Clint Richardson's arguments
Current time: 05-29-2017, 01:55 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Marc Stevens
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 49
Views: 19432

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clint Richardson's arguments
06-25-2015, 05:37 PM
Post: #16
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Clint suggested I listen also. There is no way I'm wasting my time listening to Clint again, certainly without the alleged judgment being posted. And now we hear it's from an alleged "private administrative court."

Where is the proof Clint? What is the name of this "private administrative court?" Do you have names of anyone who participated? Post some actual proof.

"You're literally conjuring up a demon" and "private administrative court."
[Image: squidward-head-slamming-gif.gif?w=594]

Show us the proof, post the alleged declaratory judgment. Or admit you're just taking someone's word for it.

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2015 08:08 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #17
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Last is defined the same way in Blacks's Law 9th as a historical reference.
But when you look up the word NAME, of all references in the dictionary there is none that say LAST NAME. Surname, tradename ... There were 12 references that included name. Burden name or last name were not among the 12. I will see if I can check a 1st addition later to see if any references to last name or burden name appear.

The online etytomology dictionary does not indicate that last was ever used as burden or weight in old English.

Fiddling with English to fit a narrative is fun. I will make up my own right now and it will sound just as good.

Burden or weight meaning work, as in work name. Eg. John Smith whose job was a black smith.Wink. Wasn't that fun! But there is a little truth in there which makes it sound acceptable.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 06:18 PM
Post: #18
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
This is just a suggestion. I don't think anyone should engage Clint until he posts this alleged declaratory judgment from the private admin court. Every time we ask for facts all he does is cite definitions. We already know what he's about. I for one will not engage him any further until he posts some actual facts, evidence/proof for his arguments. His arguments have already been discredited, no need to waste more time having him repeat everything with his little personals jabs thrown in.

Clint, if someone asks for evidence (facts/proof) provide the proof, don't post more definitions.

Bottom line, when one says, "You're literally conjuring up demon" in a legal discussion, then rational discourse has clearly ended.

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 07:13 PM
Post: #19
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
"It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."





My Two Cents

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 08:53 PM
Post: #20
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Hey I've got one...

I found a person (or human being if thats a distinction thays important to make) who doesn't know English, and I wanna kill their only child.

So I write up a document that looks like their native language, but much of this language is in opposition to the common usage of the words.

They see the document, like the terms as they understand them, and agree. But they didn't realize that when I said "child would be awarded with gifts" they didn't do their due diligence. When I used the word "awarded" it translates into "beheaded". When I used the word " gifts" it translates into "swords".

So I bring my sword, and take a swing at the child. The father takes the child away and I don't have the opportunity to complete our contract.

I take this person to a judge... Someone who is supposed to give an impartial opinion of fairness to our conflict.

If you were the judge, how would you rule??

Would you side with me because the dummy was too stupid to do their due diligence

Or would you say the contract (or agreement) is void because there was no meeting of the minds?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 09:58 PM
Post: #21
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-25-2015 12:07 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  And my attempts to tell folks to comprehend that the Bible is the answer is met with ever more ignorance by those who have not read it properly or at all.

Stare Facepalm

Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. Do not act on anything entered anywhere by the avatar known as pigpot.

All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-25-2015, 10:03 PM
Post: #22
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-25-2015 08:53 PM)Kawlinz Wrote:  Hey I've got one...

I found a person (or human being if thats a distinction thays important to make) who doesn't know English, and I wanna kill their only child.

So I write up a document that looks like their native language, but much of this language is in opposition to the common usage of the words.

They see the document, like the terms as they understand them, and agree. But they didn't realize that when I said "child would be awarded with gifts" they didn't do their due diligence. When I used the word "awarded" it translates into "beheaded". When I used the word " gifts" it translates into "swords".

So I bring my sword, and take a swing at the child. The father takes the child away and I don't have the opportunity to complete our contract.

I take this person to a judge... Someone who is supposed to give an impartial opinion of fairness to our conflict.

If you were the judge, how would you rule??

Would you side with me because the dummy was too stupid to do their due diligence

Or would you say the contract (or agreement) is void because there was no meeting of the minds?

Absolute or strict liability?Wink Absolute, Chop away until the Super-eme Court steps in and you hafta get out you needle and thread.Big Grin Strict liability the only defence is due diligence, so pack up your thread you are good to go!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-26-2015, 08:33 AM
Post: #23
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Clint,
I think I am getting where you are coming from now. Your intellect is supreme. Could you tell me and everyone else what this is all about?...

"Gozer the Traveller, he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him... that of a Giant Sloar! many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you."

...If you could explain this I think me and everyone else will be able to wrap it all up.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-27-2015, 06:13 AM
Post: #24
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
Engage him?...haa Marc...I don't want to marry him....look it up...lol

"First of all, why would you wish to attack anyone? And why would you start a legitimate inquiry with such a threatening tone and expect anything but a similar, reciprocal response? I'll endeavor to respond without such notions, as I would rather live by the standard that I do unto others as I would expect them to do unto me."

With thick New York accent....''Are you talking to me?''Smile





The government as a general definition for the government of the United States and the individual States, which you are referring to generally as "the State" exists exactly as it describes itself - as a fiction. Steven King writes fiction, and I have some of his fiction on my bookshelf. Does it exist? Of course it does. Your asking the wrong question. The proper question is what is existence? Legal existence is a well-established truth and fact within the legal realm. A lie (fiction) exists as long as men believe and put faith, fealty, oath, and pledge allegiance to and even die for the fiction. I cannot answer this in any other way except to tell you that those who created government did so with complete understanding that it was a fiction. The issue is not whether or not it exists in reality, the question is does it exist in fiction? And so the answer is yes, it exists in and as a fiction. Only a fool would believe that his disbelief in government would make government not exist.

So now you are calling people fools... Definitions again....you just can't help yourself can you? Clint ole' buddy, I think you need help, truly I do, of the psychiatric nature. Just look at what you typed out....we get it okay, we are not some group of dumbasses that have absolutely no education. You don't need to talk down to us or type down to us to get your meaning across okay? All that typing to answer yes, it exist as a fiction.

Let's try it again. Second question.

Do you believe that a fiction has any power over you or any authority to act, read jurisdiction?....a simple yes or no will suffice, please.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-27-2015, 06:25 AM
Post: #25
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-26-2015 08:33 AM)notavoter Wrote:  Clint,
I think I am getting where you are coming from now. Your intellect is supreme. Could you tell me and everyone else what this is all about?...

"Gozer the Traveller, he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him... that of a Giant Sloar! many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you."

...If you could explain this I think me and everyone else will be able to wrap it all up.

And people wonder why I "cuss"... FFS!

Are the, "Powers that be", dealing with this?


Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. Do not act on anything entered anywhere by the avatar known as pigpot.

All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-27-2015, 06:34 AM
Post: #26
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-27-2015 06:13 AM)Ripsaw Wrote:  
(06-25-2015 12:07 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  First of all, why would you wish to attack anyone? And why would you start a legitimate inquiry with such a threatening tone and expect anything but a similar, reciprocal response? I'll endeavor to respond without such notions, as I would rather live by the standard that I do unto others as I would expect them to do unto me.

With thick New York accent....''Are you talking to me?''Smile

Are you talking to me? Clint, left it ambiguous as to who he was "speaking" to.

--&e My Two Cents

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-27-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 06-27-2015 08:52 AM by zonsb.)
Post: #27
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
(06-23-2015 10:59 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  Does anybody actually want to learn anything...?

Perhaps we could begin with learning the four elements of a contract. I've listed them below.

The source of the below quote is from: Anarchy: A Non Sequitur Non Compos Mentis. It's the same source/article as the link Marc put in the OP. I ask Clint to give his answers to Larken Rose's five questions he is using in his Government On Trial project. YouTube: Five Questions ("Government on Trial")

In preface: Thank you Clint, for your straight forth yes and no answers. I also appreciate that you chose to elaborate on them. You wrote: "Sorry to disappoint…" Know this for sure, you didn't disappoint.
Clint Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:Zonsb / June 23, 2015
Clint, The following 6 questions (#2 has two questions) excluding question 2b, the other five questions require no more than a “yes” or “no” answer. So at minimum state clearly your yes or no answer to each of the five questions. Anything you chose to write beyond your yes or no answers is obviously your choice. Larken Rose is the author of the six questions.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?


realitybloger / June 23, 2015
There are no yes or no questions presented here that would not give you ample opportunity to assume my answer means what you wish to believe it means. No thanks.

I know, I know. A good fool would surely answer no to all these questions right? Piss on your word magic. Learn the damn principles of law or stop following blind men, misleaders.

1) Yes – Volunteerism. Via voluntary U.S. citizenship. People volunteer to be put in sexual bondage all the time. The black slaves resisted being set free after the civil war. What’s the shocker here? Still don’t think it’s voluntary? That it?

2) Yes – Ty their morals, not mine or yours. Your source may not be their source, and frankly its arrogant and downright foolish to superimpose your particular moral code on anyone else as if they must believe what you believe is right and moral. Even thieves have honor among themselves man.

3) Yes – It’s called legalization and “license”, which is, not ironically, a synonym of anarchy. The point of the creation of legal government is to, through legality, act immorally and against God’s law of nature by strict law of persons in commerce as fictions of law. Fiction aint reality. Fiction aint nature.

4) Yes – And the law agrees with me, unless “license” is granted. Again, anarchy (license) in government makes anything possible. The law in chaos.

5) No – He is not morally obligated. He is legally obligated. Fictional persons have no morals. They aren’t of nature. What a dumb-ass question!

These questions only work on the grammatically challenged and the fallacy-vulnerable. Now run along and pretend I just admitted to being a statist, though I was just giving correct answers according to the law you also pretend doesn’t exist or doesn’t bind you. Oh, and thanks for dictating the response rules to my own blog. Sorry to disappoint…

P.S. If I have read this situation wrong, and you are not just a dirty whore of a troll, then my apologies. May your journey find happiness amongst the current and impending chaos.

-Clint-
The red attribute to the above text is mine.

So you "slapped" me more than once and then, after the fact, you apologize for slapping me. I get that.

To begin with, every anarchist I've communicated with has said their definition of anarchy is no rulers, not chaos and mayhem. The correct definition of a word is whatever the people using the word agree on as the definition. It may be of interest to note that the root etymology of anarchy is no rulers.

Secondly, the four elements of a contract are:
1. An offer.
2. Meeting of the minds to discuss the details and responsibilities of each party to the contract. Full disclosure.
3. Consideration (means each party puts something of value/consideration into the agreement).
4. Agreement.

Clint Wrote:Learn the damn principles of law

How about you learn the four elements of a contract. Excuse me if I hazard to guess that you already know the four elements of a contract. If I'm wrong, then fortunate for us I listed them above.

Your response to question #1 included this:
Clint Wrote:"People volunteer to be put in sexual bondage all the time. "
Confused

Just to get this out of the way so I can get to the real issue and not get into trivial discussion that could be used to divert and obfuscate away from the most important issue. My girlfriend and I are people and we do not volunteer to be put in sexual bondage all the time.

I'm glad that's out of the way. Let's please keep it that way.

A masochist seeks the services of a dominatrix (which may or may not be his/her significant other.) They have an agreement. A most important element of the meeting of their minds -- element #2 of a contract -- is the masochist tells the dominatrix his/her trigger word for, "STOP! doing what you're doing."

The trigger word could be anything that would not normally be voiced during their giving and receiving of pain and punishment. The word might be something like "radio", "astronaut", "bird", etc. That is extremely important because the masochist doesn't want to be killed or severely maimed and the dominatrix doesn't want to kill the masochist. Killing your client is bad for business. Killing your significant other is bad for the relationship.

The point is, the dominatrix and the masochist have an agreement/contract. And it is truly voluntary -- no tricking the other into a contract. Trickery/fraud nullifies a contract anyhow.

Clint Wrote:The black slaves resisted being set free after the civil war.

There were no black slaves. Let me explain.

When the alleged black slaves accepted and received the benefit of food and shelter from the plantation owner they volunteered to be in that relationship/capacity. It doesn't matter that the alleged black slave was chained and kidnapped from his/her homeland in Africa. Furthermore, the alleged black slaves that were born on the plantation, their birth on the plantation was a benefit the newborn accepted and received which simultaneously they volunteered to be in the relationship/capacity of being what you erroneously called/labeled a black slave.

In case you didn't notice, the paragraph above is "word magic". It has no factual basis. No empirical evidence/proof to support the argument.

BTW, I got that idea from you, Clint. You know, accepting a benefit from government is to volunteer to be in an agent-for-the-fiction relationship/capacity with government.

Clint Wrote:...frankly its arrogant and downright foolish to superimpose your particular moral code on anyone else as if they must believe what you believe is right and moral. Even thieves have honor among themselves man.

Do you realize you just described "government"? Men and women calling themselves government impose their moral and immoral code on others. And there's definitely a lot of honor among the killers, thieves and liars that call themselves government.

Here is a moral that is universal with 99.9% of individuals. Each individual knows when he/she doesn't want to interact with another individual. The moral foundation of freedom of association is the freedom to not associate.

It imposes nothing on anyone.

Clint Wrote:The point of the creation of legal government is to, through legality, act immorally and against God’s law of nature by strict law of persons in commerce as fictions of law.

First, who, what, when and where in the meeting of the minds did the individual(s) calling themselves government articulate that -- so clearly as you have done -- to the other prospective party to a contract? Or, did they never tell the prospective party that is the point of the creation of legal government and instead, deployed trickery?

Secondly, do you have any facts, empirical evidence (not fiction) that there is a God? If yes, what are those facts? If no, then isn't God just a non-existent fiction -- a belief delusion with no physical/material referent to identify its alleged existence?

It seems to me "God's law" (your words) are "word magic" (again, your words.)

(06-25-2015 12:07 PM)Clint Richardson Wrote:  I am not influenced by anyone. I continuously state this fact. I only read and study primary source documents. I follow no one. And I only ask that people do the same - not to follow me but to stop following gurus. For to demonize others who are leaders and not the ones you currently follow is nothing if not irrational and unreasonable. The only path is self-teaching without influence of men selling you books and who are vested in their rhetoric even when provably wrong. Again, my "book" will be free to all who seek knowledge, not culture.

First, it's a non sequitur to imply that because your book will be free that you don't have a vested interest in your rhetoric. Especially when you're provably wrong.

How many times in your book do you make reference to God and God's law? Is the Bible your guru from where the men that wrote the buybull (pronounced Bible) said God exists therefore it must be true that God exists because the Bible (pronounced buybull) said so?

Clint Wrote:4) Yes – And the law agrees with me, unless “license” is granted.

The law you reference is fiction. Are you prepared to show facts, empirical evidence that the law agrees with you? For example, do you have an audio recording wherein the fictitious law made audible sound waves stating that it (the law) agrees with you?

Clint Wrote:Again, anarchy (license) in government makes anything possible.

So license in government makes anything possible. Okay, so a government license can make it possible for me to go to the moon and back faster than the speed of light? Well, no, government license can't do the impossible. Conclusion, government license doesn't make anything possible.

Clint Wrote:
zonsb Wrote:5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?
5) No – He is not morally obligated. He is legally obligated. Fictional persons have no morals. They aren’t of nature. What a dumb-ass question!

Do you have facts, empirical evidence of the four elements of a contract that an individual has -- allegedly -- legally obligated himself/herself to go against his/her moral conscience?

Element #2 of a contract would include the full disclosure of the use of force continuum as standard procedure for when an individual doesn't comply with a law enforcer. Comply or be terrorized until the individual complies which may result in the individual being killed for non compliance.

On YouTube.

With regards to element #2 of a contract (the meeting of the minds), I would never agree to being subject to the comply-or-die, use of force continum. Element #4 of a contract has not been met -- I do not agree to the offer.

Essentially every individual knows when he/she wants to be left alone -- it's the foundation of freedom of association. He/she would not agree to a contract that includes the use of force continuum against himself/herself.

The men and women calling themselves government know that to be true and thus never tell the other prospective party to the contract about the use of force continuum. Instead, they (the people calling themselves government) use trickery. Which again, nullifies the alleged contract.

Returning to my opening statement on this post: "So you "slaped" me more than once and then, after the fact, you apologize for slapping me. I get that." For the record, I don't think you're a statist. Besides, even if you were a statist, I think to label you a statist would be too kind.

The reason I say that is because the vast majority of people that I've met throughout my life and interacted with (we voluntarily interacted with one another) have been statist and the vast majority of them never "slapped" me around as you have.

zonsb

P.S "just a dirty whore of a troll"... that's your thing. Meaning, when faced with important questions you attack the messenger. Have you not yet figure out that when you use an ad hominem it discredits your credibility. It's a sign of a weakness of confidence you have in your argument. It's a reflection on you, not your argument. Though, you use ad hominems in vain attempt to bolster your arguments.

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2015, 09:39 AM
Post: #28
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
This is a stellar example/demonstration of two hucksters and their hucksterism.
CoS – Jun 9, 2015 – Statism is a Mental Disorder

In the "debate", the word contract was used at least fifty times. Clint beat the word to death with never defining the four elements of a contract. Jan never sought the definition of contract either. Unfortunately, Marc missed the opportunity.

IMO, Jan Irvin in his moderator-in-name-only capacity, he was as much a huckster as Clint. That's my reason for the below quotes from Jan's Gnostic Media website discussing the debate.

Radical Dude occasionally posts comments here at marcstevens.net.

Here is the source for the below quoted comments http://www.gnosticmedia.com/CRichardson_..._a_Fallacy

gnosticmedia, aka, Jan Irvin Wrote:
Radical Dude Wrote:
gnosticmedia, aka, Jan Irvin Wrote:
Radical Dude Wrote:
David Davids Wrote:Overall I think Clint made more valid points, backed by facts.

Lol, what facts?

Obviously Clint was the only one who provided any facts and citations. Marc had one… he used jingles… if you try to dominate the conversation here, flagged cyber terrorist, you’ll be prevented from replying again.

If I have offended you please forgive me. That’s not my intent. I simply want to get to the bottom of what Clint’s facts are. If you or he don’t provide them I take it as acquiescence there are none.

“gnosticmedia
June 16, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Obviously Clint was the only one who provided any facts and citations.”

What facts did he cite besides his anecdotal airport stories? He cited definitions. He cited written dogmas like the US code and Constitution. He cited anecdotes about trips to the airport. Please, if I am missing some facts here enlighten me. I do not mean to offend, please forgive me, as you say I am undereducated and still learning this stuff.

Clearly Radical Dude is trying to dominate the conversation here, while not understanding basic premises and concepts. He’s replying repeatedly to every comment, etc, just blasting confusion. He’s banned.

Eric Christensen's reply:

Eric Christensen Wrote:
gnosticmedia, aka, Jan Irvin Wrote:Sorry Jan, Radical Dude’s comments are clearly not blasting confusion, they’re clearly thoughtful even if you don’t agree with the position he appears to be coming from. He’s put out no ad hominems and only pointed out where Clint avoided answering a question where terms had been agreed upon. He’s been more civil than Clint or Marc were in the “debate”. He’s also right that Clint’s evidence to support anything he said consisted of endless legal definitions, and two anecdotes (airport incident, and we have yet to see proof of the declaratory judgement). I heard Marc give his breakdown of why he thinks the idea of citizens falls ( the duty of protection is BS when the government forces you to pay it, plus courts have ruled that there is no duty to protect http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...ect.html), which leads to a breakdown of the idea of a body politic (which is supposed to be a voluntary association made up of citizens, at least according to the Mass. Constitution), which is necessary for a state

(As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. state. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved June 18 2015 fromhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state)

and government to exist. It seems the concepts of the state and government rely on the existence of a body politic, which relies on the existence of citizens. I’ve never signed a document of any kind that I know of pledging a duty of allegiance and have never received a document of any kind from those acting as government pledging a duty to protect me from anything. It’s all implied through the idea of social contract theory which is BS; the idea that the geographical location of where I came out of my mother’s vagina implied my consent to be subject to my local and federal govt’s jurisdiction is bananas when one thinks about it for any length of time.

I guess Marc could’ve had a bunch of stuff tabbed up on his computer ready to go to cite, but then again he shouldn’t be trying to prove a negative, and I don’t recall any factual evidence on Clint’s part to prove that citizens, body politic, state, and govt exist. I also would love to see evidence of his bloodline theory on the Constitution.

You both kept treating Marc as if he had no understanding of the significance of legal definitions when his work is based on dismantling concepts of citizenship, the state, and government as defined by Clint’s favorite legal dictionary sources. His website is loaded with examples of phone calls for clients where he uses a Socratic approach to talking with govt lawyers, , judges, bureaucrats, IRS agents, etc. exposing the lack of evidence for their foundational authority, jurisdiction (aka exposing the gun in the room), frustrating them into making due process violations to get attacks thrown out. I also saw plenty of evidence of his method’s success in paperwork from more than one country. For all of Clint’s supposed research, it doesn’t hold much weight if he doesn’t put it into action in court and build a portfolio of success stories in the real world instead of the world of abstractions.

If you don’t even know the words and definitions, how can you dismantle something?

And no, Radical dude was clearly trying to control the conversation, using all sorts of fallacious non-sequiturs… study the trivium. His tactics are quite obvious.

farcevalue comments on the debate:

gnosticmedia, aka, Jan Irvin Wrote:
farcevalue Wrote:Two opponents and a “moderator”? Ha! Oh, right – argument ab absurdo. The idea that this was a “moderated debate” IS absurd. This was an all out attack on Marc, with Clint’s chiding, mockery and diatribes unmitigated in any way by the supposed moderator. The impartiality exhibited by Jan is analogous to the impartiality that would be exhibited by a judge in a traffic court if Clint were a cop and Marc were a man who was cited by the cop.

The smug superiority, obfuscation, misdirection and insistence on the Bill Clintonesque “Is is” definitions of every other word in nearly every sentence of this supposed “debate” made listening to Clint an exercise in annoyance, frustration and confusion. If there is any value to be had from the info Mr. Richardson has available I am thoroughly disinclined to avail myself of it due to the abrasive, disingenuous and manipulative nature of his remarks. Good luck to Clint in his new sovereign world.

By contrast, on the rare occasions Marc was allowed to speak it was like a bright ray of clarity peeping through the gloomy clouds of bewilderment cast by the other parties. I have never heard anyone other than of politicians use so many words to avoid answering yes or no questions.

I have no problem in accepting everything Clint has learned about the laws and the constitution may be “true” in some sense (assuming those applying or misapplying the law or color of law, along with their victims. may or may not have done their due diligence). Fine. Is there any evidence that proves those constitution/laws apply to the “people” (lay definition – flesh and blood male and female humans)?

Sure, if you ignore word definitions, or any supporting evidence other than jingles… I’m flabbergasted that Marc’s fans refuse to employ the trivium method whatsoever, and so thoughtlessly defend is absence of evidence, even though I was on his show provided the trivium method 2 years ago. First, study the trivium and grasp what it is before you so blindly follow an argument from the arbitrary. I’m beginning to think it’s Marc himself posting these comments. Marc failed to supply ANY evidence.

zonsb

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2015, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 06-28-2015 10:03 AM by crazy in crazyland.)
Post: #29
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
After reading through all of this (crap) I can only conclude that Clint is a person with no moral compass or at least a person who believes that a moral compass can be set aside as long as you use man made laws, man made licenses, or man made contracts you can do anything you damn well please and then you can also say that you are moral because it wasn't you? This is a man with no understanding of what morals are, he has no moral compass. If what he claims is true, then the planet is doomed until people like him are put out of their misery. The reason I say this is that he will justify anything and everything he does including nuking other people (nations) as long as he makes some law (opinion)(license)to allow him to do it. There is absolutely no way to fix people like that. NO MORAL COMPASS!

Just my opinion!

And I thought I was crazy?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-28-2015, 12:30 PM
Post: #30
RE: Clint Richardson's arguments
"And I thought I was crazy?"

Don't worry. You are. Wink

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)