Categorized | Articles, Video

Jerry Cobb’s Mountain of Evidence or Logical Fallacy?

Posted on September 12th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

Jerry Cobb is a public information officer for the Maricopa County attorney’s office in Phoenix.  As I relate in the video, Jerry could not provide any facts to support the argument: if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply.  Jerry gave me his word that if I put the question in an email, the county attorney would provide a responsive answer.  The county attorney has not answered, but Jerry did.  Jerry has stopped responding to my emails and phone messages.

Jerry provided a lengthy email, but it’s not responsive to my question.  From my email to Jerry:

This office operates under the presumption that if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply to them.  My question is: what facts do you rely on to prove the const. and laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?

This is a question of fact.  But, when you don’t have supporting facts, you use logical fallacies to support your argument.  Jerry starts off with a straw man:

Legal and Factual Analysis:  First, this question suggests a philosophical attack on the very idea.  Specifically it is a question of whether humans should exist in civilizations or in a state of nature.

The question does no such thing, it’s not an “attack”, it’s a simple question of evidence to support an argument.  Instead of presenting the facts to support the argument, Jerry raises a straw man and proceeds to settle that argument instead.  I won’t quote it all here as it is in the video, but Jerry goes on about the Greeks and Hobbes:

Put another way, should humans live in civilizations according to the rule of civil law or in a state of nature without the rule of civil law?  These are not new questions, but questions that have been asked and answered for thousands of years by generations of humans.  The Greeks and Romans answered them…Thomas Hobbes answered this question in the Leviathan in 1651…

Wow, the Greeks predate the Arizona government by a couple of millennia.  Makes be happy to be part Greek, what foresight, but the slavery part not so much.  Jerry seems to forget Greek and Roman “civilizations” were built on a foundation of slavery and never ending warfare.  So he’s using the word “civilized” kinda loosely.  Jerry misstates my question, that’s another reason why I think his email was a copy and paste.  Jerry wrote:

Second, the above question constitutes a mixed question of law and fact, it is not simply a factual inquiry as posited, so the answer must include law and facts.  Since the question does not distinguish clearly between federal and state law, both will have to be addressed.

The question clearly included only the state constitution and laws, re-read the argument the question is regarding.  Jerry again raises his straw man by falsely claiming it’s a mixed question of law and fact.  No, it’s a question of fact only.  Jerry then gets two things factually correct:

the U.S. Constitution is a document that actually exists and its existence is a fact that is not in dispute.  Federal laws are also documents that actually exist.

They are just documents, the flawed (circular logic) argument is that they are applicable to people because the documents say so.  That they allegedly apply to me just because I’m in a certain physical area, such as Phoenix or Arizona.

Jerry, instead of providing any facts, claims the constitution is a contract:

The United States Constitution was unanimously ratified by the states on September 17, 1787, and as such is a social contract that is the basis for all laws in the United States.

As Lysander Spooner already pointed out, the constitution is no contract:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

The people, whether in 1787 or today, have no choice whether there are people called government ruling them, all support is compulsory.  You pay or go to jail.  Any argument the constitution is a “contract” or the people have “agreed” to have government is fatally flawed as all the evidence is to the contrary.  Jerry doesn’t disagree it’s pay-or-go-to-jail.

Jerry writes the following as if it’s evidence and an answer to my question:

Each day when we obey traffic laws or pay taxes, or violate the law in some way, these acts and the consequences are evidence that the social contract remains in effect.

This is Jerry’s first use of the appeal to consequences logical fallacy.  What we do after the fact is not evidence the laws apply in the first place.  Our compliance is under threat, duress and coercion, such as getting a driver’s license.  It’s done out of fear, that doesn’t mean the “documents” magically apply.  Jerry continues with the appeal to consequences, a punishment, as proof of his argument:

When a person violates federal laws they can be held accountable either civilly or criminally in a federal court, and may be compelled by court order to pay fines, sentenced to prison, or compelled to perform a certain act, such as execute a contract in accordance with its terms.  There is an overwhelming amount of factual evidence that the United States Constitution and federal laws apply throughout the United States.  For example, people serve time in federal prison, pay federal taxes, comply with federal regulations, and file lawsuits against the federal government when their constitutional rights are violated.

Reminds me of one of my favorite movies.  If Tommy Dorsey ( the unnamed band leader) had “complied” with the “offer”, would that be evidence there was a contract?  Sure, if you’re a psychopath:

But that is Jerry’s reasoning.  And if Jerry’s argumentum ad baculum is not clear enough here, Jerry makes it even more explicit:

In fact, there are inmates in the Maricopa County Jail and the Arizona Department of Corrections.  Each inmate is evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the laws apply to people in Arizona…they constitute a mountain of evidence that laws apply to you and everyone else that is physically present in Arizona.

I see it now; the laws apply to me because you put other people in jail.  That’s pretty sound logic there.  No wonder they need guns.  Stunning logic Jerry:

So to make this clear, let’s restate the argument and then the “evidence” to support it.  The argument is:

If one is physically in Arizona, then documents called the constitution and laws apply to them.  Supporting this argument is:

Each inmate is evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the laws apply to people in Arizona.

“Mountain of evidence” or just another logical fallacy?   Looks clear to me; support for Jerry’s argument is an appeal to consequences.  Without evidence proving their laws apply they are just a gang of killers, thieves and liars who deserve no compliance except when they put our lives are in imminent danger.

I encourage everyone, regardless of where they are, to stop complying with these criminals and their pretended “laws”.  Start confronting them like I have and demand the proof their “laws” apply and tell them you will not comply until they give you the proof.  Tell them any compliance is under threat, duress and coercion.  They hate hearing the truth.  You can get to it very quickly, just ask them:

If I acted like your organization, and forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal?




5 Comments For This Post

  1. indio007 Says:

    That’s some funny shit.
    Civilization wasn’t even a word in English or French when Hobbes wrote the Leviathan.

  2. steve womacks National Says:

    All gov’t is incorporated, it’s not really gov’t at all, it’s mostly foreign owned bankster scam, like strawman with birth cert, we are their chattel property, it is slave trade! Look up the OPPT filings, also check out FREEDOM CLUB USA, great site that explains so much of what they don’t want anyone to know, like truth about money, gov’t, consent, fake laws FCUSA is a MUST!

    …getting to the heart of the issue Marc way to go. There are NO LAWS, all corporate statutes, acts, regulations, codes are actually corporate Policies that have NO jurisdiction over anyone that is not employed by the “company”. The “laws” only apply to them and they ignore them!

    These gov’t people, judges, cops, BAR lawyers all are like you say, compel us by fear, abuse, threat, duress and coercion. psychopaths! to be certain. UCC 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  3. steve womacks National Says:

    all masquerade as “laws”, that word is used without authority or accuracy by the psychopaths.

  4. desertspeaks Says:

    The Clara, 102 U.S. 200 (1880)
    The Clara

    102 U.S. 200

    the maxim applies, quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.”

    Nuff said!

  5. Pete Says:

    Great work, Marc! First, you relentlessly pursued these guys until they finally answered you. Then you executed a flawless rebuttal (with help from Al Pacino). The work you are doing is SO important…keep up the AWESOME effort!

8 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Sept 13, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - Says:

    […] video responding to P.I.O. Jerry Cobb and his logical fallacies of appeal to the […]

  2. Debunking Dan Evans & Quatloos, Part 3 - More Logical Fallacies - Says:

    […] and other bureaucrats unable to provide any proof, Nick Cort is just one and my latest is Jerry Cobb.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against Dan, and being a “super lawyer” is just not […]

  3. NSP - Dec 20, 2014 - Co-hosts: Calvin and JT - Says:

    […] Jerry Cobb’s Mountain of Evidence or Logical Fallacy? […]

  4. NSP - Jan 17, 2015 - Says:

    […] Jerry Cobb’s Mountain of Evidence or Logical Fallacy? […]

  5. NSP - Apr 4, 2015 - Guest: Matt Papke - Says:

    […] Jerry Cobb confirmed that Bill Montgomery will not engage in questioning to discuss what evidence, if any, there is to prove their laws apply to anyone else. […]

  6. NSP – Apr 4, 2015 – Guest: Matt Papke - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] Jerry Cobb confirmed that Bill Montgomery will not engage in questioning to discuss what evidence, if any, there is to prove their laws apply to anyone else. […]

  7. Marc Stevens Discredits Scott Bales - Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court - Says:

    […] He agrees that is his argument, but then relies on a logical fallacy instead of evidence to support it.  Scott uses the common appeal to consequences as did Bill Montgomery: […]

  8. Drew Nelson - It's Not Coercion Because You Can Always Leave - Says:

    […] they don’t have to prove such claims.  Remember, government types have admitted many times their laws apply only because they put people in […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here