Categorized | Articles, Video

Tempe City Council – Evidence of Jurisdiction? Because We Say So

Posted on April 20th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

I confronted the Tempe city council the first time on 4 April 2013.  I asked if there was evidence to prove their laws applied to me and there was jurisdiction.  Predictably, they could not offer anything, all they did was say I was able to speak to the city attorney, Judith Baumann about it.

Well, as reported last week on the No State Project, Ms. Baumann blew off the 10 April 2013 meeting and didn’t try to reschedule.  I spoke with someone in her office and it was set for 17 April 2013.  Ms. Baumann refused to do it on the phone and objected to being recorded.  As usual, Ms. Baumann was evasive and refused to answer the question and ended the meeting early.

The next night, 18 April 2013, I spoke with the council again, but this time I got video.  Anyone who has followed this show knows there’s no evidence the constitution and laws apply to anyone, so you won’t be surprised when you watch the video.  I let them know their attorney refused to answer the question, and I asked them again what evidence they had to prove their laws applied to me.

Kolby, who is a lawyer, keeps confusing a question asking for facts with wanting a legal opinion and essentially states the city council is not qualified to determine if their laws apply to anyone.  He states: “The proof is we said we have jurisdiction.”  He then claims that once they say they have jurisdiction, then I have the burden of proving they don’t.  Logic dictates otherwise.

So, as Kolby agreed, their laws apply because they said so.  No actual evidence, it’s just because they say so and have hundreds of armed men/women to carry out their will.

I hope everyone can see the significance of what takes place in this video.  This is not an isolated incident, it’s only the first time I’ve gotten it on video, but it won’t be the last.  A city council and their attorney cannot prove their laws apply and they don’t care.  I have submitted the question to the entire staff of prosecutors in the Tempe office and I’m waiting to hear back from the police chief and a meeting to ask him about the evidence.

So when the council, the prosecutor and the police all have no evidence the laws apply, then one of many serious questions raised is: Where are the Tempe city judges getting the evidence proving they have jurisdiction?  We already know it’s not coming from the police and prosecutors.  As I’ve told the Tempe city council, their judges are assuming it for the cops and prosecutors.   That looks like collusion to me; it’s evidence proving the judges are not fair, impartial and independent as advertised.

It’s no surprise that the Tempe city council, allegedly unqualified to make legal determinations, dismissed my complaint about Tempe city judges taking jurisdiction where no evidence was ever submitted to prove it existed.  After all, why stop the steady flow of millions of dollars forcibly taken from an unwilling community?

Those interested in the truth, acting in good faith, when unable to prove they have jurisdiction will show some concern and want to at least  investigate the matter.  Not the Tempe city council.  They don’t seem to care at all.  Except for a non-responsive email from Kolby, no one on the council has responded to my emails requesting evidence their laws apply.  Not one member has expressed any concern over the fact they cannot prove the laws they create actually apply to anyone.  No one expressed concern or disagreement with Kolby’s: “The proof is we said we have jurisdiction.”

The next council meeting is 9 May 2013 @ 8:00pm.  I’ll be there and if you are in the area, you should not only attend, but get on the docket so you can ask the council yourself.



38 Comments For This Post

  1. Tom Says:

    That was…


  2. Andy Says:

    The proof is we said we have unicorns.

    What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Similar to pulling an unqualified witness from the gallery, the proof is we said you don’t have jurisdiction.

  3. Jp Says:

    were you using the barrycam for this video? Quality was pretty good!

  4. John Rockwell Says:

    Well I do not understand what this means, are they just bringing people in to place them in the FEMA camps already?

  5. John Rockwell Says:

    “Because we say so.” Isn’t there a law about a “national initiative” or something like that?

  6. NonE Says:

    Good stuff Marc! By the way, who was that strange guy in the suit with no hair? I’m thinking windmills, tilting, stuff like that… Maybe if you got a suit of armor it would cover up that hairlessness and they’d take you more seriously. No. That probably wouldn’t work. Maybe a scuba outfit?

    – NonRealityBeams

  7. Crazy Says:

    Just Wow.

    My next question would be. How can you people sit up here and pass laws and claim that everyone with in your supposed domain is subject to them, and not have empirical proof and facts that your rules or laws apply to anyone? With out this proof can you explain what the factual differences are between you and the mafia?

  8. Pete Says:

    Did you ask her “Does the CODE apply,” did you ask her “Does the CLONE apply?”

  9. Incubus Says:

    That shaved head is certianly not working to your advantage, Marc. The Pugsley look is not a fitting one. Please grow back that gorgeous sicilian mane you had, and keep stickin’ it to these *ahem* “mentally challenged” individuals.

  10. citta Says:

    Hi Mark, when he stated ‘if you want to change the policy …’ – you should have pointed out that you DON”T want to change it .. you just want to know how it applies to you. ( i don’t care about any company’s policy unless i work for them ). Good luck on 9th

  11. Mr. Mike Says:

    A possibility for more solid evidence. Use a notary to send the city council the following notice: “I hereby challenge the Tempe City Council’s PRESUMPTION of jurisdiction. The City of Tempe has 11 days to refute this statement with fact(s), NOT opinion. Failing to provide/produce the required COMPETENT FACTUAL proof, the City of Tempe agrees I am NOT subject to its jurisdiction.” (adjust the wording to suit yourself)

    When the inevitable ‘non-response’ occurs, file a “notice of default” with the county/state and city clerk. You should now have a ‘bullet proof’ defense, on public record, against ANY action the city’s bureaucrats may take.

    In other words, upon filing of the “notice of default” (the city agrees that it has NO jurisdiction over you) with the local clerks, you now have (diplomatic?) IMMUNITY from the bureaucrats of the city of Tempe…

    ***WARNING***: the above immunity does NOT apply if you cause HARM to anyone. You CANNOT escape the consequences of your actions!!!

  12. Mr. Mike Says:

    @Incubus, Isn’t it uncle Fester who’s bald instead of little boy Pugsley? …the question is rhetorical.

  13. Incubus Says:

    Mike, rhetorical or not I’m going to answer that. Good catch. And technically you’re right, but if I recall correctly Pugsley does at one point shave his head (in the movie) to emulate his Uncle Fester.

    Sooo, that said, I will not be deducting points from myself. Any objections can be directed to the Tempe city council.

  14. Latimer the Cat Says:

    It seems that equivocation (substituting “legal opinion” for empirical evidence reference) is the best that they have to offer. It’s nice to see that more people are waking-up to the real-world difference.

    They’re always assuming that their question-begging will work on the ignorant victimized populace as it always has.

  15. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    Marc: Jolly good show! Even though I have to say it made me pretty angry to watch the bureaucrats on camera smiling as if what you were saying was all just some kind of joke. What ignorant and utterly useless parasites.

  16. John Lindsey Says:

    That’s some odd wording in Ms. Baumann’s job description. “She oversees a 26 person LAW FIRM (emphasis mine) that is organized into two divisions that handle all of the City’s civil and criminal matters.” Has administration of justice in Tempe been privatized?

  17. Chris Says:

    The “10’s of millions of dollars they bring in” get “invested” into international derivatives accounts and other kind of “investments”. The “collective returns” amount to hundreds of trillions of “dollars”. These bureaucrats control their venues with these “funds” and with their lie, aka: the “budget”.
    See the truth on
    The last thing these maggots are going to do is allow you or anybody else to topple their financial national slave state. It’s all about the money involved and maintaining appearances.
    … Chris

  18. Chris Says:

    Let’s be blunt and call it what it is:
    The “code law” is a “fence” that keeps the slaves inside the plantation.
    The cops are the “sheep dogs” that bite at the sheeple’s ankles to keep them from blowing through the “fence”. the attorneys are the “shepherds” who sick the cops on the sheeple. And judges are the plantation managers who make sure the sheeple keep turning a profit for the “lord of the manor”. It’s feudal slavery.
    If you want to see how it works with the IRS, based on feudal law going as far back as the 1100’s ad, then read John Benson’s book, “Taxation by Misrepresentation”. The same paradigm is used in every venue, albeit a perverted and protection-racket form of it.
    … Chris

  19. WhipCracker Says:

    All it takes to be a member of a corporation, (government), is a half-assed college education and a few friends.
    1). Since city attorney refuses to answer you and the city claims it is on her to give you proof, why not demand that they get the proof from her and present it to you in their public forum?
    2). A lawsuit in federal court could force these criminals to comply with your demands to prove they have jurisdiction.
    3). The city is a CORPORATION dba that city. They are a business! McDonald’s is a business, a CORPORATION dba McDonald’s. If you spill a Coke in McDonald’s does that give them jurisdiction to fine you for it? Of course not. So how can the CORPORATION dba the city fine you for jay walking or whatever? They can’t.

  20. don Says:

    I cant stop smiling about this! Thank You Marc!!

  21. Reece Says:

    Marc thanks for showing them up and exposing them for who they are, just pretenders working for an organised group of individuals who believe their rules apply to us because they said so

  22. DisabledJustice Says:

    Hello Mr. Stevens, I use some of yours and others writings when i am in court.
    I have great success and wish to become an avid follower to read more about how we can all help each other to step up the battle against the judicial system which has been out of control for too long.

    Without an avenue to bring people together we all are just lone wolves waiting for the So called Law Abiding Judges and others who don’t want the people legally educated.


    Disabled Justice

  23. donnie Says:

    If I told the Tempe city council I have authority over them “becuse I said so” would they believe in fact that is impirical proof ???

  24. tirtha Says:

    Great, Marc! Their jurisdiction does not apply, period. We are only under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Being. And He operates under love, “voluntaryism” and not man-made “laws”.
    I appreciate your work very much and have learned a lot from your exchanges. I am looking forward to your new book. Let me know when it is available.


    Mark you are very fortunate to have so many knowledgeable followers. I find them above average. Chris is right on the money(?), and WhipCracker has the right idea. The ONLY authority these parasites have is what we the people give them. Everything you place your signature on is a contract, please remember that. That is how they assume jurisdiction, They know they have NONE but like to flex their muscles (between their ears)and have hired armed thugs to enforce their assumed authority. Yes I am an ex-cop and am embarrassed to admit it. I found one spy in the above who is undoubtedly an A-TURN-ON-ME also known as LIAR, oh oh I meant lawyer. Good hunting folks, together we will take back our country, unfortunately it will be a bloody battle, but that is what WAR (we are right)is all about. One last thing Marc, was it Radiology, or did you simply lose a bet? See ya…

  26. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ charles, my brother in law is fighting cancer, so I shaved my head to show support.

  27. Shaun Says:

    So there seems to be a couple prevailing thoughts on how to address the police officer at a stop as well as at court with the statute arguments. 1) is to declare common law and argue the right of travel vs. driving in a ‘for’ hire capacity being ‘regulated’ by the ‘State’. This includes filing briefs that declare those rights with case law to back it up, this is basically the Carl Miller or Eddie Craig arguments. The other argument, 2) is Marc Stevens way of exploiting the fact that the ‘State’ does not exist. Then lastly 3) fighting the ticket itself and subpoena’ing everything and making the police officer prove everything. All these options are after demanding a trial by jury as required by the ‘Constitution’ (I know that may be touchy grounds for Marc), thoughts?

    My question is could the first two be double stacked to build a stronger defense. Basically as the initial approach to the circus, eh em, court would be using Marc Stevens methods of defrauding the ‘State’. If the judge continues to over rule then move on to the argument that we have an inalienable right to travel challenging the same ‘witness’ (bully with the gun) on his definition and interpretation of traveling/driving. I would not recommend EVER defending the merits of the ticket even if it can be proven because now you have accepted jurisdiction. Then it seems that in an appeal there is even more that the attorneys would need to ignore.

    One of the reasons I bring this up, is have a script that I have been putting together that sets the police officer up all on camera/audio putting him in the position of answering my questions that will show his incompetence in the court room.

    Any reaction to these thoughts?

  28. Pete Says:

    @SHAWN: In the past, Marc has warned to be very careful talking to cops during the ticketing/arrest process, mostly because they might get violent and decide to crack your skull or kill you. So if you use set-up questions with cops, you have to be very cautious.

    That being said, I asked two set-up questions recently when I was ticketed for not providing life jackets in a boat. Surprisingly, the cop documented my questions and his answer in his police report.

    I asked him if anyone’s rights had been violated, or property damaged. He answered, “No.”

    Hope to hear Marc’s feedback and ideas on this subject.

  29. Shaun Says:

    @Pete Good words. The last thing I want to do is be a martyr that the police can use as an example for their sicko parade. I love the guys behind the suit and gun when their pretenses are removed. Here is where I got 90% of my questions from, this will give you an idea – Towards the end when invoking my rights of silence and self-incrimination and right to an attorney is when it can get dicey. If it starts to get out of hand I ask for a supervisor to be present. In the end if they are being abusive and can comply without consent and get it on the record.

  30. WhipCracker Says:

    @ Marc – Nice of you to do that for your brother-n-law. Prayers for him and respect to you.

  31. surfer349 Says:

    Marc, What is the location? I want to go.

  32. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Adam, it’s the ugly building on 31 east 5th, upside down pyramid.

  33. Tdkent5 Says:

    Corporate administrative rules, regulations, and legislation do not apply to non-corporate natural people who stand in Common Law and in full legal capacity as one of the sovereign people. The law states: “There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
    COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.

  34. Vigilance Says:

    That was interesting. What do you think about filing a court action for declaratory and or injunctive relief regarding there not being any evidence the code and constitution apply to you?

  35. timothy Says:

    ZING!! Who’s the clowns behind the curtain…wow Marc the gov. people really do live in the land of Oz. It’s so plain and obvious that their a bunch of criminal phonies and yet they sit there and act like they haven’t been exposed. Makes me want to yell,”hey you know we know how the tricks done, the shows over now go home” …great work once again by “The Question Master”

  36. bammwow Says:

    I am loving this I have done the same thing with 3 courts now , two have just dropped it, one has been going on for a year, they still have not proven it they actually threw me out of court, twice then dismissed it then reopened it again, now I gave them a cease and desist plus notice of my fee schedule $250,000 for each violation of my rights, they are up to 7.75million so far.

  37. David Brandt Says:

    This says a lot right here. The man sitting up in the high seat with the group of six other self-admitted non-lawyers said:

    “You might be right, I have no idea if you’re right, I haven’t researched it. My suspicion is you’re not.”

    However, many politicians could be found guilty (in a court of law) of stealing millions of dollars from the people if Marc is correct, (I know you are).

    Look at it this way, if a person is going ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit, but has not crashed into anyone, or harmed anyone, where is the crime for which a person could receive a traffic ticket?

    If a driver goes through a red light, but does not cause an accident, or harm to anyone, where is the crime?

    Yes, if a driver speeds, or runs a red light and causes an accident, sure, they should pay for damages.

    Where is the crime in not wearing a piece of cloth while driving, even if the driver crashes and suffers wounds due to not wearing a seat belt?

    These are examples of pre-crime arrests and methods of fleecing the public.

  38. Anthony Says:

    Often, when I hear Marc go over his material, I am not convinced the counterparty actually understands the question. The council member who said “because we say so” obviously understood. He was even aware that the end result of requiring the evidence is absurd. I don’t know how much more obvious anyone could make it: government is absurd.

24 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Tempe City Council – Evidence of Jurisdiction? Because We Say So - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

  2. Tempe City Council – Evidence of Jurisdiction? Because We Say So - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

  3. NSP - Apr 20, 2013 - Co-host: JT | Says:

    […] Marc’s second appearance at the Tempe city counsel questioning the applicability of their code and new #CoS: A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency. […]

  4. NSP – Apr 20, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Marc’s second appearance at the Tempe city counsel questioning the applicability of their code and new #CoS: A Good Example of Countering Non-responsiveness with the Canadian Revenue Agency. […]

  5. NSP - Apr 27, 2013 [UPDATED PODCAST] | Says:

    […] feedback from the Tempe City Council hearing video and plans for future appearances with city […]

  6. NSP - May 4, 2013 - Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville | Says:

    […] Bureaucratic dodging and denial of inquiry from the likes of Judith Baumann. […]

  7. NSP – May 4, 2013 – Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Kolby Granville – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Bureaucratic dodging and denial of inquiry from the likes of Judith Baumann. […]

  8. #CoS - May 10, 2013 - News 12 Phoenix: "Your Argument is Invalid" | Says:

    […] doesn’t even attempt to provide the evidence the laws apply and will not even watch the video where Kolby Granville of the Tempe city council says the evidence the laws apply and there is jurisdiction are because […]

  9. #CoS – May 10, 2013 – News 12 Phoenix: “Your Argument is Invalid” - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] doesn’t even attempt to provide the evidence the laws apply and will not even watch the video where Kolby Granville of the Tempe city council says the evidence the laws apply and there is jurisdiction are because […]

  10. NSP – Jul 20, 2013 – Co-host: JT - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Pending follow-up to Marc’s inquiry to the Tempe city council. […]

  11. NSP - Jul 20, 2013 - Co-host: JT | Says:

    […] Pending follow-up to Marc’s inquiry to the Tempe city council. […]

  12. NSP - Jul 27, 2013 - Co-host: Calvin and Guest: Robert | Says:

    […] Jurisdiction because “I said so.” […]

  13. Marc on The Pete Santilli Show - Sept 26, 2013 | Says:

    […] Challenging the applicability of the law to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no evidence …. […]

  14. Marc on The Pete Santilli Show – Sept 26, 2013 - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Challenging the applicability of the law to arrive at the conclusion that there’s no evidence …. […]

  15. NSP - Jan 18, 2014 | Says:

    […] Jurisdiction because I said so. […]

  16. Confronting Scottsdale City Council - Where's the Evidence Your Laws Apply? | Says:

    […] brief history for those not following updates on the radio show: Just like those in Tempe, I’ve been investigating the politicians in Scottsdale, it’s the same racket.  I asked […]

  17. 2014 Phoenix Freedom Summit Report - Interview with Federal Magistrate | Says:

    […] As I mention in the intro to the interview, John seems to believe the law may be applied without any regard to evidence.  He believes written instruments called constitutions and laws apply because judges say so; actual proof is not necessary.  He even admits several times the applicability of law, jurisdiction, is only an issue of law, not evidence.  He seems to accept that laws are magical, that there doesn’t have to be evidence proving the laws apply.  John insists there doesn’t have to be any proof the laws actually apply.  The law applies because men and women say so.  We’ve heard this claim before. […]

  18. NSP - Mar 1, 2014 - Co-host: Genia - [UPDATED PODCAST] | Says:

    […] differences between the Tempe city council hearing versus the Scottsdale city council […]

  19. Marc on Disclosure Media with Rex Bear - Sept 3, 2014 - Says:

    […] “Jurisdiction ‘because we say so‘.” […]

  20. NSP - Feb 21, 2015 - Says:

    […] the Marcratic method <> effectively challenging the logical fallacy of “jurisdiction because we say so” <> the prosecutor (unsuccessfully) tries to shift the burden-of-proof onto […]

  21. NSP - Apr 11, 2015 - [ Broadcast Version] - Says:

    […] don’t matter when it comes to statist bureaucrats, their cohorts, their apologists, and their useful idiots because nobody really […]

  22. NSP - Oct 31, 2015 - Says:

    […] wedge between the judge and prosecutor by asking the judge if their determination is 1) because of his own say-so? or 2) because its based off the prosecutor’s evidence? Which one? […]

  23. No Rational Basis For Applicability of Laws - Interview with Law Professor - Says:

    […] said their laws apply.  We’ve heard contemporary politicians also say they have jurisdiction because they said so.  Robert also stated it was a blunt assertion of […]

  24. Ticket Kicked in Colorado - Congrats Nick - Says:

    […] truth is, as stated by Robert Diab and Colby Granville, political “laws” apply because politicians “said so” and they have armies […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: 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 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