This is John’s second time confronting the county commissioners and attorney of 2013, Pat Ciliberto, for the evidence they rely on proving the constitution and laws of the “state” apply to John just because he is physically in Minnesota. Predictably they had no evidence to provide.
Pat did provide a typical political ad hominem though, that’s not a surprise as logical fallacies are what lawyers are really good at. When a politician has no evidence, they use a combination ad hominem and gaslighting technique. It’s pretty dirty and may not be as apparent to those who don’t engage politicians very often.
When confronted with their lack of evidence, they will make a claim such as: “No answer I give will satisfy you.” They are implying you are too stupid to accept they have already answered you when in fact they have not. John is asking for facts the laws apply because he is physically in Minnesota. All Pat offered was the opinion of another lawyer Rex Stacy (who also works as the “county” as Pat does). Pat then insists his reference to Rex’s opinion is a responsive answer to John’s question asking for facts/evidence.
Alan got pretty upset with me last week and used that as a pretext to end the call. Alan protested because I just kept asking him to answer my question. He insists he has answered and can’t answer any other way. I tell him he can be honest and give me the facts or admit he doesn’t have anything to give. Alan is outraged and says I cannot question his integrity and ends the call.
While such tactics do not provide the evidence the laws apply, it is evidence of bad faith and yes, a lack of integrity. I can’t make this any simpler: if they had facts, then they would provide them. If you think you have facts that prove a constitution and laws of a “state” apply to me just because I am physically in Minnesota or Arizona, then call into the No State Project and present your facts.