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.