Marc Stevens Discredits Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court

Posted on April 17th, 2015 by Marc Stevens

For those who still think there’s evidence proving the laws apply to us or that I cherry pick the calls I post, I present Scott Bales, Harvard law grad and chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court.  And he fails to provide a single fact to support his argument the laws of the state of Arizona apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona.

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:


Scott thinks his argumentum ad baculum is “appropriate” though.  He’s a highly educated man and knows there is a non-fallacious appeal to consequences.  But that is only when there is a rational, evidentiary basis to support the argument, not when the consequences presuppose the validity of the argument.

If Scott could explain that it was not a logical fallacy, then the associate dean (who also refuses to speak to me) would not have ran interference, he would have let Scott explain.  I did speak with Scott after the lecture, but he refused to be recorded and he could not support his argument other than to claim people are prosecuted and sent to prison.

Scott was unable to provide any facts to support his argument.  It’s important to keep in mind that the argument is that the laws apply just because you’re physically in Arizona, not because you’re allegedly violating the laws and are being prosecuted.   The laws must be proven to be applicable before there can be valid consequences, such as violation and prosecution.  Scott and other statists believe the laws apply just because we’re physically in Arizona, it’s a non-sequitur to anyone paying attention.

It’s simple logic, the laws must apply before they can be violated.  But as we’ve seen before, the applicability is assumed  and statists skip that to get to the accusation the laws were violated.  If not, then, by Scott’s logic, the laws only apply when someone “violates” them and are prosecuted.

An analogy to demonstrate why Scott’s argumentum ad baculum is fallacious is: I say to Scott, “You owe me $1000, pay me.”  Scott asks, “What facts do you rely on proving I owe you $1000?”  Marc: “Well, you must pay me $1000 because those who don’t get put in my basement prison.”

Imagine being in court and you challenge the prosecutor’s argument:

What facts do you rely on proving the laws apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?

The judge coerced your participation in this prosecution.

Does that make sense to you?  Doesn’t look like support for the argument does it?  It doesn’t take a Harvard education to see it clearly doesn’t.

Regardless of education and high political office, Scott cannot provide evidence that doesn’t exist.  It’s that easy to discredit the argument and his credibility; it only takes a few questions that he cannot or will not answer.  I did ask Scott:

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

He laughed and ignored me and started talking to other people.  Of course, the evidence that really discredits Scott is the fact we are all forced to give his people money.

So there is no cherry picking, I don’t just post calls/confrontations with low-level agents and hide my calls with really smart politicians.  Scott is probably at the top of the heap as far as being smart, he’s a highly educated man with two advanced degrees.  So there are really only two main criticisms regarding this confrontation to counter my position Scott could not support his argument: 1.  The question is stupid; and 2. He did answer and it was not a fallacious argumentum ad baculum.

Asking for facts to support an argument is not stupid, the facts may be obvious, but the question is not stupid.  Scott did not provide facts supporting his argument though, he only provided consequential facts.  As shown above, it is the fallacious appeal to consequences.

There are no facts proving the laws apply to us just because we’re physically in Arizona.  We should be challenging these predators constantly and discrediting them.  And if someone thinks it’s crazy that there is no evidence the laws apply, then ask them to tell you what those facts are.  And if they mock you, then let them watch/listen to Scott Bales, chief justice and Harvard law grad, fail to do so.

And if they are still not convinced, and think they can do better than Scott, then have them call into the No State Project.


57 Comments For This Post

  1. desertspeaks Says:

    I watched the video, fyi to see marc question the weasel, go to 1:02:43 min in.
    The creature was only saved because the “moderator?” quickly cut off marcs destruction of the man because he knew the truth was coming out! Can’t have that!!

  2. desertspeaks Says:

    Oh, just saw that marc has edited it down to the weasel moment, never mind on the time in then.. shrugs

  3. Zir Says:

    Is this serious?

  4. Jack Worthington Says:

    This was a really great article explaining how the judges and attorneys use logical fallacies and distractions to avoid answering the “silver bullet” question: What factual evidence do you (judge, IRS agent, persecuting attorney, legislator/politician, bureaucrat have that the constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some geographical location? Factual evidence would come in the form of an affidavit of truth. No one thus far to my knowledge has produced such affidavit of truth and can’t else it would admit the assertion that we are slaves to the political oligarchy, Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government corporations and their cadre of supporters.

    Thanks again. Excellent post.

  5. Boxer Says:

    That got uncomfortable for him fast. He even started to face downward.

  6. doyle Says:

    he has jurisdiction because everyone believes they are a person and all statute applies to persons, he even said near the end, direct that question to the person over there….. when you get that you are man before person you will understand. He doesnt want to give away the trick, thats why he won’t explain why.

  7. Jack Worthington Says:

    @doyle, I have heard this before and yet it is not common knowledge. Person means something else in the legalese jargon and of course the government schools are not going to teach this convoluted and corrupted stuff lest the truth get out, as you said. Still, it would be nice to see an investigative reporter actually dig into the legal definition corruption scheme. I heard quite a while back that the US 9th Circuit has 3 very thick binders full of cases where someone beat the IRS and some circuit court judge stamped on them: NOT FOR PUBLICATION! Oh sure the cases are available is one has the time and ability to copy them and then bring them to light, somehow. Unfortunately people in the majority are so fully indoctrinated, brainwashed and propagandized into believing that the oligarchy of politicians and their elitist pals the only “honorable” system of governing. Habit and tradition are the death knell of Amerika. Ignorance is bliss but it leads to the abyss. Still, I am thrilled with Marc’s fighting spirit and his wins and those who demand the truth about factual evidence.

  8. RAD Says:

    The Facts which prove the argument:
    1.There is a magical “entity” called the “state” that is the lord of the Realm of Arizona.
    2.This entity is “Sovereign”- it is a higher power or authority compared to normal men and women.
    3.Some men and women have a special personal relationship with this entity – people like Scott Bales.
    4.Due to Scott’s personal relationship with “The state”, as the “Chief Justice” of the “Arizona Supreme court”, he is qualified to interpret scriptures and his scriptural exegesis is magically true because he said so.

  9. RAD Says:

    But it’s not a religion. This can easily be proven: simply refer to “separation of church and state” as a scriptural article of faith. Ask a statist for facts proving church and state are separate(that the government isn’t another church), and they will provide ample evidence to prove this conclusion: The scriptural sacred authoritative writings say so.

  10. RAD Says:

    “Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States


    Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

    This treaty was signed at the International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1933. It entered into force on December 26, 1934. The treaty discusses the definition and rights of statehood.”

    “…good and due order, have agreed upon the following:

    The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

    The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.”

  11. Gene Says:

    haha boy did he get uncomfortable and so did his saviour, lol. This is awesome evidence the whole thing is a castle made of sand

  12. NonEntity Says:

    RAD sed:This treaty was signed at the International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1933.—
    Yes, I remember signing that document! … Oh wait, I wasn’t born yet. Never mind.

  13. RAD Says:

    Just quoting what it says – it is the dogma of statism. The Leviathan dogma: that there is a “person” or a personalized “entity” called “the state”. The deity of the modern state religion. The first two comments I made were sarcasm(obviously?).

  14. i.n.rem Says:

    stop focusing on the meanings of words, and ask for Facts

  15. i.n.rem Says:

    Tax Court cases do not set any precedent, nor are they binding on anyone but the Parties to the litigation

  16. Jack Worthington Says:

    @i.n.rem, if words and their definitions are not facts, then what are they? Seems we rely on words and their meanings for accurate communications, else we are lost and “facts” upon which rest clear representations verbally or in writing are just some blue smoke.

  17. mark washington Says:

    I Love Mark Stevens’ logic of truth, I took from this, that a “state” is a fiction, like a “PERSON” is a fiction/dead entity that is a copyrighted “name” of a “thing” owned by the crown corps. of London & that their authorization is required to use that copyrighted name they have claimed in commerce, so they own that “thing” & that I or i am not a fiction, or a “thing” so it would be a lie for me to admit to being what I/i am not, as that could be perjury.(see Loose the ) If I admit to being something that could be owned, I could make the perfect slave. On IRS issues, if one demanded proof that these “taxes” were not tithings to the Catholic church/state/bank/trust/fund A tithe = (/ˈtaɪð/; from Old English: “tenth”) is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a contribution to a religious organization or compulsory tax to government. As if one could “see” clearly, we might SEE it for what it is, the Holy See beguiling us(like their hospital snakes did beguile “Eve” into commerce by calling her baby twins a vessel of commerce via the original signing of the bill of lading/birth certificate) to be regulated in commerce by using the “name” they “assumed” & claimed @ our birth= theft via non disclosure=void as per fraud. So, if you want to be real give “it” back to them & claim what we do is being done by men, not corporations, as they have power /jurisdiction over those “things” that they create, & “they” did not create man or mankind. One can not “prove” you to be in a “state”=a political body, no more than one can prove a bear to be Catholic, so it comes down to a persecution for ones beliefs, but demand the contract just to be sure you didn’t make any sins/signs/signings/x,s or the like aggreements, nor any agreements with rouge dick-taters. No more NWO the wolves days of fatness are numbered.

  18. mark washington Says:

    Maybe its better to ask first, if they believe if the bear (any bear)is Catholic, Mennonite or Muslim or Jewish if put in a Parish in Louisiana as only evidence,(get them to admit that this is not “proof” of a religious proclivity of a bear & a silly proposition first) or how about a recognized churchstate of California, or even the Dome of the Rock,(is the bear to now wear a burka?) or the Vatican itself ? If physical placement in any geographical position of a bear would not create a bear to be Catholic nor change their status, or cause him to be a part of a political body=i.e. a “state”, then why the disregard of such logic when the same question is use towards a man, & not a bear ? Answer is a Prevaricative belief system based upon an idea of slavery in the Talmud! If “they” would ever be honest about it, but that is against their rules to be truthful to the Goyim & that’s why the world will turn on the Church & tear it to pieces for their crimes against humanity, for going with mans “laws” & leading the flock astray from Gods Commandments. These guys are just trying to protect the red-shields/Rothschilds/red-coats/kings bankers whom protestants protested against,along with their alliance with the Vatican since before King John in 1213 & Cromwells time, been the same group forever. Time to wake up & fire these guys as the holders of your wealth. It is religious & financial persecution at its best to believe a bear(or a man) should be Catholic & then force it to follow the rules or get punished, fined, or killed, but this mob is so used to not being put in check, that they keep going cause no one generation denies them en mass. Get their agents to agree with you about a bear, & with a little humor, we can get them to see the error of their ways & frauds, with a gentle but firm demand not to proceed.

  19. Bill Bochynski Says:

    Marc: 1; Scott Bales: 0.

  20. Indigo Montoya Says:

    Jack Worthington,

    I recently discovered that a major motivation for Noah Webster creating an American Dictionary was to nail down the meanings of words in the legal sense. Before the ink was dry on the constitution,the lawyers were redefining and reinterpreting it. The tax on whiskey, Alien and Sedition Act, and Marbury vs. Madison come to mind. Of course the constitution is just four pieces of paper — signed by no one.
    We know that the simplest black letter law means nothing to the black robed tyrants. They do what they please and have the backing of the occupation forces.

  21. RAD Says:

    Rule of law is a myth used to institutionalize rule of man.

  22. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    What I don’t understand here is the fact that all these so called jurisdictions are artificial entities. One cannot be born under the auspices of an artificial entity. One can only be brainwashed, indoctrinated, lied to or fraudulently induced to believe one can!

    Further, If I was not born with any special authority to command you or anyone else, and you were not born with any special authority to command another, nor was anyone else on this planet,then how do two or more people combine their NON-EXISTENT authority to vote another out of their rights, beyond the law of trespass? I live in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Constitution Article 2 states there will be no involuntary servitude in the same fashion as the US Constitution….which I call “their” Constitution, but it is there nonetheless.
    What I believe this all boils down to is “citizenship” equals jurisdiction. That is why they always ask if you are “denouncing your citizenship.” My response to that would be, “how can I denounce that which I never applied for?” On the other hand if you say yes to that question, then you are admitting that you were a citizen and they have you by the balls.

    Citizen is the LOWEST class of all!

  23. sec Says:

    He got Marc on an equivocation and ignoratio elenchi, or the holy trinity, as I see it..

    God is the father
    God is the holy spirit
    God is the son

    The son is not the holy spirit
    The holy spirit is not the father
    The father is not the son
    and vice versa


    Truth is the evidence
    Truth is the fact
    Truth is the opinion

    The opinion is not the fact
    The fact is not the evidence
    The evidence is not the opinion
    and vice versa.

    I think it would be better played next time to not use the word “fact”. Policemen carry guns, that’s a fact. Guns can kill you, that’s a fact. People could get away with murder, that’s a fact. There is law, that’s a fact. And anything the law says is a fact, but time and time again relevance (applicability) is the objection needing to be raised when their facts are attempted to be submitted to the record as evidence.

    The question is, “how does that relate to the world of reason and rationality in a conclusive manner?” We know the conclusion in their minds is, “because we say so”; or rather, subtly explicit in this case, “because we can”; moreover still, “because who’s going to stop us?” Well, people are if they can answer questions like these for themselves better than “the officials” can. As far as any relevant facts go, he’s a judge, and as far as opinions go, that’s the answer to ‘why’. We depend on specialists everyday, why can’t ‘unassuming’ people depend on this one like they do with everyone else about anything else?

    I say there needs to be a persistent verbal demand for evidence strictly speaking. Facts are just one step away from opinions is my point. And, it’s true, assholes are like opinions. We all, in fact, have opinions, but what does that prove? That there is no truth?

  24. Michael Says:

    IMHO, you’re over complicating the issue. The justice system is an illusion. There’s no such thing as jurisdiction and authority. No one has the right to rule over another, we are all equal to one another. You’re giving these criminals your power and legitimacy by filing their BS paperwork, standing when the bailiff enters the room and orders everyone to rise and arguing over things that do not exists. The court is fake,as is the judge. It is a for-profit corporation that has a vested interest in your conviction. That human in the black dress will swear to you under oath that he/she is fair and impartial. This is a bold-faced lie. The corporation pays the police, prosecutor, judge and the jury (if there is one). How is this fair or impartial? It’s not. It is a direct conflict of interest. This corporation is an organized, criminal racket. It uses violence, fear and intimidation to extort money from the uneducated masses under the guise of protection. Sounds like a mafia operation huh? Because it is. Stop giving them legitimacy. While I do not have the means to record or video a session to prove my point, I can be walk out of any of these fake courts in minutes.

  25. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Dave Beaulieu, if one accepts the premise that there is no factual evidence that the constitution and laws apply to anyone just because he is physically present in some geographical location, then the issue of “citizenship” or renouncing it are secondary. The person or bureaucrat who asks such question as “Are you renouncing your citizenship” must be first questioned as to what factual evidence he has that his constitution and laws upon which he seemingly asserts, apply to you or produce the evidence that he claims you are a citizen and then you can pursue just how the “state” coerced or tricked you into that alleged condition of stinkin’ naggar slavery and then remove such status as it was wrongly imposed.

  26. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    I agree and I will be asserting myself in court this coming Thursday.

  27. Nelson Donnell Says:

    “All governments have to prevaricate, and even when they don’t have to, being human, they do”

  28. Jack Worthington Says:

    @ i.n.rem, and how do you mtke a fact known without words, verbal or written. Words are importand; they are means of communications and as everyone knows, communications breakdown is where businesses and relations fail. Words are the tools by which “facts” are made know; they are the horse that leads the cart full of facts. A good read is Politics and The English Language by George Orwell.

  29. Jack Worthington Says:

    Do wish there was a way to edit my comments as I detect errors after the fact, e.g. mtke should be make and importand should be important and know should be known and horse should be horses and leads should be lead and cart should be carts. So my previous comment should read:

    @ i.n.rem, and how do you make a fact known without words, verbal or written? Words are important; they are means of communications and as everyone knows, communications breakdown is where businesses and relations fail. Words are the tools by which “facts” are made known; they are the horses that lead the carts full of facts. A good read is Politics and The English Language by George Orwell.

  30. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Jack, you could start a thread on the forum.

  31. Dave Beaulieu Says:

    I showed a Judge in my area the motion I filed in Township Court for my speeding ticket challenging jurisdiction. I feel Jurisdiction is based on all that ties one to “citizenship,” which would include the birth certificate and all documents tied to it which in my opinion are predicated on hearsay as no9ne of us witnessed our own births! Not only this but again I ask, how can one be born under the auspices of an artificial entity? The Judge then informed me that I was gonna lose! He ignored all my valid questions and merely stated that I would in effect be forced to comply even though I had valid points.

  32. 11:11 Says:

    @ Dave Beaulieu Of course the black robed criminal told you that. Just about every word, if not every word that comes out their mouth is a lie. What he would say or do in open court and on the record is another matter.

  33. Andy Says:

    “Just about every word, if not every word that comes out their mouth is a lie.”

    Here’s where he told the truth: “stated that I would in effect be forced to comply.”

    Comply or die.

  34. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Andy on this thread, I wonder if prospective lawyers, i.e. students are asking these very questions that Marc are asking. I wonder if these law students are asking the questions, then what are the august law professors saying? If the law professors cannot produce the factual evidence that the constitution and laws apply to us, then doesn’t that expose the law professors as frauds or liars or deceivers? The whole legal profession is on trial and thus far they have been exposed as deceivers as they have not provided the factual evidence. Every law student should be demanding proof, the factual evidence that the law and constitution apply to us just because we are physically present in some geographical location.

  35. 11:11 Says:

    @ Jack Worthington, Jack you make perfect sense but you could be reading too much into why people go to law school in the first place. It’s to use the court system & law to make money. It wouldn’t be in the lawyer or prospective lawyers best interest to expose the whole system for the sham it is.

  36. Andy Says:

    @ Jack, 11:11, et el, Someone (hint Marc) could do similar as Larken Rose is doing with his “Government on Trial” project. It would be a different range of questions with essentially the same “authorities”/alleged experts.

    The goal would not be to have law students question their career path. Rather, to educate/inform the general populace that it’s the legal profession from University to the courts (ie, judges, prosecutors, support staff (ie, bailiff, clerk etc.)) alleged dispensers of justice.

    Here’s a brief description from Larken’s Kickstarter campaign:
    “The purpose of this project is to publicly challenge at least one hundred teachers or professors of law, government, ethics, sociology, philosophy, or related fields, to answer a few questions about their advocacy of “government”–to challenge the assumptions and paradigms upon which all mainstream “political” discourse is based–and to publish the resulting exchanges (written and live) for all the world to see.” ~

  37. Boxer Says:

    @ 11:11

    I’m pretty sure you nailed it. I’m in a profession where attorneys work and I can tell you no one has been able to answer my question. Some have even refused to entertain it.

  38. NonEntity Says:

    Andy sed: “to educate/inform the general populace that it’s the legal profession…” —-
    It’s the legal profession that… what? You didn’t finish the sentence.

  39. Andy Says:

    Good question NonEntity. I half-sort-of left it open on purpose. Didn’t notice that it was incomplete until I reread it after posting it. I meant to write, Rather, to educate/inform the general populace about the legal profession.

    “about: replaces “that it’s”.

  40. NonEntity Says:

    Andy sed: “I half-sort-of left it open on purpose.” —-

    Damn. I wish you hadn’t said that. Now Marc’s probably gonna start using that excuse for all of his unfinished sentences!

  41. Jack Worthington Says:

    @11:11, but of course you are correct. Oh? Did I give myself a pat on the back? Indeed these people/students have in the process admitted to a “sell out” of honesty and that of course is on them, not that I don’t “sell out” too for other reasons, so I’m not throwing the “stone’ with “clean hands,” but still I hope some studens will start raising the question as Marc states it. As the Bible tells us: The love of money is the root of all evil.

  42. 11:11 Says:

    @Jack Worthington, I’m glad that you mentioned the Bible. If you read in St. Luke chapter 11 you will see that besides personally cursing all lawyers, Jesus Christ tells you all about their character. He said that, among other things, lawyers are lazy, they are descendants of murderers, they take away the key of knowledge while not being knowledgeable themselves and then they hinder those who are attempting to become knowledgeable.

    Just this website alone, over and over again proves the truthfulness of those statements.

  43. summer apple Says:

    Q: According to the legal definition of “due process of law”, due process of law implies the RIGHT of the person affected to be present before the tribunal. The RIGHT of the person be present – not the person. A “person” is a statutory term. It is an aggregate of rights – a juristic and artificial conception of life. Does a judge/court need to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant before he can apply statutory/legislated law to the defendant and “his” person/rights?

    Why do attorneys ask the witness/cop if they had the opportunity to come into contact with the person and then ask the witness/cop to point at the person and then ask the judge to reflect that the witness properly identified the defendant?

    Sounds like word trickery to me.

  44. summer apple Says:

    The defendant is not presenting his self. He is representing his self.

    If you want to make changes to a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate (affidavit for correction), you have to say on line 14 that “I represent the person as: Self, Parent, Guardian, Informant, … all legal terms. Then on line 15, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Ohio (or wherever) that the foregoing is true and correct.

    You make this declaration while acting under a legal personality. You become liable by representation. To represent is stand in place of another.

  45. summer apple Says:

    Taken from a legal website –

    Personal Jurisdiction: How to Determine Where a Person Can Be Sued

    The basic concept behind determining personal jurisdiction is evaluating whether courts in that state have a VESTED INTEREST IN YOU and a RIGHT to make binding decisions over you.

    Personal jurisdiction refers to whether a court has power over the PERSON being sued.

    Vest: To give an immediate, fixed right of present or future enjoyment. The term vest is significant in the law, because it means that a person has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to some present or future INTEREST in something of value. When a right has vested, the person is LEGALLY ENTITLED to what has been PROMISED and may seek relief in court if the BENEFIT is not given.

    Am I considered to be the “something of value” or are the rights/person the valuable thing in question? What the government creates, the government controls. It didn’t create me but it did create a legal personality that they need me to represent. But isn’t it actually “my” rights/person that is of interest to the government? Courts determine the rights of the parties.

    According to the definition of “due process of law”, If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.

    Doesn’t a judge or magistrate conclusively presume that you are in fact a citizen/resident/domiciliary/inhabitant/smurf and therefore subject to legislation – without any evidence (provided by the prosecutor)to prove his presumption is true?

    Due process of law violation on their part?

  46. Chex Says:

    28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges.

    Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)

    Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office.

    The Constitutional Oath

    As noted below in Article VI, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the Constitution:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    The Constitution does not provide the wording for this oath, leaving that to the determination of Congress. From 1789 until 1861, this oath was, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” During the 1860s, this oath was altered several times before Congress settled on the text used today, which is set out at 5 U. S. C. § 3331. This oath is now taken by all federal employees, other than the President:

    “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

  47. James (Blogger) Says:

    What can I say? WoW.. How fast they wanted to shut and closed down Mr. Stevens question, tell me plenty..

  48. Gary Thomas Says:

    I’m here only as an advocate of your position but I think the reason the law applies to a natural person standing on the land is that you as a Man have at one time previous either expressed or implied have given consent to a government franchise (drivers license social security number) or a privelage and have converted your private rights or constitutional rights into public rights which are then subject to the jurisdiction of the state. if you were a state national or a 14th amendment citizen then the state would not have jurisdiction over you and only the common law would apply not civil law because civil law requires your consent and often we give our consent in ways that we are often not aware of.

  49. NonEntity Says:

    Gary sed: “…often we give our consent in ways that we are often not aware of.”

    Gary, are you aware of the specific requirements for a contract to be considered valid? You may want to review your position with those requirements in mind.

  50. Gary Thomas Says:

    Understood. But isn’t it true or not that is how the State can get the law to apply to anyone is because of a franchise we have unknowingly entered into in order to obtain a benefit. My research always comes up with the solution as being the Sovereign does not contract with the State ever.

  51. desertspeaks Says:

    For Summer
    Vlandis v. Kline, 412 US 441 – irreversible and irrebuttable statutory presumption is a due process violation

    Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198.

    Heiner v. Donnan,285 U. S. 312 conclusive presumption
    holding that this irrefutable assumption was so arbitrary and unreasonable as to deprive the of due process. Court stated that it had “held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process.

    in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972), the Court struck down, as violative of the Due Process Clause, Illinois’ irrebuttable statutory presumption.

  52. Jack Worthington Says:

    Well, Scott Bales is just a criminal. Maybe someday he will face justice and be confined to the boobyhatch farm forever.

    Appreciate all the comments. This blog should be the topic of education in every school. Perhaps a full semester should be spent on acquiring knowledge that will help people when they sit on juries. Preparing people with the ability to ask simple questions, as Marc does, has the potential to knock down the tyranny of political government.

    Thank you Marc for all you work and demonstrated success.

  53. Jack Worthington Says:

    re Nonentity & Gary Sed…Contract requirements. You got me curious and so I checked the WWW and found the following, which was a good exercise for me. Thanks.

    This exercise can be used to expound on the 6 requirements that must be in place in order for a contract to be legal/valid.

    Original Alphabetical


    An agreement includes an offer and an acceptance. One party must offer to enter into a legal agreement, and another party must accept the terms of the offer. [Legal? Really? This presupposes that the constitution and laws are supported by factual evidence that they apply to you or me. There is no such factual evidence.]

    something of value, received or promised, to convince a person to contract. Promises must be supported by legally sufficient and bargained-for consideration.

    Contractual Capacity
    Parties to a contract must have contractual capacity: characteristics that qualify them as competent.

    A contract must be made to accomplish a goal that is legal and not against public policy. [Legal? Really? This presupposes that the constitution and laws are supported by factual evidence that they apply to you or me. There is no such factual evidence.]

    Voluntary Consent
    The apparent consent of the parties must be voluntary.

    A contract must be in whatever form that the law requires. [Well, who says that there is factual evidence that the constitution and laws apply to one just because he is physically present in some geographical location? Fact is, there isn’t any such factual evidence nor could there be as involuntary slavery is repugnant to the very constitution upon which people claim authority, i.e. people claiming the constitution are guilty of logical fallacy known as circular logic. The contract should state the time, date and place of the contract, you know, what, where, when, why, how and who – Six Serving Men – Rudyard Kipling]

  54. Rad Says:

    “summer apple Says:
    June 13th, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Doesn’t a judge or magistrate conclusively presume that you are in fact a citizen/resident/domiciliary/inhabitant/smurf and therefore subject to legislation – without any evidence (provided by the prosecutor)to prove his presumption is true?

    Due process of law violation on their part”

    Yes, this is the point I was trying to make when I called in and mentioned the judge was doing this in Ademo’s trial! The judge was actually testifying to Ademo’s identity! But it’s not that unique to that case, I was just using it as an example, they do it a lot.

  55. Rad Says:

    Well, they presume the identity of the accused, but yeah they presume that other stuff too. It’s part of their religion.

  56. Rad Says:

    “Contractual Capacity
    Parties to a contract must have contractual capacity: characteristics that qualify them as competent.”

    Ok, so if government “contacts” like driver license, etc are a “contract” then who is the other party. Whenever I asked Damien this he mostly dodged it but after repeating the question he said the contract is with “strangers”. This is where I would start. If you have a contract, WHO IS THE OTHER PARTY AND WHY IS THEIR SIGNATURE NOT ON IT?!?!?!?!?

  57. spooky2th Says:

    @ Rad,

    Seriously good, really good logic there!

15 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. GREECE, THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC | there is no debt Says:

    […] Marc Stevens Discredits Scott Bales – Chief Justice Arizona Supreme court… […]

  2. NSP - Apr 18, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - Says:

    […] The underwhelming response amongst the liberty community of news of someone discrediting a high level bureaucrat and their criminal social-control hierarchies. […]

  3. NSP - May 16, 2015 - Says:

    […] The underwhelming response amongst the liberty community of news of a discredited high-level bureaucrat and their criminal social hierarchy. […]

  4. Tax Criminal Can't Support Her Argument Laws Apply - Minnesota Edition - Says:

    […] not a matter of education either, because we’ve already seen where a Harvard law grad and chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court can’t prove their laws apply to us.  Pay-or-get-shot, comply or […]

  5. NSP - Jun 6, 2015 - Says:

    […] High-level judges and attorneys have admitted that they can cite evidence to prove the laws apply. […]

  6. Larry Cleveland - Kentucky Prosecutor - No Evidence Laws Apply - Says:

    […] isn’t. This is why Larry, a doctorate of law, could not do it.  Nor can anyone else, even Scott Bales, the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court.  Larry is in fine company that […]

  7. NSP - July 4, 2015 - Says:

    […] on the world and using their terminology <> keeping proper score during a debate <> Scott Bales troubled attempt to answer Marc’s questions <> “fuzzy logic” <> improving litigation skills by minimizing intent […]

  8. NSP - Aug 15, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James - Says:

    […] many documented encounters of the lawyer kind, and their highest authorities, questioning them one what evidence they have to prove their laws apply and the […]

  9. NSP - Oct 17, 2015 - Says:

    […] and security <> and submitting “evidence“/appeal to conseqence [refer to Scott Bales’ appeal to consequence] to suggest the CONstitution in fact does […]

  10. NSP - Oct 31, 2015 - Says:

    […] video detailing folks in Deutschland, Ireland, and Poland applying effective Socratic questioning to dispel the grandest of sacred cows held by authortah: that men and women who force you to pay them can make up rules that magically apply to everyone […]

  11. NSP - Nov 28, 2015 - Says:

    […] James from PA: researching “right-to-travel” legal-opinion/law <> falling victim to STATE extortion <> and role-playing litigation and questioning to learn to effectively counter non-responsive attorneys. […]

  12. NSP - Dec 5, 2015 - Says:

    […] The lack of enthusiasm from some “liberty activists” when someone fully and publicly discredits a high level bureaucrat. […]

  13. No Rational Basis For Applicability of Laws - Interview with Law Professor - Says:

    […] of power by men and women (criminals).  If you think you can do better than law professors and a chief justice of a Supreme Court, then by all means, please contact me or call into a live […]

  14. NSP - Jan 9, 2016 - Guests: Bill Church, Eyal Lior, and Keith O'Brien - Says:

    […] The underwhelming tone you get from some liberty activists when you drop them bombshell activism + video. […]

  15. NSP - Feb 6, 2016 - Says:

    […] Chief justice Scott Bales had to defer to an argumentum ad baculum when asked what evidence he had to prove the laws apply to anyone. […]

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