Did you even read this? What case?

  378. Max2 Says:

    You can’t even define case. OK.

    ?

  379. Randall Says:

    Civil cases NOT criminal cases have “injured” parties.

    WHAT!!!!!??? OMG,You can’t be that stupid! So the guy who got hit with the bike lock was not an injured party???? http://theralphretort.com/report-violent-antifa-u-lock-attacker-from-berkeley-identified-as-college-professor-eric-clanton-4020017/

    I am NOT ICBMcatcher and do not know him. I just decided to be “creative” in my sign-offs. — Yeah so does he and they seem very similar.

    Being a member of a bar association and having a bar number is not mandatory in the state in which I practiced law. — Which “state” was that???

    I joined one when I first graduated from law school for about a year, but I thought it was BS so resigned. For the last two decades I have been a “hired gun” specialist, which of course requires no law license at all – only my stellar reputation among my peers.

    In the case cite you sent, where does it say that “Marc Stevens instructed Mr. Edwards”? The only thing that comes close to it is this little excerpt: (3) a motion to strike Gilbert’s declaration on the grounds that Gilbert was “not qualified to testify against” Edwards (because, in part, at the February 4, 2005, meeting Gilbert could not tell Edwards “the difference between Wyoming and the State of Wyoming”)

    And by the way there is a HUGE difference between the two.

    Per Marc: We really need to take this to the forum ………

    Randall “More in tune with Logic” Randall 😛

  380. Max2 Says:

    Shithead Juan, as much as everyone expects objective indifference from a subjective system while expecting an objective one is never going to ever happen. Do you know why, it was witnessed. Subjective as a fact.

  381. Max2 Says:

    You are a shitty person.

  382. juan galt Says:

    Geez, thought you might recognize marc’s work. The page that shows marc listed as “Assistant and Adviser” is a PDF file and does not have a link. A lot of my info is in PDF with no links, the info was procured from the original filings, via my contacts, not the internet. I would be happy to take a screen shot of the page and email it to you.

    Let’s see if I can explain this where you can grasp it – In a case of assault and battery (for instance), the “crime” is not against the “injured” party – it is the violation of the statute prohibiting assault and battery. That’s why a crime victim is listed as a witness (not a plaintiff) and the complaining party is the “state” because it is the “states'” statute that was violated. In a civil case for damages, the “injured” party is the complaining party. There is a difference between a civil case for “injury” and a case of a statute “violation”.
    Aren’t creative sign-offs fun?

    Juan “not allowed to be a forum member” Galt

  383. Max2 Says:

    clock dva, the operators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR0YhckWR6A

  384. Randall Says:

    Let’s see if I can explain this where you can grasp it – In a case of assault and battery (for instance), the “crime” is not against the “injured” party – it is the violation of the statute prohibiting assault and battery. That’s why a crime victim is listed as a witness (not a plaintiff) and the complaining party is the “state” because it is the “states’” statute that was violated. In a civil case for damages, the “injured” party is the complaining party. There is a difference between a civil case for “injury” and a case of a statute “violation”.

    —I concede your explanation.

  385. Randall Says:

    Does the Welcome sign at the border of each “state” say Welcome to the State of ____________________ ?

    NO, it says Welcome to _____________________.

  386. Max2 Says:

    How are you some how better than me?

  387. juan galt Says:

    Randall – Something I missed: “Which “state” was that???”

    Here’s a list of states that require bar membership –
    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

    You can choose whichever state is not listed as a possibility. Glad to see my explanation was sufficient. I don’t think you can consider a Welcome sign as a legal declaration or some hidden meaning. Ever wonder why there are INTERSTATE highways in Hawaii?

    Juan “making a joke” Galt

  388. juan galt Says:

    Randall – Here’s something I tried for the first time – hope it works.
    Proof marc was “assistant and adviser” –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAd2iiNKkHw&feature=youtu.be

    Enjoy

  389. Max2 Says:

    Fuck you. punch you in the face. fuck you.

    See you in the funny pages

  390. Max2 Says:

    Ash Flat

  391. Andy Says:

    juan galt, why do you not want a voluntary society? Why do you want individuals to initiate violence, threat of violence and coercion against other individuals?

    Or will you say that all you’re doing is making a prediction that a voluntary society will not happen in your lifetime? Time is short so why are you still here? Why do you deride Lysander Spooner, he was a proponent of a anarchy/voluntary society?

  392. Andy Says:

    Galt, are you here prospecting for clients who want to sue someone?

  393. Andy Says:

    Galt, who is not allowing you to join the forum? Not Marc, is it? DO you have handlers who wont allow you to join the forum?

    Or is it this: “Sorry but you cannot register at this time because the administrator has disabled new account registrations.”

    You have to email Marc and he’ll manually register you. The autonomic registration function has been turned off due to spambots.

  394. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “Juan “not allowed to be a forum member” Galts”

    A liar or incompetent? Let the readers decide.

    “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:
    marcstevens[AT]mail[DOT]com
    marcstevens[AT]marcstevens[DOT]net”

  395. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “The page that shows marc listed as “Assistant and Adviser” is a PDF file and does not have a link. A lot of my info is in PDF with no links, the info was procured from the original filings, via my contacts, not the internet.”

    How convenient.

  396. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “You can choose whichever state is not listed as a possibility.”

    Sniping from the shadows?

  397. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “hope it works”

    It did. Thank you.

  398. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “(3) a motion to strike [Galt’s] declaration on the grounds that [Galt] was “not qualified to testify against” Edwards (because, in part, at the February 4, 2005, meeting [Galt] could not tell Edwards “the difference between Wyoming and the State of Wyoming”)”

  399. juan galt Says:

    A voluntary society, while a Utopian idea, seems to only work on my land not with 300+ million people.

    My clients are other attorneys.
    Thanks for the forum info.

    Juan “soon to be on the forum” Galt

  400. Randall Says:

    “The page that shows marc listed as “Assistant and Adviser” is a PDF file and does not have a link. A lot of my info is in PDF with no links, the info was procured from the original filings, via my contacts, not the internet.”

    Talk about peeling the onion, geez.

    Send that pdf here:
    worldwithoutwar@protonmail.com

    I bet juan believes Assad gasses his own people too.

  401. Randall Says:

    juan,

    Most of the time there are corrupt people running the courts.

  402. Andy Says:

    So Galt is a behind the scenes back room paper shuffling lawyer for his lawyer clients — sniping from the shadows.?

  403. NonEntity Says:

    Galt sez: “A voluntary society, while a Utopian idea, seems to only work on my land…” — I don’t need to use force, except well… If I’m dealing with other people.

  404. Andy Says:

    …his clients/handlers?

  405. Andy Says:

    Galt sez: “A voluntary society, while a Utopian idea, seems to only work on my land…” — I don’t need to use force, except well… If I’m dealing with other people.

    Nailed it! Kudos NonEntity – best summary yet.

  406. Randall Says:

    @Andy and NonE:

    RIGHT! 😀

  407. juan galt Says:

    “Most of the time there are corrupt people running the courts”.

    How does this “corruption” manifest itself in civil court dispute resolution?

    NonE is back to restatements, misinterpretations and mind-reading. Where I live people don’t just talk about voluntarism, they practice it. Force is available to be applied to those who trespass our community and values.

    Obviously Randall is ignorant of “hired gun” attorney specialists. Also, I have made PDF available for viewing on my YouTube channel for those who can handle the truth.

    Juan “now a forum member” Galt

  408. Randall Says:

    “Most of the time there are corrupt people running the courts”.

    Where in my comment did I say “civil court dispute resolution”?

    — I am speaking generally, but I guess every word I type is just 100% completely wrong according to you.

    “Obviously Randall is ignorant of “hired gun” attorney specialists.”

    — Please, oh wise(guy)-one, enlighten me.

    Ignorant – well excuse me if I am not professionally trained. But you know what, neither was Erin Brockovich and look what she accomplished.

    Geez

  409. juan galt Says:

    “I am speaking generally, but I guess every word I type is just 100% completely wrong according to you”. No, I just thought that since you made the claim, you had evidence to prove it. I’m confused as to how people running the courts in a civil dispute would exercise corruption and for what gain or purpose.

    “Please, oh wise(guy)-one, enlighten me”. Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. Don’t be so sensitive.
    Just as some doctors specialize in a specific area of the human body, some attorneys specialize in a specific area of the body of law and they are hired by other law firms and attorneys to assist in cases in which these clients may lack in depth knowledge or experience.

    Geez, you’re not really a snowflake are you?

  410. Randall Says:

    Again, where did I say anything about civil dispute resolution????

    “No, I just thought that since you made the claim, you had evidence to prove it. I’m confused as to how people running the courts in a civil dispute would exercise corruption and for what gain or purpose.”

    —From word of mouth especially child support cases, mine included.

    Just as some doctors specialize in a specific area of the human body, some attorneys specialize in a specific area of the body of law and they are hired by other law firms and attorneys to assist in cases in which these clients may lack in depth knowledge or experience.

    Great, thank you. Can you share some big cases you helped win that I can look up?

    No, I’m not a snowflake.

    “Please, oh wise(guy)-one, enlighten me”. Ignorant just means lack of knowledge. Don’t be so sensitive. — I’m not being sensitive, it’s my style of typed speech. If you standing/sitting next to me I would be
    the answering you the same way.

    No comment about Erin, eh? I’m not surprised.

  411. NonEntity Says:

    Pubic Service Denouement: over on the forum there are some conversations where people are actually trying to create value. Akseeker, as an example, is working hard to develop a short of cheat-sheet that can be used by people who’ve never heard of Marc Stevens or liberty or any of such stuff. When y’all get tired of waving your dicks around you may wanna give it a gander.

  412. Randall Says:

    Yeah kinda getting tired of dick waving. On my way ………… thanks NonE. I’m out.

  413. Andy Says:

    What’s the purpose of having a monopoly on the initiation of violence?
    What’s the purpose of government?

  414. juan galt Says:

    “Again, where did I say anything about civil dispute resolution????” You claim courts are run corruptly and there are 2 main types – civil and criminal. Civil courts deal with civil dispute resolution, that’s how I got there. I can understand how there could be corruption and abuse in the criminal system for personal gain or other purpose, I simply don’t see why it would be in civil court unless someone was pocketing filing fees or taking a bribe. While child custody and support (family courts) are full of animus, I know of no corruption personally. However, I only did 2 cases so excuse my naivete’.

    Cases I’ve worked on that you can look up: US v Lopez; Burwell v Hobby Lobby; DC v Heller.

    My first thought when you compared yourself to Erin was – how pompous! – but refrained from typing. You project your negativity as a first impression a lot, don’t ya? I have worked with many “untrained” people who, like Erin, were brilliant, effective and taught me a thing or two. Hell, I was ignorant of Tommy Cryer’s work until you educated me.

  415. Randall Says:

    Can someone post something, it can be just blah blah blah. I accidentally erased my email notice and I want to unsubscribe from this thread.

    Thank you in advance if you do.

  416. Randall Says:

    Disregard, I got it.

  417. Randall Says:

    Sorry, one more thing.

    I wasn’t suggesting that I am “like” Erin Brokovich. I was suggesting that everyone has the potential to achieve what she has if they work hard enough.

    … yeah, I’m pompous. /sarc

  418. NonEntity Says:

    unblah, unblah, unblah,

  419. Randall Says:

    Thanks, NonE.

    Moving on …….

  420. NonEntity Says:

    You’re welcome, Erin.

  421. juan galt Says:

    Veni Vidi Vici

  422. Andy Says:

    Only in your delusion, which you have yet to conquer.

  423. Andy Says:

    Hillary Clinton’s version of Veni Vidi Vici: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otpyDFCPozo

  424. NonEntity Says:

    The English phrase “I came, I saw, I conquered” employs what is known as a comma splice. Using a comma to join two independent clauses (“I saw” and “I conquered”) is something that should be done sparingly, according to grammarians. Sometimes, the comma splice is avoided by using a semicolon instead: “I came; I saw; I conquered”.

  425. Andy Says:

    I found this at Wikipiedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici#English_grammar ):

    “The English phrase “I came, I saw, I conquered” employs what is known as a comma splice.[8] Using a comma to join two independent clauses (“I saw” and “I conquered”) is something that should be done sparingly, according to grammarians.[8] Sometimes, the comma splice is avoided by using a semicolon instead: “I came; I saw; I conquered”.[9]”

  426. NonEntity Says:

    Hmm. Appears to be an echo.

  427. Andy Says:

    I thought you were the author, until I “stumbled” upon it at Wikipiedia. Thus why I put it in “” (quotes).

  428. Andy Says:

    Echo??? Really!? That’s it?… Nothing to see here folks, move along.

  429. Andy Says:

    NonEntity, aka, Grammar Nazi, Sister Sleazious: Echo??? Really!? That’s it?… Nothing to see here folks, move along.

  430. NonEntity Says:

    Yes,I got it from the wiki. Unlike the forum, this space is very crude and so I was unable to make a hyper link. But since my post was completely irrelevant it didn’t seem important. Kind of like many/most/lotsa posts.

  431. Andy Says:

    After copy and pasting it’s easier to just leave intact the footnote numbers, [8], [8] and [9], rather than edit them out. Simply put a quote mark at the beginning of the paste, do the paste followed by a quote mark; as shown in my Wikipedia quote above. Maybe no relevant or important enough yet, relevant and important enough to remove the footnotes and not enclose the quote in quote marks.

    But it was a hyperlink snafu, right?

  432. NonEntity Says:

    Do you have a magnifying glass to find your mind?

  433. Max2 Says:

    NonEntity might like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iyKLnY4Mo4

  434. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said: “Do you have a magnifying glass to find your mind?”

    If you’re asking if in my mind I pay attention to small, albeit often important revealing details, the answer is obvious, isn’t it? Or, are you implying I have a small mind? I’m running circles around you; when writing/authoring, what’s the proper way to denote a quote, isn’t it to enclose the quote in quote marks?

    Also, perhaps you can help me understand the reason/purpose of editing to remove/omit the footnote numbers?

    Tip: When you can’t create a hyperlink to the source, write something like: Source is Wikipedia.

  435. DW Says:

    “If human frailties equate to individuals being incapable of self governing, not capable of limiting themselves to voluntary interactions, how is it they could be capable of governing others. Forcing strangers to give you money is a failure of self-governing.”

    –Andy

    One of the primary principles of voluntarism/anarch-capitalism is admitting this basic fact. Well said. What kind of irks me sometimes from pro-statists is when they explicitly or implicitly apply what I dub the “For the Greater Good” fallacy in order to justify the means, which is self-explanatory yet easily debunked for the simple reason that…it’s virtually IMPOSSIBLE to weigh the “good” in an individual, let alone one group against another. I think that is what is mostly absent in most debates; how can you justify the means when your imaginary measurement of “the greater good” is a just fantasy? Isn’t it safer to say that that only actions alone can be judged…but not a person’s self-worth?

    Anyway, it’s been years since I’ve lurked at this site. Wow, how things have changed! I’m coming in more regularly for now on. 🙂

  436. Nick Says:

    Icbmcatcher you should just quit. Every time you post an anarchist is born. The is no logic in anything you have said. Who is Juan Galt?

  437. Son of Liberty Says:

    I have been reading everything posted here, and I have a different perspective on Marc and tge people who claim to be “anarchists” (“a society that has no rulers,” according to Marc). I believe that Marc could actually be called an “originalist” (originalism, in this sense, being what the Founders believed). I can already hear the question being asked, “Why do you claim this?”

    The answer can be found in Shepard v. Lansing (1829): “The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”
    Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)

    Therefore, because the claim of power came from the divine right of kings previous to the existance of the US, the colonists that originally came here and established the US (the Founders and their generation) established the idea that Common Law (lex non scripta, or law not written), along with the Magna Carta (signed in 1215 to limit the power of the king) would hold to the idea of “do no harm,” and if harm was done, that government would step in and redress the grievance.

    However, that the idea that the Constitution applies can be answered by asking this question: Does the King have an obligation to tax himself if he taxes everyone else in the kingdom? And further, can the king tax himself? This is supposed on the fact that a tax is a “taking,” a legal seizure of property. Therefore, the answer to both questions is “no.” The king is under no obligation to tax himself, as he cannot logically seize his own property and give it himself. Therefore, you cannot, and gov’t cannot, take property without paying the owner of the property for it (Takings Clause, 5th Amendment).

    I’ve also heard it said like this: I have no power to tax my neighbor. I have no power to get together with three of my neighbors and tax all of my other neighbors. And none of my neighbors have the power to tax me – let alone electing representatives, and those representatives passing “laws” that say they have the power to compel me to give up my property in the name of “the Greater Good.”

    Because I am a Christian, this I find to be relevant: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.”

    Guess what? In the US, We the People are Caesar! Think about it…

  438. Son of Liberty Says:

    Now, something else to consider:

    The Constitution is a contract between the People and government – correct? If this is the case, and the Preamble claims this, then the term “posterity” must be considered.

    The context is, that posterity means “those who come after.” Therefore, the argument can be made that it is implied that the contract, along with its terms and conditions, apply to any man or woman born here (not “person,” as “person” is legal status and not fact). This is territorial citizenship, later transformed into state citizenship (circa 1787).

    Problem is, it is public record that in 1861, prior to the shelling of Fort Sumter, South Carolina, that the seven southern states that formed the Confederacy walked out of Congress, and thus, Congress ceased to exist as a lawful body (no quorum to do business [minimum membership] and adjourn properly, setting a day to reconvene [“sinus dei”, or “without day”]).

    Thus, IMO, the contract known as the Constitution became null and void. Therefore, we need to reinstitute the Constitution prior to 1861, update it to 2017, and bring it forward by lawfully reconvening Congress.

  439. Mark L. Magner Says:

    Marc,

    If you desire to be an anarchist living by your own code, then stop playing the game and put up or shut up.

    Publicly and irreversibly renounce your citizenship, form your own currency, do not pay taxes or receive tax refunds, do not use public services without paying for those services, and do not follow any local, state or federal laws. Further if you find yourself or your family robbed, attacked, raped, or murdered do not utilize our laws, law enforcement, or courts to find justice or reimbursement.

    The law of the land applies because of our social contract for government, that every inhabitant of a geographical area concedes authority. This social contract is not arbitrary and has been in existence since the first group of people banded together for security. If you don’t like the group feel free to leave any time. Luckily you are in the United States of America and have that right.

    If you truly believe anarchy is the way to go, then lead by example and leave.

  440. Marc Stevens Says:

    You should call into a show about this. How is there a contract when no one had a choice with having government and everyone is forced to pay?

  441. Boxer Says:

    @Mark Magner

    May I ask you to please show me where I explicitly agreed to this (anti) social contract?

    As you so eloquently put it:

    “Put up or shut up”.

  442. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    @Mark Magner,

    Yeah. What Boxer said.

    Marc is focused on a particular what,

    I am focused on the preceding why.

    Read this if you dare:
    http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/

  443. spooky2th Says:

    Looks like we got another one of those “you don’t like it, you can leave” dunmmies. Probably never have heard of the word, “logic” before. Too many double standards clouding his/her mind…

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 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