Same Ol’ Lie World Tour – No Evidence Laws Apply

Posted on March 31st, 2014 by Marc Stevens

I’ve mentioned this on the No State Project a few times.  It’s the Same ol’ Lie World Tour.  I’ve already gotten lot’s of footage and will post them under this part of the website so they are easy to find.  The Tempe city council “we have jurisdiction because we say so” and the interview with federal magistrate John Buttrick are good examples.

What I’m doing is compiling a list of many different examples of asking a simple question  asking for evidence that undermines a very common lie: The laws of a “state” or government apply to us because we are physically in an area the “state” psychopaths say is their jurisdiction.  For no other reason but physical location, their “laws” apply to us.  Ask a bureaucrat if the laws of the “state” apply because you are in Phoenix, Melbourne, Dublin or wherever, and they will insist the laws apply.  It’s a simple formula and we don’t have to be accused of violating the law for them to insist their laws apply.  It breaks down to this:

If X, then Y

If you are physically in Arizona, then the “laws” apply.  According to politicians, bureaucrats and their apologists, this formula is as irrefutable as 2+2=4.  There’s no proof mind you, but that doesn’t usually stop them.

I’m doing this to show it’s the same lie wherever we go.  Most people, and every politician/bureaucrat operate under this ridiculous lie.

Some have asked: “What’s the point of all this, what do you hope to accomplish?”  Part is to educate people that the argument or opinion the laws apply and there is jurisdiction over us is groundless, there are no facts.  This is to empower people to have the information and skills to defeat these crazy claims against us by bureaucrats.

I also want to see more non-violent, non-cooperation with this predators.  Why comply when they admittedly have no evidence their laws apply?

There is a very pertinent question here: If the police have no evidence the laws apply, and the prosecutors don’t, then where are the judges getting it from when they insist they have jurisdiction over us?  They are so certain they will not only put us in cages, but also order psychological examines for asking for this phantom evidence.

The point is to not only bring out the police don’t have the evidence (there is no such evidence) but the prosecutors, city councils, city managers, legislators, attorney generals, and governors don’t have it.  I’ve already spoken to a senior deputy attorney general in New Hampshire about this.  Since she had no evidence it’s no surprise the governor refused to speak to me.

What I am suggesting is that when we get a ticket from a cop, we go up the chain of command.  We speak with the chief, the city council, city attorney, manager, legislators, attorney general and governor ask them for evidence their laws apply because we are physically in New York, Toronto, London or wherever.  We can use their admissions in court when we demand what evidence the judge relies and who gave it to him/her.  They are certainly not getting it from the cops and prosecutors.  They can try to dodge the issue by saying go to the legislators, but we can present our timeline and responses where the legislators either could not answer or refused to.

It comes down to nailing these black-robed predators in open court colluding with the prosecutors and giving them a free pass on jurisdiction.  I want to see people demanding to know what evidence these judges are relying to prove jurisdiction because we can certainly prove they are not getting anything from the prosecutors and their fellow predators, the politicians.

It is nonsense claiming that people can write up rules, call them “law” and they just apply to everyone because they say so.  I also want to point out another tactic that has been coming from critics to avoid the lack of evidence.   It is the re-framing a question of evidence as a question of “law”.  If this is raised then point this out and ask for the evidence again.  All a constitution is, is a written instrument, same as the sacred writ they call “law”.  If it applies, then there has to be evidence.

There is no evidence to support the argument the people support these so-called legislators or representatives.  Support is compulsory, so there is no evidence the people agreed to anything.  All they agreed to do is comply to avoid being killed or put in jail.  So don’t buy the diversion tactic that “society has agreed to these laws…”  It’s more non-responsive garbage.

What we have is a non-sequitur; a logical fallacy that if I am in Arizona, then the laws of the “state” of Arizona apply to me.  I just have to be physically in Arizona, not accused of any violation; my physical presence in Arizona means the laws apply to me.  There’s no evidence and this lack of evidence is admitted and is actually defended by people claiming the applicability of the laws is a legal question, not one of evidence.  It’s as if they don’t realize what they are really saying.  They are saying, as John Buttrick admits, the law applies because the predators called government said so.  Remember, Kolby Granville admitted this publicly.  Also here.

This is about the truth, what is really happening and what can be proven.  I don’t need a judge or other predator acting as a “government” to agree with what I’m presenting for it to have merit.  Whether they have a demonstrable conflict of interest is not (they do) is irrelevant to proving or disproving what I’m presenting.  Obviously if one is working as a judge, cop, prosecutor etc., they are not going to want to admit the obvious.  Nonetheless, it’s not relevant to proving they have no evidence their “laws” apply to me.  Not only have they all failed, in and out of court, to provide any evidence, but it crosses “imaginary jurisdictional lines” and others have replicated the results.

“Obviously, peace officers do not suddenly forget all their training and experience simply because they cross an imaginary jurisdictional line in the sand.”   STATE of Montana, v. Updegraff, 267 P.3d 28 (2011).

What I have, and will continue getting on this world tour, is evidence directly from those who claim to be governments.  The fact they cannot provide a single fact to prove their laws apply just because I am physically in Arizona is sufficient to show they have no evidence.  That all they rely on is a gun.

Disagree with me?  Bring your evidence.

NSP-solwt

              

16 Comments For This Post

  1. Martin Padilla Says:

    You are right Marc, the time is now to stop this nonsense abuse of power. Enough is enough, We have been abused and victimized by these smooth talkers. Their only duty as government is to protect Us and instead they take advantage every time They can or every time We disagree with their rulings. I am not afraid any more of Them, I don’t respect them any more I now know all of them are common criminals or probably worst because they what they are doing.

  2. Martin Padilla Says:

    Correction on last sentence.. because they KNOW what they are doing.

  3. jcfromnj Says:

    Sure the Law’s apply.I’m taking my gun out of it’s holster.Sure the Law’s apply. I’m loading a full clip in the chamber.Sure the Law’s apply. I’m pointing my gun at your head.Sure the Law’s apply. I’m pulling back the hammer. GOT ANY MORE DUMB QUESTIONS MARC?

  4. RadicalDude Says:

    “Martin Padilla Says:
    March 31st, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    Their only duty as government is to protect Us ”

    How do you know their duty is to protect us? Where are you getting this?

  5. Martin Padilla Says:

    @ RadicalDude, The key word is ALLEGIANCE. As an American Citizen in order for you to get a passport you sign the application in which you swear an Oath of Allegiance under Title 8 United States Code section 1448. It is a very seious crime to commit perjury or lie on a passport application under 18 USC &1442, You can be fined and put to jail for 25 years. The government in return for your “ALLEGIANCE” is “giving you protection,” just like the mob. However the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has said that a passport may not be used as proof of citizenship which proves Marc Stevens’s theory that there is not such a thing as a STATE.

  6. Martin Padilla Says:

    Your Voter’s registration, your driver’s license and many more forms/contracts have the same Liability and clause; Allegiance for protection. Of course judges and prosecutors circunbent (apply under their own discretion the rules and law, and that’s the reason they can anwer Marc’s question.

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ martin, they can’t answer because there is no evidence. They are not trying to hide any “contracts”. All support is compulsory, pay or get shot. No contract when the only other option is death. Some have answered the question, they admit they don’t know or they have no evidence.

  8. Martin Padilla Says:

    Correction CAN NOT answer Marc’s question.

  9. Martin Padilla Says:

    Thanks Marc, I think you have proof your point with plenty of evidence because you have been in the battlefield dozens of times and you remain invict because none had answer you yet. Marc you are also correct on the “contracts” there are no such thing, because with the threat of violence and lack of disclosure there aren’t none. I learn and enjoy both of your masterpieces “ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND” and “GOVERNMENT INDICTED” , You should write one that will teach us how We can be in front of those BLACK ROBBED criminals without feeling anxiety, panic and intimidated.

  10. Andy Says:

    “Since she had no evidence it’s no surprise the governor refused to speak to me.”

    Then the mayor should stop hopping up and down waving his/her arms to get people’s attention as he/she pleads with anyone that will listen, “I’m still relevant”.

  11. Andy Says:

    Then the governor should stop hopping up and down waving his/her arms to get people’s attention as he/she pleads with anyone that will listen, “I’m still relevant”.

  12. Gregg Says:

    Excellent write-up. Thx Marc.

  13. RadicalDude Says:

    “Martin Padilla Says:
    April 1st, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    @ RadicalDude, The key word is ALLEGIANCE. As an American Citizen in order for you to get a passport you sign the application in which you swear an Oath of Allegiance under Title 8 United States Code section 1448. It is a very seious crime to commit perjury or lie on a passport application under 18 USC &1442, You can be fined and put to jail for 25 years. The government in return for your “ALLEGIANCE” is “giving you protection,” just like the mob.”

    Has the us government ever formally recognized a general duty to protect “citizens” or “the people” or “americans”? I get that you feel they should have that duty, but where do they acknowledge having such a duty? How is a passport application evidence of allegiance, isn’t it only signed under duress because without it one would be forbidden to leave and basically would be held hostage?

  14. Martin Padilla Says:

    @RadicalDude, I signed the Dept. Of State Form DS11
    (Passport application) under necessity. Please don’t get any feelings how I feel, you can not feel how I feel. You want to really know how your government is??? A “government” is a group of men and women doing bysiness using physical violence under the political banner of “necessity.” And please do not contradict this because I am just Quoting Marc Stevens.

  15. Martin Padilla Says:

    Of course under the law of “necessity” their business of killing and violence is cover. You want to know more about them, check in your dictionary the meaning of farce, and lie, they operate in legal land like this; you say is black and they say is white, guess who will win? Radical Dude, when I said “under the law of “necessity” their business is cover, I have been sarcastic.

  16. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    In answer to protection for allegiance: This cite is from the (alleged) state of Illinois. The first 40 words are exactly the same in California, and IIRC, New Jersey.

    745 ILCS 10/4‑102.
    Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. This immunity is not waived by a contract for private security service, but cannot be transferred to any non‑public entity or employee.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jun 27, 2015 - Co-host: Vin James - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Clint Richardson‘s delusional over-defining-of-definitions in attempt to escape what the facts and evidence are saying. […]

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, 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