Categorized | Articles, Interviews, Video

No Rational Basis For Applicability of Laws – Interview with Law Professor – [UPDATE: AUDIO]

Posted on December 12th, 2015 by Marc Stevens

This is the entire interview with law professor Robert Diab.  Robert is a professor of law at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia.

This is a very valuable interview, not only for the admissions, but because Robert was professional and respectful throughout.  Most of the time these interviews don’t go very well.  It shows we don’t need to be lawyers to destroy political/government arguments and claims.

We also don’t need to have advanced degrees to defend ourselves when those called government attack us.  While we need to prepare and learn how to defend against their attacks, as this video proves, it doesn’t take much to debunk these common claims, such as, if you’re physically in Canada, then political rules called “laws” apply to you.

Most notable in the interview is the admission the applicability of the “laws” has no rational grounds and certainly not one of evidence.  As Robert points out, some men just asserted it, they said their laws apply.  We’ve heard contemporary politicians also say they have jurisdiction because they said so.  Robert also stated it was “a blunt assertion of power.”

If there is no evidence, no rational basis, just a blunt assertion of power [aggression], then wouldn’t it be morally justified to use force to stop their assertion of power?  Given Robert’s statements, he is describing exactly what I have been saying governments are: criminals, every pretended “government” is just a criminal organization.

If you doubt this, then provide the rational basis for the applicability of political rules (“laws”) and the evidence proving they apply.  Prove it is not just a blunt assertion 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 broadcast.

And if you’re defending against an attack, demand the evidence to support the prosecution’s claims.  Don’t accept the excuse they don’t have to back up their claims, that’s prosecutorial misconduct and evidence you’ve been forced into a rigged game.  It’s rigged because the prosecutor’s foundation argument is not subject to challenge.

You cannot prove a rule was violated if you cannot prove it applies in the first place.  And rules don’t magically apply because we say so; there has to be a rational basis.  And as Robert stated, there is no rational basis for the applicability of rules created by men and women called politicians.

[Update]  The first video is the five minute clip I mentioned on the live broadcast.

 

              

97 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    Effing amazing interview, Marc! Kudos.

  2. Stal Janski Says:

    Wow, this law professor sure lasted a long time, i’m amazed, good for him, and not being like the majority of lawyers, where they find their brain going to Error 404 page not found, but near the end, he figured it out, and made an excuse to go and run, to bad, i hope he thinks about this, and quits his job, which is paid for by whom?, and realizes he is teaching others to rule/dominate and cage people for non violent crimes, and no need to prove one of the elements, which IS Jurisdiction, yah i know its ASSumed, a given, well duh, we got it, proof?, yah look at that man with stripes on his brown shirt overthere with a gun..see?him he agrees, we got all the force to prove it… NOW, how do YOU? plead peasant?, and yes we accept VISA and American Express. 😉

  3. verito Says:

    Hi Marc, interesting interview…
    It seems that you missed a key point, at least it didn’t come across in the interview.

    Coercion is unlawful, so consent is always required. How is consent obtained?

    There’s only ONE mechanism in law for giving / obtaining consent. Only one. A valid contract. Without contract there is no consent. Period.

    Majority voting / democracy is not a contractual activity, a vote has none of the characteristics of a contract. So it can confer no lawful status to anything.

    Voting / democracy has no basis in law. Unless one FIRST signs a contract agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a vote, then it cannot be binding.

    So ‘democracy’ itself is a fraud, with no basis in law. It’s just an expression of the law of war, ie. ‘might is right’, where the bigger group dictates to the minority. It has nothing to do with the laws of morality.

    The only possible valid voting procedure is a unanimous one. That’s why juries must be unanimous – because everyone has to agree – that’s the law.

    The only possible lawful government is one you contract with freely. It’s actually perfectly feasible and workable. We contract for services all the time in life. The idea that the only form of workable government is a coercive one is just illogical.

    It’s just coercive government is the only way a criminal minority can parasite off the gullible majority. That’s why we have it.

  4. Al Says:

    Marc, could you publish an audio only version of the interview as some of us have limited video exposure because of limited amount of gbs on our internet provider subscriptions.

  5. Calvin Says:

    @Al: I will upload the audio later tonight.

  6. Mark C Says:

    Great interview. Glad this guy decided to stay on as long as he did. It sounds like you will be able to have another chat with him. Maybe after enough phone calls he will see the hypocrisy of the majority notion and say it is unmoral.

  7. Al Says:

    Thanks!

  8. Calvin Says:

    @Al: audio uploaded. You’re welcome.

  9. Bootlered Says:

    Do we have a link for the five minute version?

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ bootlered, I’m uploading it this morning (14 Dec.)

  11. Bootlered Says:

    Thankyou Marc, I have listened to the full version but the five minute version on the podcast with you commenting would be great to share and get the message accross.

  12. mike Says:

    The so called conspiracy nuts are still ahead of you mark. They have already said YOU (public) are an enemy of the state. It doesn’t get any simpler than that! We through complacency are paying for our own enslavement. Welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDER as bush said.

  13. dan Says:

    Mike, I could’ve sworn I saw Marc’s picture at the post office

  14. Andy Says:

    “The so called conspiracy nuts are still ahead of you mark. They have already said YOU (public) are an enemy of the state. It doesn’t get any simpler than that!”

    @Mike, not so simple to understand what you meant. Is the “YOU” that you make reference to Marc specifically or the public in general that they said is an enemy of the state?

    Also, who is “they” that “have already said YOU…”? Is it the conspiracy nuts that are “they” or is they someone else?

  15. Jeff J. Says:

    This was one for the books Marc! Arguably the most insightful interview yet.

  16. Marc Stevens Says:

    Thanks, please spread on forums and social media, it’s not getting much attention yet.

  17. mike Says:

    @ andy ‘you’ is the public or citizen in general. ‘They’ are a multitude of so called conspiracy nuts that are referring to the lieber code;

    Lieber Code Article 1 – A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

    You lost the civil war.

    I don’t have 5yrs to give you a comprehensive explanation or play semantics.

  18. mike Says:

    United States Citizens are enemy combatants. That’s why illegal aliens have more rights than you do. You can and will be shot on site for rebellion or insurrection. Gee i wonder…

    US Constitution: Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    United Nations.

  19. mike Says:

    Law of Nations Book 2 § 108 The state has no right over the person of a foreigner;

    The state, which ought to respect the rights of other nations, and in general those of all mankind, cannot arrogate to herself any power over the person of a foreigner, who, though he has entered her territory, has not become her subject. The foreigner cannot pretend to enjoy the liberty of living in the country without respecting the laws: if he violates them, he is punishable as a disturber of the public peace, and guilty of a crime against the society in which he lives: but he is not obliged to submit, like the subjects, to all the commands of the sovereign: and, if such things are required of him as he is unwilling to perform, he may quit the country. He is free at all times to leave it; nor have we a right to detain him, except for a time, and for very particular reasons, as, for instance, an apprehension, in war time, lest such foreigner, acquainted with the state of the country and of fortified places, should communicate his knowledge to the enemy. From the voyages of the Dutch to the East Indies, we learn that the kings of Corea forcibly detain foreigners who are shipwrecked on their coast; and Bodinus assures us, that a custom so contrary to the law of nations was practised in his time in Æthiopa, and even in Muscovy. This is at once a violation of the rights of individuals, and of those of the state to which they belong. Things have been greatly changed in Russia; in a single reign —that of Peter the Great — has placed that vast empire in the rank of civilized nations.

  20. mike Says:

    Atheists and rationalists are more enslaved than a god believer. They place upon themselves more burdens. Thus their world becomes smaller and smaller. Their god becomes language, though they protest vehemently they are atheists.

    Key words; Subject, Foreigner, Treaties. I have summoned your god.

  21. Jeff Says:

    Mike, “Atheists and rationalists are more enslaved than a god believer.”

    I would contend you have a narrow view Mike. All three of those you name have something in common,…..Faith. You know….that substance of things hoped for, the evidence we get to see by their actions. You should know words can make things smaller……..so can actions. In other words,just because you say so, does it make it so?

    There is no right way to do something wrong.

  22. eye2i Says:

    @mike: “I don’t have 5yrs to give you a comprehensive explanation or play semantics.”

    Have you considered the probability that Andy didn’t ask you any of what he did because he’s the one in need of answering those questions? You’re familiar with the tool known as the rhetorical question, aye? And the potential value of using the Socratic Method?

    My experience with Andy is that the aspect of social interaction is actually quite simple, circa the question: Is it voluntary? Because if it isn’t, what inherently is it?
    [hint: it’s involuntary and just a matter of degree; and unlike your Codes, including the semantic one labeled Buybull (pronounced “bible”), no 5 years or further semantics even remotely needed? ps: Andy might express the question as: Are you going to leave me alone when i ask you to –as i intend to do when asked of me?]

    And to imagine: you want to say you don’t have time for semantics, yet toss out the mind bomb (aka the word) “God”?!? Unless one is delusional, hallucinating, to self-deceived, all that term is, is an exercise in semantics (aka circular argument), aye?

    And making the claim “God believer” doesn’t put upon you the burden of proof, semantic and otherwise, how?
    How is “God believer”, factually, not but one who believes what another man/other men have claimed –including creating their choice of label for it (“God”)? Who’s the “God” now? Please answer with evidence rather than yet more hearsay upon translated (semantic?) hearsay claims aka no further semantic claims, please? [or see again, rhetorical questioning?]

    Oh, and speaking of not playing the “semantics!” card, i reject your label of “atheist”, as lacking evidence. For one example, how is the word “atheist” not like the word “asantaist” (you know, one who rejects “Santa” –as ‘someone’ who doesn’t exist in the first place and thus can only be a figment in one’s imagination? a figment planted there by yet more mere men/humans?)? Or “aleprechaunist”? Or “aunicornist”? Why do we not find these words as common? [hint: because no one in their right mind finds them necessary? except for the indoctrinated brats who don’t wish their bubble to be burst? ditto the word “atheist” –if not for the semanticists’s with their unquestionable “theos”!]

    If you feel the need to label me, identify me as an abolitionist, aye? As one who seeks to abolish the notion of belief, period!? Thus one who wishes to abolish this currently too popular valuing of superstitions aka religions, e.g. the presently popular governmentalism/statetheists and theism/godism, as mere semantics based claims for which there is zero evidence = fact in support of a claim, period!?

    Key words; Believer, Covenant=Code, God. I have called attention to your superstition.?

  23. Jeff Says:

    eye2I…….you have be one accustomed to short man syndrome. Get a shell before you lose it altogether. You sound to me to be a man of faith. The things that you hope to be true you express for others to see by your actions. Everyman has the right to choose whether to believe the testimony of witnesses who testified that a man who was known to be dead is in fact alive. That his claim to be God in the flesh is as valid as your own if you so choose. Although as evidenced by your attitude and demeanor I would suggest not trying to make a living at it. Aye? You sound like Drew Nelson in your ranting post. Belittle others, bully and bluster to prove your point. You shouldn’t try to be giving others 5years or a piece of you mind……….you don’t have much to give. Aye?

  24. NonEntity Says:

    Troll, meet dinner.

  25. Jeff Says:

    No hubris intended….

  26. Truth Seeker Says:

    Mike,

    Don’t bother with attempting to explain anything “g-d” related to Eye-bull (pronounced I-Bull). He has been shown his non-theist position runs contrary to the volumes of proof/evidence, both historical and archaeological, in existence yet still keeps stumbling through his forum Hermit small existence headlong to his unprepared death someday.

    Non-E

    Troll, meet the truth…

  27. PaulNZ Says:

    That was a very good interview. He’ll be thinking about those questions for a while.

  28. eye2i Says:

    @Jeff, @mike, & @”Truth”Seeker: thanks for the smiles.

    fwiw, of course you guys can make all the hearsay upon hearsay upon translated hearsay claims you wish and believe what you want (like the religious governmentalists do as well?); it’s an open forum after all. Just don’t get all into ad hominem when you’re called on it for being what it, in fact is: hearsay upon hearsay upon translated hearsay you pick & choose to believe and subsequently label truth, aye? Nice try tho, Jeff, in shifting my argument from being about claims rather than choice of belief, aye?

    “Truth”Seeker has long been on this illogical buybull path, where for him, just because it’s written down and selectively, collectively bound, as the only factual aspect, thereby makes it’s content fact, as truth.

    Thus by his choice of standard of ‘evidence’ (and what he labels “proper logic”), Santa, with his flying reindeer and elves, is also real because that too is written down. (and you guys are all just foolish ASANTAISTS aka unbelievers/infidels/goy/dogs/hermits/short men!?)? As equally is Allah & Mohamed and all that “it is written” about them, as what they did and say, of course… ad infinium, ad nauseaum!?
    [if you doubt the writings of The One True Santa’s Believers, hey, just give him 2,000 years with the only evidence required being that “it is written” too, aye?!]
    ___________________________________________
    ps: Jeff, i have no idea who Drew Nelson is, nor what “short man syndrome” is, thus whether that is actually a compliment or otherwise; considering the source tho, per the rest of your post (and apparent alignment with the superstitious mike), i’ll take it as quite a compliment, so “thanks!” Can i have another?!

  29. Jeff Says:

    Not knowing who one of the archived articles is about is understandable (Drew Nelson) but you are not ignorant of the other comments. To imply rejection of the of short man syndrome….think Napolean. Angry little man who won’t get his way. That is why I suggested not giving anyone a piece of your mind….you like the position of judge or assumed moral high ground. You try to deny you have faith not knowing what it is…..assuming it to be a religious connotation. It is rather your hopes displayed by your actions. By your logic anything in theory is a puff of magic because they don’t really know how it works. So much for Big Bang, curvature of the earth mathematics or lac of parallax distortion of the North Star in the course of a year. I’ll bet you don’t believe there is such a thing as evil………dumb!

  30. Jeff Says:

    What do you think aye aye? Is there such a thing as good, Gravity or evolution….. with facts as you would say……..oh that’s right ….all theory in the world of brains. Unprovable likelihood to some, but the best guess by those who “claim” to be experts. You would make a bad jurist in any situation with your brown eye views. You probably believe truth can be heard in a colorable court.

  31. Jeff Says:

    Final note: please Aye Aye, don’t think I know the color of your eyes above your cheeks…….the reference to your views is for the one between your cheeks.

  32. spooky2th Says:

    Sending condescending pokes is the sign of an evil person. And no, I do not believe in evil. There are evil people and maybe evil aliens, but nope I doubt that evil is an actual thing, just an imaginNATION. Like so many of the arconic double standards that too many believe in, clogging up their minds.

  33. spooky2th Says:

    Nimrod, who was born on December 25th, the High Sabbath of Babylon, was the founder of Babylon and the city of Nineveh. In the history of mankind, Nimrod stands unequaled for his symbolism of evil and Satanic practices. In the history of mankind, Nimrod stands unequalled for his symbolism of evil and Satanic practices. He is credited for having founded Freemasonry and for building the legendary Tower of Babel, in defiance of God’s will. In talmudic literature, he is noted as “he who made all the people rebel against God.” Pes. 94b. The legend of the Midrash recounts that when Nimrod was informed of Abraham’s birth, he ordered all the male children killed, to be certain of eliminating him. Abraham was hidden in a cave, but in latter life he was discovered by Nimrod, who then ordered him to worship fire. Abraham refused and was thrown into the fire.
    The legendary symbol for Nimrod is “X.” The use of this symbol always denotes witchcraft. When “X” is used as a shortened form meaning Christmas, it actually means “to celebrate the feast of Nimrod.” A double X, which has always meant to double-cross or betray, in its fundamental meaning indicates one’s betrayal into the hands of Satan. When American corporations use the “X” in their logo, such as “Exxon,” the historic Rockefeller firm of Standard Oil of New Jersey, there can be little doubt of this hidden meaning.
    The importance of Nimrod in any study of the occult cannot be over-emphasized. Because of the powers given him by the clothing of Adam and Eve, Nimrod became the first man to rule the whole world. He indulged that power by launching excesses and horrors which have never been equalled. Ever since the time of Nimrod, Babylon has been the symbol of depravity and lust. Nimrod also introduced the practice of genocide to the world. His grandfather, Ham, having consorted with other races, and brought children of mixed race into the world, was persuaded by his consort, the evil Naamah, to practice ritual murder and cannibalism. She informed Ham that by killing and eating fair-skinned people, his descendants could regain their superior qualities. Throughout the ensuing centuries, the fair-skinned descendants of Shem, Noah’s oldest son, have ritually been slaughtered by the darker descendants of Ham and Nimrod, in the world’s most persistent campaign of racial and religious persecution. Not only did Nimrod kill and eat the fair-skinned descendants of Shem, in his fury and hatred he often burned them alive. The type of human sacrifice involving the eating of the slaughtered human victims derived its name from the combined names of his uncle, Canaan, and the demon god Baal, the two names being combined to form the word “cannibal.” Nimrod was also known in ancient history by the names of Marduk, Bel, and Merodach. Because of his importance in its history, Babylon was known as the Land of Nimrod. Nimrod is also cited in the most ancient Masonic constitutions as the founder of Freemasonry.

    The Curse Of Canaan: A Demonology Of History by Eustace Mullins

    Nimrod, talk about an evil man…

  34. Jeff Says:

    Spook…..your a hypocrite by your own logic. To quote you now………. ” And no, I do not believe in evil. There are evil people and maybe evil aliens, but nope I doubt that evil is an actual thing.” Must be some kind of new debate technique………..total stupidity. Here is a little bit of wisdom for you, answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit.

  35. Jeff Says:

    Spook….since your post attempts to explain something I can only assume is “spiritual” in nature you should have read that evil is a created thing. The only way it ever grows is by the inaction of good or the implied consent or assumption there is no opposition to their ways or thinking. The tantrum they raise when their hypocrisies are exposed is evident everywhere in the judicial system and also in personal views. Hence the guys with the guns usually establish the rules……..where is the consent? So in a rigged system of jurisprudence where is justice? Usually small victories of persuasion like in the conversation Marc had with Prof. Diab. Honest men being honest.

  36. eye2i Says:

    Dear readers, don’cha just have to luv that one’s argument is so solid with fact and truth, that they have to resort to ad hominem? Jeff, instead of doing the greater works fruit we’re told true believers would, instead can only ramble on about my eye color, cheeks, Napoleon etc –and make yet more claims now e.g. i’m the “angry little man”!? Angry, really?
    And for sure, Jesus must have called lots of folks names, aye? (no, wait, he did just that, so that’s “Love” after all…. /snarcasm)

    [kewel tho, ’cause i get to add that to the list started by others like Jeff, so reasonable, such as assclown and hermit! again- considering the sources -thanks for the compliments you guys!]

    Probably more for those reading along who may be on the fence with this “God” (aka “The Book”) business, regarding gravity, earth’s curvature, evolution, etc, i no longer value the notion of belief, period. *shocker* aye? Rather, i purpose to reason along the line of probabilities when it comes to such possibilities. Oh, one quick notation: isn’t it the theory of evolution? Not the “truth” of evolution (distinguishable from the empirical facts in support of said theory)? What does persisting with sticking with theory signal?
    [for any interested: http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm%5D

    Meanwhile, do i “believe” in any of that? ☒ Nope. Why should one? But still, it’s not like there’s claims about them with zero evidence –other than some who may make further claims that hearsay upon hearsay upon translated picked & chosen hearsay once upon a time written down is evidence, no?

    Take gravity. What does it matter whether i believe in it’s cause (as theory btw?)? All that matters [sic] is the effect –universal, commonly sensed, provable by any one, no? No “special” “chosen” ones necessary to tell everyone else about it (butt hey Jeff/mike/”Truth”Seeker, where’s the “eye” fun in that you guys, aye?! Gosh, you’re no longer Daddy’s Special Chosen boys… you got no more “Authority” boo-hoo; not intended as ad hominem, as that would quite hypocritical of me as one who once upon a time bought [$ic] that bull2)

    Why go the belief route with the likes of claims of other mere humans? On ANY subject? One wants to make a claim about the cause of gravity, have at it. Just support with something other than hearsay, you know, say like jumping out of an airplane, and i’ll probably consider checking your observations against my own and determine a probability –from 0 to 1. Claim that if one jumps out of a plane, they go up? Check, got your claim. Check the evidence? Wait, there’s contradictory evidence to your claim. Probability: .01
    Claim “God said”? Check. Got your claim. Wait, there’s zero evidence, and even contradictory evidence amongst those making such claims (aye Muslims?)? Check. Probability: .01.

    Lastly, Jeff/”Truth”Seeker/etal, please share with us, regarding the claims of those presenting the likes of the cause of gravity and the evolution theory, how not believing in them affects them? Say in regards to the claims (plural btw) of “eternal damnation”? And being able to do “the greater works”? If rather than believe, say evolution theorists (men & women of science), i merely assign a probability, now (and then) what?

    Do you guys value the wisdom of the axiom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
    [what do we expect, readers, actual responses, or more ad hominem? probability of the latter?]

    ” If god is all-powerful and all-knowing why wouldn’t he be able to prove to you he exists instead of relying on you to try to prove he exists? And to have to trust other men, like you and i, when it comes to such?

    Who stands to gain, an omnipotent, omnipresent God who has to be hidden to the extent he’s indistinguishable from nonexistence but for being revealed by special men –or– the special men claiming they are those very special chosen ones? And in what ways can one or the other stand to gain?

    One of the grandest indictments against there being any such God, is that in order for said God to be known by one, another one equal to one’s self, as what another mere man says, is the only way for him to know. Right, leave the eternal damnation to the likes of myself having to rely on and trust other men like myself as the only way –for “The Creator” of The friggin’ Universe no less!?!!?!

    –little assclown hermit troll feeder man2i (and the horse he rode in on)

  37. eye2i Says:

    @verito,

    First let me say that i +value a lot of what you’ve gotten at in your post regarding consent. i would still like to inquire about your use of the word law though? How is law, as how i hear you using the term, itself not mere agreement? What facts are you relying on to distinguish what you use the word law for, from the word legal and/or opinion? Thanks.

    @Marc (Stevens),
    Thanks for providing us with a place to exchange & discuss ideas (as often as not, most imperfectly).
    And kudos on your work, this particular piece being ☑ extra awesome.

    –eye2i

  38. spooky2th Says:

    @ Jeff
    I expected a childish, name calling reply if there was a reply. Ad hominem at it’s worst. Oh well. Is that wisdom you quoted your own? Do you have any real thoughts on the subject? I guess apparently not.

    Your talking about good & evil as if they were real things is funny to me. laughing Can I touch evil with my hand and feel it? How is it measured? Is it measured in weight, like 5 pounds of evil? Or like electricity? can one have 10amps of evil? What does it smell like? Can I see it, hear it?

    Nope, none of the above. Guess it’s just a ridiculous arconic belief like the arconic belief in jurisdiction.

    A better, more accurate & concise saying would be evil men get stronger, more powerful when good men do nothing. Evil deeds need a perpetrator to commit them, otherwise they would not be committed.

  39. Armando Says:

    Marc, Great job of keeping your composure. Patience and composure I believe is what will spread the word more than any debate and argument no matter how right we may be….

  40. Jeff Says:

    Spook…..Amazing you would choose ad hominem. It was directed to point out the use of bullying hence the reference to Drew Peterson for Aye Aye which is in the archive about a prosecutor who uses the same bluster to establish authority and project persuasion of a judge in a traffic case in Wisconsin. Belittling the individual who asserted his claim that, there was a lack of standing. The little man reference is what you have when a child doesn’t get his way in a situation and starts the attack as though his position is superior no matter what the subject because he knows best. Aye is a person who you can try to persuade with reasoning until his nature proves he is an ( ! ). The reason I called Aye aye a fool is because he thinks he is his own god…..where his destiny is his own choice. Evil is an action you create and is a reflection of your character along with good. As darkness is the absence of light no matter the degree or intensity…..more black and white if you will and not grey indiscretion. It is one or the other…….hence there is no right way to do that which is wrong. The pick up the turd on the clean end if you will scenario. The wisdom is from a man named Solomon….but you knew that right?

  41. Andy Says:

    @Mike ‘you’ is the public or citizen in general. ‘They’ are a multitude of so called conspiracy nuts that are referring to the lieber code

    Thanks

  42. No Implied Consent Says:

    Too many people are too thick to get this simple concept of rule by consent. If the local chapter of the Hell’s Angels claimed your entire county as their territory. Would it be okay for them to tax you, or throw you in a cage, or shoot you for not stopping your car when they want you too? Of course not. The simple truth is the government is no more legitimate than a Motorcycle Club. Majority rule is crap too since I was not even alive when most of these laws were made why should I be expected to follow, especially if I have not JOINED the Hell’s Angels? Their club rules have nothing to do with me. It is the same with property laws. If you and your neighbor both agree on a set property line both of you fave to respect it since you agreed to it. But your agreement did not involve me. I cannot take an occupied house or take land others are growing crops on but I can use any piece of unused land I like.

  43. spooky2th Says:

    Evil is an action??? How is that??? It is just a descriptive word, an adjective.

    Bad apples to oranges comparison. Darkness and light are real while good and evil aren’t. That’s why they are called/labeled adjectives. Used primarily for descriptive enhancements/purposes. An evil man. A good man.

    One can actually see the differences between darkness and light. Both nouns.

    “Spook…..Amazing you would choose ad hominem.” Well it was you Jeff, with the silly name calling.

  44. Jeff Says:

    Aye aye, you prove the point that you are thin skinned and your button can be pushed easily. If all one has to do is mention the big G word and you go koo koo…..that in and of itself is fun to watch. Your ranting on hearsay proves it. I’ll do it every time because the nature of your character shines oooh so bright. Remember that when you try to sound sincere.

  45. spooky2th Says:

    I do agree with you, Jeff. One’s good actions do show character and vice versa.

  46. Jeff Says:

    Spook….were Hitler’s actions best described as an adjective? Could they be described as good action though some may have believed it to be so? You are what you do, not what you think, say or believe. As for your understanding of how we perceive light you do realize all we see is the color not absorbed right and that light is invisible?

  47. Jeff Says:

    I prefer spook over spooky tooth much the same with Aye Aye over some other play on words since that is the word you choose to identify with……….me …..my name is Jeff

  48. spooky2th Says:

    Hitler’s actions show that he was a psychopath. Like American leaders now that are making the nazis look like cub scouts.

    And one can feel the light, warmth on the skin.

  49. Jeff Says:

    What you feel is the absorption of infrared radiation.

  50. Jeff Says:

    ……and Hitler was a catholic.

  51. Jeff Says:

    Spooky tooth please notice the use of the little c. Being succinct is a virtue and a curse to some.

  52. spooky2th Says:

    Light or heat radiation from the sun or a flame — just one of the few frequencies that we can detect. Our senses are severely limited.

  53. Jeff Says:

    Infrared radiation is a different spectrum of frequencies from that which we perceive as visible. Xrays are below the visible spectrum with a lot of other long waves while the shorter infrared are above like microwaves…..the things that tend to heat things up. It is interesting the microwave range starts at around 3 ghz to 30 ghz. And we use wifi at 2.5 to 11 ghz. Shine a LED flashlight from a foot away and see if you heat up.

  54. No Implied Consent Says:

    Jeff and spooky2th: What if I told you everything you have been told by school and TV at least about WW2 and the Holocaust was not rue and i gave you undeniable proof? Would your mind open or would you spit out the programmed response that I am antisemitic? Here it is. September 8th 1919 article in the New York Times. Look it up yourself. “Ukrainian Jews Aim to Stop Progroms” New York Times Archives. No one had heard of Hitler in 1919 yet here it is 6,000,000 Jews in danger in Poland and Ukraine. Once you understand that this huge piece of what we “know” is a lie all other Bullshit comes into question too.

  55. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Marc,

    Thanks for posting this excellent discussion with “Professor” Robert Diab. He was a surprisingly good sport for participating so long. I wonder if it is because he was/is not an active litigator? That’s the only reason I could see that he might not have a chip on his shoulder. I sensed that when you got down to the very morality of what the State does, he may have been having an internal struggle with a question that had never occurred to him before. I know that on very rare occasions you have sensed this momentary guilt with bureaucrats. Mr. Diab is still employed by the State, however, so this introspection may not last. After listening to you for some time, I could pick out many of the standard fallacies brought up by Mr. Diab. Such as, “It is tradition, or it is what it is”, “appeal to force”, it’s “axiomatic”, etc.

    I hope that you can have another discussion with him in the near future, and that he will have explored your website and podcasts. I was intrigued that he had brought up the battle of the aboriginal people of Canada. I was hoping that you might bring up the Spoonerian argument that force cannot be applied to people born long after the original “agreement” to be governed. As with the basic observation that it is “pay or go to jail”, the whole idea of “consent” is faulty and voids any definitions of “citizen” and “State”.

    It occurred to me as you were stating that the founding of the U.S. is more about “Western Expansion” than forming an new government. From my readings, it seems that the majority of settlers were getting as far away as possible from government and arbitrary authority. People forget that indentured servants and slaves would bolt westward whenever possible and live with the Indians who had no “government”. The American Revolution as well as the Russian Revolution were both hijacked by opportunists for their own ends.

  56. spooky2th Says:

    “They” tried the six million lie after WW1 too. After WW2, it took hold.
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24369

    Jews declare war on Germany in 1933.
    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-1933_Jews_Declare_War_On_Germany

  57. Incubus Says:

    Jeff,

    How did Drew Nelson become Drew Peterson?

  58. verito Says:

    Hi @eye2i

    Law’s original meaning is: rules which are universal and unchanging.
    I.e. the law of cause-and-effect, or the law of gravity.
    True laws can’t be changed or invented, they can only be discovered.
    The law of morality are absolute, like all law.
    Governments & countries may make up rules, but they are never Laws because they’re never universal or unchanging.
    Hope that clarifies it.

  59. NonEntity Says:

    verito sed:The law of morality are absolute, like all law. —
    1st: Law are? Izzat like Laws is?
    2nd: Morality is like gravity? Please define morality and provide evidence that there are no exceptions or ambiguities.

  60. Jeff Says:

    Incubus……..

    The Nelson to Peterson is what you get when you have various information overload. Nelson is from Wisconsin as am I while Peterson (murderer cop) and his murderous ways show us exactly what he believed. I have always ascribed that action and choices we make are a direct reflection of what we believe, hence the faith of an individual which everyone has that Aye Aye claims is a “religious” term. I enjoy reading the biography of people’s lives and see the conclusion of their choices. Aye Aye who claims to be atheist now somehow knows how Christians behave although to him it is a fairy tale to be disregarded. Leads me to believe there is a deeper back story to his foolishness. Although he claims I give an ad hominem attack of him he hides behind a persona of his own delusion…..ie the name eye2I. It would be nice to talk to his mom and dad to know the real boy.

  61. Rad Says:

    For the past 10 000 years or so, religious delusion has been the normal waking state of consciousness for humanity. Whether it’s good or bad or right or wrong it is hardly abnormal. I would say anarchism or voluntaryism can be a religion. The mythology of anarcho capitalism tells us there is this scary monstrous “entity” that is trying to hold back human progress but there is this other superhuman “entity” which plays this messianic part in the story, an anthropomorphism benevolently intervening in the affairs of mere humans with its invisible hand rescuing them from the evils of crony capitalism: “The Market”. They even pray to this “entity”:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGSxn5EgRBc

  62. eye2i Says:

    Hi verito–

    While i too value the historical usage of a word, just as i do the value of rules like inches, liters and pounds as to historical usage, how are words ultimately not just a matter of agreement? i’ll offer that if you look at it, you too will see that they’re ultimately just perpetual matters of offer & acceptance versus rejection (and negotiation/deliberation), it’s just that this aspect of them is long glossed over (much to do with most of it having happened in our childhoods). They’re in the realm of individual/personal authority, aye? Unless some one says otherwise –and is willing to Enforce (resort to force over) such? Including labeling them self The Authority?

    The desire to control, as what results too typically as “Government”/”The State” (and “God’s Law” in the form of yet more words) as appeal to belief in Authority, simply engulfs this aspect of societal affairs as well, aye?

    Offers for agreement instead become Statements (State-meant, state-mental, as a set state of mind).? Agreement of course tends to be very commonly valued as it offers the best shot at mutual well-being and ultimately is what social life, as logically consistent/reason contrasted with illogical/hypocritical/confusion, is about for most (at least to some degree; where one can get to matters like indoctrination, deception, and delusion e.g. love of Authoritarians/Governmentalists).?

    When it comes to the signal aka the word “law”, i offer & accept that it’s best to preserve/reserve it, indeed, for matters of universal (commonly senses-able by all) cause and effect. Or as i’ve put it before, if some individual has to enforce the effect and that’s called law, you’re doing something wrong. 😉

    For me, as for communication value (community as a value), i reserve the word law for things like gravity, and it’s corollaries like aerodynamics (the distinction sought to be signaled aka communicated when such moves to being theory, instead, also being vital to keep in mind e.g. evolution –if we agree, of course?).

    How is morality thus law? If one agrees that a crucial aspect of defining law is that enforcement upon violation i.e. cause & effect, requires no human action & reaction –again, see gravity as law (labeled)– can morality be defined law and not be contradictory to definition (via also applying it to the likes of gravity)?

    Granted, the unction to react to certain actions easily lends to wanting to use the label “law” for such (see the theory of natural selection production? see the premise of generational indoctrination?)– but then maybe there’s a reason there’s been, historically, the offered term “morals”, as (seeking/signaling) distinction from “law”, in the first place (historical)?

    And of course one can label morality law –just as one can label legality law, no? Which simply circles us back to first defining Our terms –and whether consistency is valued when it comes to such agreements?

    Might it be the desire to control (yet again) that tempts one to apply the word law to the realm of moral? Where doing that requires (in the sense of valuing consistency) an agreement to redefine the former to cover further, broader aspects i.e. some individual here has to do the effect? Where if one violates, say, gravity –that we’ve agreed to as being law?
    [jic, i’m not wishing to discount nor deny the potential value of morality as an experience per se; rather, to first be consistent in my definings…]

  63. Rad Says:

    Basically, the “good” deity “The State” from the government religion gets recast as a monstrous evil deity in the anarchocapitalist religion. And “The market” is cast as the “good” deity which gives the anarchocapitalist his/her supernatural powers of “ownership” and “property rights”.

  64. eye2i Says:

    @Rad: If one is going to make claims, won’t they first need to define their key terms that make up said claims? e.g. your definition of “religion”? and “abnormal”? (and ‘evidence’ in ‘support’?)

    Otherwise, why couldn’t the claim be that it’s not religion that’s been a part of the 10,000 or so years, but rather superstition? And superstition (nonsense) is normal! Either “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”!?

    Of course one can say anarchism can be a religion. That’s all just smoke signals one can say is words! Just as one can say god is a unicorn. And government is law (and geographical). And yada is blah!
    Now what?

  65. eye2i Says:

    @Rad: i think i’m (now) following the gist of what you’re getting at, i guess i just question the delivery method? Where i would offer that saying anarchy can be a religion lends more to confusion, as it’s a contradiction via definition of terms? For my satisfying of logically consistent reasoning, anarchy simply signals one who is seeking the default, non-added-to state (of mind); that being “no one above, no one higher than another in regards to authority over self”; archy being to claim one (or “One”) is higher/above, no? Religion then being to overlook the default state and shift allegiance (re-liege-on) to some distorted to delusional state (State).

    Wouldn’t it be clearer to say that one thinking/believing they value anarchy can pervert it and thus make (yet) another religion above (or beyond) it? i.e. spun off from it, but no longer being it aka using but having redefined the term?

  66. Rad Says:

    Gravity is a theory, what distinguishes the law of gravity as such is that it predicts how stuff will act. If it doesn’t correctly predict the phenomena then it’s a false law. If you observed stuff falling up rather than down then the theory perhaps needs to be reevaluated. If you evaluate the statist legal scriptures as scientific laws, they don’t really always predict how people act. To start with, the constitution is a religious law/scripture(believed on faith, not evidence, postulates supernatural “entities” and “powers”/”forces”) created by congress which says congress shall make no laws concerning religion so it contradicts itself right there and fails its predictions.

  67. Andy Says:

    @eye, The most dangerous superstition being the belief in government/authority, when I break it down to an individual level the most dangerous superstition is a person believing they have a right to not leave a person alone when told by said person, ‘leave me alone’. aka, the superstitious belief that an individual has the right to initiate violence/force and threat of violence/force against a person.

    This is differentiated from non government criminals that know they have the power to initiate violence/force, and very seldom does the criminal believe he/she has the right to not leave a person alone.

  68. Rad Says:

    Religion: faith based belief system, postulates supernatural(not observed to have corporeal existence in the observable physical universe) entities or powers, forces. Such as: the power of “prophesy” or “jurisdiction” or “telepathy”, stuff like that. Typically tries to establish moral or ethical “rules”/laws. Typically involves a narrative meant to impart some sort of moral lesson, like Geroge Washington and the Cherry tree or Moses and the tablets. Typically has some sort of sacred text. Anthropologists who study religion basically look at these types of evidence when evaluating religious practices: anthropomorphism(like Zeus or Uncle Sam), ancestor worship (temple of Lincoln, Mt Rushmore are what is called “national ancestor worship”), animism (giving inanimate objects the properties of animated objects like how they say the constitution is a “living document” or animal totem-ism such as the eagle idolatry). When cognitive scientists have studied the brain they find “politics” and “religion” light up the brain on an imaging scan the same way. They have also found that the brain seems to recognize “God” as a “person”, and they’ve studied the effects of prayer. I hypothesize that a person praying to God and a person praying to the State/the “republic”(personified as a literal pagan idol in Jackson Park Chicago- look it up) would light up the same on brain imaging and also that the brain would recognize “The State”/ Uncle Sam as a “person”.

  69. verito Says:

    ” i reserve the word law for things like gravity, and it’s corollaries”

    Hi eye2i, so would I. But cause-and-effect itself is a law – it’s a representation of the law of logic. Laws may always be ignored by people, to their detriment – like ignoring gravity while mountain-climbing is possible, but dangerous.

    Morality is a law because it simply follows the law of logic. It’s absolute not relative, despite what illogical people say. Immorality / moral-relativism relies on ignorance.

    Right and wrong are facts – and one proof of that is they can be determined by a unanimous jury/council (court of law). That is the basis of all jurisprudence. Juries discover facts, not opinions. Therefore morality must be a fact.

    Laws have to be discovered. They can’t be invented or altered. Our knowledge of laws increases with experience, and this is what the process of science is, and what the common-law is based on – discovery.

    It’s common to hear today that morality is relative, but that’s just not true. A culture might accept something evil as good, such as genital-mutilation, but that doesn’t make it good.

    The ONLY reason why any culture or individual accepts evil as good is: Illogic – the inability to use reason. Reason always leads to morality because it leads directly to the Creator in about 3 steps, and it leads to a complete understanding of the real law in a few more.

  70. Rad Says:

    “Right and wrong are facts – and one proof of that is they can be determined by a unanimous jury/council (court of law).”

    What about when juries get it wrong? Is that also proof that they are always right?

  71. eye2i Says:

    @Rad: “Gravity is a theory, what distinguishes the law of gravity as such is that it predicts how stuff will act. If it doesn’t correctly predict the phenomena then it’s a false law. If you observed stuff falling up rather than down then the theory perhaps needs to be reevaluated.”

    i can’t quite agree with this –probably just mostly as it’s stated? What gravity “is”, as how and/or why it works fundamentally as it does, as i understand it, is theoretical physics/theoretical to scientists (to nigh ‘magic’ –as all such things are until We wrap our heads conjunctively around ’em?). What makes gravity law is the fact that it’s been tested and found reliable and consistent globally i.e. universally –as fact. If, as hypothetically speaking being hypothetical why?… if we observed solid stuff sometimes suddenly going up, other times sideways etc, when released –all other things being equal– i’d say it wasn’t law after all, we’d simply mistaken it for that instead of for the theory that it turned out to be (see most with “Legal” in that regards?) –again, in seeking to establish the very definition of law, which is to say it has any practical usage at all as a smoke signal offering, aka ‘a word’.?

    Again, for me, i offer that the crucial distinction for establishing law definitionaly is that enforcement of violation requires no human aka subjective, interpretive involvement. i offer that this is of value as it helps give an objective standard for claims of what is subjective (opinion/unction/feeling/etc) but being (labeled/claimed to be) law, no? [the bonus query being: so just why is it that so many wish to make legal to be law…? see Andy’s post about the most dangerous superstition?]

  72. Jeff Says:

    @rad. The reason for the supposition that Gravity is a theory lies in the fact that a supposed smaller mass at a great distance (the moon) effects the tides of a greater mass (the earth) which is under the influence of the sun.. Not to mention that all of it can be overcome by something like a magnet of sufficient size. Makes one wonder why the sun above the Artic circle in the summer doesn’t appear to zig zag in the sky over 24 hours since it never goes below the horizon.

  73. eye2i Says:

    @Rad: “Religion: faith based belief system, postulates supernatural(not observed to have corporeal existence in the observable physical universe) entities or powers, forces. Such as: the power of “prophesy” or “jurisdiction” or “telepathy”, stuff like that.”

    i offer that it’s actually much simpler, etymologically speaking. The root word here is “liege” (thank you AEngloish for morphing the spelling; dang anarchists when it comes to lingo! lol). It’s the same as in the word allegiance (just a drop of the “i” instead of the “e” this go around).
    Liege then offering, as a smoke signal, what one binds to. To re-liege being to switch to something else; thus religion being to shift from what is the default nescient state to what some individuals claiming to be special say, where that special is indeed, labeled supernatural, aka no evidence required, much less available, just take our word on it.
    Or:
    religion: to accept without evidence what another says to be fact as what you’ll live and/or give your life for (calling that realignment/reallegience belief and faith or duty instead of superstition).
    It is re-liegance because it’s not evidence based. The opposite of the religious method being the scientific method, aka to go from the default nescient state to the science state aka knowledge as fact based.
    [fwiw, the godist/theist variety and their political cohorts have had their sway with the term religion for so long, They get away with hiding the fact that all “God” is, is the notions of men in writing i.e. there’s zero evidence “God” has ever “said” anything, just men claiming such, and thus hiding behind that that’s the only realm that is “religious” –aka as unquestionable; nothing like that goes on with the men behind “Government”, why that’s “secular” and to be “separate”. /snarcasm]

  74. Jeff Says:

    You are in error Aye Aye…..science is either true or false no matter the perception or opinion. Case in point, you are either a seed maker or an egg maker in the flesh. Male or female….not what I choose to call myself or think myself to be. Religion has nothing to do with acceptance or denial but rather obedience or the opposite…disobedience to truth. Now to the crux for you….what is truth?

  75. Jeff Says:

    @rad you should consider that where no law is there can be no breaking of it. Truth will always be true regardless. Laws of moral consequence are established but laws in the physics realm are being rewritten all the time because they are in reality our best guess…..theories. Suppositions based on what we believe is what is occurring or has occurred. Will you look at that……someone has to have faith that what is said is true. Oooh follow me…Big Bang. Better yet, this is the speed of light. How about the speed of dark since there is dark matter? It’s got to be faster since it gets out of the way of light. Or is it a balancing force since energy can neither be created or destroyed and what is the fine line of distinction between the two? Talk about religion…….

  76. RAD Says:

    Words can mean whatever we want them to mean. There’s something like a dozen or more definitions of “be”. No point in arguing over what they mean or “don’t” mean – if that’s how you use it then that’s what it means in the context you’re using it. Is Phoenix a mythic bird or a place in Arizona? Is a subway a sandwich or is it a train? Is Apollo a mythical personification of the Sun or is it a space ship? Which is the “right” way to use the word? It’s up to the speaker to define their terms I think, not up to the in·ter·loc·u·tor to tell the speaker what their words “don’t” mean a la Cliff Richardson.

    Google definition of law
    law/lô/
    2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

    From Wikipedia:
    “A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.”

    “Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.”

    If we define law this way, then the “law” doesn’t actually exist outside of the mind since a “statement” needs a mind to make it/understand it. The force of gravity and the law of gravity aren’t the same thing. The law is the human understanding, it’s a statement made by humans describing how stuff works (in a way that predicts what will happen) based on HUMAN OBSERVATION. The “law” of gravity only exists in the mind, whereas the phenomena of gravity exists whether we postulate a law in our mind or not. The map is not the territory.

  77. Jeff Says:

    @rad
    So the short version of your rambling is take a leap of …………faith.

  78. Jeff Says:

    @rad
    Your Bill Clinton defense of words, “that depends on what your definition of sex is” relativity makes for a poor excuse of what is false. What is true always exposes what is false because of a law of creation. I have the point of view that everything in all that exists is premised on truth and because a falsehood is created all of the created exposes what is false until it falls in line with what is true. In the case of people that can mean humiliation or its own self destruction whether we choose to believe it or not.

  79. NonEntity Says:

    Science cannot be right or wrong since it is a process, it is not the conclusions derived therefrom.

  80. Andy Says:

    Jeff wrote: “Reason always leads to morality because it leads directly to the Creator in about 3 steps, and it leads to a complete understanding of the real law in a few more.”

    What is the Creator?

  81. Jeff Says:

    That which is not created.

  82. Andy Says:

    So the Creator is non existence, right?

  83. Andy Says:

    Rewording jeff’s sentence with his definition of Creator: “Reason always leads to morality because it leads directly to that which is not created in about 3 steps, and it leads to a complete understanding of the real law in a few more.”

  84. Jeff Says:

    @andy
    Just as darkness is the absence of light, that which is created is never the creator. You could say that which is false is never true until it is recognized for what it is……false. Non existence falls under the category of where there is no law there is no transgression. Existence bears witness that you were created.

  85. Jeff Says:

    So to clearly see an understanding of what is false you have to recognize what is truth. If you can’t recognize that…..nothing anybody says will make a difference for you. Words or rules or laws will just be exercise of your tongue running away with the imagination of your own folly.

  86. Jeff Says:

    @nonE
    Science can be true or false……..the mechanics is the process. Who said anything about right or wrong other than you?

  87. Rad Says:

    But it really does depend on what your definition of sex is. The word has no inherent meaning other than the arbitrary association in the mind. “Sex” can mean a number, it can mean gender it can literally mean whatever you want.

  88. NonEntity Says:

    Rad, how did you know I was thinking about sex?!?

  89. spooky2th Says:

    Modern govenments or the old governments, man-made religions are all the same. rackets to control and extract money & resources from the people. Simple history shows that christianity was created by evil men with seriously bad intentions. Ordered written by constantine, by the pharisees that were not of the 12 tribes, who were of the other evil book the talmud. The gospels used in the evil book didn’t appear until the 300’s AD. There were at least 15 earlier pagan religions with the same stories, son of God born on christmas of a virgin birth, miracles and on & on the same. And you expect me to believe the current one as true?!?! Does anybody here really need a book with so much evil goings on in it to tell you anything??? A book with so many contradictions it’s funny?

  90. Jeff Says:

    @rad
    I guess you would be right…….too bad he left his swimmers on her blue dress and created a falsehood. Sticking to his story took on a whole new meaning with the mess he left.
    @spook
    About the only thing I can say about you, you were raised Catholic….I feel sorry for you.

  91. spooky2th Says:

    Raised catholic??? That’s a problem with people and especially the court system. Too many claims, arguments or assertions being made with out anything to back them up, no facts or evidence at all.

  92. Jeff Says:

    @spooky,
    Finally your listening. When someone paints in broad strokes, their assertions are meaningless. The rants against “government, man-made religions or courts” sounds like the kid who hates school. I could say thank you for asserting there are man made religions because acknowledging that says you understand there is one that is not or have no proof that there isn’t. It usually boils down to incidents or individuals. It sounds like whining. Facts and evidence will always have counterpoints that arise. For you to rant on (fill in the blank) you totally deny any worth to the subject when you claim undeniable proof that calls for its elimination. That’s not called reasoning or a countervailing viewpoint that has validity. That is Drew Nelson all over again.

  93. spooky2th Says:

    I am merely saying what true history and many historians have been saying for years upon years. Not the false history that has been force fed to everybody since birth practically. Yet, I still do not hear any facts, evidence or anything at all that could counter what I said. Just another typical condescending, ad holmium attack.

  94. Jeff Says:

    @spooky2th

    So be it….continue your pursuit of Gubernare Mente.

  95. spooky2th Says:

    Have you looked in a mirror lately? Free your mind of all the archonic double standards…

  96. Thomas Field Says:

    Mark I purchased a Motion to Strike/Motion to dismiss. There was no preovision to indicate the state. Perhaps it is not necessary but I had thought you said to so indicate. If that is so I am in Idaho; purchase confirmation #TKCGB9TU

  97. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Thomas, I sent over earlier today, though I corrected my mistake, I originally sent the California files.

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. POLAND, TERRORISM, OBEDIENCE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, THE LOSS OF FREEDOMS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, AND THE SIMPLE SOLUTION – PART II | there is no debt Says:

    […] No Rational Basis For Applicability of Laws – Interview with Law Professor http://marcstevens.net/articles/no-rational-basis-for-applicability-of-laws-interview-with-law-profe… […]

  2. Banned From Sub-reddit- Ask a Law Enforcement Officer - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] and the interview with Robert Diab, and the other calls of shame, should help you prepare if you are going to court.  You’ll […]

  3. Ticket Kicked in Colorado - Congrats Nick - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] truth is, as stated by Robert Diab and Colby Granville, political “laws” apply because politicians “said so” […]

  4. NSP - Dec 26, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] From Sub-reddit- Ask a Law Enforcement Officer post versus the lack of activity of the excellent interview with the Canadian law professor […]

  5. We Don’t Need No Stinking Jurisdiction | suewrongdoers Says:

    […] http://marcstevens.net/articles/no-rational-basis-for-applicability-of-laws-interview-with-law-profe… […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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