Categorized | Articles, Video

Jennifer Rubin – Professional Liar Defending Criminal Organization

Posted on March 25th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

I’ve always had a problem with how vicious people can disassociate from their actions and be with their family.  How do you go to work and callously harm others, then go home and laugh and play with your children?   From the pictures I found of professional liar Jennifer Rubin, you would not think she was so dishonest and cruel, but there is evidence.

[I removed the pictures of Jennifer Rubin because my web host, for now, will not stand up to these bullies.  Like youtube, they would have removed the pictures if I didn’t.  I will be getting a new web host.]

I did get proof this is the right one, unless there are two Jennifer Rubins working for the Dept. of Justice in Washington, DC.  If that is the case I will remove the picture and apologize.

I provide the “brief” she wrote in the video below.  I go through her lies so I want cover all of them here.

Her worst offenses are she falsely accuses the man I’m working with as a so-called “taxpayer” over eighty times in less than twenty pages.  She refers to the tax agent, criminal who launched the attack against a peaceful man, by his name, Evan Moses.  Even people convicted of rape are not referred to as the “rapist” in pleadings, but as defendant.  Not so when they allege you’re a mythical creature known as a “taxpayer.”  Say it enough times and it must be true.

Rubin claims no evidence was submitted proving bad faith by Moses.  This is false as a supporting affidavit was submitted with the motion to dismiss where Moses admitted to not being qualified to discuss the evidence his claims were based.  That means he had no evidence.  Signing an affidavit without having evidence is called perjury.  That is bad faith.  Continuing to pursue your complaint to have a peaceful man put in jail is criminal.

If that’s not bad enough, Rubin writes the claim must be more than just legal conclusions, legal memorandum and allegations.  Rubin does this while her entire claim against this peaceful man is legal conclusions and allegations, in a nutshell:

The laws say we can do this to you and if you don’t comply, then the law allows us to put you into a cage until you do.

There was not a single fact proving the constitution and code applied to the target of the attack.  The agent admitted he wasn’t even qualified to make the determination the “law” applied to his victim/target.  Yet, Rubin ignores the truth and spins the many lies that are standard for US attorneys.

Rubin, like many who comprise the criminal organization called the US government, appears to just turn off any understanding, honesty and compassion she may have when she goes to work.  For some it is easy to just separate the two, the standard, “I’m just doing my job” platitude.  Here is a gallery of photos of criminals under the banner of “government” doing their jobs.

execution1

If there is a Jennifer Rubin in your life, then question them on what they do on the job.  If they don’t like it, then that’s too bad, don’t let them be comfortable.  They certainly don’t care about what they are doing to their victims.  And maybe, just maybe, after being confronted about the horrible things they do on the job, they’ll start thinking about getting a job that does not involve hurting others.

The “I’m just doing my job” excuse is the same as someone, when confronted with the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals will defend what they know is wrong,  says, “But bacon.”

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year.

Yeah, but margaritas.

If you think it’s unfair to characterize Jennifer Rubin as a criminal, that you have evidence proving a document from 1789 applies to people today, then please present your evidence during a live broadcast.  Also, just because I anticipate complaints, yes, I did call Jennifer on 1 March 2016 at 1:48 and she refused to speak to me.  She stated I had to speak with their press office and they have failed to return my calls.

31 March 2016 update.  Looks like Jennifer lied again, this time to youtube about the video being a violation of youtube’s privacy policy.  You can’t expect any less from a professional liar though.  Despite the video having only publicly available information and images, the content being newsworthy and Jennifer being a government employee, youtube pulled the video anyway.  I will repost the video on another site and embed here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkU4ow_4Uwc

              

21 Comments For This Post

  1. 11:11 Says:

    Downloaded the Jennifer Rubin vid using Keep Vid.

  2. wserra Says:

    Ah, James Witt. More here:

    http://www.marcstevens.net/board/thread-8375.html

  3. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ wserra you Wes are a liar. You never provided evidence states exist, you never provided evidence there are reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection. You stopped posting and would not respond to my emails asking for the evidence. You are as dishonest as Dan Evans and Rubin. Why not join me on a live broadcast and expose me?

  4. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Ah, Wes Serra. More here:
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8283-post-57863.html#pid57863

  5. Rad Says:

    It’s not an evidence-based rational belief. It’s an insane religious belief.

  6. 11:11 Says:

    RE: Switching website hosts. Find out who hosts The Daily Stormer [http://www.dailystormer.com/]. The ADL & SPLC haven’t been able to get them shut down.

  7. Reply to 11:11 Says:

    CloudFlare.com hosts The Daily Stormer [http://www.dailystormer.com/].

  8. Pete Says:

    @Habenae Est Dominatus: I read the post you provided of the exchange between Wes Serra and yourself. Great job! You stayed totally cool, non-emotional, and on-point. Excellent Socratic questioning! The fact that your opponent refused to answer questions in order to avoid your double-bind traps means you won. Thanks for sharing!

  9. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Pete, thanks for the kind words.

    I view that line of questions as the reason the statists can never answer Marc’s request for their evidence that the laws apply.

    You might enjoy this also. It’s my thoughts, the longer version, of which those questions were derived.

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8221.html

    It’s a work in progress. I’ll eventually add more to it.

  10. jim witt Says:

    Interesting to the case posted and drawing so much attention. It’s been stressful. The “show cause (hearing?) was 19 MAY no chance to ask questions. Judge just hammering and saying yes to complying to the summons or go to jail. Some “hearing”. Very intimidating. No job, 35 yr. old truck and on S.S. pension. Must be a real plum prize. Wonder what motivates a 32 yr. old to pursue a 70 yr. old combat veteran Second “hearing to occur 0830 2JUN16, should be interesting. Ct. Rm. 4, 7th Flr. L.J. o’neill presiding. Don’t keep books and records, odd jobs and the like. Not much to go for. Maybe another trophy?

  11. 11:11 Says:

    @jim witt: The black robed criminal & persecutor know that Marc is covering this case and in my opinion, they did this to strike fear & intimidate him and his listeners. I’d have to see a copy of the order; if it read something like “defendant show cause, any he can, why the motion should not be granted.” I’d have to read the transcript or listen to the recording of the hearing to see if he limited your response to only one choice: comply or go to jail. If so, then he violated his own order as well as denied you due process. This would warrant a Judicial Misconduct Complaint to the feds and state judiciary as well as a bar complaint to whatever state he’s licensed in.

  12. jim witt Says:

    To: 11:11; Called for transcript, spoke with court reporter. She called back and asked why I wanted a copy. So I could remember what I said. Said just show up and answer questions. Asked if I would be testifying against my self, non responsive answer. Said judge would not be present, just Agent Evan D. Moses and his Attorney Bobbie Montoya. Wonder if a court reporter will be there, you know, just to be on the up and up. Asked for papers and stuff, haven’t found any for the years listed, clear back to ’97. Who keeps stuff that long? Something about a time limit? Don’t know. Yeah, comply or go to jail, the Marshall was in the room. Rode down in the elevator with us (friend of mine, along for moral support),got off on 3rd floor. Court room on 7th. Wonder what that was about. Will know Mon. 30 May about transcript.

  13. jim witt Says:

    got another mailing. Post marked 24 MAY, form 433-A, essentially wanting
    information, stuff that is public domain for those interested. Curious how to go about it. Show up and answer question’s. I guess they don’t want jurisdiction ( central to this whole matter) discussed. Wasn’t given opportunity to ask question’s. Physically and emotionally draining. Meeting set for 2JUN at 8:30 Ct. Rm. 4, 7th floor.

  14. 11:11 Says:

    Notice on line 1a where it says “Full Name of Taxpayer” and 3a “Taxpayer Social Security No.” Words have meaning, for instance, what evidence do they have to prove that you’re a “taxpayer”? If you give them all the information they want on that form, they’re going to use it to steal your property.

  15. jim witt Says:

    meeting with a friend today to go over the form. You are right about words having meaning. Probably ask for clarification for each label and ask what evidence they have that I’m a taxpayer. Section 3 line 6, given the present situation, curious on how to address that. Not really a law suit going on, more like one guy asserting himself over another. Neither party has addressed the jurisdiction. O’Neill said it was the law, probably referencing title 26. Reading the thing it looks a forced confession sheet. All that info is public domain, from my understanding. Seems like this could be an end run to gain jurisdiction by filling out this confession sheet. Feedback welcomed.

  16. 11:11 Says:

    If they take you to court, they’ll hold up that piece of paper and say something like, didn’t you admit that you’re a taxpayer when you filled this out? Isn’t this your signature right here where it says, Signature Of Taxpayer? In short, it’s more paperwork evidence that in court they can and will use against you. It might not be the deciding factor but it’s definitely another nail in the coffin.

    You could fill out and mail in that Judicial Misconduct Complaint, in which the black robed criminal violated their own rules, discussed above, and take a copy with you to this meeting, present it to the agents and demand a continuance until it’s decided if he violated your rights and if the meeting you’re being forced into is even “legal” or legitimate, as your due process was violated.

    I’d also mail a copy to John Roberts the SCOTUS, Chief Judge as well as the SCOTUS Associate Justice over your “state”.

  17. jim witt Says:

    what would be the format of the letter? how would it be constructed? Is there a particular way, or just tell how the first hearing went down? As Marc says, say as little as possible. How about stating that any information is given under threat, duress and coercion? Not of my own free will. Signing it by prefacing it with “by”, then the name, would that do any good? The prospect of jail hanging over ones head is intimidating

  18. 11:11 Says:

    Something along the line of: Heading: JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT. This Complaint is filed by [name], I may be reached at [address]. On or about [date] I was served with an order signed by LAWRENCE JOSEPH O’NEILL, ordering me to appear before him on [date] to show cause, any I could, why the motion should not be granted. The copy of the Rule and Order is attached hereto and part hereof as Exhibit A.

    I arrived at the hearing on time and after it commenced, LAWRENCE JOSEPH O’NEILL, informed me that I would only be allowed to answer in the affirmative, meaning “Yes” I would comply with the motion or be immediately jailed. See the hearing transcript attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit B.

    LAWRENCE JOSEPH O’NEILL, violated his own order (Exhibit A) in that I was not allowed to show cause any I could why the motion should not be granted. LAWRENCE JOSEPH O’NEILL, denied me due process which according to your own rules I am entitled.

    I demand an investigation into this matter. Any other violations that your investigation uncover I complain about as well.

    signature
    Name

    Sworn to and subscribed before me Notary, this _____ day of ______, 2016
    Notary signature
    Name
    Seal
    ======
    Having it notarized adds a little extra oomph. Mail it certified return receipt too.

  19. 11:11 Says:

    Marc has a good write up in his May 28, 2016 Show Notes, you might consider using some of: Former cop turned judge, “The Untouchable” Lawrence Joseph O’Neill, issued an order to show cause, but disallowed the defendant to speak freely so he could proceed to show cause by way of limiting his speech to a yes-or-no answer to the question of “are you going to comply with my order to testify against yourself?”
    http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20160528.html

  20. jim witt Says:

    11:11 The mailing: [amended proposed] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE; CIVIL CONTEMPT. Dated 25 APR 2016. Referencing the 14 JUL 15 amended order for failing to comply with summons of 29 JUL 2014. Received letter dated 25 APR 16. My friend said that she is able to make copies (CD) and has a law student to make paper copy. Monday holiday, Tuesday will contact court. Help from any quarter is appreciated. Thanks for the format, will be talking to my friend Mon. Made copies of the comments from the 28 May show.

  21. jim witt Says:

    received transcript today and printed out. E-mailed copies to marc and my friend. Talked w/ marc today, say as little as possible, let them carry the burden. Interesting the law is mentioned, how about applicability?

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