Categorized | Featured, NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP Ep 28 Non-responsive Answers Makes the Claim “Philosophy” and Irrefutable

Posted on August 4th, 2017 by Marc Stevens

Let’s examine some “legal logic” where nothing has to be objective, you just say it’s true and not allow any challenges.  I was not going to spend any more time on this, but decided to because it would be easier to post the pictures from the video online if they are in an article.

First the facts.  What we call “government” is just men and women, these men and women force us to pay them.  Now, since forcing strangers to give you money is immoral, then it’s immoral for those called “government.”  Forcing strangers to give you money is immoral/criminal, that is what the facts tell us.

Next, to cover up these massive crimes, the criminal organization has a written instrument they call “law”.  Although just rules written by men and women who force us to pay them, these people claim they apply to everyone and gives them jurisdiction over them.

Now, when a member of this criminal organization goes out and stops, investigates, arrests and charges you with a violation of the “law”, they are claiming the written instrument applies to you and gives him probable cause and jurisdiction over you.  These are all legal claims, the government is not using a gun to enforce philosophy.

Now, the rules are supposed to require those making claims in court have facts to support their claims, there is rule 3.1, Ashcroft, it is a due process violation to argue without evidence, and your witnesses must have personal knowledge of the matters they are testifying about.  But, according to some, none of this is true as applied to legal claims made by government agents.

So a cop makes a legal claim against me: Marc is physically in Arizona, therefore a written instrument from 1910 applies to him and gives me jurisdiction over him to charge him with violating the law.

Because there has to be evidence supporting the claim, I ask for evidence supporting the claim.  Now this is where it gets crazy.  A prosecutor/judge responds with a legal opinion or more “law”.  I point out, as any rational person would, that that is non-responsive, opinions are not evidence.  I even have calls where bureaucrats insisted a statute was evidence proving the constitution applied.  But they had some professionalism and good faith to back off such an obviously wrong position.  Not all though.

 

 

 

 

You see, expecting actual proof of a claim from this criminal organization magically transforms the matter into a “philosophical debate” and relieves the claimant of their burden of proof.  Yes, some believe that being non-responsive to someone asking you for evidence proving your legal claim is true, transforms legal into irrefutable philosophy.  So to defeat any opposition to your claim, just refuse to be responsive to the request for evidence.  Then, if you’re called out for being non-responsive, arbitrarily shout “PHILOSOPHY!” and proclaim victory while insulting your opponent’s intelligence.

As I mention on the show, all this is, is a lame attempt to cover up a lack of evidence.  A legal claim becomes irrefutable philosophy because when asked for evidence, an opinion is given instead.  Or, another legal claim is made as if that is evidence of the first claim.  I know this is mind numbing, but I’ll try to make it easier, though the Rob Ford and Hillary pictures are pretty accurate.

Legal claim: You’re physically in Arizona, so the constitution applies and gives me jurisdiction.

Challenge: What evidence do you rely on proving the constitution, a written instrument applies to me?

Answer: I have these opinions and the law itself.

Challenger: You’re supposed to have evidence, not just opinions, that’s non-responsive, your also just assuming your claim is true, assumptions are not evidence.

New claim: Since you reject our answer, you’re now arguing philosophy.

All it is, is more evidence of a rigged game run by a criminal organization.

              

70 Comments For This Post

  1. Chase Says:

    …so when in someone else’s house, you agree to follow their rules or get out…..so where is the dispite?

  2. juan galt Says:

    Poor marc. He has to go back to the radio where he can control the mute button and his BS input floating in the airways.

    Yes, Chase you’re right!! Common sense and courtesy. And when you’re on marc’s radio show, he controls the mute button and invokes his rules.

  3. juan galt Says:

    Here’s what I wrote in marc’s forum, asking him –

    Do you control what is yours? I’ve heard you control the mute button on your radio show. I’ve seen you control what is posted on your website articles and forum and on your YouTube videos. I assume you control what visitors/friends do in your home. I assume you control how and who uses your property ie: vehicle, yard, tools, etc. I assume you control your children, if you have any. Consider these things exercises of your sovereignty.

    Well, I’ve always considered people as “renters” because the land was here before people and will be here long after you and I are dead. So in that sense, people don’t “own” land – a political fiction that can “live” forever does. This political fiction – whatever you want to call it – has power and the will to use that power in the name of its sovereignty to control its territory. This has been TRUE for millennia and barring a miracle will continue so.

    You’ve made it clear that you reject this sovereignty on logical and philosophical grounds. But in the US the prevailing political philosophy is Majoritarianism.

  4. Marc Stevens Says:

    No, might makes right is the prevailing philosophy, a criminal organization making rules for others to follow. Making rules for property they don’t own.

  5. spooky2th Says:

    juan the professional liar, just keeps on lying. Talking out of his/her behind! Making up all kinds of baseless arguments, claims, assertions and on & on that he cannot prove with a single fact. He/she is totally not responsive to questions, simple questions even. And it is his/her MO to try and twist everything into philosophical and/or theoretical BS and lies.
    *************************
    Did you hear that the Post Office just recalled their latest stamps? They had pictures of lawyers on them … and people couldn’t figure out which side to spit on.

  6. juan galt Says:

    No. Might insures rights. Without might to enforce rights – they’re just wishful thinking.

    I realize you have to call “everything” you disagree with as criminal – to hide your lack of political and legal knowledge.

  7. Ronnie Says:

    Did you order a code red?
    This political fiction – whatever you want to call it – has power and the will to use that power in the name of its sovereignty to control its territory

  8. MM8 Says:

    “Might insures rights”? So, when men and women who call themselves “government” use might to impose on innocent people, what rights are they “insuring”?

  9. juan galt Says:

    Rhetorical question.

  10. spooky2th Says:

    SEE!! juan the professional liar, is completely unresponsive. He dodges pretty much all questions here and in the forum too.

  11. NonEntity Says:

    C!!! C!!! (starting to notice a pattern are you spooks?)

  12. Boxer Says:

    @juan galt

    “…a political fiction that can “live” forever does.”

    You’re insane.

  13. NonEntity Says:

    This guy is good! He spews ridiculous crap endlessly and the more transparent he becomes, the more people engage with him. Boggles the mind. Boggles. The. Mind.

  14. Rad Says:

    What if all those actions you attribute to imaginary fictional characters were actually being performed by flesh and blood humans? could it be…?

  15. juan galt Says:

    RED –

    They are, that’s my point. Read my input in marc’s forum. People, the flesh and blood type, are the creators of the sovereign political entity called govt and endow it with certain powers. One power is to establish codes of conduct and enforce them for the benefit of the people who created it.

  16. spooky2th Says:

    Actors forcing their religion, their double standard on everyone. Obey or else and pay or else!! It is organized crime to the max!

  17. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt other than your arbitrary opinion, do you have any facts or evidence might enforces rights. Other than your gun under the table pointing at my genitals. Is your belief that your written word is the facts & evidence, or is it just the gun pointing at my scrotum. Your rhetoric has more flawes than the Empire State, is your holy legal systems foundation based on facts & evidence, or is that the PR spin you use to polish a turd. I assume with the logic you present to the table; Harry Potter exists in reality & you trained & honed your eliquent skill at BS, at Hogwarts, say hello to headless Nick for me. Oops sorry that would be Billy Connolly. Juan 5 year olds have the ability to understand their parents, that telling lies is WRONG & DISHONEST. Did Hogwarts not teach you that Sir…?

  18. juan galt Says:

    Tony is full of veiled comments disguised as questions.

    The “gun under the table” is not that disguised. Govt power is out in the open and easily observed. A 5 year old learns about authority through experience and observation. The legal system is an extension of the power of a sovereign political entity called govt. Govt is an association of men and women with common interests – like the NFL, AMA, AARP, corporations or any other association of human endeavor. Terms like “govt”, “state” are words that represent things that exist – people. A 5 year old can draw that correlation.

    No wonder you have problems comprehending – your “world” of ideas and reference come from Harry Potter. Reality befuddles you.

  19. spooky2th Says:

    Asking juan the professional liar, questions of evidence is like pissing in the wind. A mistake and he never has facts. He dodges the question every time. I have asked him/her many times for any facts that prove the territorial jurisdiction argument that he wrote about in the forum here.

  20. juan galt Says:

    And many times I explained legal and political jurisdiction to spook and others here and in the forum. Some, like spook, do not possess the necessary education and comprehension skills to understand my answers. Lacking these skills they fall back on “he dodges the question”.

  21. Marc Stevens Says:

    We don’t accept your non-responsive answers and irrational claims because they are non-responsive and irrational. If it soothes your ego to insult our intelligence, go ahead. None of my responses to you were for you, they are for those who come to the forum and may take you seriously.

  22. juan galt Says:

    DITTO, MY RESPONSES FROM THE BEGINNING.

    Some people have the skill to grasp the obvious about which I post. Thus are not “CONfused” by gobbledygook, gibberish and gish gallop.

    Have a nice day.

  23. Marc Stevens Says:

    Juan and his alternative facts, I mean “legal and political evidence”.

  24. juan galt Says:

    And educated people, those without dain bramage, know the difference.

    Some people have the skill to grasp the obvious about which I post. Thus are not “CONfused” by gobbledygook, gibberish and gish gallop.

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Galt sez: “…are the creators of the sovereign political entity called govt and endow it with certain powers.” Please define the word sovereign and explain how it adds meaning to the rest of the political claim you’ve made here.

  26. juan galt Says:

    NonE asks, “Please define the word sovereign and explain how it adds meaning to the rest of the political claim you’ve made here”.

    Please read The Law of Nations a work of political philosophy by Emerich de Vattel. It will answer your questions. It will also explain why asking for “evidence” of the sovereign’s power to make laws and apply them – is a philosophical question/challenge – NOT A LEGAL ONE.

  27. ADConner Says:

    The colonial American Born Patriots, rebelled and conquered the Colonies and went on to conquer most of North America. The International Right of Conquest is valid for private title insurance companies to insure title to our private property, the record of history is therefore valid evidence of the Jurisdiction of the Government across this very land from Mexico to Canada, including other stand-alone States and territories whose jurisdiction was acquired by civil conveyance; Hawaii, Alaska, Louisiana Purchase and Florida. The constitution(s) are covenants running with the land as long as the US is able to defend its sovereignty.

    https://steemit.com/@adconner

  28. stal non delusional Says:

    “re;so when in someone else’s house” CHASE do you ASSume i’m IN YOUR house?..dumbass i’m ON a planet, you dont own, do you?

    “re; Common sense and courtesy” JUAN, when people cant converse, babble on n on, and give no time to respond and just make claims, i too wold mute you .

    re:a political fiction that can “live” forever does. This political fiction – whatever you want to call it – has power”, HAHAHA SO a FICTION lives,and a fiction has powers? does santaclause or superman have powers? ?..are you that delusional??

    “re;reject this sovereignty”, another CLAIM, do you have EVIDENCE anyone is a sovereign? Latin regnare “have royal power, be king, rule, reign,”, “kingship, dominion, rule, realm,” DO YOU? need to be RULED? slave man?

    re: juan the professional liar, I AGREE, and he lives in a delusional fiction, which he thinks there are sov-rains, and superhuman rulers like batman and superman and lets not forget santa clause.. hey JUAN do easter bunnies poop out eggs? or is that another lie made up to make you gulible to now believe in this fiction called govern-ment?

    “re; “CONfused” by gobbledygook, gibberish and gish gallop.”YES i see JUawn is CON-FUSED and is trying very , very hard, to CON-fuse others that are new to red pilling their indoctry-nation, does JUawn have anymore fictitious delusional idiocracy claims to make?.. sorry marc, i cant help but call him and others like him delusional dumbass lier-liewyers.. Juan wana go in a cage?, no? PAY ME!, for I AM SUPER SOVEREIGN MAN (echos in surround sound the audio in a theater) maybe i will make a movie one day as a joke on this super sovereign man.may the delusional dark side force be with you JUawana lie some more?

  29. stal non delusional Says:

    Question, do you have evidence of jurisdiction?..liewyers answers “philosophy”..

    question, sorry i must have missed it was that a yes or a no?

    liewyer answers, thats a philosophical question, im not sure where your going with that?

    question, sorry i must have missed it was that a yes or a no?

    liewyer answers, jails, guns, and i AM SOVEREIGN SUPER MAN, now PAY ME! and JUDGE AGREES, now PAY US BOTH NOW!, or else, BAILIFF, arrest that peasant, err i mean city zen.

  30. spooky2th Says:

    juan the professional liar, said: “And many times I explained legal and political jurisdiction to spook and others here and in the forum.”

    After too many questions of evidence to you, you still haven’t produced a single fact. U can lie all you want. Anybody with anything between their ears can see that. U are giving all here quite a lesson in psychopathic lawyer’s deceptions.

  31. Boxer Says:

    NonE makes a direct request to Juan Galt seeking clarification in relation to Juan Galt’s use of specific words and Juan Galt makes a book recommendation.

  32. juan galt Says:

    And then there are those whose grasp of the obvious is a bit retarded, like spook.

  33. Bo Shupin Says:

    Mr. Juan Galt does not surprise me with his belief in the legal system. It is safe for a person of his intellect to prop up the rule of law like some golden calf. But there is no escaping the fact that the Law is nothing more than PEOPLE with opinions that write code. When it comes time to back up their claims, Mr.Galt and those like him, find themselves in logical quicksand.
    Without the ability to prove their claims logically, they end up appering like moronic children with nothing but insults to rely on. I end up feeling sorry for people like Juan. Sorry that they are waisting their time and their lives as misguided slaves.

  34. juan galt Says:

    Bo sez, “When it comes time to back up their claims, Mr.Galt and those like him, find themselves in logical quicksand”.

    Bo doesn’t know about law. Only what he has learned from an “internet lawyer”. Bo is attempting to claim that traditional logic reasoning (tlr) and its methods for reaching a conclusion are applicable to reaching a legal conclusion. Bo is incorrect. There are 20 different types of reasoning and tlr is just one and it does NOT cross all disciplines. In some disciplines it is useless. Such is law. To reach a legal conclusion one must use legal logic reasoning (llr) and its methods.

    I have written a thread on the subject in marc’s forum.

  35. spooky2th Says:

    juan the professional liar’s legal reasoning is his and other lawyers deceitful way to make their criminality look OK to them selves and the gullible. The same type of reasoning that any criminal gang would use.

  36. Bo Shupin Says:

    Touche Mr. Gault,

    As you so eloquently pointed out, I am attempting to claim traditional logic when reaching a legal conclusion.
    I would never lower myself to the depths of depravity that one must, in order to swim in the sea of hypocracy that lawers and judges find themselves treading within. A filthy web of intricatly woven lies upon which they line their pockets. Traditional logic dictates that evidence is necessary to bolster your claims.
    But you and your ilk have distorted the idea of justice to suit your needs only. How many methods are there to reach the truth Juan? I need only one.
    If you require more, then you are surely a professional liar with years of training. Perhaps even brainwashing.

  37. juan galt Says:

    Bo sez, “I am attempting to claim traditional logic when reaching a legal conclusion”.

    At least Bo admits he doesn’t know what he’s doing. I have proven that traditional logic (TLR) yields a false conclusion when applied to a legal issue. Would you Bo, use TLR instead of The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis in the practice of medicine? Would you use TLR instead of Set-based Reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships, to reach a valid conclusion? Of course you would because you only know ONE KIND of reasoning. And you would have an invalid conclusion.

    Legal logic reasoning dictates that evidence is necessary to establish guilt or innocence – something YOUR traditional logic CANNOT do. Reasoning is a TOOL and if you use the wrong tool, you get an invalid result. Your virtue-signalling notwithstanding.

    I amazed at how many people talk about something they know nothing about – like Bo.

  38. juan galt Says:

    Bo sez, “I am attempting to claim traditional logic when reaching a legal conclusion”.

    At least Bo admits he doesn’t know what he’s doing. I have proven that traditional logic (TLR) yields a false conclusion when applied to a legal issue. Would you Bo, use TLR instead of The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis in the practice of medicine? Would you use TLR instead of Set-based Reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships, to reach a valid conclusion? Of course you would because you only know ONE KIND of reasoning. And you would reach an invalid conclusion.

    Legal logic reasoning dictates that evidence is necessary to establish guilt or innocence – something YOUR traditional logic CANNOT do. Reasoning is a TOOL and if you use the wrong tool, you get an invalid result. Your virtue-signalling notwithstanding.

    I amazed at how many people talk about something they know nothing about – like Bo.

  39. Bo Shupin Says:

    Stay on point Juan. You have an inflated view of yourself. It is clear that your tactics are aimed at keeping your ego inflated. Without addressing the simple question put before you, you continue to drone on and on about your knowledge. I am completely awe struck by your ignorance. Seems you have plenty of time on your hands these days Juan. With all that knowledge swimming around in that head of yours, you’d think you would be busy forcing people to pay you for your opinions.

  40. juan galt Says:

    Tactics? LMFAO Stay on point? You’re funny. Where have you rebutted? Where did you prove traditional logic can produce a valid legal conclusion? You didn’t and you can’t.

    Like marc, like bo – instead of being able to intellectually rebut, you divert by attacking the messenger – a sure sign of a weak position and/or lack of knowledge of the subject matter. You must be a graduate of the same “internet school of legal knowledge and bullsh*t” as marc. You parrot the same “legal” nonsense.

    BTW people have always come to me and requested my services – eager to pay me. I now have so much money I can give my opinion away for free. LOL

  41. Marc Stevens Says:

    So a criminal organization creates a new “logic” to cover their crimes, brilliant analysis. So because you can’t prove a written instrument applies, create some nifty sounding “logic” you then force onto others. Wow. I need to stop reading this crap. A “logic” that is irrational, where opinions are evidence and double standards are fair. You’re making the point for me that “government” is a criminal organization.

  42. Marc Stevens Says:

    And for all you’re posturing, the Bradford Hill Criteria is rooted in logic and the scientific method, it doesn’t throw them out, so the underlying principles would still be relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria You are trying to sell a “logic” that violates basic principles, that a turd is not a turd because someone in a robe says so. A “logic” based upon subjective opinion. Again, go sell crazy somewhere else.

  43. RAD Says:

    “the sovereign political entity called govt”

    have you personally seen this entity? or a photograph of this entity? can you link to a photo maybe?

    or is it one of those invisible entities where you just have to have faith to know it exists?

  44. RAD Says:

    where exactly in space-time is this entity right now? or is it one of those supernatural entities that exist outside the fabric of the natural physical universe?

  45. juan galt Says:

    Even with all the ranting attacks by marc and his drones –

    NOT ONE CAN PROVE THAT USING THE METHODS OF TRADITIONAL LOGIC REASONING CAN PRODUCE A VALID LEGAL CONCLUSION – IE: GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

    I HAVE PROVEN IT CANNOT!!!

    Typical “internet lawyers” – CAN”T prove their case!! They don’t know that there are only 5 types of legal arguments. They don’t know the methods used to produce a valid legal conclusion. They don’t know the difference between law and philosophy. They don’t what they don’t know. I suggest they learn the metaphysics of Aristotle’s philosophy that produced Traditional Logic AND read Martin Cothran, “Traditional Logic”, Books I & II.

    BTW – Bradford Hill Criteria does NOT use traditional logic syllogisms – a cornerstone of traditional logic. It has its own METHODS. Also traditional logic uses propositions that must be true OR false. Not so in Legal Logic – propositions are true, false and undecided. To move from “undecided” , legal logic METHODS of material evidence are used – NOT INFERENCES as used in traditional logic.

    Pretty sure much of this is over marc’s head due to his limited education and knowledge.

  46. juan galt Says:

    marc writes – “So a criminal organization creates a new “logic” to cover their crimes, brilliant analysis”.

    New logic? Not at all. However, new to marc because his knowledge is limited to just ONE type of reasoning. The “Internet School of Legal Knowledge and Bullsh*t” teaches only one kind of logic – traditional. Thus the poor saps er students are ignorant of any other methods so they try to apply it everywhere – valid or not.

  47. Ronnie Says:

    That’s right bureaucrat logic is GREAT!!
    “We have jurisdiction because we say so, now the burden is on you to prove we don’t” – Colby Granville
    “The laws apply to you because we put other people in prison” Bill Montgomery, Scott Bales

    Very sound logic, indeed. One could say it’s Flawless!

  48. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt. Your inability to address what my initial question was, as all that was posted after the question, was metaphor. Shows you have no wish to address the question. What facts & evidence do you have that might enforces rights? All the evidence & facts show that might protects rights, for all those that are willing to enforce that might and all rights are removed from those that you allege you protect with the stated might. The use of the phrase ” sovereign entity ” is now deemed fallacious in the legal system “. OPCA Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, so you’ve actually used a legally fallacious argument to make your point. The double standard, sovereign entity’s are legitimate when hailed by the might, but deemed fallacious when used by those whose rights the might protects. Juan again your logic is abound with nothing more than Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments. What are the fundamentals of law ” TRUTH & JUSTICE ” the objective part of that phrase is ” TRUTH “. ” Do you Juan Galt; swear to tell the TRUTH the WHOLE TRUTH & NOTHING but the TRUTH “. Please with grammar, logic & rhetoric, dismantle your own Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments…

  49. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt and yes I understand that the Prussian education system teaches nothing more than conformity & assimilation, but up to the age of 5 it is your parents who mould you and teach you what is right & wrong. LYING is one of the FUNDAMENTAL elements they teach & show you to be WRONG & DISHONEST. This is the OBSERVATION, but many are blinded with the threats of violence & failure. The system teaches you to LIE & CHEAT & be DISHONEST. It needs these elements to FUNCTION.

  50. juan galt Says:

    Poor ol’ Tony – He has no grasp of the obvious.

    “What facts & evidence do you have that might enforces rights”?
    Human history. Without might to back it up, how could ANY claimed right be enforced? Without might to enforce rights, the people of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc have none. Why does the US send arms (might) to rebels? To help them establish and enforce their rights. See: Might makes Right http://freenation.org/a/f31h4.html

    “The use of the phrase ” sovereign entity ” is now deemed fallacious in the legal system “. Evidence? Prove your claim.

    I used the term POLITICAL sovereign entity. Your reference to OPCA seems a Canadian thingy – not US. And apparently YOU don’t know what a COMMERCIAL argument is that is being referenced. WHAT COMMERCIAL ARGUMENT HAVE I MADE? NONE.

    Like marc, you’re conflating different countries, words and laws. In other words, don’t know what you’re talking about.

  51. NonEntity Says:

    Hey Tony, what are rights?

  52. Boxer Says:

    Interesting.

    http://journals.lww.com/journaladdictionmedicine/Fulltext/2016/02000/The_Prevalence_of_Substance_Use_and_Other_Mental.8.aspx

  53. Tony Says:

    @NonEntity, rights don’t exist, do you have the right to impose your will on me, no ( visa versa ) rights are what the state uses as a bargaining chip, so as to make themselves relevant. It’s a word nothing more nothing less. Rights are also used to empower enforcers with ability to remove stated rights. Again the monopoly dictate the giving & removing of rights, just a word. ” you have the right to remain silent ” do I. Unfortunately that’s not a right anyone can give it’s just what I can do. It can’t be taken or given, it’s ridiculous to even contemplate that misnomer.

  54. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt all mala prohibita is commercial contract law, the state deems there to be citizens and through reciprocal agreement ( allegedly ) the contract is adhered to you. Again you logic is flawed.

  55. Tony Says:

    Typo your logic is flawed

  56. Tony Says:

    @ NonEntity rights in essence are a ruse a fiction, try to use your alleged rights against the state. They will be removed.

  57. juan galt Says:

    Tony sed – “all mala prohibita is commercial contract law, the state deems there to be citizens and through reciprocal agreement ( allegedly ) the contract is adhered to you. Again you logic is flawed”.

    Commercial contract law – Bullsh*t. Your “legal” knowledge is non-existent. You’re simply a idiot graduate of the “Internet School of Legal Knowledge and Bullsh*t”.

    Again, PROVE my legal logic is flawed. PROVE that traditional logic can yield a valid conclusion of guilt or innocence. I’ve already proven it cannot. Put up or shut up. I’ll wait….

    Your claims are based on faulty premises.

  58. juan galt Says:

    Typo – You’re simply an idiot…..

  59. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt, calm down my man, seems your upset about something I pointed out; which is just factually true. But, Juan your claim is ” might enforces rights ” you have given nothing factual just your arbitrary opinions, let’s touch base on your claim, it’s your burden to prove, not mine. So I’ll ask this question, Juan can I use force to impose my will on others ? Less anger please Juan it’s not necessary. Just yes or no is all I require to my last question.

  60. Tony Says:

    @Juan Galt, let me rephrase that question, in a hyperthetical way. ” I feel the STATE has infringed my rights, can I use force against the STATE to enforce that right ” ? Yes or No is all that’s required.

  61. juan galt Says:

    Toni – You have made claims about OPCA, that all mala prohibita is commercial contract law, that the state deems there to be citizens and through reciprocal agreement ( allegedly ) the contract is adhered to you, that my logic is flawed and that I have not given any facts that support “might enforces right”.

    Prove your claims.

    I have already provided present-day examples of “might enforces rights”. In Cuba, Iran, N. Korea the govt uses its might to enforce its “right” to suppress others claims to rights. To that I add the Revolutionary War where colonists were unable to exercise what they considered their rights, the British Crown used might to suppress those rights. It was only after the colonists used might that they were able to enforce their rights. Another example is mala prohibita statutes. Govt uses its might to enforce its right to establish codes of conduct (laws). Get it?

    Legal logic reasoning is used to yield a valid legal conclusion of guilt or innocence. Now prove my logic is flawed by proving that traditional logic reasoning can produce a valid legal conclusion of guilt or innocence.

    Yes, you can use force (might) to attempt to impose your will on others. Humans have been doing that for millennia. The question is can you succeed? Is your force (might) superior to those you wish to impose upon?

  62. Tony Says:

    Your logic is flawed as you base your position on their being citizens, that lines on a map create a state. That a dead entity has rights, that I have rights, that can be given & taken away by other men & women, as allegedly they have more rights than me.As I was just born on some mud can I opt out of having these rights given to me & taken away from me, can I opt out of paying, unfortunately I don’t believe in the hive mentality, Does that mean I should leave the land I was born on, does that mean that a group of people have the right to persecute me for not believing in their way of life. Does this might mean I should allow them to use violence to subjugate me, as if to be a piece of livestock. Can I not put into question these claims & hold the claimant to his burden. Do you believe a fallacious appeal to tradition & belief should not be questioned. Do questions bother those enacting force & violence on those they allegedly protect,Even when there has been no monetary loss or harm caused to anybody including the state, are the mighty statutes implied or applied, should I put up with double standards. WHY should I ? This is the flaw in your logic sir…

  63. juan galt Says:

    Tony, your philosophical rambling and ranting are not arguments but your philosophical opinions/beliefs. Your response is disjointed and convoluted and has NOTHING to do with law or legal logic. The “dead entity” is a representation of people. I have NEVER said that my position is based on anything but reality – political reality. Your disbelief in the “hive mentality” notwithstanding.

    If you live in a community (state, city, country ,etc) the members of that community decide how they want it to operate and what codes of conduct they want within their community. In the name of their community, desires and goals they use POWER to accomplish goals and enforce codes of conduct. This has been going on longer than you have existed. You just don’t agree with their political philosophy – like Majoritarianism. Too bad for you. Your only choices are to move or overthrow the existing power structure – the community. JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, AIN’T GONNA CUT IT. That’s the way it has been for thousands of years. AND you and marc are never going to change that REALITY unless you form your own community. To think otherwise is simply navel-gazing philosophy.

    THAT’S the flaw in YOUR “logic”.

  64. spooky2th Says:

    The archonic psychopaths decide all, at the expense of the rest.

  65. juan galt Says:

    Welcome to planet earth.

  66. Tony Says:

    @ Juan Galt I’m done talking to statist apologists, as it looks like the statist WAR PIGS are going to kill us all, you can apologise for the STATE when the WAR PIGS start NUKING the shit out of us ALL… Juan your rethoric is no better than your WAR PIG president. STATISM is pure poison to the rest of humanity. They steal money then expose those they steal from to Armageddon. Take your sorry ass to your church of statism & start praying brother. Your God ain’t going to listen, you narcissistic, sociopath. Enjoy watching the WAR PIGS destroy the planet. You very sad dishonest child of the state.

  67. NonEntity Says:

    No need to hold back, Tony. 🙂

  68. Ronnie Says:

    Burned!
    Rofl
    Trolled the wrong guy though!

  69. Tony Says:

    @ Non Entity why hold back on undisputable truth. He can’t even combat the double standard of ” Do you Juan Galt; Swear to tell the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH & nothing but the TRUTH ” so help his statist god. These are their words you are told to use, not mine. This is the standard they require of the minions, those they steal off. Yet when the same standard is placed on them at the statist alter, they refute that standard, dismissing it as nonsensical. In the words of deNiro ” you couldn’t handle the truth ” ! Correct as you’d have to show the tissue of deceit & lies. Juans mother must be so proud of what she brought into the world. My conscience is clear, I harm nobody unless in self defence. I don’t try to validate my position with threats of violence.

  70. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Authority primer from a non lawyer
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-9040-post-69449.html#pid69449

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