Pat Ciliberto – Attorney of the Year 2013 – Not a Shred of Evidence Laws Apply

Posted on March 13th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

A big congrats to John in Minnesota for confronting the Scott county board of commissioners last week on 4 March 2014.  John asked them for evidence proving the constitution and laws of the “state” applied to him just because he is physically in Minnesota.  They offer nothing.

cilibertoHowever, Pat Ciliberto, the county attorney, did offer his opinion and that of the psychopath Rex Stacy I reported on earlier.  All Pat could offer was Stacy’s opinion the constitution and laws applied to John.  No facts, no evidence, nothing that would prove the constitution and laws applied.  Facts?  Pat answered John’s evidentiary question by essentially saying the facts are because Rex Stacy said so.

We’re not surprised, we expect it.  What Pat also did was claim the questions had to be in writing.  Pat has no intention of answering, I’ve asked him and his office numerous times and they have never provided anything.  This is the last fax I sent Pat.  It’s pretty straightforward, you’d think the attorney of the year would answer it.  Here is the bulk of the letter, please feel to use it as a template:

Greetings Mr. Ciliberto:

I’m asking you as a journalist about evidence you are supposed to have proving the constitution and laws of the “state” apply to someone such as John Myser just because he’s physically in Minnesota.

I saw the video of your appearance at the commissioners’ meeting. Instead of answering John’s question, you merely restated another lawyer’s opinion that the law applied. Why restate an opinion when John asked you for facts? Why didn’t you just answer the question responsively? Is your position the same as Jeannie Anderson, that you’re not required to have evidence?

Also, as I have never received an answer from you or anyone in your office, please provide me with the facts proving the constitution and laws of the “state” apply to everyone physically in Minnesota. [No one at the county level I have communicated with, including every member of the commission, has been able to provide any facts the laws apply.]

I’m not looking for political platitudes, logical fallacies, nor arguments and legal citations; just the facts/evidence proving “the laws of the State apply to everyone [physically] in Minnesota.”

I have also contacted the Minnesota governor, attorney general and the tax committee of the Minnesota legislative house.  None of them will return a call.   None of them have been able to provide any evidence their laws apply to people just because we are physically in Minnesota.

I’ll continue asking them and trying to set up interviews with these people.  But if you think you have what these politicians can’t provide, call into the No State Project and present the evidence.

 

              

24 Comments For This Post

  1. John Says:

    Since they don’t want to give evidence their laws apply to him, here is some evidence of their laws that do apply to them where their method of assessing and charging property tax in their State and Municipality is engaging in a fraud against the United States.

    18 USC § 8 – Obligation or other security of the United States defined
    The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

    MEMPHIS BANK & TRUST CO. V. GARNER, 459 U. S. 392 (1983)

    Hagar v, Land Reclamation District. #108, 111 U.S. 701.

    -CITE-

    31 USC Sec. 3124 01/06/97

    -EXPCITE-

    TITLE 31 – MONEY AND FINANCE

    SUBTITLE III – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    CHAPTER 31 – PUBLIC DEBT

    SUBCHAPTER II – ADMINISTRATIVE

    -HEAD-

    Sec. 3124. Exemption from taxation

    -STATUTE-
    (a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except –
    (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and
    (2) an estate or inheritance tax.
    (b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date, has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract. This subsection does

    not apply to obligations and evidences of ownership issued by the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a department, agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of the District, territory, or possession.
    -SOURCE-
    (Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 945; Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.) -misc-
    Historical and Revision Notes
    ———————————————————————
    Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large) ———————————————————————
    3124(a) 31:742. R.S. Sec. 3701;
    Sept. 22, 1959,
    Pub. L. 86-346,
    Sec. 105(a), 73
    Stat. 622.
    3124(b) 31:742a. Feb. 19, 1941, ch.
    7, Sec. 4, 55 Stat.
    9; Mar. 28, 1942,
    ch. 205, Sec. 6, 56
    Stat. 190; restated
    June 25, 1947, ch.
    147, 61 Stat. 180;
    Sept. 22, 1959,
    Pub. L. 86-346,
    See. 202, 73 Stat.
    624.

    U.S. CON-stitution

    Section 10

    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    The State is operating under the national bankruptcy without having any gold and silver coin for a tender in payment of debts. The State and County are operating with federal reserve notes which are debt OBLIGATIONS of the United States.

    The State and County is assessing property value based on federal reserve notes [United States Obligations] and then using that total dollar amount based on federal reserve notes to COMPUTE their property tax, which is a violation under 31 U.S.C. 3124 (formally 31 U.S.C. 742) thereby committing FRAUD against the United States!

    This would place every County official in breach of their oath, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of public trust, warring against the constitution, attempting to overthrow their own government, mail fraud by having used the US Mail to send illegal tax bills for the purpose of collecting funds in violation of US Law, and numerous other felonies under their US Codes that they are hell bent on making a CLAIM those laws do apply to them!

    TA DA!

  2. Andy Says:

    “Pat answered John’s evidentiary question by essentially saying the facts are because Rex Stacy said so.”

    @Pat: So pat, does that mean the men and women down the chain of command under you can say the same… they can say: “Pat Ciliberto, county attorney said the laws apply to all of us”? …Making you the ring-leader, I mean King?

    The same would be asked of Rex.

  3. LC in Texas Says:

    When a “Public Employee” refuses to answer questions pertaining to their job, the people have the right and duty to relieve them of their position and benefits provided by the people.

  4. John Says:

    If their constitution does not apply to you a private man, then how are they your public employees? They are not OUR employees. They the STATE’S employees. They are STATE servants. Public MEANS the same as STATE in their definition of State.

    Bouvier’s

    STATE

    In search for a verbal expression of that ENTITY which has been variously phrased as the “state”, the nation, the commonwealth, or the public, the first mentioned term was slow in coming into general use.

    And People means:

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
    People:
    A nation in its collective and political capacity.
    In neutrality laws, a government recognized by the United States.
    When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise.

    Are YOU part of their political capacity? Are YOU subject to their constitutions? Are YOU “Clothed” with the elective franchise? If not then you are not one of the “people” as defined by their legal definitions. If you are then their constitutions, laws, codes and statutes apply to you!

    You can’t have it both ways. You are either part of their jural society or you are not.

  5. RadicalDude Says:

    “John Says:
    March 13th, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    If you are then their constitutions, laws, codes and statutes apply to you!”

    iS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THIS TO BE TRUE?

  6. John Says:

    How can you be a party to something and it not apply to you? It only cannot apply if you are NOT a party to it. Which their own court in 1854 made perfectly clear that we as PRIVATE Persons are not a party to it.

    Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 1854

    “*55 But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain.”

  7. Andy Says:

    No alleged State has ever complained because the is no State. Factually, the alleged State(s) is a gang of killers, thieves and liars. I’ve never heard the Bloods, Crips or mafia referred to as States. Perhaps because they don’t proclaim themselves to be legitimate, necessary organizations/institutions.

    The mafia is protection for wiseguys. Government is protection for psychopaths that join their fascist “fraternity”.

  8. mitch Says:

    its never going to happen,not without a street fight..if thay do it is the end of their grasshopper existence.the only way is through the constitution.like it or not.the founding fathers were smart,you know thay left a whey,just have to find it.

  9. Martin Padilla Says:

    Excellent opinion Andy

  10. mitch Says:

    a lot of people have died in defence of that peac of papper,the constitution. you can’t poo poo that and have them on your side.the founding fathers had the same idea as marc,thay just did it differently,and then smarmy buricrats curupted it all to hell.power cerupts with out fail,no getting around that ether.fight the good fight.

  11. NonE Says:

    I must say, some stuff is so good you just can’t make it up!!! —> mitch Sed: a lot of people have died in defence of that peac of papper,the constitution. you can’t poo poo that…

  12. indio007 Says:

    Alot of people dies for all sorts of paper. Mostly for one that says “traffic citation” up top.

  13. Martin Padilla Says:

    ‘WE THE PEOPLE” , is actually “THEY” that piece of paper does not apply to Us, it only apply to them.

  14. Martin Padilla Says:

    PEOPLE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. MARTIN PADILLA, How cleaver and all these years I thought that I was one of the “WE THE PEOPLE” THE PEOPLE, Is the Government/the STATE.

  15. John Says:

    There are a few Illinois appellate cases specifically citing that it is well established that when a case is filed THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS it MEANS the STATE OF ILLINOIS.

    If it meant YOU as one of those people then as a people you could immediately withdraw all charges on any case since you would be plaintiff! LOL

  16. indio007 Says:

    cases are filed in the name of the public ,
    they are/were titled Res Publica or as Ex Relator.

  17. John Says:

    The public MEANS the STATE! That is what government defines it in their legal definition.

    The State, the nation, the commonwealth or the public, all mean one and the same according to their legal definition.

  18. indio007 Says:

    There are distinctions of what is public.
    There is the organized public i.e. body politic and the unorganized public which everyone.

    The organized public acts ostensibly on behalf of the unorganized public because such an entity can not take accept rights/property by grant or dedication.

    The State is the trustee if the public trust. However, the State acts in a multiplicity of capacities. Some on it’s own private behalf, some on the unorganized public’s behalf. Some are governmental (even that has distinctions as to what and whom is being governed/administered. Some are corporate etc…

    The State has come to the position of domination because of the people’s failure to distinguish legitimate gov’t functions, their boundries and the associated liability.

    Just like the secrecy by the State is legit for some purposes but that excuse is used for other purposes i.e. covering up criminality .

    Crimes can be prosecuted by private individuals for a crime is a tort against the whole public. The State has conditioned everyone to think that the State and the public are the same and proceeds to prosecute cases in it’s name.

    here’s one of my favorite references.

    Are Cops Constitutional?
    Roger Roots
    Seton Hall Law Journal
    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    PRIVATE PROSECUTORS

    For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.15 Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20

    15 Originally, all criminal procedure fell under the rule of private vengeance. A victim or aggrieved party made a direct appeal to county authorities to force a defendant to face him.

    See ARTHUR TRAIN, THE PRISONER AT THE BAR 120 n. (1926). From these very early times, “grand” or “accusing” juries were formed to examine the accusations of private individuals. Id. at 121 n. Although the accusing jury frequently acted as a trial jury as well, it eventually evolved into a separate body that took on the role of accuser on behalf of aggrieved parties. It deliberated secretly, acting on its members’ own personal information and upon the application of injured parties. Id. at 124 n.

    16 In the early decades of American criminal justice, criminal cases were hardly different from civil actions, and could easily be confused for one another if “the public not being joined in it.” Clark v. Turner, 1 Root 200 (Conn. 1790) (holding action for assault and battery was no more than a civil case because the public was not joined). It was apparently not unusual for trial judges themselves to be confused about whether a case was criminal or civil, and to make judicial errors regarding procedural differences between the two types of cases. See Meacham v. Austin, 5 Day 233 (Conn. 1811) (upholding lower court’s dismissal of criminal verdict because the case’s process had been consistent with civil procedure rather than criminal procedure).

    17 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution).

    18 See, e.g., Smith v. State, 7 Tenn. 43 (1846) (using the term prosecutor to describe a private person); Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (same); Commonwealth v. Harkness, 4 Binn. 193 (Pa. 1811) (same).

    19 See Harold J. Krent, Executive Control Over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 AM. U. L. REV. 275, 281-90 (1989) (saying that any claim that criminal law enforcement is a ‘core’ or exclusive executive power is historically inaccurate and therefore the Attorney General need not be vested with authority to oversee or trigger investigations by the independent counsel).

    20 See Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa. 1790) (holding the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor).

    21 Private prosecutors generally had to pay the costs of their prosecutions, even though the state also had an interest. See Dickinson v. Potter, 4 Day 340 (Conn. 1810). Government attorneys general took over the prosecutions of only especially worthy cases and pursued such cases at public expense. See Waldron v. Turtle, 4 N.H. 149, 151 (1827) (stating if a prosecution is not adopted and pursued by the attorney general, “it will not be pursued at the public expense, although in the name of the state”).

    22 See State v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71, 73 (1844) (stating a threat by crime victim to prosecute a supposed thief is proper but extortion for pecuniary advantage is criminal).

    23 See Plumer v. Smith, 5 N.H. 553 (1832) (holding promissory note invalid when tendered by a criminal defendant to his private prosecutor in exchange for promise not to prosecute).

    24 Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105, 109 (1849).

    25 See In re April 1956 Term Grand Jury, 239 F.2d 263 (7th Cir. 1956).

    26 See Goodman v. United States, 108 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1939).

    27 See Krent, supra note 19, at 293.

    28 C.f. Ellen D. Larned, 1 History of Windham County, Connecticut 272-73 (1874) (recounting attempts by Windham County authorities in 1730 to arrest a large group of rioters who broke open the Hartford Jail and released a prisoner).

    29 Id. at 273.

    30 See Buckminster v. Applebee, 8 N.H. 546 (1837) (stating the sheriff has a duty to raise the posse to aid him when necessary).

    31 See Waterbury v. Lockwood, 4 Day 257, 259-60 (Conn. 1810) (citing English cases).

  19. Martin Padilla Says:

    INDIO007, I really enjoy your “brief.” Believe me I do learn something out of it. This is a very complex issue.

  20. dooger Says:

    Too bad John is a loon

  21. Martin Padilla Says:

    INDIO007, I have a question for You, I hope you can enlight me with an answer. Can anybody be a Public Prosecutor? What are the requirements, have to be a BAR Lawyer? Work for the STATE? Rod Class claim to be one, and He does not work for the State. Or probably He is a “Pseudo Prosecutor,” like so many.

  22. Gaylan Says:

    Would it be considered a fact that the laws do not apply to everyone since not all laws are equally APPLIED to EVERYONE who is physically in the state where ever you may be?

    Would a man with diplomatic immunity be subject to those same “laws”? Case closed. Would that not make it true, the laws DO NOT apply to everyone physically there.

    cheers

  23. RadicalDude Says:

    “indio007 Says:
    March 17th, 2014 at 11:48 am

    The State is the trustee if the public trust. However, the State acts in a multiplicity of capacities. Some on it’s own private behalf, some on the unorganized public’s behalf. Some are governmental (even that has distinctions as to what and whom is being governed/administered. Some are corporate etc…

    The State has come to the position of domination because of the people’s failure to distinguish legitimate gov’t functions, their boundries and the associated liability.

    Just like the secrecy by the State is legit for some purposes but that excuse is used for other purposes i.e. covering up criminality .”

    1.And what factually is the “state?” Surely you don’t mean to say the ground is a public trustee and has come to position of domination?
    2. Is the state a mental abstraction or is it a physical entity?
    3. What is the state made of? Lead? Iron? How much does it weigh? What color is it?
    4. If the state is merely a mental abstraction, then isn’t it reification fallacy to say the “state” is a trustee?
    5. “Who moved the remote for the TV?”
    “The state moved it.”
    Is this a logically coherent statement? Would you accept such an answer as valid if you were the asker? Why or why not?
    6. “That is a lovely painting, who is the artist?”
    “The state painted that.”
    Again, is this a logically coherent answer? Why or why not?

  24. Twanda Klem Says:

    Great article. Thanks for the info. Does anyone know where I can find a blank ch 205 form to fill out?

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Mar 29, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guest: John from MN | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] JT and Guest: John from MN, who joins us in the last segment of the show to share his adventures in legal-land as part of the Same ‘ol Lie World […]

  2. NSP - Apr 19, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guest: John from MN | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] JT and Guest: John Myser from MN. John, who contributed two SoLWT reports [Mar 4, 2014, Mar 18, 2014] from local public city council hearings, joins the show today to give us an update […]

  3. NSP - Feb 14, 2015 - Co-host: JT - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] adventures in media-repping for John Myser during his aggressive legal attack, saturated with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, from the […]

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 now broadcast via youtube.com. 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