Categorized | Call of Shame

CoS – Oct 17, 2014 – An ‘Appeal to Consequence’ Logical Fallacy with a Canadian Municipal Liaison Officer

Posted on October 17th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

This Call-of-Shame takes us back to British Columbia, a city called Richmond.  The agent, as you’ll hear, is very confident that if someone or their property is physically in Richmond, then the political laws of Richmond apply and he has jurisdiction over them.  He has no evidence, but that doesn’t diminish his confidence at all.

He agrees that he operates under the argument that if one is physically in Richmond, then the laws apply.  I have to ask him several times for any facts he has to support this argument before he gives me a halfway decent, though non-responsive answer.  He claims the “community charter“is the evidence.

So I asked if there was evidence the “charter” applied and he attempts misdirection and claims I’m asking for legal question.  He doesn’t have a problem giving legal conclusions, only supporting them.  He raises a straw man claiming I’m challenging some “legality.”  I’m not; I’m just asking for evidence to support his argument.  He also stalls by questioning me on my motive.  Anything to avoid the question.

When I first point out that he doesn’t have any proof the laws apply, he responds with a popular logical fallacy to try to prove me wrong:

I’ve prosecuted people who have property in Richmond in provincial court, so those cases wouldn’t have gone to trial if the laws didn’t apply.

That’s some serious ignorance of the political system there.  I would not help almost laughing at him, and I pointed out it was just a logical fallacy (appeal to consequences) and not evidence.  He initially disagrees.  But, I did get him to admit he doesn’t have any facts to support his argument.

I did call the legal department and they told me the legal department cannot answer such a question, they could only answer questions from city employees.  So I faxed the agent the question I needed him to ask the legal department.  I’m not holding my breathe.

Last, think about the admission at the end that he has no facts to support his argument. He has prosecuted people in court and will continue to do so completely unaffected by his lack of evidence.  That’s not only callous, it’s serial prosecutorial misconduct.  And that is standard with “governments.”

              

6 Comments For This Post

  1. Andy Says:

    “I’ve prosecuted people who have property in Richmond in provincial court, so those cases wouldn’t have gone to trial if the laws didn’t apply.”

    Is there anyone with personal first-hand knowledge that can prove that you prosecuted people? (Side note: there’s judge, jurors, bailiff, defendants, to name a few, that have first hand knowledge.)

    Yes.

    Is there anyone with personal first-hand knowledge that can prove that some of the people you prosecuted were fined or imprisoned?

    Yes.

    Is there anyone with personal first-hand knowledge that can prove the Richmond community charter and its by-laws apply to me because I’m physically in Richmond?

    …Crickets…

    Because if there is, I’d like them to show me the facts proving that just because I’m in Richmond the community charter and by-laws apply top me.

  2. deb Says:

    But Marc, there is no evidence. They will always be engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. There is nothing else they can do. No evidence that any laws apply is a modern esoteric fact. Few can even fathom it however. If you were raised as an infant as a catholic, it would be very hard for you to escape the concepts of atheism and it could dangerous for you to do so. Just like engaging them on applicability of the law. You are throwing yourself right in the middle of the Lions den! Like you have said before, one has to choose their level of damage control. Cops have guns and they are also maniacs with only brainwashed ideas from birth. That makes them extremely dangerous to even think about challenging them.

  3. stalJans Says:

    “I’ve prosecuted people who have property in Richmond in provincial court, so those cases wouldn’t have gone to trial if the laws didn’t apply….

    and besides, me, the con-sellers(councilors), the mayor and my judge buddy , we all agree these arbitrary rules we make and vote on apply to you, see?(spoken in a mafia accent)..so if you disagree, we can prove to you these rules,codes,bylaws apply to you, how? well you can figure it out while you sit in that jail over there, after my officer pounds some sense into you and we will let you out as soon as you pay the extortion..err i mean the contempt of me fee for a blasphemous challenge of my jurisdiction…capiche??..now what other evidence will make you happy? to prove we got jurisdiction?,eh? boy?”

    i wonder how these people get up in the morning and look in the mirror and say to themselves “today i’m going to prosecute some disobedient slave, how dare they think they can just do whatever they want without our permission”???, and think that’s O.K. and part of their job?..and then go party on fridays without any remorse for ruining other peoples lives?..sick,pathetic.

  4. Thomas Paine Says:

    Such a small percentage of the population understand basic logic and logical fallacies, I wonder if this point can ever be made clear. I confess, that although I learned these fallacies in Jr. High school, and went on to earn advanced technical degrees, I took the ‘system’ for granted and never questioned it until much later in life. The evidence of this fraud surrounds us every day, yet like the creatures of the Cave or the Matrix most are either too blind or fearful to confront it. Monty Python’s “I am your King” scene comes to mind showing the absurdity of ‘authority’. For the old-time ‘Trekies’ see “A Piece of the Action” episode where and entire planet was ruled by gangster mobs. Government is no different than this.

  5. Brad Says:

    He just doesn’t get it Mark he stops at the point the charter exists and figures if it there its lawful. Thats good enough for him he’s Duhnadian.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    Deb sed: If you were raised as an infant as a catholic, it would be very hard for you to escape the concepts of atheism and it could dangerous for you to do so. ——-
    Deb, I cannot wrap my mind around this statement. Can you eloborate?

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Oct 18, 2014 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] A fine demonstration of the appeal to consequence logical fallacy on the latest CoS with a local bureaucrat in British Columbia, Canada. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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 youtube.com. 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