Categorized | Articles, Video

Exposing Another Political Fallacy – Physical Location Doesn’t Equal Presence Within a State

Posted on April 21st, 2012 by Marc Stevens

A very common political fallacy is to equate your physical location as being equal to presence within fictional states.   When you look at the facts, the equation is pretty simple:

physical location  Not Equal  presence within a state.

Because we’ve all been conditioned to believe the opposite, it is very difficult to accept our mere physical location does not mean we are within a state.  States are fictions and I’ve covered that many times already, I only briefly discuss this in the beginning of the video below.  To help break this conditioning, I started using a religious analogy years ago.  It has been very effective and really helps bridge the gap in thought, making it very easy to see this fallacy for what it is.  It’s really just a PR stunt to convince you to pay taxes.  Anyone with evidence to the contrary has an open invite to present their evidence on my radio show.

Religious organizations utilize very similar fictions as politicians, they may also use the same words, such as a parish.  The Catholic church and the politicians in Louisiana both use the word parish.  A parish is the religious equivalent of a county or city, and diocese is the equivalent of a political state.  All the religious “authority” does is put lines on a map, such as around the geographic area known as Utah, and they call it the Utah diocese, or the Salt Lake parish.  Like a political state, it does not really exist, it’s not real.

So, I just ask a politician/bureaucrat if the mere fact he/she lives in the boundaries of the Utah diocese automatically means he/she within or a member of the Catholic church and the answer is predicable.  He/she will immediately state absolutely not.  I could argue and tell him if he doesn’t want to pay his fair share of tithing he can always move, but I’ve made my point and only need to ask:

Then why do you think my mere physical location means I’m within a state?

You get the deer in the headlights look for a few moments as they try to process this information.  At the very least I’m getting dialogue regarding what the state is and can ask if the state is natural or man-made.  You can also point out from the politicians’ own mouths that cities are created by law.

The emotional response you get when suggesting someone is a member of a church because they live within the boundaries of the parish, ward or diocese can be used to your advantage.  Anchor it if you can, then ask about your presence within the state on just your physical location.  It’s a good way to demonstrate the fallacy because you meet the politician at his/her map of the world and use their common sense, which is usually left at home, to help them understand physical location does not mean you’re within the church or state.

From experience, any discussion about what the state is factually, will show there are no facts proving you’re within the fictional state.  Remember Phillip Mangone: “Sir, Sir, do not start with me, just do not start with me.”

Because if they can’t prove you’re within their fictional states, they cannot prove their sacred writ applies or they have jurisdiction.  Without those distractions, their aggression and violence are all they have left.  Then the pretense of due process is gone and they are acting openly as the criminals they are.

YouTube Preview Image
              

45 Comments For This Post

  1. aletoledo Says:

    Do you have any anecdotes of trials where this is laid out? I’d like to hear what actually happened next. Did you just ignore this line of argument or were they forced to dismiss the case? I mean I agree with the logic here, but they have the guns and can simply brush this aside.

  2. Ivan Says:

    Take a look at ALLLL the various definitions of the word ‘state’.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state

    All the definitions refer to ‘condition’ or a situation. One could hardly exist, live, or reside within a condition or a situation, could they? In fact part of the description under synonyms explains: “State is the general word, often with no concrete implications or material relationships: the present ‘state of affairs’. Condition carries an implication of a relationship to causes and circumstances… but not to ‘being within’ or ‘dwelling within’.

    Even with many paragraphs of description there is no mention whatsoever as ‘state’ being a ‘place’, as is pretended by ‘State representatives’. Pretty amazing how corporate garbage has totally invented a non-existent reality and they’re going to throw you in jail or take your money because you did something to their imagination!?!? Sheeesh!!!

  3. Keith B. Says:

    Thank you Steve. Now I get it. But the judge will say your in contemt of court, and have the baliff handcuff you right into the cage. Now what.

  4. Sam Says:

    Wow, I’ve never heard you use this parish analogy before – I like it.

    Another example I like is in the movie “Cannibal: The Musical” (made by the South Park guys). The main character is about to be hanged for murder when the female lead presents a stay of execution, explaining that the State of Colorado has no jurisdiction because the State of Colorado did not EXIST when the crime was committed. Its the same land, and the same physical location, but a different political “location.” The guy was in the geographic area known as Colorado, but not the “STATE OF” Colorado.

    It’s probably not the best example, but here you have a piece of pop culture explaining that Colorado and the STATE OF Colorado cannot be COMPLETELY synonymous. At the very least it is sometimes possible to be present in one but not the other.

    You can see that on Hulu, around 1:28:00 btw.

  5. Lyndon Says:

    Kieth B.:

    You can’t be in “contempt” of a “court” that has no jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction the court does not exist either. No jurisdiction no contempt. It is that f’n simple.

  6. Algae Says:

    @Lyndon

    Easily said but you still end up in a cage!

  7. Algae Says:

    On another point: You mean no one you’ve come up against has had the intelligence to point out that while you may not be a catholic, you are still within the geographic boundary’s of the diocese? Fictional or not!

    Don’t get me wrong. I like what you’re doing here. If I am wrong, please explain why.

  8. Al Thompson Says:

    Lyndon:

    They exist because they have guns pointed at you. Everything that happens in a courtroom is authorized by guns and ammo. Or the bailiff may just beat your ass behind closed doors.

    I was ordered to file various tax returns and was locked in a cell with stacks of IRS forms to fill out. Obviously, I couldn’t do it even if I wanted to because I had no accurate data, but the judge threw me in jail for 88 days for contempt of court. He told me: “Mr. Thompson, you have continually thumbed your nose at this court.” Then after refusing to show me any law that required me to file the returns, he called me: “Poster boy for ignorance of the law.” Imagine, asking a judge for a law, and then he won’t give it to me, and has the audacity of telling me that I am ignorant of it.” It doesn’t get anymore insane than that.
    My guess is that every judge has to be psycho. You can’t be a liar for such a long period of time and have all your french fries in the Happy Meal.
    I hear many of them take drugs and are anti-depressants. In fact, that may be a good way to double check the judges: piss test them before any proceeding.
    Most of the federales; maybe half, wouldn’t pass the piss test for “illegal” drugs. Their hypocrisy is overwhelming.
    You are dealing with an insane mind which means that you will be damaged in some way. Just the paperwork by itself is a lie. So how are you going to make any sense of this? Marc’s system is still the best way to limit the damage and it should be learned so well that you can do it in your sleep.
    Here’s the end of it: the system is evil and satanic and truth has no place in it. They are crooks. SO if they are lying, then let them explain everything to you and you won’t have to argue any merits of the case. You have to shift the burden of proof to them. They are making the accusations; not you. Jurisdiction is not an argument because they have the guns or the threat of violence to get you to comply. If the state is a fiction, then there’s no true jurisdication. But the guns are real, there’s your jurisdiction. I can argue this stuff from one end to the other, but it still comes down to guns and ammo.
    The biggest problem is lying and I wrote something about why lying is so evil. http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/05/lie-doesnt-work-for-good.html A man can’t function with so many lies, and I believe it is impossible for any “government” to tell the truth.

  9. Lyndon Says:

    Al, I agree with you. But, IMO, asking for proof of jurisdiction is not an arguement it is asking questions. In any court, IN THEORY, asking questions (politely) is not contemptuous. In important cases (not parking tickets) never go to court alone and get documents on the court record before you walk in. And bring observers with you! It is not impossible to beat them at their own game -at least here in “CANADA Inc.”

  10. Keith Says:

    Thank you Marc. Well presented. Reminds me of a parable as told in one of the Gospels. Very effective way of teaching.

  11. Al Thompson Says:

    Lyndon,

    I’ve been in court in the US so many times, it’s just like another day at the office. I’ve been pulled out of my office by marshalls, chased up the Interstate by a treasury agent, arrested twice for “contempt” of court, and I’ve even walked out of a civil court because the judge wouldn’t disclose which constitution was operative in his court. California has three or maybe four versions. In most of these cases, I wrote a writ of habeas corpus which was always ignored. I’m always polite in court but it doesn’t really matter. I never want to act the way they do. That’s why I’m polite, not because I felt it in my heart. I just don’t want to act like the jerks that they are.

    The bottom line is that these courts and the people who run them are thugs; they are violent.

    As far as you asking for jurisdiction is about as effective as being in hell asking Satan for a glass of water. The courts are there as a dog and pony show in order to make theft, robbery, and murder look lawful. Jurisdiction is violence. Figure it this way, if you are every confronted by a thief on the street who wants take your money or he’ll blow your brains out, try to challenge his jurisdiction. It is essentially the same way when you go to a court.

    When you are in court, you are there with a bunch of evil people. That’s the best that can be said about it. Yes, you may be able to get some good results, but that’s only because they don’t want the system to look completely unfair.

    I wish you well, and I don’t want to discourage you, but I’ve had extensive experiences in the courts. In fact, I wouldn’t have believed it unless I had done it myself. Government and the legal system are both very sleazy organizations. If I had ever conducted business like this with my customers over the years, I would be a broken man. The only success these people have is their ability to intimidate and to threaten people into giving up their money. I think that part of their performance is going to come to an end because most people won’t give it any more serious consideration.

  12. greg Says:

    Yes, there raids and guns have a way of making you obey…

  13. Lyndon Says:

    Well, its too bad you’ve had so much travail and misfortune. I agree, the crooks will do anything to keep their criminal activity secret and away from the people. I have experience as well and what I get most of the time is simply ignoring my paperwork. I try not to go to court anyway because, yes, it’s a casino where you can’t win. But my success has mostly come from chasing away those who try to get from me. From what I know, the “system” seems tougher to deal with in “the States” than it is in “CANADA Inc.” I like Marc’s method though. It collapses their perch at least.

  14. Al Thompson Says:

    At the time that happened, I was a “tax protester.” Now, I don’t read any of their “laws” anymore, because they don’t really mean anything. I don’t really understand any of it, and I don’t want to understand it. It is complete bull shit.

    I had a tough time because I took it about as far as I could. I had about 5-8 guns pointed at my back while I was claiming they had no jurisdiction. After that, I realized that it is just violence and that the written law means absolutely nothing to them. Their guns were the jurisdiction; not any written law. The best that can be said for any written “law” is that it is just policy. But, just like any corporation, if the policy gets in the way, they just work around it. This is what I believe is happening.

    Rather than spend anymore time reading conspiracy theories or conspiracy history, I think it is more important to work with the things that actually work for one’s benefit, rather than learning more and more evil things which are of no service to anyone. If you took the time spent on studying these things and instead, mastered what Marc has developed, you could at least stay out of most of the trouble.

    His method also helps in many other ways, because if forces you to think. You can take what you’ve learned and then apply it to almost anything that you have an interest in. It helps people to learn critical thinking, rather than listening to a bunch of conspiracy stuff; which may be true, but what are you going to do with the information? I used to have a cocker spaniel who loved to chase the UPS truck. I always wondered what she would do with it if she ever caught it. Same thing with studying laws, religion, politics, and the rest. So now that you know it, what are you going to do about it?

    Almost everyone is going to find themselves in a courtroom at one point or another, so it’s worthwhile to learn something that you can actually use.

  15. Lyndon Says:

    Al, I couldn’t agree with you more. Good critical thinking using the time-proven methods, demanding proof of fictions, and staying within the fundamentals of real Law will always stand one in good stead.

    You, my U.S. neighbours, do seem to have a tougher time achieving that, however. The video Marc posted of the Irishmen staving off the police and Bailiff who were trying to steal a man’s house is a good example. I couldn’t see that happening much in the U.S. The police and public servants are too psychotic to take ANY humiliating lesson with very few exceptions.

  16. damon Says:

    Hello and God bless!

    From the horses mouth which I am sure many people here are well aware;

    “All States whatever are corporations.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall.(US) 419, 468, 1 L.Ed. 440.

    Without punching in title 28 I am sure everyone is also aware that the “United States” is a corporation as well. Moving on and following on this line of reasoning one might logically wish to know what a corporation is.

    CORPORATION. An artificial person
    or legal entity created…[by men/man] (Blacks Law 2nd)

    I like to call em’ an ‘idea’ for that is what they are.

    They also tell you;

    “…’government’ has been defined as a body politic, a state; a corporate entity through which the people act; a FICTITIOUS entity created by the people…”

    [38 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. ) [Legal Encyclopedia]]

    And moreover;

    “The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government.” Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

    There ya have it. An idea. This in part is why I do not CLAIM ‘citizenship’ in their soulless fictions or use ANY ‘benefit’ from them;

    “They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have NO SOULS” 10 Rep.32 b.

    Because they have no souls they are DEAD under the law. The only law I keep telling everyone that matters. For it is written;

    “They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.” [Psalm 115:8]

    So when you get a whole bunch of people that KNOW they are fictions but still are attached to these souless ideas in the form of the MARK(s) they use from them (License’s, credit cards, socialist insecurity numbers, bank accounts, registration, free home mail delivery, etc, etc,)They become like unto them under the law. People would rather trust in the vain imaginations of men than in the son of the Living God. Hence the current state of affairs which WILL continue to worsen till people repent and turn to the Lord in understanding that HE is all we ever had. It is written;

    “Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with THEIR gODS
    They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou SERVE their gods, it will SURELY be a snare unto thee”. [Exodus 23:32-33]

    I am just a messenger folks;

    “The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good”. [Psalm 14:1]

    *capitalization is for emphasis only.

    Peace unto you all from our Lord and Savior.

  17. damon Says:

    By the way;

    “Residence implies something MORE than mere transient visitation.”

    [The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, page 358 footnote. ]

  18. Al Thompson Says:

    To Damon:

    Are you sure it was the horse’s mouth, I had another part of the anatomy in mind.

    God’s commandments and natural laws are the only things worth paying attention to. Usually, you will find that most of the government laws will eventually break God’s law.

  19. Incubus Says:

    “People would rather trust in the vain imaginations of men than in the son of the Living God”. The son of the “Living God” IS an imagination, of men.

    “The FOOL hath said in us heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, the have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good”. [Psalm 14:1]

    That’s nonsense. It’s like saying some blacks are rapists, so all rapists are blacks. Someone who does not believe in a fairtytale is not automatically corrupt or guilty of abominable works. What a broad and judgemental brush to paint with.

    That is a message of hate and intolerance.

  20. Al Thompson Says:

    In my view, it is a completely outrageous position to say that there is no God at all, and that somehow we “evolved” into being. What destroys the belief in God for many people is religion, which is one of the most destructive forces on earth. The only God that matters is the one who created everything. Evolution is utterly impossible as it has no substance. If you used Marc’s methods of inquiry on evolution, you couldn’t get to first base with it.

    Use it on the idea of God, you’ll at least be able to show the evidence of the creation. But the existence of God doesn’t depend upon any church or other religious organization. I’m personally very suspect of any writings and I do try to test them all for whatever truth I can glean from them.

    However, there is also the natural “law” or order which is being upset by the NWO which is evil and satanic. I can’t prove Christ by any writing but I can prove God in my own mind because I can see His work. Christ was supposed to be God in the flesh, and assuming it is true, I don’t have any problem with it. But if it is false, then we have a problem Regardless, I believe in God anyway, so it really doesn’t matter, because the scriptures have been corrupted and they are a spiritual minefield.

    Shift the burden of proof upon the natural law and see what conclusion you come up with. Use only the information that you see, hear, and understand.

    I spend a lot of time in the mountains, and every time I go out, I see the evidence of God. Nature is the evidence of the existence of God. Evil is the machine to destroy the lives of men. I think it is best to stay away from groups altogether, as they have a tendency to get corrupted.

    I know you didn’t mention evolution, but I was using that as an example.

  21. Incubus Says:

    I’ve never held the position that evolution was true or the explanation of our origin. I personally believe that there is a “designer”/”creator” or intelligence behind this, and if God is what you wish to call it fine, but I don’t subscribe to any doctrine or deity.

    And I agree with you that “God” (or spirituality) is seperate from religion and best not mixed.

    The analogy I like to use is imagine you turn on the television and hear that so and so, some celebrity for example, was found dead in there home with a gun shot wound to the head. At that point, all that is known is this person was shot in the head and they’re dead. Its not yet known with what type of gun, how/why it happened, if it was an accident, suicide or homicide, self inflicted or by done by someone else. And you start coming up with this whole theory that it was this individual was murdered, who did it and how/why, with all sorts of details and motives and what not, despite zerp evidence to support your theory. While others maintain the theory it was suicide, plain and simple, or perhaps an accident.

    Now after several weeks of investigation, it is confirmed that yes, it was in fact a homicide. That in no way validates any aspect of your theory other than that it was a murder.

    It’s same with the God thing. Suppose tomorrow it were proven beyond any doubt that yes, there is a creator (or “God” if you will), responsible for the creation of all that is. That in NO WAY proves the bible or any other religous doctrine to be remotely true, in any way, or your beliefs for that matter, other than that there is a creator.

    You say you see evidence of God, fine, but you also refer to God as Him. And when you say Him more often than not it references the hebrew fairytale of God. God and Him are not the same. That’s mixing spirituality with religion.

  22. Al Thompson Says:

    Incubus,

    >>You say you see evidence of God, fine, but you also refer to God as Him. And when you say Him more often than not it references the hebrew fairytale of God. God and Him are not the same. That’s mixing spirituality with religion.
    >>

    I’m using the word “Him” out of respect. Lately, I’ve been questioning the validity of the scriptures and I’ve written a whole book on the subject.

    One thing that stands out is that some of the earlier Christian writings were more informative and were very instructive in how to build up moral character. While the bible has some of it, the writings that were either removed or never added to the “scriptures” were left out for whatever reason.
    So if the fruit (bad conduct of mankind) of the tree (tree being the bible) is rotten, then perhaps we have to rethink how we use the written word.

    The only God that counts for anything is the one who created us all. The rest may very well be Hebrew fairy tales. I can’t tell. But when I go for a walk in the woods, my belief in God increases because I can see that he made the earth to be enjoyed by mankind.

    This crap we are experiencing in the courts is the bad fruit of government and religion. We have the worst of both worlds in the court room. It operates on the foundation of insanity, and certainly, God didn’t create that.

    God didn’t create confusion. When anyone writes something down, there’s always the chance that they are either in error or they are lying. When I stop reading, I am no longer confused. I can see the creation, and I hopefully know my place in it. I think writings take more authority than they deserve.
    http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-reading-and-writing.html

    I had written this article after I had written a book, and I realized that the value of any writing is only to the extent that it reflects truth. The truth is always constant, but our perceptions or understanding may be different for a time, but at the end of the day, we all should be able to come up with the same conclusions because we are all subject to the natural laws which God set forth.

    And I think my goal in life is to exit the new world order and learn how to exist in God’s world order. The state is utter nonsense and it have been proven worthless via the destruction it has caused.

    Anyway, thanks for your response.

  23. KevinJoseph1010 Says:

    Hey Guys… KevinJoseph1010 here from the UK….

    I watched this video today and it is high quality information… However…

    I used this information in Magistrates Court TODAY in Caernarfon, North Wales, UK. Please understand that I had a lot of fun opening with “I am not skilled in legalese, can I ask some questions and then get some answers”. The magistrates and clerk to the justices (the one skilled in law that pulls the strings like a puppetmaster… but unfortunately not skilled in common-sense or logic).

    Anyway, they agreed to being able to ask questions and I’d get answers, and also that I could expect a fair hearing. One Magistrate even added that they take their oath very seriously (actually, only when it suits them… in my case it did not suit them).

    I asked who they represented today…. they wanted to avoid this one like the plague. The Clerk jumped in and asked why I was asking these questions. So my assertion was that they represented a part of the government and the plaintiff was also the government so there was a conflict of interest therefore I could not have a fair hearing.

    This back and to lasted 45 minutes. I also stumped them with prove that YYZ law applied to me. “Where is the evidence?”. I also added the argument of we are in the diocese of Wrexham and does that make you a Catholic”… So the location is not evidence of presence within a state.

    The upshot of this event or legal tourism, is that the magistrates admitted that they had little (yet demonstrated zero) room for interpretation. Therefore, the justice was going to be applied to me without contract, without consent and with the ultimate sanction of being put behind bars…. and yes without any proof or evidence offered to demonstrate that this law applied to me.

    Also, questioning them that the law was abstract and therefore was absent of fact… you guessed it… it was railroaded too.

    I urge everyone, this includes those who are on the fence about this stuff, to just read Marc Stevens’ Adventures In Legalland and armed with the knowledge of this video, then go and get a parking ticket. Do some legal tourism that is low cost and safe. If you stay calm and act like Columbo you will have some fun with this. But what will be revealed is with absolute certainty is the “business” the Courts are and the total absence of justice… remember that justice really means “Just-Us”.

    Please do not be bitter with the global corruption that is orchestrated by the members of the Law Society. Just know you are being screwed and then make peaceful choices about what you can do to minimise their impact on you and your life.

    Can you ever win against a loaded dice? This is the quest of what Marc seems to stand for.

    I just need to figure out how to appeal this with the European Courts on Human Rights…. anyone got any ideas?

  24. Marc Stevens Says:

    Do you have a recording of fiasco? Also, could you also post this on the forum?

  25. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ algae Not yet, there is too much emotion when assuming someone is a within the church. It’s about being within the church itself just on physical location, that’s the point. The fictional part is what cannot be overlooked here. That is what makes it so powerful.

  26. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ aletoledo I’ve never been able to do this in court (not enough time) and usually don’t have to. I’ve done it with tax agents who always insisted my client was within the state. So, after getting them to commit that the laws only apply to those within the state, I can then attack the assumption my client is within the state.

  27. dysgenic Says:

    I often wonder how Marc knows when to back off. Personally, it is something I have a lot of difficulty with. The last time I received a ticket, I went before a magistrate and asked the following questions (in order):

    1. Am I entitled to ask questions today?
    (yes)
    2. Am I entitled to get responsive answers to these questions?
    (yes)
    3. Am I presumed innocent of these accusations?
    (why wouldn’t you be?)

    Me: “I thought you said I was entitled to responsive answers.”
    (huge blowup, threats, etc)
    Me: “Sir, are you now saying that I am NOT entitled to responsive answers?”
    (yes, I don’t have to answer your questions)
    Me: “How come when I asked you earlier, you said that I WAS entitled to responsive answers.”

    It eventually devolved into me getting thrown out of the hearing. Marc, care to respond? How do you know when to back off, and how in the world do you force yourself to do it? The posturing, bluster, and shear outragousness of these criminals disgusts me into a fury.

  28. Al Thompson Says:

    My tactic would be as follows:

    Judge: Do you understand?

    Lynchee: No

    Judge: What don’t you understand?

    Lynchee: The beginning, the middle, and the end.

    Judge: I can’t give you any legal advice, you need to consult with an attorney.

    Lynchee: He speaks in the same jibberish as you do. I don’t understand because you won’t answer any of my questions. So, no I don’t understand, and at this point I don’t want to understand.

    Now you can try to leave it at that. Once you start answering their questions you are engaging them from a weak position. If the judge starts yelling, ask him if he is on psych meds or any other substance that could impair his judgment.
    If they won’t answer your questions, why should you answer theirs?

    Maybe a good tactic would be to get the judge to go berserk, and then ask him to recuse himself because he is immature and is acting like a spoiled toddler.
    Maybe suggest that he take some anger management classes.

    Tell him that as far as you’re concerned, his court is a demonic religious ritual and it is against your religion to participate in such idolatry. (This might actually work.) Since the whole legal process is based under oath taking, and oath taking is forbidden by the scriptures, you want no part of the proceeding because everything they say is a lie or a fiction. It is idolatry.

    You might want to ask him if he is gay since he has a shaved face,acting like a bitch, and he’s wearing a black dress. Ask him if he is a freemason. Ask him if he wears the magic underwear like Mitt Romney.

    Heck, since the judge is representing you, the prostituting attorney is representing you, just fire the prostituting attorney. Tell em this: “If you think you are representing me or my commercial affairs, you are mistaken, and you are fired.” Don’t answer any more questions. If they keep talking, tell them they are fired. This was taught to someone I knew by an attorney. This disrupts their whole presentation. But, it’s dangerous. I got bounced around the elevator by the Brown Shirts for doing this bit.

    Maybe you would do better doing it Marc’s way. He’s more polite than me.
    I think they are all a bunch of jackasses.

  29. Lyndon Says:

    Do not go to court to answer questions. Get that through your head. Right from the first moment take out your script and start the questions. Do not back down. When questions can’t be answered they like to say you are engaging in a “circular” arguement. Reply by saying: “No, you haven’t answered my questions yet.” If the questions aren’t answered the hearing can’t begin.

    In one of Marc’s videos a judge says to Marc: “Sir, don’t start with me. Just don’t start with me.” That is no way to begin (though I’m only speaking for myself). No answers. No hearing. Done. If they won’t answer the questions then you don’t have to either. Done.

    I haven’t anywhere close to the amount of court time Marc has but I do this on telephone calls and in public servants offices and you simply can’t lose the discussion (of course you get the hang-ups, the verbal abuse, and in person you get escorted out by security, but you don’t lose the discussion because you can’t lose the discussion).

  30. Al Thompson Says:

    To Lyndon:

    How about this:

    Judge: Mr. Thompson, do you understand the charges?

    Mr. Thompson: Do you understand them?

    Judge: Yes

    Mr. Thompson: Will you please explain them to me in detail?

    Now, if the judge says No then I might go like this:

    Mr. Thompson: Well, if you don’t understand them, how am I supposed to understand them?

    Judge: I can’t give you any legal advice, I suggest you get an attorney.
    Do you understand the charges?

    Mr. Thompson: No….

    Shifting the burden of proof works. If you were to go to a jury trial with this stuff you could really make the government weenies look like idiots. It would be very difficult for them to get any convictions.

    By answering their questions, you are tying the rope around your neck. Which makes me think of another problem. If a person is summoned to court, the only responsibility he has to to show up. Now, when the queer in the black dress says: “For the record, please state your name..” I wouldn’t say anything because now your going to identify yourself as the defendant. Just sit in the courtroom until the judge leaves. I don’t know…just thinking out loud. But it might work. If they are making any accusations, they can point to you and identify you, you don’t need to offer them any assistance.

    When I used to go to court, they would put about five extra sheriffs in the courtroom. They really do freak when someone knows is stuff. That’s why they yell and scream. They are immature psychos with guns.

  31. Lyndon Says:

    “Al”, you make me laugh. I like the first part especially. If you don’t stand under their authority THEY don’t have any standing, and if you don’t comprehend they can’t commence (or at least grounds for appeal).

    As for the name, by showing up, and answering to the name without any qualifiers, in most courts it seems that is all they need. “Marc’s method” should also apply to names. I am not a name. I can only represent a name because words aren’t material. Words have no substance. Words only signify a referant (try reading Lacan). On most paper, I underwrite my name as, at the very least, a third party representative. So when Judgey and his lackey, the persecutor, start their whining about how you can’t be a third party rep., and claim that you cannot represent “yourself”, or the judge says “fine Mr. Lyndon is not here, then I will issue a warrant for his arrest, etc.”, give them this retort: IF I CAN’T REPRESENT THAT NAME/ENTITY, THEN HOW CAN “THE STATE OF” OR “THE CROWN” BE REPRESENTED BY THE PERSECUTOR? IF I’M NOT HERE THAN THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT HERE EITHER.”

    now the judge’s little buddy enters his/her little motion to dismiss or withdraw…

  32. Al Thompson Says:

    To Lyndon:

    You may like this:
    http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/01/fish-defense.html
    At the time I wrote this, there was a lot of discussion about these “courts” where under Admiralty. It may still be true, but I don’t think any of the courts are that good.

    I believe the reason they are so obnoxious is that they are treating us as if were are animals or livestock. Livestock do not have any rights. My guess is that they teach evolution because they want mankind to think they are animals.
    A man that is a descendent of a monkey is described as a human. Well, I’m not human, I never was, and I never will be. If you check all of the definitions of the word “person” in any statutes, they are defined anything other than a man, woman, or child. They will say “human being” but there’s no such thing as a human. So if the judge says that the statutes apply to human beings, then tell the judge that “I’m not human.” You see, the system is more insane that even you thought. It is hideously stupid.
    http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/03/im-not-human.html

    They really can’t talk to livestock so they do it through the attorney who is representing the livestock or the slave.

    They have the wooden panels in the courtroom and the male judges wear their girly robes so that they look like they have some authority. And of course,
    they have the uniformed goons dressed up in their ice cream suits.

    In Canada and England, some of the judges wear long-haired wigs. My guess is that the reason they are wearing them is to show people that they are satanic and they have the spirit of anti-Christ by showing themselves as women.

    There’s one thing I’ve realized about the legal system in general. It makes no sense, it is stupid, and there’s really no intellectual satisfaction in using their process. It is weak and ineffective and will serve to destroy the lives of mankind.

    I think people have to point out to “law enforcement” just how evil the orders are from the judges and to simply stop enforcing them. “I’m just doing my job” is no excuse for violating the rights of men.

  33. KevinJoseph1010 Says:

    This going into court is always a loaded sham where justice is based upon the profits generated with the “show” of law being perceived by the masses.

    To get even semi-good at this is going to take a lot of practice as knowing your “onions” and being able to keep on track with your “onions” are two different things.

    With regards to obligation to attend court. Obviously, this obligation is not factual and is only opinion. The reason to go to court is to prevent the tyrants coming after your liberty and/or your stuff.

    It is obvious that there exists a business plan that tries to snare chunks of our cash to feed this hunger tyrant scam. So to defend yourself and others is futile with perfectly logical conversation when you have unreasonable “protection racketeers” with unjust agendas.

    We make our points, they steamroll, then what?

    Going to court and refusing in some shape or form to allow “joinder” to the person on the court papers is a stance conducted by the freemen movement. This always results in an abandoning of the court, some sort of mayhem, then the freeman claims the court under common law jurisdiction (as who leaves the field of battle first loses) and then judgement is passed against the defendant as if they were never there. Or worse, people are chucked behind bars.

    Just a train of thought…. what if rather than trying to exclude ourselves from the state, that people tried to create change from within.

    THis would mean halving tax liabilities immediately with an immediate overhaul of the judicial system. The immediate decriminalisation of thousands of unpopular policies.

    You would get voted in by the 50% of people who do not vote in any of the world’s democracies…

    Different plan of attack… that can be a stepping stone to a more free and affluent society…. The dumping of the central banks and creating a government’s own currency. If people overnight had ALL of their debts forgiven as it was law and the government was the bank… Woww… people would spend and 5% of the population would take it up the cheeks… let’s see how they like collateral damage!

  34. Kel Says:

    I’ve said this before and ill say it again; there’s no point in trying to defend yourself against a delusion by co-opting the delusion. And as Marc has stated before, “There is no reform, only abolition”. You can’t “fix” government, government is the problem. It’s not who runs it, its the very nature of the system itself, the whole concept. It’s corrupt inside and out.

  35. indio007 Says:

    The only thing these people comprehend is when their own a$$ is on the line. Why doesn’t anyone ever go on the offensive?

    You know there are many many torts. I know people think that judge’s have immunity. The immunity only applies if there are conditions precedent. Such as they must be acting judicially not magisterially for immunity to apply.
    They must be performing their “office” exactly. Any deviation knocks them out of their office.
    99.9% of he time people sue gov’t thugs in their official capacity. What needs to be done is to sue them in their private capacity for whatever injury suffered.

  36. Al Thompson Says:

    The legal system is so corrupted it really is unusable. I’ll give you my way of dealing with this idea, and that is to just stand aloof and let it rot. In fact, the system is in shambles and the whole thing appears to be imploding.
    I think the idea of going on the offensive has merit if you had a lawful way of doing it. Using their courts would be like eating the rotten fruit from the corrupted tree. I’ll admit it is a bit of a paradox.

    The system we have is simply that of slavery. There are two big things that have to be corrected first. One, stop using oaths. These oaths are oaths of feudal bondage and anyone who takes them is putting the chains of slavery around his neck. Two, get rid of the use of usury/interest in the financial systems as this kind of financing is slavery. This would fix a lot of problems. But to sue them in their own smelly courts system is not really a solution. You can do it if you want, but it won’t take you long to understand that the system is completely unfair.

    These legal jackasses will take exculpatory evidence and then hide it from a jury so that the defendant has no defense. This happens a lot.

    Then there’s the hypocrisy of the non statist trying to get relief from the state. We all struggle with this issue because the state is so large it is difficult not to encounter it.

    I remember when I was in prison and I had an appeal going, and the appeals court didn’t want me to represent myself or manage my own case. I knew I was being set up, and I couldn’t do much about it. I cancelled my appeal because they were cheating and pushed attorneys on me that I didn’t want. On paper, I had a good case: 1. inconsistent verdicts, and 2. repeal of the internal revenue laws. The esquires appointed to me wanted to take my appeal in a completely different direction. I basically told them all to shove it, and I just waited out the 4 1/2 more years I had to spend in their prison. In other words, their system is so insane that my goal was to preserve my own sanity by cancelling the appeal Heck, I was in prison making .12 cents per hour, with free rent and shitty food. What could be better?

    The problem you’ll have when you go to the offensive is that once you get into the shit, you’ll start to wish it was over. Why jump into the cesspool when you don’t have to? The judges and attorneys will get paid back by God, it happens to everyone who does evil. It’s not if it will happen, it is just when.

    So for me, it is a quality of life issue. Dealing with insane people comes at a price to my own sanity. If I lay down with the dogs, I’ll get fleas. I suggest minimum contact and then just let them sit in their own corruption.
    The more you contact the government nut cases, the more chance you could destroy your mind. Be careful with that. Even talking with them can drive you nuts.

    You know perfectly well that they are liars, so why would you want to entertain the speech of a liar? It gets worse when they’ll tell you something that’s true and then parse it with lies. Lying distorts the mind of those who hear it. It’s better to not listen to the bullshit. I don’t look for justice in a system that promotes injustice.

    I suggest keeping God’s commandments and I try to work within his natural order. That’s the only thing that I’ve found that works to my benefit.

  37. indio007 Says:

    My mom always taught what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When you start bludgeoning them with what they thought was their weapon.

    There is a big difference between claiming you didn’t do some act and claiming you have the unrestricted right to do some act.

    Think of this scenario.
    Cops me find “prescription pills” on then charge me with possession.
    They have to prove I don’t have a right to to the pills. I don’t need to go get my doctor to testify or produce a prescription. They need to prove not only that I don’t have the right to the pills. How exactly are they going to prove the negative? Are they going to query every doctor and pharmacy in the world? Then there is the foreign medicine exception where you can bring back pills WITHOUT a prescription. How are they going to prove I don’t possess the pills because of that exception?

    They can’t with facts. The STATE relies COMPLETELY on rebuttable presumptions to “prove” their claim of right.
    The point is we all have the right to do whatever our heart desires regardless of what STATE agents say. When they infringe on my right, it is a tort for their interference.

    If someone truly has the right to do something they will defend that right vigorously.

  38. Al Thompson Says:

    Slaves don’t have rights. The “state” is your slave master. The “courts” are departments of the slave “state.” Sometimes one doesn’t have any choice but to defend themselves, but why get steamrolled if you don’t have to? Willingly going to court is like telling an armed robber that he doesn’t have the right to shoot you; so he shoots you, now what have you accomplished?

  39. dysgenic Says:

    In my opinion the biggest part of the puzzle that no one talks about is limited liability. There are forums, blogs, and websites all over the place that discuss the evils of usury, fractional lending, federal reserve, fiat currency, et al….but VERY FEW people are talking about the immorality of ‘rights’ specifically intended to circumvent consequence.

    How many have heard of the CAFR scandal? Check out the video called Corporation Nation (master copy). It’s a game changer.

    On another note, Marc does seem have to a very good sense of when to back off a specific point. He also has the discretion and discipline to do it. I’d love it if he would comment on this aspect of his method. Marc?

  40. indio007 Says:

    @dysgenic, Your right , no one talks about limited liability. It’s the entire premise of the systemic scam.

    The gov’t is just an insurance company that FORCES their policy on you.

  41. MickeyG Says:

    This whole idea that the state doesn’t exist is interesting. But I think I would just stick with, ok, the states exists but has no case for lack of evidence supporting a demonstrable injury that was directly caused by the actions of the defendant. No evidence, no jurisdiction and no claim in which relief can be granted.

  42. indio007 Says:

    The idea that the state doesn’t exist isn’t interesting. It’s a fact because the state is an idea itself.

  43. Lokard Desmock Says:

    I not to mention my buddies were examining the excellent helpful hints found on your site and so all of the sudden I had a horrible suspicion I had not expressed respect to the web blog owner for those strategies. All the ladies came for this reason glad to read them and have undoubtedly been making the most of those things. I appreciate you for truly being well considerate and then for picking variety of wonderful things millions of individuals are really eager to learn about. My personal sincere regret for not saying thanks to sooner.

  44. Marc Stevens Says:

    You’re welcome

  45. NonE Says:

    “indio007 Says:
    May 24th, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    The idea that the state doesn’t exist isn’t interesting. It’s a fact because the state is an idea itself.”

    Well then, do ideas not exist? I would suggest that they do. Else how could we be communicating?

    The issue is the those claiming to support the idea of the state have defined what it is that the state is, and their definition is self contradictory. It would be like saying that a circle is a line that is at all points equidistant from a central point, and then claiming that this circle has four sides with 90 degree corners. Either of those things may occur in nature, but not simultaneously.

    That is why the state does not exist. It is self contradictory by the very rules that supposedly create it.

    - NonE

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Another reading list for anarcho-capitalists | On the Mark Says:

    [...] Spinney (video, under 4 mins) added 6/17/11 Consent of the Governed? by Robert Higgs added 1/27/12 Exposing Another Political Fallacy – Physical Location Doesn’t Equal Presence Within a State by Marc Stevensadded 4/22/12 Taxation is Theft by Wesker1982 added 4/22/12 When Did I Sign This [...]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturdays, 4-7pm EST: NSP radio LIVE. Tune-in as we discuss the general topics of tickets, tyrants, assessments, and bringing about a voluntary society.

Saturday, August 2nd, Marc will not be live, but we will have all new content that will be broadcast. If you are in the Northern Arizona area, join Marc, Larken Rose, 4409, Ernest Hancock, and others at the Jackalope Freedom Festival.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

------------------------PAYMENT NOTICE------------------------

I'm working on getting a paypal alternative, for now, you can use Dwolla for payments, use marcstevens(at)mail(dot)com

WeAcceptBitcoin

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6









Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here