Categorized | Call of Shame

CoS – Sept 12, 2013 – Minnesota Deputy County Attorney: “I don’t need evidence, I have a law”

Posted on September 16th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

We are truly being farmed by psychopaths.  I know I use that word a lot, it’s fitting though as this call demonstrates.  The callous disregard for others, no concept of right and wrong; just ensuring the machine continues to grind away at us.

Here we have a deputy county attorney admitting she not only has no evidence, she doesn’t need it; all she needs is the law.  People who use machine guns don’t have any use for such silly things as evidence and rational thought, they use coercion to get their way.  It can’t be any other way with them.  Just write things down and pay unthinking brutes to enforce them.  Great system if you’re on the top of the food chain.

These “people” have no voluntary support, they coerce support and compliance from all those within the range of their guns.   Pay them or they will just take what they want and possibly kill us if we get in their way.  The evidence is all around us, you don’t need to take my word for any of this.  That’s how the mass theft of our property is done, these are the facts: men and women coerce us to support them and if we don’t, then they take our stuff and put us in jail.  If that sounds like they are criminals, you’re right, they are.  That’s what governments are, violent predators.

Listen to this, a typical call to a bureaucrat, and tell me if you think she is anything other than a criminal.

I_Dont_Need_Evidence

What she means is: I have my orders written down and lots of men with guns who will follow my orders.  When you have vicious men with guns blindly following your orders, then your orders are “law” and very, very special.  Your rules, or “laws” magically apply to everyone your mercenaries are willing to kill.

Until they meet up with adults who engage in critical thought and ask questions.  There are more of us each day questioning these predators and they can’t stand it.  One thing a psychopath doesn’t like, is being questioned by one of their intended victims.  It’s not that we don’t understand the mystical nature of their sacred “law”, we just don’t believe in blind faith and obedience.  We understand their laws and see through their nonsense.

They are not a government, they are gangs of killers, thieves and liars and their support is dwindling.

YouTube Preview Image

              

62 Comments For This Post

  1. Jack Worthington Says:

    Well, Marc, you handled the issue well and I thing cordially. This “woman” clearly had no evidence that the Minnesota Constitution applied to your friend or she would have immediately cited it and then the process could have been pursued. But, she had no evidence as your questioning revealed.

    I posed the question to Judge John Mercer in Beaverton (Oregon) muni court: Do you have any factual evidence that the Oregon vehicle code applies to me? Mercer finally said the vehicle code is the evidence. I was too ignorant or slow or I should have asked him if the vehicle code is self authenticating? Of course Mercer was a liar and if I had the ability and funds, I would have loved to get him impeached, tried and convicted and sent to prison.

  2. Packa Says:

    I wonder how she’ed feel if the state came after her property…..maybe government peep’s get a bye……

  3. Jack Worthington Says:

    The government is so infested with filthy criminals that it will require, as it did in the old west, a vigilante solution. These filthy govmint bureaucrats have brought it upon themselves. Their system of looting A to satisfy B is so utterly immoral that I see no solution but force as that is the only thing they understand, walk softly but carry a might big stick and when these criminals refuse to be honest, then don’t be affraid to use it.

  4. NonE Says:

    Jack Worthington Sed:
    The government is so infested with filthy criminals that it will require, as it did in the old west, a vigilante solution. These filthy govmint bureaucrats have brought it upon themselves. Their system of looting A to satisfy B is so utterly immoral that I see no solution but force… ————- Sadly you are wrong. It is not the people who are bad (although many of them truly are evil), it is the idea that the general public holds which allows these people to have respect. Until the idea of personal freedom and responsibility are held by the majority of the populace there will always be bureaucrats, and it is inherent in the human animal that given a position of power he will abuse it, even if he doesn’t intend to do so. – Dem’s my thoughts on the subject anywayz.
    - NonE

  5. JP Says:

    Worthingtons thoughts and ideas is the problem . . .

  6. JedOi Says:

    Actually, she’s absolutely right, she doesn’t need any evidence and the reason is because … The ENTIRE statutory system is based on PRESUMPTIONS.

    They PRESUME that you are entering the courtroom in the role of Trustee of your estate since the Judge & Prosecutor ASSUME the roles of Executor and Beneficiary. They PRESUME that EVERYONE coming before them is an officer/member/employee/3rd-party-agent of the government which makes EVERYONE subject to the governments internal rules, regulations and policies (statutes) which grants them PRESUMED jurisdiction and as if that wasn’t enough, they then also PRESUME that you are guilty of any/all charges laid against you by the enforcers …

    SO !!! If you DON’T disabuse them of these presumptions right from the outset then these presumptions stand and are taken AS FACTS !!!

    If you DO disabuse/rebut all their presumptions THEN they have to produce FACTS and EVIDENCE to establish jurisdiction before they can proceed which they can’t do unless you actually ARE an officer/member/employee/3rd-party-agent of the government AND were on duty performing a function of government at the time of the alleged statutory offense/s.

    Of course, not only do most people not know what they are presuming … they don’t even know that the cops & courts are presuming anything at all and so have no idea that their lack of rebuttal equals tacit consent / consent by acquiescence.

    Just a little food for thought there ;)

  7. jack Worthington Says:

    @NonE,first you say: “It is not the people who are bad.” Then you refute yourself by saying: “it is inherent in the human animal that given a position of power he will abuse it.” The general public elected politicians who the appointed the bureaucrats and they committed the crimes; they usurped our freedoms by perverting the restrictions placed in the constitution. So the general public that votes to sanction the politicians to pass laws that loot A to satisfy B are equally bad, as you seem to acknowledge as you say, ” Until the idea of personal freedom and responsibility are held by the majority of the populace.” How is the general populace to achieve individual respoinsibility? How do the majority achieve an ethical foundation such that they know the bad from the good and thus avoid electing the bad?

    I don’t see how anyone has the right to take a vote to sanction the politicians to use lethal force against you to control your person and property. I don’t see that as a right, I see it as a crime. Everything about the electoral process and supposed “representative government” is illegitimate.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” — Benjamin Franklin

  8. jack Worthington Says:

    @JP, care to explain with some facts?

  9. NonE Says:

    Jack sed: Everything about the electoral process and supposed “representative government” is illegitimate.————Agreed. But until the general populace begins to understand this there will still be the clamor for people to rule “us.” It is that clamor for rulers, for someone else to be responsible, which is the cause of the problems, not the actual rulers themselves. As long as people WANT TO BE RULED, which is obviously the case at present, then they will be ruled. So when I say that it is not the rulers that is the problem, what I mean to say is that the cause of the problem of the rulers is not themselves, but rather the demand for them by the overwhelming mass of people. Until there is a general evolution in consciousness (all praise to people like Marc) people will continue to give credibility and power to others, and those others will then USE that power. —– Does that help to clarify my meaning? – NonE

  10. Packa Says:

    No one from government has ever asked me if I would like to be a citizen.
    The reason we are not asked is simple. If they have to ask us if we would like to be a citizen that imply’s we can say no. What would the “STATE” do if we say no thanks. The “STATE” claims the power to inisiate INcarsertion,Violance, and taxation all without asking us. Maybe that’s what government means………Peace…..Pro. Mobutu Packabowlla……and Disc Golf foever….

  11. NonE Says:

    INcarsertion??? Izzat like whut they do when they throw you in da back of de cop car? ;-) – NonE

  12. Packa Says:

    Yo NonE I try to help. and you come back with an adhoman attact. Well FUCK YOU Hey did i speel that right……Peace

  13. NonE Says:

    PIECE to you, two, brother! :-) – NonHomanam

  14. Dan Says:

    Um, I think he speelt that right NonE

  15. Al Thompson Says:

    Marc the Click rides again! lol

    The govtardment is structurally dysfunctional and anything evil is supposed to be that way. People with sound moral principles and respect for other peoples’ free will have a very difficult time trying to deal with a govtard.

  16. Wisevirgin Says:

    This is the same syndrome in Aaron Aaron Russo’s got at his interviews with the IRS agency and its workers, because there is no law for the individual private American citizens. There is a law for commercial business. Once it is placed into the County record BY CONSENT, the real private property is assumed under jurisdiction. You have to look at the definitions of PERSONAL REAL property and the definitions for “dwelling” in regards for one’s own shelter for himself verses shelter for someone’s exclusive use of a business and its inventory.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

  17. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Packa I am curious what would happen if I renounced my citizenship but just stayed put, say in Orygun or Utah or Wyoming. I mean the guvmit bureaucrats, politicians, judges, INS, US Deputy Marshalls, CIA, NSA, FBI can’t just deport me to some other country as these outfits don’t have the power to force any nation to take me. Now absent citizenship, I would no longer qualifiy for all those “benefits” like SS, Medicare, Welfare, grants for education,i.e. I would no longer be a participant in the criminality of looting A to satisfy B. But also, I would seem to be beyond the pale of the wickedness of political jurisdiction, i.e. I would not be on the politically engineered plantation state and thus I would not be coerced into getting a driver license and license plates and could not be force to send my kids to guvmint schools or get them vaccinated and guvmint could not punish me or my family for say drinking booze before reaching the age of 21. In short renunciation of citizenship in place would make me far more free than my neighbors and I would be fully responsible for my action and my life and would no longer participate in the looting of A to satisfy B.

  18. NonE Says:

    Jack, That’s some powerful stuff you’re smokin’, man. Got any to share? ;-) – NonBlitzed

  19. Jack Worthington Says:

    @NonE, People are responsible for their actions, whether they are elected or appointed! As the Nuremberg Trials emphasized, we are expecte to know the difference between right and wrong. The elected politicians do not get a “pass” just because ignorant or dishonest pepole vote them power. If rulers are evil, they are the problem; they are criminals. Yes, people should know better and they bring upon themsleves their own punishment by electing criminals who impose “laws” that loot A to satisfy B, but that in no wise relieves the perpetrators, the criminal politicians and their minions of fawning, sycophantic, bootlickng bureaucrats who aid and abet the evil empire. To know the good is to do the good.

  20. Jack Worthington Says:

    @JedOi,Thanks for this statement of fact on jurisdiction. I only wish everyone was so well informed and then we could stop the judges in their tracks and that in turn would stuff the lies that the politicians have created via their imposition of “laws” or statutes. H.L. Mencken said government is a system of loot A to satisfy B and is anathema to the intent of the founders of this nation; government is opposed to freedom, contrary to the intent of those who framed the constitution.

  21. Ben Says:

    OMG!! Jack Worthington said the judge mentioned “SELF-AUTHENTICATING.” So I looked it up….. I hope I’m not the bearer of bad news. :-(
    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 902-EVIDENCE THAT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING
    (1) Domestic Public Documents that are Sealed and Signed.
    (2) Domestic Public Documents that are Not Sealed but are Signed and Certified.
    (3) Foreign Public Documents.
    (4) Certified Public Documents.
    (5) Official Publications.
    (6) News Papers and Periodicals.
    (7) Trade Inscriptions and The Like.
    (8) Acknowledged Documents.
    (9) Commercial Paper and Related Documents.
    (10) Presumptions Under Federal Statue.
    (11) Certified Domestic Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.
    (12) Certified Foreign Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.

  22. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Ben, Thanks for the information. Actually, the judge did not say that. After the trial I got to think and the question of whether the vehicle code was self authenticating came to mind and I should have raised an objection. Of course I don’t believe the vehicle code should be self-authenticating but rather a living breathing man or woman should be brought forth to testify, i.e. to provide first hand witness factual evidence that any rule or statute or “law” applies to me. Indeed this is “bad news” as it evidences a depth of tyranny of which I was unaware.

  23. Ben Says:

    @ Jack Worthington, I know…I’m still feeling my heart in the pit of my stomach right now. All those times they keep saying “The Code is Applicable because The Code is Applicable” they might actually be right.

    I know you can still get them on other things like conflict of interest and evidence of my physical location within a geographic area, but this….I don’t know.

  24. NonE Says:

    All those times they keep saying “The Code is Applicable because The Code is Applicable” they might actually be right.
    ————
    A course in logic should be applied liberally. Wash down with a chaser of rational thought. ;-)

    - NonE

  25. Ben Says:

    @ NonE, Thanks, but I am reasonable (liberal) down to earth man that can see through that BS. Try telling that to those narcissistic psychopaths the next you go to court. Especially if they smack you in the face with that federal rule.

  26. bruce sloane Says:

    self-authenticating does not have bearing on the applicability issue, it simply means that you need not provide a certified copy of the Statute in litigation

  27. Ben Says:

    @ bruce Sloane, Hens the code is applicable because (according to this federal rule) it is self-authentic.

  28. Jack Worthington Says:

    @NonE, Tyranny is evil; it is wrong and to justify it by saying there are codes and rules is illogical. The Nuremberg Trials proved that following orders is not an excuse, i.e. one is expected to know the difference between right and wrong. The Supreme Court in Georgia v. Brailsford clearly explained that a juror is not just to decide the facts in a case but also “the law” and if he finds “the law” (or statute) is bad, he can bring in a verdict of NO Guilty (the defendant might not be innocent but the law is bad and he must be released). The Prohibition era proved this as juries refused to convict those accused of buying and selling bier, spirits and wine. Rational people question the rules and decide if they infringe on freedom. Irrational people blindly follow order/rules.

  29. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Ben, So, do I understand you are saying there is a logical fallacy here, i.e. circular logic? The code applies because the code says it does or equivalently, I am right because I say I am right (Comes out of Stephen’s List of Logical Fallacies). I think NonE has difficulty with understanding logical fallacies.

  30. Ben Says:

    @ Jack Worthington, LOL! Well I’m not saying anything like that because I can see through that BS. I’m just simply quoting this federal rule that, apparently throws all logic out the window and, helps these psychopaths get one over on us. This rule, simply, states that they DO NOT need any witnesses and they DO NOT need any evidence to prove that the constitution, laws, codes, statues, ect. apply to me or anyone!

  31. Ben Says:

    “The code is applicable because it is Self-Authentic”….WTF OVER!!

  32. Ben Says:

    Marc if your reading this PLEASE prove me wrong!!

  33. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Ben, So are you saying that “The Rule of Law” does not apply?

    One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15

    A vehicle code is not a first hand witness, IMHO of course. Mere “statutes” or “laws” do not make looting via traffic fines moral or ethical. Unfortunately, the guvmint schools trap us in “the box” that we must obey our overseers/masters on the plantation state and that means slavery. Étienne de La Boétie said that we consent to tyranny because we are indoctrinated/trained just so from our earliest years and then are unable to break free. It seem to me people never achieve total freedom but merely change parental master for political masters.

  34. Ben Says:

    @ Jack Worthington, Again I’M NOT THE ONE SAYING IT! I’m just, simply, quoting this federal rule that is obviously contradicting “The Rules of Law”, and federal law out weighs all other laws. You are absolutely right and I agree with you. No victim, or damage to any party, no crime and the government, politicians, judges, lawyers, cops ect. are all narcissistic psychopaths on a power trip. I can tell your upset about it and so am I. But if you can find any way around this rule to beat them at their own game, just as Marc has with other issues (FYI conflict of interest), please let me know.

    “He who plans ahead is never left behind”

  35. Ben Says:

    @ Jack Worthington, You can make all these great speeches, all you want and quote all these great people, all you want. But at the end of the day THEIR the ones pointing that gun at back of your head….

  36. NonE Says:

    Jack Worthington Sed:
    @NonE, Tyranny is evil; it is wrong and to justify it by saying there are codes and rules is illogical. ———– Hello? Hello? … Hello? Oh, nevermind. – NonE

  37. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Ben, OK, finaly I understand what you are saying. Thanks for the clearification. The fact that they’re the ones pointing the gun at the back of my head of course does not make it right.

  38. Mark Says:

    The courts lack jurisdiction as they have no subject matter. There are no laws, as the state legislatures have not used an enactment clause to pass these laws legally. There are only corporate statutes.

    Go to this link to see a motion dealing with this matter:

    MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS/EXONERATE DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

    http://reignoftheheavens.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/MEMORANDUM-IN-SUPPORT-OF-MOTION-WITH-PROOF-OF-SERVICE.pdf

  39. NonE Says:

    Mark, So if fictitious entities use “an enactment clause” (related to Santa?) then they become real? If I use an “enactment clause” on Lysander Spooner will he turn into a fictional character? – NonBeliever

  40. Dan Says:

    @NonBeliever, Is An Enactment Clause the first cousin of Santa? Does he too have have eight reindeer? Where is An Enactment Clause’s home base (i.e North Pole)? Does he have a bag full of pithy motions that provide a silver bullet in legal land? If one invokes An Enactment Clause in legal land do psychopaths shake in their shoes? I gots to know man!

  41. Ben Says:

    @ Marc, Fascinating. Nonetheless, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.”

    So if I were to bring up the circular logic issue all a prosecutor needs to say is “The state legislation did enacted it therefor, according to federal rule 902, its self-authentic. On these grounds I don’t need to bring forth any witnesses or evidence to proof otherwise. Next question.”

    OMG!! I just scared myself!! I’m sorry to say that I don’t see in any manner that the courts or the feds would argue the fact that this is unconstitutional. :-( :-(

  42. Ben Says:

    Oops! That’s suppose to be Mar(k) with a “K”. :-P

  43. NonE Says:

    Ben, So whut you’re saying is that if someone writes some shit on paper, that makes it real? (O.M.G.!!! we’re getting back into the “whut’s reality” debate again!) Circular circular circular circular … and so on.
    - NonClausElfWorkerBee

  44. Ben Says:

    @NonE, You seem to think that.

  45. Ben Says:

    @NonE You use paper money right? Do you write checks? Do you have a birth certificate? You have a social security card right? How about a title to your car? Drivers license? Bank account? A title to a house or deed to rent? You pay taxes too don’t you?

    This is just a few of those pieces of paper that you use, own, and are bound to because someone writes some shit on it and YOU think that’s what makes it real! Try making it through one day without any of these! Try using that excuse if you ever have to go to court!

  46. NonE Says:

    Ben, I use the things you enumerate above because OTHER people think they are real. Just because I might take a child to the mall to see Santa does not mean that I believe Santa is real. A cop may believe that a shiny badge turns him into an immortal god. That doesn’t mean that I believe it, however I do act in accordance with the understanding that HE believes it.

    Have you read anything Marc’s written? How about Lysander Spooner?

    You say that I use and AM BOUND BY these pieces of paper. You are mistaken. I am NOT bound by them, even though I may find at times that it behooves me to use them. Can you see the difference?

    - NonE

  47. Denny Jackson Says:

    @Jack: Yeah, letting a judge spew some arbitrary opinion unchallenged is what keeps the system going. Marc’s genius is to simply use their own rules (of evidence) against them and to not let them off the hook when they come up with their arbitrary BS razzle-dazzle.

    In reading through this thread I notice that the list of self-authenticating documents Ben provided does not include ‘statutes.’ It is only about what may be admitted as evidence in court without witness testimony. Even if a judge, or some other attorney, made the (circular) argument that the evidence that the law is valid is the law itself, the question is, “Does that law apply to me?”, nothing else. It is not an “argument,” as most of the brainwashed droid attorneys try to claim, it is a question. It’s not a claim that the law itself is not valid, only a demand for proof that that law applies to me. The only one making an argument is the court–either the prosecutor or the judge. But good luck having a rational conversation with the guy with the gun in your face who is mugging you.

    In one sense the attorneys are correct about it being an argument, as the implied argument is that if there is no supporting evidence then their opinions about jurisdiction are legally invalid (the law does not apply). That is an argument, but one that their legal maxims and rules of procedure state clearly.

    As Marc has often pointed out, the purpose of demanding factual evidence in court is not primarily to convince the judge to render an honest verdict–although it’s nice when it happens–but to expose the fraudulent nature of the proceeding to observers and reveal the gun in the room–that the system works by threat, intimidation, and violence. Non-E is right when he says, “It is not the people who are bad (although many of them truly are evil), it is the idea that the general public holds which allows these people to have respect. Until the idea of personal freedom and responsibility are held by the majority of the populace there will always be bureaucrats, and it is inherent in the human animal that given a position of power he will abuse it, even if he doesn’t intend to do so.”

    I fully understand your frustration and rage (try handing over half a million bux to them after more than ten years of demanding evidence) and certainly share your disgust with the whole thing, but education is the only way to overcome a system that has been in place since Creation. Use of violent force will only get you dead, or rotting in a cage the rest of your life. If taking one or two moronic goons out with you is a fair trade in your mind then I guess I’d just have to say go for it and best of luck. But it will convince no one and will change nothing.


    It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. – Thomas Sowell

  48. Ben Says:

    @NonE, Then what are you!? A leader or a follower!? Did you even read my previous posts to Jack Worthington!? He got it why can’t you! I understand were you are coming from. Its just a piece of paper with no merit or validity what so ever! I get that!

    What YOU constantly fail to understand is at the end of the day, after all is said and done, THEIR the ones still holding that gun to the back of your head, waiving that piece of paper, and screaming “Comply with the shit we wrote on this paper OR ELSE!” Understand?!

    There are only to ways to deal with these kind of people, 1)Do what are founding fathers did and take up arms! or 2)Do what Marc Stevens and others have done and BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME! Once you know and understand the rules of the game, that makes you the most threatening and formidable player! Are you getting it know!

    Because from what I gathered so far from you is that your all talk! Have you even stood in front of judge and prosecutor in open court and defended yourself?!

  49. NonE Says:

    Ben, No I didn’t read your posts to Jack. Why would I? And I can see from your emotional ranting that there is no point in attempting to communicate with you, either. Enjoy your anger, feed it, you’ll die early and be spared having to deal with life. – NonE

  50. Jack Worthingotn Says:

    @Ben, @NonE, As self appointed grand arbitor, I pronounce Ben and MarcSteven the winners of this debate/dual of wits because there is a Maxim in Law that he who abandons the field of battle loses by default.

  51. Ben Says:

    @NonE

  52. Ben Says:

    @NonE,

    STAGES OF ACCEPTANCE
    1)Shock/Denial
    2)Anger/Aggression
    3)Depression/Confusion
    4)Dialogue/Bargaining
    5)Acceptance

    Thank you for, “starting to”, understand. FYI I believe your in between stage 2 and 3 now. Enjoy your life too! :-)

  53. Eyal Says:

    @Ben… Marc doesn’t beat them in their own game at all; this is what lawyers are for.
    (a) He’s not playing any game .
    (b) He uses parts of their game so that they can relate, so that they would even bother to pay attention.
    (c) He doesn’t beat them, he just limits the damage they are about to cause.
    (d) He is using common sense to prove to them that their game is immoral, he does not use their game to prove their game is immoral, or to prove that he beat them in their own game.
    (e) Eventually they make it seem (to themselves) that he beat them in their own game, just so that they can keep imagining their game is real, valid and good.

  54. Ben Says:

    @ Eyal, Your right. You have to know and understand the true nature of the beast so you can, at the very least, stand a chance.

    I don’t know about you but, if I do get my case dismissed, I’ll take that as a victory any day.

  55. Ben Says:

    @ Denny Jackson, I hate to point this out but the federal rule also applies to statues. :-(

    When I checked out what Mark posted about an enacting clause, meaning, the only way a law, code, statue, ect can be enforced, or have any merit, is if the state legislator puts before the law “Be it enacted by the legislator of the state of…..”, or however it is stated in other states, makes it an official public record that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law. The “law” being your state’s constitution. According to all state constitutions no laws, codes, statues, ect have any merit without a similar statement, above, to make it official or have any merit.:-(

    According to Fed. Rule 902 (4)(a)&(b)
    (4)Certified Copies of Public Records – A copy of an official record, or copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law, if the copy is certified as correct by:
    (a)the custodian or another authorized to make the certification;
    (b)a certificate that complies with Rule (1),(2), or (3), a federal Statue, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.:-(

    FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR-FUBAR!!!!!!!
    If nobody believes me check out your state’s constitution and check out your laws, codes, statues ect and read what is says just before the law. :-(

  56. MickeyG Says:

    The traffic court is a legislative, administrative court. The legislature makes a ‘law’ and then a court to try it in. This is called a bill of attainder and is forbidden of state and federal governments. Due process must involve the judicial branch, and include a judicial trial, not a legislative trial. This is where the defense is. The code is too big and complicated. A true traffic case would involve commerce and a limited liability entity. Not a man enjoying an inherent right without a mention of injury.

  57. NonE Says:

    MickeyG Sed:A true traffic case would involve commerce and a limited liability entity. Not a man enjoying an inherent right without a mention of injury.———- Implying that commerce is not an “inherent right” while “travel” is? – NonE

  58. Marc Stevens Says:

    Commerce or not, there is no evidence there are states and citizens, there is no evidence the laws apply. Regardless of the ramblings of the statist apologists, rules made up by psychopaths don’t magically apply to others just because they say so. Mentioning commerce is to use what the law says, thereby avoiding the most important issue: jurisdiction.

  59. Jack Worthington Says:

    @Marc Thank you for clearing the air. The arguments or missives by others have been informative and educational but they also confused me. I have heard from a few friends that jurisdiction is the issue and your examples show that indeed sometimes the scoundrel attorneys and judges do actually understand. IMHO, it takes some really sharp education on how to stand up to the criminal elite lawyers who are intent on imposing their evil system. In my case I wasn’t successful, though judge John Mercer in Beaverton Muni never was able to provide factual evidence that the vehicle code applied to me, i.e. he offered no affidavit of facts.

  60. indio007 Says:

    Marc,
    Somethings you say I am not too clear about.
    I agree on one hand there is no evidence that the laws or code apply in a general sense.
    On the other hand, if there is an actual factual injury there still would be no evidence that the laws apply other than what has been the custom of men.

    In your opinion , what would be sufficient evidence that the laws/code applies? Some voluntary affirmation? Judicial precedent? Other?

  61. NonE Says:

    indioAuthorizeKiller, If there is an injury then there is jurisdiction. The injured party has a valid claim for restitution. This is more an issue of commonly accepted “law” in all or most human societies rather than something someone made up and wrote down on paper. I realize this may not satisfy you, but it’s the beginning of a conversation at least.

    - NonE

  62. Eplo Says:

    Hi Marc,

    I too sent a 25 donation via paypal for the motion to strike/dismiss template for Utah have court date tomorrow and still not received? Have have paypal receipt seems to be a problem to get paperwork if we used paypal?

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Oct 19, 2013 - [DRAFT VERSION] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] MN property tax [non-]case update and analysis of the lack of evidence that their magical law actually applies. […]

  2. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 – [DRAFT VERSION] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] MN property tax [non-]case update and analysis of the lack of evidence that their magical law actually applies. […]

  3. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 – [UPDATED PODCAST] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] MN property tax [non-]case update and analysis of the lack of evidence that their magical law actually applies. […]

  4. NSP – Oct 19, 2013 - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] MN property tax [non-]case update and analysis of the lack of evidence that their magical law actually applies. […]

  5. NSP - Oct 26, 2013 - Co-host: JT - [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] CoS Drop: Minnesota Deputy County Attorney: “I don’t need evidence, I have a law” –Sept 12, 2013. […]

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. The NSP is live April 12, 2014, so we will be taking calls @ (218) 632-9399.



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.

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6













Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6




Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here