Categorized | Articles, Featured, Video

Jail is no Substitute for Evidence

Posted on March 17th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”  Putting someone in jail does not prove magical rules called “laws” apply to us.  I can forcibly apply my rules to you, that doesn’t mean they are applicable to you and create obligations on you.  It’s irrational to hold otherwise.

This particular reasoning in this video is even worse though, as it doesn’t take into account that one need not be in jail for bureaucrats to claim their rules apply.  They claim they always apply.  So if the evidence is being in jail, then how does one prove the laws apply when you’re just sitting in your home doing nothing?

So the facts are I’m physically in Mesa, Arizona.  I’m just sitting here, not accused of violating any laws.  The constitution is a written instrument.  Those are the facts.  What facts prove this written instrument applies to me and creates obligations on me?

 

              

105 Comments For This Post

  1. Randall Says:

    ICBMcatcher is just a troll and not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He will never see beyond his own ignorance.

    Constitution and code ONLY apply to elected officials and govt employees. They were written for govt, they apply only to govt. As was proved by Bond v United States. If anything the local authorities should have been the ones to prosecute under local law. And, yes, there was an injured, however slight, party.

  2. Randall Says:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf

  3. juan galt Says:

    Another “internet lawyer” FAIL. Bond v US does NOT establish what you say it does. Here’s what the Court said it was about –

    “The question presented by this case is whether the
    Implementation Act also reaches a purely local crime: an
    amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s
    lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn
    readily treated by rinsing with water. Because our constitutional
    structure leaves local criminal activity primarily
    to the States, we have generally declined to read federal
    law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress
    has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach.
    The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act
    contains no such clear indication, and we accordingly
    conclude that it does not cover the unremarkable local
    offense at issue here.”

    The US Supreme Court simply held that only the States have police power to enforce local law AND this lady’s action was NOT a federal crime, but a state crime. Therefore, the State law would apply to her in this case – NOT The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

  4. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    Is not the body of U.S. law established over the 240 years “information”?

    Yeah … I think it is. Point-set-Match. It’s fitting that stevens typed the very words that crushed him. I knew this would happen sooner or later!

    Randall Says:
    March 18th, 2017 at 5:48 am
    ICBMcatcher is just a troll and not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He will never see beyond his own ignorance.

    That’s an odd comment Randall – you call my disagreement with ano-delusionists “ignorant.” I wonder if that’s because I keep kicking the legs out from under the foolish notion that anarchy could ever be anything? Do you call me ignorant because I relentlessly expose the notion of anarchy as nonsense, and it dashes your dreams?

    Am I ignorant because I see past my emotions and realize that a society of any size needs laws that are universally applied to all CITIZENS, and that no law can exist without enFORCEment. It is unfortunate that the use of force is necessary to gain compliance, but it is the case nonetheless.

    Anarchy looks good on paper, and stevens nonsense sounds like a good idea, but here are few facts for you to ponder.

    Anarchy has failed and faded away, every time it’s been attempted.

    There is no known anarchist society of any size in existence anywhere on earth (because people quickly recognize it’s BS)

    If anarchy were such a great way of life, it would be our way of life … or at least it would be SOMEWHERE.

    Anarchy has been displaced by traditional government in every nation on earth

    stevens’ nonsense rarely works in court — UPDATE — even I was OVERESTIMATING stevens’ effectiveness in court! Apparently even the “wins” he claims are not the result anything he did! — now we know why he doesn’t post a win/loss record or the complete text of a judges ruling in the cases he’s involved with.

    stevens’ win/loss record is FAR LESS IMPRESSIVE than he claims … check it out for yourself!

    The laws of whatever country one finds oneself in, do in fact apply to the individual. Commit a crime there, get caught, and see for yourself. NOTE: here’s where the SENSE in which a word is used is important.

    The U.S. constitution was written to put limits on GOVERNMENT … to describe how GOVERNMENT would operate, relative to the people.

    The U.S. government operates with the consent of the governed. In theory, the people of the United States could vote to dissolve our current form of government and go anarchist (fat chance)

    And finally, NOTHING ano-delusionists say … no ridiculous off-the-wall reasoning stevens uses will EVER bring about a “voluntary” society in the form advocated here … not because “statists” stand in the way, but because a “voluntary” society is a pipe-dream … a fantasy … a proven FAILURE.

    Scoffing at anarchist theory daily, ICBMCatcher

  5. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Matter of Law
    Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
    Matter of Law
    That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles.
    In legal actions the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsibility of the court. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury, though a judge may determine the facts if a jury trial is waived or is not permitted under the law.
    The designation of matters of law to the judge and matters of fact to the jury did not develop, however, until the late eighteenth century. Until that time a jury could exercise its judgment over matters of fact and law. Jury instructions, which in modern law are technical and specific about which law to apply, were informal and general. A jury was free to accept the instructions, modify them, or ignore them completely.
    By the middle of the nineteenth century, courts had acquired authority over matters of law and confined juries to matters of fact. Commercial lawyers were particularly influential in bringing about this change, as greater judicial control over matters of law helped produce a stable legal system in which business could prosper.
    Today courts rule on all matters of law, including pretrial motions, trial objections to the introduction of particular evidence or testimony, proposed jury instructions, and posttrial motions. Their decisions are based on statutes, rules of evidence and procedure, and the body of relevant case law.
    When the facts in a civil action are not in dispute, one or both of the parties may request a court to make a Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is purely a matter of law; the court accepts the relevant facts as presented by the party opposing summary judgment and renders a decision based on the applicable legal principles.
    A matter of law can be the basis for an appeal, but generally a matter of fact cannot. Though an appeals court can reverse a decision because of a mistaken matter of law, it will not reverse if the mistake did not affect the verdict. This “harmless error” rule developed, in part, from the recognition that during a trial the court often must make hundreds of decisions based on matters of law.

  6. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Dear ano-delusionists –

    The above posted text clearly explains yet ANOTHER reason why stevens’ is full of hot air.

    The snake oil salesman presents the question of jurisdiction as a matter of FACT when it’s actually a matter of LAW. Another stevens FAIL.

    Then there’s the goof-balls citing court cases that don’t even support their point.

    Exposing stevsn BS is like getting a guy to shoot himself with his own gun.

    Unraveling stevens Gordian knot of BS a little more each day, ICBMCatcher

  7. rad Says:

    You still havent identified any specific bs. He said there are no facts proving the law applies. You still haven’t actually provided any…

  8. rad Says:

    all you’ve done is present a bunch of legal opinions and it seems as though you’re trying to conflate ARGUMENT with EVIDENCE…all you’ve done is present an ARGUMENT. You still haven’t cited any EVIDENCE the argument is actually true.

  9. Boxer Says:

    You got my violence-free vote, Marc!

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/09/mit-civil-disobedience-award/

  10. rad Says:

    it’s turtles all the way down you back up your own opinions…with are based on other opinions…which are themselves based on other opinions…when do we actually get to the foundation of FACT that any of these OPINIONS are predicated upon…

  11. Randall Says:

    @juangalt: Jeez, you just proved my point dumbass.

  12. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Look guys — your goose is cooked, and stevens did it to himself.

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.

    The INFORMATION conveyed through the text of … not only the constitution … but the entire body of U.S. law (all of which springs from the constitution), has developed over more than 240 years, and is widely accepted by 10’s of millions (not to mention every other country on earth), CLEARLY … UNDENIABLY … INDICATE that the belief or proposition(s) expressed in that document applies to anyone on U.S. soil, if only by inference. Furthermore, since the people of the United States could VOTE OUT OF EXISTENCE the current form of government, but have not, and have no intention to, it’s CLEARLY another INDICATOR of consent to the form of government currently in place.

    And finally … simple common sense. The U.S. government (and our laws) is/are the foundation of what could easily be called the most successful country on earth. The whole concept of law (any law) is that it applies equally to anyone within a particular jurisdiction, and jurisdiction IS determined by where a person is … physically … no matter what kind of spin one might want to put on it.

    stevens … you’re done. Fold up your tent and pack it in. You shot yourself in the foot and I’m going to grind sand into the bulls hole. Your nonsense has predictably been it’s own undoing.

    EVIDENCE = INFORMATION and the U.S. Constitution is undeniably INFORMATION.

    Your BS has always been BS, but now your house of cards has collapsed because of one-to-many dollops of dung, fittingly plopped on by your own hand.

    Your amateur lawyer act is over, your silly legal antics are kaput. Any more nonsense out of your supposedly “fortified compound” (actually a 3 bedroom stucco rancher with a dirt front yard) will only be an embarrassment to you, so stow it, and find some other way to make a living. And don’t forget to pay your taxes!

    Delivering the coups de gras, ICBMCatcher

  13. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Another nail in stevens quickly closing coffin –

    stevens’s electricity is provided by the city of Mesa – the govt. And he uses it just sitting at home. Therefore, the laws of Mesa apply to him as a nexus is established.

    Definition of nexus
    plural nexusesplay \ˈnek-sə-səz\ or nexus\ˈnek-səs, -ˌsüs\

    1: connection, link the nexus between teachers and students; also : a causal link the nexus between poverty and crime

    2: a connected group or series a nexus of theories a nexus of relationships

    3: center, focus
    The bookstore has become something of a nexus for the downtown neighborhood. — Jane Smiley

    I did not dig up this info. But I guarantee the source has FAR more credibility than ANYONE in this forum. Most importantly, the source of this information is FAR more credible than the snake oil salesman that’s the source of the “no state” nonsense

    Soon to be kicking dirt on the coffin lid of the “no state project”, ICBMCatcher

  14. Randall Says:

    ICBMCatcher = 🙄

  15. ICBMCatcher Says:

    And ANOTHER nail in the lid … again provided by someone who KNOWS what he’s talking about (certainly not me)

    Please explain this one away …

    While stevens is sitting in his house, the property tax laws apply to him, the taxes on his utilities apply to him, the gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! He can even pay them without leaving his house! Even more proof the laws apply to him, just because he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    And how about this … IF stevens were arrested for … say … “impersonating a lawyer” (is that a crime?) He would be read his rights, given a speedy trial, be presumed innocent until proven guilty … the whole due process thing … there’s the constitution being applied to him. So tell us again how it doesn’t apply, please.

    This is like when they garroted Luca Brasi in that bar, he struggles, but eventually he … just … goes … limp ………. and ……………. dies

    For your viewing pleasure.

    https://youtu.be/sw2dJmwm-64

    It’ll be over soon …. just relax, ICBMCatcher

  16. juan galt Says:

    Here’s what Randall wrote –
    “Constitution and code ONLY apply to elected officials and govt employees. They were written for govt, they apply only to govt. As was proved by Bond v United States”.

    The Court did NOT say that “Constitution and code ONLY applies to elected officials and govt employees”- anywhere in the decision of Bond v US. Like Stevens, Randall adds words to the Court “decision” to falsely support his narrative. Every middle-school child knows that the Constitution’s 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments AND the Commerce Clause applies to people’s actions OTHER THAN govt employees. Only a dumbass who thinks they can read and comprehend a Court decision, would write what Randy wrote. Just a quick glance at Title 18, 23, or 49 US CODE would show anyone who could read English, that these “CODES” apply to people other than govt employees.

    Randall is a great example of what happens when you let someone else do your thinking for you. It clouds his ability to discern Court cases.

  17. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You know fellas … I didn’t even watch the video at the header of this string until now. stevens singles out my comment, and again makes small “adjustments” to what I have actually said to make it fit into his unique “ano-dilusionist dictionary” … notice stevens trademark tactic …

    He ignores one sense of the word apply and focuses on the sense that supports his ever-weakening position. Also, notice how he won’t address this point because it really does sink him.

    Once again, we go back to linguistics, and stevens trademark “word mincing”

    Maybe another example will help drive home the very solid, undeniable point I make … and that stevens won’t touch.

    stevens amusing views on applicability are a bit like when someone says “you CAN’T do that”

    Let’s say someone is … smoking a cigarette in a non smoking establishment … I might say “hey, you can’t do that” … well obviously the smoker can, because there he is doing it. Maybe he “can’t” legally … or “can’t” in terms of consideration for others etc, but he certainly CAN smoke there, because there he is with a lit cig … inhaling and exhaling smoke. So, on one hand he “can’t do that” but on the other hand … he obviously CAN because there he is doing it.

    That’s how different SENSES of a word are used.

    Now, continuing with the dismantling of stevens absurd views by pointing out his “unique” use of the English language;

    His ever popular saw … “what evidence do you rely on to prove the constitution applies to me” inferring that it doesn’t, further inferring that he doesn’t have to obey U.S. law (?)

    The constitution absolutely APPLIES to ANY individual on U.S. soil (even foreign diplomats) Proof = if a person commits a crime and are caught, they will be taken into custody, and stand trial (the diplomat will just get turned loose and expelled) while the native gets what he gets after trial.

    There it is … the constitution (laws) have been applied. It’s done … In that SENSE of the word “apply/applied”

    Now let’s take a look at the OTHER sense of the word apply … from the ano-delusionist point of view; “there’s no evidence the constitution / your laws apply to me etc etc …. as in they are not applicable to me … as in I don’t have to pay taxes because I didn’t agree to, and your laws don’t apply to me.

    If one choses to look at the use of the word apply/applies from one point of view … they come to the commonly accepted conclusion, that the U.S. constitution applies to anyone on U.S. soil.

    If one chooses to look at it from a different point of view (ignoring one sense of the word) … we get the ano-delusional point of view.

    Conclusion: As I have asserted many times, stevens whole schtick is based on word games … sticking to either super-literal interpretations of commonly understood words and concepts, or commingling legal terms and principals with matters of fact, then calling it “logic”

    But let’s not forget the recent (fatal) slip-up that lays bare stevens nonsense …
    INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE

    Then there’s the whole common sense thing, and 100’s of millions (billions) of people around the world that have rejected anarchy.

    Regarding stevens inane comment at 4:20 … “as I’m sitting here” (making this video, desperately trying to counter another crushing comment by ICBMCatcher) … he is sitting in his house, the property tax laws apply to him, the taxes on his utilities apply to him, the gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! He can even pay them without leaving his house! Even more proof the laws apply to him, just because he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    So waddaya say there stevens … wanna have me on the show again now? You knew I was calling in the other day and you conveniently “didn’t get to” me. A little worried to try your BS on me again, now that I got your number? Word of advice … don’t have me on again.

    Taunting, ICBMCatcher

  18. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You know fellas … I didn’t even watch the video at the header of this string until now. stevens singles out my comment, and again makes small “adjustments” to what I have actually said to make it fit into his unique “ano-dilusionist dictionary” … notice stevens trademark tactic …

    He ignores one sense of the word apply and focuses on the sense that supports his ever-weakening position. Also, notice how he won’t address this point because it really does sink him.

    Once again, we go back to linguistics, and stevens trademark “word mincing”

    Maybe another example will help drive home the very solid, undeniable point I make … and that stevens won’t touch.

    stevens amusing views on applicability are a bit like when someone says “you CAN’T do that”

    Let’s say someone is … smoking a cigarette in a non smoking establishment … I might say “hey, you can’t do that” … well obviously the smoker can, because there he is doing it. Maybe he “can’t” legally … or “can’t” in terms of consideration for others etc, but he certainly CAN smoke there, because there he is with a lit cig … inhaling and exhaling smoke. So, on one hand he “can’t do that” but on the other hand … he obviously CAN because there he is doing it.

    That’s how different SENSES of a word are used.

    Now, continuing with the dismantling of stevens absurd views by pointing out his “unique” use of the English language;

    His ever popular saw … “what evidence do you rely on to prove the constitution applies to me” inferring that it doesn’t, further inferring that he doesn’t have to obey U.S. law (?)

    The constitution absolutely APPLIES to ANY individual on U.S. soil (even foreign diplomats) Proof = if a person commits a crime and are caught, they will be taken into custody, and stand trial (the diplomat will just get turned loose and expelled) while the native gets what he gets after trial.

    There it is … the constitution (laws) have been applied. It’s done … In that SENSE of the word “apply/applied”

    Now let’s take a look at the OTHER sense of the word apply … from the ano-delusionist point of view; “there’s no evidence the constitution / your laws apply to me etc etc …. as in they are not applicable to me … as in I don’t have to pay taxes because I didn’t agree to, and your laws don’t apply to me.

    If one choses to look at the use of the word apply/applies from one point of view … they come to the commonly accepted conclusion, that the U.S. constitution applies to anyone on U.S. soil.

    If one chooses to look at it from a different point of view (ignoring one sense of the word) … we get the ano-delusional point of view.

    Conclusion: As I have asserted many times, stevens whole schtick is based on word games … sticking to either super-literal interpretations of commonly understood words and concepts, or commingling legal terms and principals with matters of fact, then calling it “logic”

    But let’s not forget the recent (fatal) slip-up that lays bare stevens nonsense …
    INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE

    Then there’s the whole common sense thing, and 100’s of millions (billions) of people around the world that have rejected anarchy.

    Regarding stevens inane comment at 4:20 … “as I’m sitting here” (making this video, desperately trying to counter another crushing comment by ICBMCatcher) … he is sitting in his house, property tax laws apply to him, taxes on his utilities apply to him, gas in his vehicles outside have excise taxes that apply to him – AND he pays them all! Even more proof the laws apply to him, even when he is sitting in his house in Mesa, AZ.

    So waddaya say there stevens … wanna have me on the show again now? You knew I was calling in the other day and you conveniently “didn’t get to” me. A little worried to try your BS on me again, now that I got your number? Word of advice … don’t have me on again.

    Taunting, ICBMCatcher

  19. Max Says:

    Why does a bicycle salesman turned pressure salesman care?

  20. ICBMCatcher Says:

    https://youtu.be/gQYqfjSHvig

    look familiar?

  21. ICBMCatcher Says:

    how does one sell pressure?

  22. ICBMCatcher Says:

    sorry folks … double posted …

  23. Max Says:

    Did you sell bicycles with no air in the tires? Being a pressure or high-pressure salesman should be a natural progression of course. If you truely believe Marc is tilting his lance upon windmills, here you are tilting a lance upon Marc, so what’s up? From where does authority come? Unless you are the author of everything, there is no authority, only an expression of power. Even you must be able to appreciate this, as the misuse of power has appeared repeatedly through history. So who authorized the authorities?

  24. Max Says:

    Max Root, 86 Wheeler St. Pepperell, Massachusetts

    AND FUCK YOU

  25. Max Says:

    russell, give them your name as you are their savior?

  26. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Whoa … what’s with the FU Max ? And what are you even talking about?

    To clarify my position vs stevens;

    I do not think he’s tilting at windmills. I think he’s a charlatan … a wannabe lawyer … a snake oil salesman … pushing a ridiculous ideas based on a weird interpretation of widely accepted concepts and ideas. I am dismantling his act, and exposing his nonsense for what it is, because he makes money off encouraging people to shirk their responsibilities as American citizens, ignore laws in place (ostensibly) for our collective benefit, and get out of paying taxes.

    The whole stevens schtick is really just a tax dodge. This nonsense has little to do with rights or principals, it’s about getting out of paying taxes … that’s his main thrust.

    And it’s nothing new. This BS has been around for many decades. It’s little like the clowns that claim the earth is flat, the world is going to end on some fast-approaching date or that they are “sovereign” …. it’s all nothing more than alternative view hogwash.

    The other reason I am shutting this guy down is because he’s a “down-state mutt”

    I am from Upstate NY and have dealt with these Long Island … NYC loudmouths all my life. It’s hard to understand unless one has been around these guys for a while. They make outlandish claims … advance utterly ridiculous views, then just stick to them like pit bulls. The primary tactic is to just keep arguing until the other person gives up in exasperation. They also use selective definitions of words, and phrase things in super-literal terms … “show me a broken law”

    Then there’s the whole silly notion of anarchy as a way of life … this “move to a voluntary society” BS … all theoretical nonsense.

    But your question is a valid one. “Why do I care?”

    I guess I just don’t like seeing people that enjoy the benefits of being an American, and at the same time badmouth the country that protects the freedom to express their views without interference.

    Just sayin’ ICBMCatcher

  27. NonEntity Says:

    My groceries are provided by Natural Grocers and so it’s obvious that they own me.

  28. Randall Says:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

  29. ICBMCatcher Says:

    ==== SILLY STATEMENT ALERT ====

    NonEntity Says:
    March 19th, 2017 at 7:45 am
    My groceries are provided by Natural Grocers and so it’s obvious that they own me.

    == SILLY STATEMENT DECONSTRUCTION AND REBUTTAL FOLLOWS ====

    The above SILLY STATEMENT apparently refers to comments in this forum asserting that anyone that uses public services and enjoys the benefits of living in a governed society, guided by rule of law, has certain responsibilities to fellow citizens, and to the state, as long as the individual lives in said society.

    The silly commenter inaccurately characterizes the true meaning of the above rational assertion, and changes it to fit the ano-delusional body of propaganda.

    Anyone that lives among others in an ordered society MUST obey the laws of that society whether they have personally and specifically agreed to them or not. Allowing for the fact that every human being has absolute free will, the individual may choose to ignore laws they are well aware of, but they then risk suffering the associated consequences.

    Individuals are always free to go where there are no laws or where they are out of reach from the powers that be. But one will not be allowed to live in a society and ignore it’s laws at the same time. That does not mean the society owns the individual. It simply acknowledges that citizens that choose to remain in a given society have certain responsibilities that are sometimes at odds with absolute person freedom.

    So endeth the lesson, ICBMCatcher

  30. NonEntity Says:

    ==== TWIT ALERT, TWIT ALLERT! ====
    (Oh wait, you knew that already. Nebermind.)

  31. MM8 Says:

    If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?

    If you don’t get caught I guess you’re in the clear to do as you please?

    Am I missing something? Is that really the accepted social norm?

  32. juan galt Says:

    SPOONER HISTORY
    I wonder if many “Spooners” actually realize the genesis of Lysander’s musing of political philosophy.
    It’s interesting to me that in 1838 Spooner forcefully claimed that he was a citizen of the United States and as such had certain rights and protections secured by the US Constitution (even though he never signed it, lol). He recognized compacts with govt going back to the Articles of Confederation. He also recognized the state of Ohio. He had no problem using the establishment of govt for HIS benefit and purposes. Spooner had speculated in land in Ohio. He filed suit to stop the state of Ohio from allowing development in proximity to his land. He lost. See Spooner v McConnell Case No. 13,245 (1838). Having failed at being a lawyer and real estate speculator, Spooner returned to his daddy’s farm.
    Spooner later went into competition with the US Post Office – a great idea that was a commercial success. But alas, through legislation, the govt put him out of business. I have a strong feeling these events forever soured ol’ Spooner on govt. But yet as an abolitionist, Spooner defended the US Constitution and Founders. It’s interesting to note that Spooner recognized the right of the South to secede as the “manifestation of govt by consent” (although I doubt 100% of the people of the South consented). He believed the North was using force NOT to abolish slavery but to “preserve the Union”. This further pissed him off at the govt of the Union.
    It appears this belief and his experiences with govt caused Spooner to espouse individualist anarchism. He used Natural Law as his guiding principle. Thus Spooner developed his theory that – The Constitution can not logically apply to anyone other than those who signed it and thus is void. Remember this was just his belief NOT law or reality. His many scholarly writings to me can be summed up in John Lennon’s song “Imagine”.
    Stevens has found a new generation and new way to market and make a buck off Spooner’s philosophy, by weaving Spooner’s philosophical ideas into what Stevens thinks are “legal” questions/arguments and by painting all public workers as evil conspirators in a criminal organization. Obviously there are enough suckers around on 3 continents to keep Stevens’s utilities paid and working.

    Wow, I just read how one “sucker” thinks –
    “If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?” Talk about ridiculous! Yeah, MM8 is missing a lot.

  33. NonEntity Says:

    Juan sed, “His many scholarly writings to me…” — wow! Lysander Spooner has written scholarly stuff to Juan. How cool is THAT?

  34. ICBMCatcher Says:

    MM8 Says:
    March 19th, 2017 at 9:19 am
    If putting someone in jail is evidence that the code applies then is that the same as saying, only people who get caught are doing anything wrong?

    HOW ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE EVER COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
    I’LL REMIND YOU AGAIN, WORDS OFTEN HAVE SEVERAL SENSES THAT CHANGE THEIR MEANING. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS, IGNORING IT DOES NOT YOUR POINT MAKE.

    === A SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR ANO-DELUSIONISTS FOLLOWS ====

    ‘YOUR LAWS DON’T APPLY TO ME” = THE WORD APPLY USED IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL SENSE.
    “U.S. LAW APPLIES TO EVERY PERSON ON U.S. SOIL = THE WORD APPLY/APPLIES USED IN THE LITERAL SENSE (see that, see how it’s the same word, but an important difference in meaning) IT’S LIKE MAGIC!

    === END SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR ANO-DELUSIONISTS ==

    If you don’t get caught I guess you’re in the clear to do as you please?

    THAT’S JUST ABOUT HOW CRIMINALS THINK. WHAT’S YOUR POINT?

    ==== OVER SIMPLIFICATION/PLAYING DUMB ALERT ===

    Am I missing something? Is that really the accepted social norm?

    NOTICE HOW THE CHILDISH TACTIC OF OVERSIMPLIFYING A COMPLEX QUESTION IS COMBINED WITH PLAYING DUMB. THE SILLY SUPPORTER OF ANARCHIST NONSENSE KNOWS VERY WELL THE “ACCEPTED NORMS” REFERRED TO EARLIER ARE THE ENTIRE BODY OF LWAS/STATUTES/CODES … EVEN THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF HAVING A GOVERNMENT AT ALL. YET BY OVERSIMPLIFYING AND PLAYING DUMB THE ANO-DELUSIONST FOOLS HIMSELF INTO THINKING HE HAS EFFECTIVELY MADE A POINT.

    Calling BS every time I hear it, ICBMCatcher

  35. juan galt Says:

    NonE – You’re funny, in a droll sort of way. You can’t imagine (well maybe you can) how elated I was that the only error you found with my post was in punctuation – not substance. How cool is THAT?

  36. NonEntity Says:

    That’s easy… there WAS NO substance! 🙂

  37. juan galt Says:

    Spoken like a religious drone with no rebuttal. I agree that Spooner’s philosophy lacks substance, however.

  38. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I once heard that a comma in the second amendment changes the meaning of the whole thing.

    Grammatically speaking, ICBMCatcher

  39. NonEntity Says:

    Wow! You made it all the way to third grade? I would never have guessed.

  40. NonEntity Says:

    Religious drone? What, we’re talking a drone that fires scrolls at you? Torah, Torah, Torah!

  41. Randall Says:

    So what, he lost a case big deal. It doesn’t take away that he wrote a scholarly piece that makes sense and is right on target. WHAT I fail to understand is why are you here on this site along with Intercontinental???
    Are you paid or does it give you pleasure to put down people’s right to express themselves, however they feel or think. Closet Marxists would be a great label for the both of you. Not so sure you aren’t from the Quatloos site by the way you react to posts supporting Marc.

    AGAIN, there has to be an injured party to sustain an action in a court of law ……. PERIOD!!!

  42. rad Says:

    “INFORMATION = EVIDENCE
    THE CONSTITUTION IS INFORMATION SO … THE CONSTITUTION = EVIDENCE ”

    If you accept it as an article of faith, the same way the bagvad Geeta koran or whatever other scripture…it’s faith in magic paper

  43. rad Says:

    what facts would prove the words on the magic paper are actually true if i dont just take the dogmas of the magic paper as an article of faith…there arent any…youve simply referred to a WRITTEN OPINION which you’ve accepted on faith and then presenting the written opinion as proof of the validity of the opinion for no other reason than it’s written on the sacred parchment of government…where are the FACTS proving
    1.the constitution is the highest law (if we don’t take it on faith in magic paper)
    2. the imaginary magical power of “jurisdiction” actually exists
    3. anyone is a citizen who is owed protection

    if you can’t simply appeal to dogmas written on sacred parchment then all you have left is opinions…
    if you look at the trivium and apply it to icbm’s argument he is basically attempting to ARGUE around his lack of FACTS… to substitute GRAMMAR and LOGIC for FACTS/EVIDENCE because…there are no facts to prove any of this stuff except “such and so piece of paper says so” or “some guy said so”

  44. rad Says:

    or to put it in scientific terms, he has the hypothesis, prediction, and variables but no data to base his articles of faith upon

  45. Randall Says:

    @rad:

    Thank you, well said!

    😀

  46. John Says:

    Folks,
    Seriously, stop wasting your time/effort and ignore these trolls. They really have NO influence in anyone’s life.

  47. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    The statists’ purpose for posting here is attempting to influence anybody who might be on the edge of rejecting their twelve years of government indoctrination.

    What these statists don’t understand is that some of us used to believe the exact same faery tales that they still do.

    The only difference between those who call themselves Santa and those who call themselves government is that eventually somebody tells you the truth about Santa.

  48. juan galt Says:

    “It doesn’t take away that he wrote a scholarly piece that makes sense and is right on target.” LOL. Some people say the same thing about Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and Prison Notebooks.

    “Are you paid or does it give you pleasure to put down people’s right to express themselves, however they feel or think”. So, no one else has the right to express themselves, however they feel or think, if it is contrary to yours?

    “AGAIN, there has to be an injured party to sustain an action in a court of law ……. PERIOD!!!” And that injured party, in the REAL world, can include We the People – regardless of what Spooners believe…..PERIOD!!!!!

    “…youve simply referred to a WRITTEN OPINION which you’ve accepted on faith and then presenting the written opinion as proof of the validity of the opinion…” Spooners refer to Lysander’s WRITTEN OPINION which they’ve accepted on faith, while ignoring the realities in their Life – IE: Spooners talk and talk, but at the end of the day Spooners support the govt they despise causing themselves mental distress.

    I’ve come to realize Spooners are living a conflicted and frustrated Life. This frustration manifests itself in Spooners much like the same way religion affects people. As in all “religious” rantings, there must be “sinners” and to Spooners, “statists” are their “sinners” – according to their prophet Lysander. Govt fulfills the role of evil in this “religion” and must be destroyed before it destroys mankind. Once this evil is vanquished, there will be “Heaven on Earth”, NAP and voluntarism will win the day – forever and ever, Amen.

    Spooners mouth the words of their beliefs, but fund the very “criminal” actions they condemn. To ease their internal conflicts, Spooners project THEIR evil deeds (funding govt) onto others and deny the reality of their actions to themselves. They remind me of the followers of Jim Jones (Peoples Temple) or David Koresh (Branch Davidians). They can fool themselves, but not the rest of us. Spooners, by their deeds, support govt and are statists – PERIOD!!!!

  49. NonEntity Says:

    Torah, Torah, Torah!

  50. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Us trolls have about as much influence as the 10-15 people that actually believe anarchy will someday sweep the globe.

    After extensive research, I have determined the entire anarchy “movement” is really just a big ol’ tax dodge, with a smattering of clowns trying to get out of paying traffic tickets.

    stevens act is nothing more than a glorified “how to get out of paying your taxes” “service” that rarely works.

    Reminding ano-delusionists how ridiculous they are – ICBMCatcher

  51. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – You’re on to something. The “tax dodge” and not paying fees associated with “driving” is the bait, conspiracies are the reasons Spooners are victims and the feeling of self-righteousness is the only payoff.

  52. MM8 Says:

    Some people beLIEve in the magic codes/spells. Others don’t.

    Applied force doesn’t equal the right to apply said force. Those who beLIEve that sort of thing depend on it and will likely defend it till death. Whereas, some people either are or become principled and choose to reject the beLIEf in fictional things that inspire people to harm others in the name of righteousness.

  53. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I would’t even give them credit for being self-righteous. That would indicate they actually believe the nonsense they yak about.

    The whole “anarchy” “your laws don’t apply to me” BS is nothing more than an excuse to try and get out of paying taxes. They know it’s BS … we know it’s BS … the IRS knows it’s BS. Maybe it gives them a little feeling of power, mouthing off to IRS agents, when they KNOW down deep … under the FACADE of “anarchy” … their nonsense isn’t going to work, and they’re going to end up paying in the end.

    Seems to me they fight traffic tickets as a hobby … it makes them feel important to mouth off to a judge in court, especially now that they can get themselves on video doing it.

    Then there’s stevens … he’s the real actor. He actually gets these clowns to pay him to mouth of to officials for them.

    It’s somewhat surreal … stevens is so deeply full of @#$% BUT he slings his nonsense with a straight face, and it works for him.

    Squeezing the life out of anarchy a little more with every post – ICBMCatcher

  54. NonEntity Says:

    Squeezing the life out of anarchy a little more with every post – ICBMCatcher

    apt meta4

  55. juan galt Says:

    ICBM –
    Are you saying Stevens’s flock is not similar to those that followed Jim Jones or David Koresh? Those people believed deep enough to take theirs and their children’s lives. I’ve seen videos of these anarchy fools acting like spoiled kids in front of their children, while some contact Stevens for help on child support arrears. It is surreal that with all the info available, people in the 21st century are so easily conned and misled.

    Having been associated with the Posse in the 1970’s, I can testify that many of our members believed with all their hearts that they were right. Many were just average “Joes” whose lives were not what they expected and were easy to convince that it was the govt’s fault. They swallowed our BS and actually believed that THEY were the ones with principles and the govt had screwed them out of their liberty to succeed. Our info gave them the belief that they knew something the public didn’t and therefore they felt superior – it was probably the only part of their Life where they did. With our “secret” knowledge, we convinced them that they held the “silver bullet” to stop the evil govt in their tracks. They could outwit the criminal judges and lawyers with “magic phrases and questions”, we told them. Stevens is simply the 3rd generation of these “hucksters” – he has discovered nothing – he is repeating old BS and has the wonder of the internet to reach the “world market”.

    I don’t think you would be able to change their minds anymore than you could a member of ISIS. They all believe they are promoting a better way of Life and as those renowned philosophers, the Blues Brothers, said – “They’re on a mission from God.”

  56. Randall Says:

    Definition of Evidence

    Evidence is all the means by which any alleged material fact,
    the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.Investigators obtain evidentiary facts which by
    inference tend to prove or disprove the ulti­mate, main, or principal fact. The latter is a matter for determination by a court or jury. For
    example, a special agent obtains, in connection with a net worth case, documents and oral statements showing that a taxpayer’s bank bal­ance has increased substantially. That is an evidentiary fact from which an inference may be drawn relative to the ultimate or principal fact ,
    namely, that the taxpayer willfully attempted to evade income tax. Legal evidence is such as is admissible in court under the rules of evidence
    because it tends reasonably and substantially to prove a fact. Evidence is distinguished from proof in that the latter is the result or effect of
    evidence.

  57. juan galt Says:

    Legal Definition of Evidence

    evidence (n) – every type of proof LEGALLY presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called “circumstantial evidence” which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against “hearsay” (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

    Congress in 1975 adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence are the official rules in federal court proceedings. Most states now also have codified rules of evidence based on these federal rules. Both state and federal rules of evidence serve as a guide for judges and attorneys so that they can determine whether to admit evidence—that is, whether to allow evidence to be observed by the judge or jury making factual conclusions in a trial.

  58. Randall Says:

    (2) The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to obey a summons issued under IRC 7602 or a court order directing his/her appearance. He/she is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth
    Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, although he/she may exercise it in connection with specific questions. [Landy v. U.S.] He/she cannot refuse to bring his/her records, but may decline to submit them for inspection on constitutional grounds. In the Vadner case, the government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for refusal to obey a court order to produce his / her books and records. He refused to submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. The court denied the motion to hold him in contempt, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting point for a tax evasion case .

  59. Randall Says:

    “standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” – Rames v. Byrd 521 US 811

    “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A Plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendants allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” – Allen v. Wright 468 US 737, 751 (1984)

  60. MM8 Says:

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 20th, 2017 at 3:57 pm
    I would’t even give them credit for being self-righteous. That would indicate they actually believe the nonsense they yak about.

    I was talking about you. Lol. BeLIEving in the voodoo you revere. It’s laughable.

    Go ahead and mock. Your opinions are worth every penny. $0.

    I’m curious. Do you and Juan sit in opposing cubicles at the same IRS branch?

  61. juan galt Says:

    It’s hard to know Randall’s reasons for quoting these cases. But they both say that the “plaintiffs” in these cases did not personally, individually suffer a concrete and particularized “injury” by the acts of the defendants – thus no case. Therefore, they did not have standing per Article III of US Constitution to bring suit. For the sake of transparency, here’s the complete quote from the case of Allen v Wright (which Randall edited) –

    “The “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III
    doctrine of “standing” has a core constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. The concepts of standing doctrine present questions that must be answered by reference to the Art. III notion that federal courts may exercise power only in the last resort and as a necessity, and only when adjudication is consistent with a system of separated powers and the dispute is one traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.”

    Here’s the decision of Raines v Byrd (nowhere does it say “standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction”) –

    “We therefore hold that these individual members of Congress do not have a sufficient “personal stake” in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing.”

    No, the IRS wouldn’t hire this ex-Posse Comitatus associate of Irwin Schiff. Irwin and I were taking on the IRS before most of you guys were born. Don’t know about ICBM.

  62. Max Says:

    See I love this ICBM and Juan every good thing I have done counts as a positive only for society, every bad thing I may perpetrate counts against me. Am I getting this right? If I score we all score, if I lose I lose. This is a game where you count the points but include my points amongst yours? Just not the ones you want? I mean your doing so well,right?

  63. Max Says:

    ICBMCatcher the reason I think the cops saving us from ourselves is bullshit is that they deem it impossible. I don’t believe that, I do believe I can weather a deprivation, I know those practicing such deprivations will soon run out of luck. It is the way. When a cop relieves someone of their mortgage payment to satisfy their own, is that justice? Justice only exists when when injustice is eliminated, justice has no existence.

    The worst I have heard is you have no property save that which the state allows you. The state is aboard so long as you pay.

    So property is theft against the commons.

    No property, no theft.

    If property is owned you owe.

    An owner of property is held to be that person who holds the power to dispose of property.

    If someone interferes with the disposal of property, are they becoming an owner by this action.

    Communists and socialist despite their altruistic intentions are liars, and fucking you feels good?

  64. Max Says:

    I have also seen and heard this or that would never happen without the government, the fact remains it did, with paychecks, private individuals and nothing the government has has ever originated for without itself. They hire.

  65. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/Police.html

  66. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://www.synapticsparks.info/government/Government.html#truth

  67. NonEntity Says:

    Max, where have you been hiding out? 🙂

  68. NonEntity Says:

    https://youtu.be/ufVJ7J7j_h4

  69. Randall Says:

    “Standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction” – Barshop v. Medina Under. Wat. Cons. Dist., 925 SW 2d 618 – Tex: Supreme Court 1996

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5566571311140648897&q=Barshop+v.+Medina+County+Underground+Water+Conservation+District,+925+S.W.2d+618,+626+(Tex.1996)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38

    Corrected case. Marc you might want to make a note for this.

  70. Randall Says:

    This is where I found it:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-supreme-court/1283623.html

  71. Jarrod Says:

    Hey ICBM, How come you don’t call in on the show? I would like to see if any of your logic makes sense when challenged rationally.

  72. Randall Says:

    @Jarrod

    Oh trust me, he won’t. He’s too scared.

  73. juan galt Says:

    Randall and Marc – In Re: Raines v Byrd. You’re welcome. That’s why I’m here – to reveal the truth and correct the false. This case is only one of many.

  74. Randall Says:

    @juan galt

    Well it was a wrongly cited case. But the statement was correct even if a case wasn’t cited.

  75. Andy Says:

    @Jarrod & Randall, Here’s 2 hours and 46 minutes of discussion with Marc Stevens and ICBMCatcher: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65660.html#pid65660

  76. Randall Says:

    Ahhhh, thank you Andy.

  77. juan galt Says:

    Randall – You’re welcome.

  78. JOHN COKOS Says:

    All the “proof” you need that the laws apply is when a Court Room Bailiff with a Gun and as big as a linebacker has you by he scruff of the neck escorting you out of the Court Room. It starts there and gets worse as you get into the mix…LOL
    “Proof? We don’t need no sinking proof”.

  79. Randall Says:

    I just figured out how ICBM thinks. He’s going on the whole FRN thing. If we didn’t believe that FRNs have value we wouldn’t be using them. The only fact that they are used is that everyone believes that they can exchange them for goods and services. (And this very fact can be read in Modern Money Mechanics, at least I think that is where you can find it.) Therefore, in his mind, the laws only exist because people believe that if they are broken they are prosecuted under them. Did I get that right, Mr. Catcher???

  80. Randall Says:

    The freeman guy from Canada, not Menard, but the other guy, sorry forgot his name. He said only one thing that makes total sense regarding Fiat Currency. “If fiat money has no value, then give me 100 dollars.”

  81. staljanski Says:

    ICBULLshitter is a CityZen CON-troll-er, re;s not the body of U.S. law established over the 240 years “information”?..THATS 240 years of tyrannical OPINIONS, still no evidence any of that voodoo applies to me or anyone.

    re: Anarchy has failed and faded away, every time it’s been attempted, EYES that you do not see with, we ARE in anarchy today, cept we got the 1% that hired guns to control the masses.

    re: the consent of the governed…are you on glue? this is an oxymoron might as well say consent of the slave, and slaves never gave consent.
    re:The snake oil salesman presents the question of.. the question is how HARD you SELL your vomit.

    re:The U.S. government (and our laws) is/are the foundation of what could easily be called the most successful country on earth. …hahahaha , your delusional , and a blind moron, the UZZA is another Nazi experiment, freedumbs like you I feel is the reason this is the biggest animal farm prison experiment.

    re:Your BS has always been BS,..exactly, your BS is just that, look in the mirror…either your a gov troll, or a real idiot, none of you arguments are worth the bag of crap you carry around.

    re:this information is FAR more credible than the snake oil salesman that’s the source of the “no state” nonsense WHAT? information?, do you have evidence of a “state”?.. is it anything like the santa clauses north pole?, i bet you have evidence Santa also exists.

    ahhh this has been a long and usless waste of my time reading two fools tag teaming making CLAIMS without a shred of evidence, just more claims on top of claims.. this is an example of the useless eaters.. marc you need to delete all these morons from this place, its to difficult to read idiot comments, remember they (idiots) had a lifetime of practice.

  82. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 21st, 2017 at 8:56 am
    Hey ICBM, How come you don’t call in on the show? I would like to see if any of your logic makes sense when challenged rationally.

    I called in once and a had a recorded convo with stevens. Now that I’m zeroed in on him he won’t let me on the show anymore. I have called in 3 times since. Every time he see’s my area code a cold chill goes up his spine. I’ll get on again … this guy will not escape.

    RATIONAL ? Let’s be clear. The ano-delusionists advocate a “voluntary society” “no government” and all sorts of other nonsense that would and has, NEVER WORKED long term, and does not exists anywhere on earth, further proving it doesn’t work. Anarchy has been displaced by traditional governments in every country. Anarchy is nothing but a fringe element of society (been around for centuries) in the same class as “flat earthers”, “conspiracy theorists” of all sorts, “sovereigns”, etc.

    A common trait among those with these silly mind-sets is “everyone else in the world is wrong and we (all 25 of us) are right”

    Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.

    Reminding anarchists everywhere their ideas are nonsense – ICBMCatcher

  83. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 21st, 2017 at 8:56 am

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    March 18th, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    FROM A PREVIOUS POST

    Look guys — your goose is cooked, and stevens did it to himself.

    Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.

    Evidence provided by stevens himself — ICBMCatcher

  84. Jarrod Says:

    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” was a very successful example as well. Random killings were almost non-existent, rape was unheard of, and most of the deaths were feuds between ranchers, and law men. Ranchers created land associations to settle disputes. Wagon trains signed constitutions so that thousands of wagons could make the journey to CA, even if conditions were near-starving. People actually solve their problems very well (even better in most scenarios) absent the violence of the state. Both are good reads and there is a youtube documentary floating around on catalonia. I recommend doing some research into both, as it debunks your claim that anarchy cannot work.

  85. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 22nd, 2017 at 10:12 am
    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” …

    There is tons of historical evidence for anarchy … evidence that it comes and goes … sprouts up and fades away. Evidence that it doesn’t work in large (nation sized groups) Evidence that it’s nonsense.

    Evidence that republics … democracy … even communism is/was more successful.

    But the burning questions, the ones that DESTROY all the current anarchy nonsense … the ones ano-delusionists avoid EVERY TIME THEY ARE ASKED …

    If anarchy is such a great way of life why isn’t our way of life? Why isn’t it ANYONE’s way of life anywhere?

    — This is where ano-delusionists insert some obscure example, and call it “evidence” —

    Civilization started in anarchy … before there were laws, before there were governments. But the concept of government took hold. The concept of laws evolved, anarchy faded away, and here we are. Why?

    So why did not anarchy stick and displace other forms of government? Why do not individuals band together world-wide and demand we move to a “voluntary society”? Why is anarchy nothing in current civilization?

    Why is there always one or two crack-pot, snake oil salesman, every decade or so that come along, start in with this BS (as if they have discovered some long-lost religion buried in the sand) only to have it fade into obscurity, as it always does?

    Why?

    Reminding you again, anarchy looks good on paper, but never lasts – because it’s BS – ICBMCatcher

  86. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jarrod Says:
    March 22nd, 2017 at 10:12 am
    ICBM, I noticed you mentioned (in feb 11th radio show) that “there is no historical evidence of anarchy.” Have you looked up catalonia spain, in 1936? Also, the “wild west” …

    the “wild west” … just curious Jarrod?

    Are you saying there were no laws in the U.S. or territories soon to be U.S. soil … 1864 (ish) to 1899?

    Are you saying that?

    Smelling more ano-dilusionist foolishness — ICBMCatcher

  87. Randall Says:

    @ICBMCatcher

    Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.

    Its not a tax dodge if the code does not apply. The income tax (IRS) is an excise tax on privileged activity. Selling alcohol, tobacco and tobacco products, firearms, and oil. Or privileged occupations such as senators, representatives, or federal employees either hired or under contract.

    Read the affirmation from the 1862 form here: http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/9134d0498e7c820085256e4400040844?OpenDocument

  88. Randall Says:

    Read the first page of the jpg 1 and 2 on the taxhistory.org site. More evidence.

    1st. Every person residing in the United States; and every citizen residing abroad who is in the employment of the Government of the United States.

    2d. Every citizen residing abroad and not in the employment of the Government of the United States.

    last part of affirmation: “…and subject to an Income Tax under the excise laws of the United States.”

  89. les Says:

    ICBM said: “But the burning questions, the ones that DESTROY all the current anarchy nonsense … the ones ano-delusionists avoid EVERY TIME THEY ARE ASKED …

    If anarchy is such a great way of life why isn’t our way of life? Why isn’t it ANYONE’s way of life anywhere?”

    The issue here is that you constantly ignore the answers you’ve been given to that question. Your repeating the question only reinforces the views of people here that you are just dumb. Perhaps you re-post your post here somewhere else but “forget” to post the answers to your questions.

    also

    ICBM said: “Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)

    This is plain as day, and absolutely irrefutable.

    The U.S. constitution can … by any definition, be called “information” no way to dispute that.”

    You simply just don’t understand reification at all do you. So I guess in your mind, if I had a piece of paper that said “The constitution does not apply to me”, you would consider that “absolutely irrefutable” factual evidence to support a claim of such? BTW, my 18 year old son spotted that flaw in your mental workings.

    Just because something can be termed “information” this does not automatically make it evidence thereof or of any applicability whatsoever. Think about it, when you watch Star Trek, do you believe they are actually in space in the future? After all, there is information available to support they are in deep space with Captains Logs etc all dated by the main governing authority aboard the Enterprise… oh and further, that the Enterprise is a real warp speed capable spacecraft? Heck, there’s even video information available of them flying through space with a guy with pointy ears so that must be evidence it’s all real and factual. Not to forget all the people who dress up in Star Trek “uniforms” here on Earth…. these people would provide information (being “absolutely irrefutable” evidence) that Star Trek is actually reality… right? OR could it all just be BS? If a piece of paper can be termed information then so can a video.

    You make such a fool of yourself time after time. Give it up, spend time with your family.

    Still not tasting goose yet. Les

  90. Max Says:

    “Reminder #67 THE WHOLE stevens ACT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEMI-SOPHISTICATED TAX DODGE.”

    “SEMI-SOPHISTICATED”, now I’m a bit lax upon the use of semi and hemi, there are no MOPAR 426 SEMIs so I’ll leave that be, SOPHISTICATED now there’s a word to suss out, root of sophisticated is sophist, a sophist:

    a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.

    and,

    a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

    Mr. Piazza, you accuse someone of sophistry while making up compound words yourself?

  91. Max Says:

    I could be wrong, but “complex” might have been the better choice.

  92. Max Says:

    Can someone be half a sophist?

  93. Max Says:

    I suppose they might be a partial sophist, even a fractional sophist. Nevermind there can only be sophists.

  94. Max Says:

    “Evidence is “the available body of facts or INFORMATION indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” (I believe stevens typed this himself)”

    Another strange concept is beliefs and propositions are speculations.

    The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.

  95. Max Says:

    “SENSES of a word”, argue the definition or meaning of a word, people and animals have sense. Definition is still a speculation, why would you want a definition if you knew what you were talking about? Is this like the mean sophist, where you make up half of any reasoning?

  96. Max Says:

    The word feels just feels

  97. Max Says:

    Definition, disambiguation – define – de (un) fin (end) ition (state)

  98. Max Says:

    “De” also means “of”, de mexico, “of mexico”, “indirect” and “income”?

  99. Max Says:

    Any “isms” are presupposed to exist within this mode of reason which is unreasonable. I am a traitor to your treason.

  100. Randall Says:

    @les:

    NICE!!!, couldn’t have said it better myself :D:

    You simply just don’t understand reification at all do you. So I guess in your mind, if I had a piece of paper that said “The constitution does not apply to me”, you would consider that “absolutely irrefutable” factual evidence to support a claim of such? BTW, my 18 year old son spotted that flaw in your mental workings.

    Just because something can be termed “information” this does not automatically make it evidence thereof or of any applicability whatsoever. Think about it, when you watch Star Trek, do you believe they are actually in space in the future? After all, there is information available to support they are in deep space with Captains Logs etc all dated by the main governing authority aboard the Enterprise… oh and further, that the Enterprise is a real warp speed capable spacecraft? Heck, there’s even video information available of them flying through space with a guy with pointy ears so that must be evidence it’s all real and factual. Not to forget all the people who dress up in Star Trek “uniforms” here on Earth…. these people would provide information (being “absolutely irrefutable” evidence) that Star Trek is actually reality… right? OR could it all just be BS? If a piece of paper can be termed information then so can a video.

    You make such a fool of yourself time after time. Give it up, spend time with your family.

    Still not tasting goose yet. Les

  101. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You guys are always good for a laugh.

    It never ceases to amaze me how the “anti-state” delusionists keep using the same old tactic, even after it’s been foiled by realists like me.

    THE ANTI-STATE TACTIC: oversimplify, ignore context or any aspects of an issue that don’t support the anti-state position. Like different senses of a word.

    EXAMPLE: refer to the U.S. constitution as “just 4 pieces of paper” … you guys love act as if the constitution was jotted down on a (parchment) cocktail napkin in a tavern outside Philadelphia, by a couple of guys over tankards of ale … or rum … or whatever the hell they were drinking.

    CRUSHING ANO-DELUSIONIST POINTS WITH REALITY: even you know it’s not simply “pieces of paper” calling it that makes your argument though. Consider the context in which it was written, and it’s effect on world events since it was created … watch your weak argument wilt.

    EXAMPLE: your babble about Star Trek … the context of the TV show is obvious … it’s set in the future, it’s sience fiction etc. Is it really “information” or entertainment?

    OBJECTION, POINT OF REALITY: any rational person would agree the U.S. constitution could easily be called “information” … it could also be called nothing more than 4 pieces of paper … but the argument for the former is a hell of a lot stronger than that for the latter.

    You fellows are so desperate to rationalize your absurd views, you loose site of the fact that you’re wrong and “we” (the whole rest of the world) are right.

    Les said;
    The issue here is that you constantly ignore the answers you’ve been given to that question. Your repeating the question only reinforces the views of people here that you are just dumb. Perhaps you re-post your post here somewhere else but “forget” to post the answers to your questions.

    No answers have been provided to the questions I posed, only attempts to explain them away.

    There’s no argument with the facts … civilization started out in anarchy, realized it didn’t work and moved towards government. The evidence of this evolution is clear all over the world. Still haven’t seen a rational explanation for this.

    Somebody said: You simply just don’t understand reification — holy cow, if anybody is trying to make that which is not, concrete, it’s you fellows! Here’s why …

    As I have stated many times; laws … the constitution … the magna carta … common law … even ‘natural law”, are all arbitrary in nature. Who is anybody to tell anyone thay can’t, or must do anything … ever?

    Thing is that’s not how the world works. When a person or group controls a geographic area and has the means to force compliance if necessary, that’s just how it is. Like it or not … whether an individual thinks it’s right or wrong. And no … it’s NOT a matter of “might makes right” … right and wrong have nothing to do with it. It’s just how it is. But you are only forced to comply if you decide to stay “here”. “Majority rules” is organic to human nature.

    Once again, I’ll point out … here you all are talking about “anarchy” … “show me the evidence
    your laws apply to me” etc. … actually trying to say “states don’t exist” when they obviously do if only as concepts. You try to make a rational argument for a way of life that has failed repeatedly, while railing against one that has flourished for centuries. Yet you say I’m making a fool of myself. Ano-delusionists desperately trying to rationalize that which cannot be, and I’m the fool. Only in Spoonerville does that hold water.

    Trouncing anarchist nonsense in this forum almost every day, ICBMCatcher

  102. spooky2th Says:

    “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

    “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

    http://rense.com/general69/paper.htm

    The govt sure does not “obey” the constitution. Pretty much everything the govt does is un-constitutional.

  103. Max Says:

    Speaking of cocktail napkins, did you know Napoleon invented the napkin? He accomplished this feat a couple of decades after the witnessing of the signing of the constitution.

  104. Andy Says:

    “Because it printed right dere in words, dat make it true.”

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/jfboyd/3362151/172681/172681_original.jpg

  105. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You fellows are so desperate to rationalize your absurd views, you loose site of the simple fact that you’re wrong and “we” (the whole rest of the world) are right.

    Anyone come up with a reason there’s … like … 20 of you, and gazillions of those that don’t even take you seriously … anyone … anyone?

    Anyone have any thoughts on why anarchy has failed every time it’s been attempted?

    Anybody know why stevens nonsense practically never works in court … why do you think that is?

    Just a little reminder from your reality check expert – ICBMCatcher

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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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