I usually don’t respond to ranting nonsense such as this, but because this was on my radio show, I will publicly respond. It’s also a demonstration of a typical rant by someone who has no facts. In this way, you can see this tactic is not exclusive to bureaucrats.
First, anyone who listens to my show, and the many archived shows available, knows Mr. Ewing doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I will respond to his rants below; Mr. Ewing’s parts are in red. I edited out Mr. Ewing’s phone number. The email Mr. Ewing is responding to is at the end of this article.
You’ll notice this is an emotional rant. Like a politician, Mr. Ewing apparently has no interest in the facts; facts that are available for all at my web site http://adventuresinlegalland.com.
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:03:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: Mark Stevens is all Huff and Puff and a whole lot of Patriot Fluff.
I’ve stated time and again I’m not a patriot. Unlike Mr. Ewing, I see right through the illusion there are “states” and “citizens”. I have never advocated getting back to the “constitution” and other such arguments or positions. As far as being “all Huff and Puff”, you’ll notice through all his ranting Mr. Ewing does not address one thing I’ve written or said and proves it is false.
From Luis Ewing at (253) 226-**** or firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
That is absolutely false.
What you heard was Marc Stevens make some lame attempt to compare me to Irwin Schiff who loses the majority of his cases, call my arguments patriot arguments and then he CUT ME OFF THE AIR before I could respond for fear of being shown up.
First, listen to the show; keep in mind the topic was economic, non-violent means to bring about a voluntary society i.e., a society without government. Even though Mr. Ewing knew this he refused to discuss the topic of the show. Instead Mr. Ewing wanted to discuss issues of “law” to defeat bureaucratic attacks. Maybe it’s a coincidence, but Mr. Schiff uses issues of “law” to defeat bureaucratic attacks. While Mr. Ewing’s approach differs in content, it’s the same process. Mr. Ewing fails to grasp the difference and instead attacks me and calls it a “lame attempt” to compare him Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Ewing accuses me of cutting him off because I have a “fear of being shown up.” Nice try Mr. Ewing, look at the facts. If I have a “fear of bring shown up” why would I have someone of the stature of Mr. Butler Shaffer on the show as a guest? This is not a personal shot, however, Mr. Ewing is no Butler Shaffer.
I have a weekly, one-hour radio show and the topic was non-violent means to bring about a voluntary society. Time on the show is very limited. Mr. Ewing came on the air at 10:40 minutes into the show and until 19:29 he refused to discuss the topic of the show. You will notice I was going to break at that time, I did not cut Mr. Ewing off. Mr. Ewing was given almost nine straight minutes of airtime; longer than any other caller to the show: almost as much time as my very first guest, Ernest Hancock.
If you call a show that’s about snakes and all you want to discuss is cotton candy, then expect the host to move on to other callers; callers who want to discuss the given topic. It’s not because the host has a “fear of being shown up” or some other equally inapplicable personal attack. There is a time constraint when doing any radio show.
Why doesn’t Mr. Ewing discuss why he refused to discuss the topic of the show? Only he knows. I guess my having only a one-hour show is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to avoid being shown up by Mr. Ewing; I always have a convenient excuse for “cutting” him “off” after he’s off topic for nine minutes.
While attacking me, Mr. Ewing still refuses to explain how anything he presented during those nine minutes helps bring about a voluntary society. This is a classic statist way of doing things: divert attention away from the issue by making personal attacks. Mr. Ewing called not to discuss the topic of the show, he called to promote his own agenda.
Mr. Ewing believes there is such a thing as a “legitimate legislative body”. I have written extensively on this subject and can prove there is no such thing. Obviously Mr. Ewing believes in “states” and “citizens.” Has Mr. Ewing attempted to prove such things exist? Of course he hasn’t, he’s too busy making personal attacks against me.
And why did he choose to call my show at all? He called my show after I had clearly spelled out the topic and he purposely went off topic. Why my show when he could have called any number of shows where the subject matter is more to his liking?
And consider this, did Mr. Ewing decide I was a “fraud” and a “fake” before he called my show, or after? Was the show his only frame of reference?
Marc Stevens is a fraud and a beginner in this whole thing.
My articles are posted on my web site as well as other libertarian sites; almost every radio show I have a copy of is posted on my web site also. Not one person, including Mr. Ewing, has come forward proving one thing I’ve written or said is factually inaccurate. Mr. Ewing also believes there are “legitimate legislative bod[ies]”; so there’s a problem with his conclusions.
He accused me of being a “beginner in this whole thing.” I can only guess Mr. Ewing is attacking my credibility and competence. While I have been doing what I do since 1995, I hardly think one needs years to understand this simple truth:
“No service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun.”
Maybe Mr. Ewing requires decades to understand this, I don’t, and neither do the people who listen to my show, read by book, articles and attend my seminars. When Mr. Ewing does understand this, then he’ll understand why there’s no such thing as a “legitimate legislative body.”
All the stuff he is talking about now is stuff that I talked about more than ten years ago.
If this is true, then why does Mr. Ewing insist there is such a thing as a “legitimate legislative body”?
Also, if I am a “fraud” and I am talking about “All the stuff that [Mr. Ewing] talked about more than ten years ago”, then is Mr. Ewing claiming he was a “fraud” “ten years ago”? Interesting statement Mr. Ewing.
Marc Stevens has no proven track record of winning anything other than minor and trivial matters like speeding tickets which are Civil Infractions for which they cannot throw you in jail in the first place and the judges do not dismiss because his arguments hold any water, they only dismiss because they do not want to spend 20 minutes to half an hour to an hour arguing with some patridiot making ridiculous arguments like saying that the judges and prosecutors cannot say they represent the State.
Mr. Ewing really needs to know the subject he’s attacking, it makes for a more effective and credible attack. Here he pulls an old attorney trick: he calls questions “arguments”.
Cannot throw you in jail? Apparently Mr. Ewing is not familiar with the word “contempt.”
I don’t need a “proven track record of winning anything” because I’m not teaching people how to win in court. I expose the government hoax and prove the concept of “states” is false. I use examples of successful and unsuccessful court cases for demonstration/educational purposes.
However, not showing up for jury duty will certainly get you thrown in jail. Someone who received a jury summons (the threat of jail is on the summons) did not obey and instead sent a short letter asking two questions. He never showed up for jury duty and was sent a letter weeks later stating he was no longer eligible for jury duty. This man came up with the questions on his own from the basic concepts he learned from my book and radio shows. What does Mr. Ewing teach people?
Hand ‘em a flyer, win every case.
As far as a proven track record, Mr. Ewing can look up case number 02-1407 at the Maine superior court in Alfred. He can speak with “state” attorney Joe McGrath, bar number 7318. Mr. Ewing can ask Mr. McGrath why he withdrew criminal charges instead of answering “yes or no” to this question: “Is there evidence of a complaining party?” Maybe Mr. Ewing considers a year in jail “trivial”, but I’m sure anyone being prosecuted and looking at a year in jail does not.
Mr. Ewing writes: “the judges do not dismiss because his arguments hold any water, they only dismiss because they do not want to spend 20 minutes to half an hour to an hour arguing with some patridiot making ridiculous arguments like saying that the judges and prosecutors cannot say they represent the State.” While Mr. Ewing offers no evidence to support his statement, he fails to understand the same reasoning applies to his “flyers”.
Also, Mr. Ewing fails to understand I present no arguments in court, just questions.
Here in Washington State, the judges would LAUGH him out of court and gleefully tell everyone in the court room “Yes, I represent the State and so does the prosecutor, but we are not on trial today, you are and the only thing that I am going to hear is the statute you are charged with violating and any LEGITIMATE defenses you might have and they would steam roll right over all of his silly I HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO PARTICIPATE ARGUMENTS.
There is no “Washington State”. See The Government Hoax and my other articles. Mr. Ewing is not aware of what I have written or said on over one hundred radio shows. If he has, then he doesn’t understand.
Unlike Mr. Ewing, I do not teach people “how to win in court.” I explicitly tell people this is about “exposing the fraud, not winning court cases.” My intent is to teach people like Mr. Ewing there is no “state” and the whole thing is a fraud.
Apparently Mr. Ewing has experience with every judge in Washington and is confident to state with absolute certainty how a particular judge will respond. Let the judge say he represents the “state”, keep in mind Mr. Ewing fails to present the set up questions I use. Below is an example, and keep in mind this is to the expose the fraud:
Marc: Am I entitled to a fair trial?
Judge: Yes you are.
Marc: Could I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?
Judge: No you could not.
Marc: If there was a conflict of interest, would you recuse yourself?
Judge: Yes I would.
Marc: Who do you represent?
Judge: The State.
Marc: If you represent the state, and the state is the plaintiff, then you represent a party, isn’t that a conflict of interest?
This certainly will expose the fraud to everyone watching. And that is the point Mr. Ewing fails to grasp, it’s not a how-to-win in court book or radio show.
If a judge is going to “gleefully tell everyone in the court room “Yes, I represent the State and so does the prosecutor,” then I say great! And if they’ve read my book or heard the radio shows I’ve done, then they can call the judge on it by asking how that’s not a conflict of interest. Even the uninformed will notice there is a problem if the judge and prosecutor represent the same party. Fraud exposed once again. Which is the point anyway. Mr. Ewing apparently doesn’t grasp the importance of this. He knows the judge and prosecutor represent the same people and will continue insisting there is a legitimate “state.”
Mr. Ewing writes: “they would steam roll right over all of his silly I HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO PARTICIPATE ARGUMENTS.” Mr. Ewing must be quoting another Marc Stevens, I’ve never made such an argument. The record is there for Mr. Ewing; a few minutes online and I’m sure if I made such an argument, then he will be able to find it.
Mr. Ewing fails to understand here again. Let them “steam roll” and not be responsive to questions, that is the point. If I’m not being informed I cannot defend myself and it’s unfair. It exposes the fact bureaucrats are not who they claim to be.
Try telling that to a cop in a traffic stop.
I always tell people to just answer the cop’s questions “yes or no” and deal with it in court.
Try telling that to a judge in a court after you have been charged with violating some statute.
Again, I have never made such a claim. Check your sources Mr. Ewing.
The fact that he lives in Arizona and did not even know of the existence of the Howell Code and that the 1st Constitution for Arizona was suspended and placed into Archives shows you that he doesn’t even know what the law is in Arizona.
Mr. Ewing is again arguing from a standpoint there are legitimate “states” or governments: “Debile fundamentum, fallit opus…When the foundation is weak, the structure falls.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 310-311. Government is a group of men and women providing a service (they never have to provide) at the barrel of a gun. Those facts are not changed by the “Howell Code” or the “Constitution” being “suspended” or not.
Would un-suspending the “Constitution” bring about a voluntary society?
He is absolutely dead wrong about that it’s not important to know the statutes, because a guy from Washington recently got stopped by a whole squad of California Highway Patrol Officers at a California Road Block and they were arresting and taking into custody everybody who was driving without a license or was driving while license suspended with the exception of a guy who handed them my FREE FLYER showing the Statutes, Court Rules and Case law that the COPS think is the law and they let him go because the Statutes that Mark Stevens said is not important to know told the cops that they could not arrest and take him into custody and the statutes showed that the State of Washington only sells COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES aka CDL’s.
I’ve shown cops and judges Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 where the supreme court ruled it’s illegal to arrest someone to ascertain their identity and guess what? I was still arrested and convicted.
Mr. Ewing refuses to understand the purpose of the show and book. The purpose is to expose the fraud. If people want to believe his anecdotes and give cops flyers, that’s their business. I am interested in exposing the fact there is no “state” that it’s all a fraud and bring about a voluntary society. I am interested in freedom while Mr. Ewing is interested in statism.
I fail to see how words on a piece of paper are important to know when there is no “state”, no “citizens”, no “nation” and no evidence those words create any obligation on anyone.
I GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF YOUR LICENSE IS EXPIRED OR IF YOU DON’T HAVE A LICENSE AND YOU GET STOPPED AT A CALIFORNIA ROAD BLOCK OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF TRAFFIC STOP AND YOU FOLLOW MARC STEVENS SILLY I DON’T WANT TO PARTICIPATE ARGUMENT THAT THE COPS WILL SAY “YEAH AND ALL THE OTHER GUYS IN JAIL DON’T WANT TO PARTICIPATE EITHER, I’M JUST DOING MY JOB, NOW STEP OUT OF THE CAR OR I WILL HAVE TO BREAK THE WINDOW AND DRAG YOU OUT, BUT EITHER WAY YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL.
Mr. Ewing has his facts wrong. What is “silly” is believing I made such an argument.
ASK MARC STEVENS FOR CASE NUMBERS OF ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN CIVIL INFRACTIONS AND YOU WILL GET NOTHING BUT NAME CALLING, PUT DOWNS AND HE WILL JUST CUT YOU OFF OF THE AIR FOR FEAR OF BEING EXPOSED AS THE PRETENDER THAT HE IS.
Is this a prediction or is Mr. Ewing making a factual statement?
I gave a case number above even though it’s not relevant for what I do. I challenge anyone to produce any evidence of this alleged “name calling” and “put downs” when I am asked for case numbers or anything for that matter. The only name calling I engage in is calling George Bush the “smirk” and I don’t think Mr. Ewing is claiming George called my radio show asked me “for case numbers of anything more important than civil infractions.”
The name calling has come from Mr. Ewing, he calls me a “fraud”, a “fake” and a “pretender”. When I referred to Mr. Ewing as a patriot on the show I explain by patriot I mean people who believe there are legitimate “states” or governments. Mr. Ewing certainly believes this as he claimed there was once a “legitimate legislative body”.
I also don’t need to provide case numbers to expose the fraud. Case numbers are only a way to stroke an ego, prove nothing and are used by those peddling “silver bullets”.
As Mr. Ewing wrote: “the judges do not dismiss because his arguments hold any water, they only dismiss because they do not want to spend 20 minutes to half an hour to an hour arguing…” Mr. Ewing presents no facts to back up this allegation. How does Mr. Ewing know why these judges dismiss? It’s, at best, a guess. It’s more accurate to say the judge dismisses because he doesn’t want to answer the questions. At least there is evidence to that effect i.e., the judge yells, “I’m not here to answer your questions!” after he has already told me I am entitled to be informed.
What am I pretending to be? Mr. Ewing does not specifically indicate what I am pretending to be. Notice Mr. Ewing does not attempt to discredit any facts I present, either on my radio show, my book or what is on my web site.
If Mr. Ewing disagrees government is a group of men and women providing a service at the barrel of a gun, then let him present his contradictory facts.
Marc Stevens is blowing smoke up your butts, he talks the talk and makes it sound easy, but anybody who has ever spent any time in court after getting charged with some type of crime know damn well that it’s not easy and their [sic] is no silver bullet or magic paperwork.
Again, like a “state” attorney, Mr. Ewing is long on opinion with no supporting facts. Take a statement of fact I made, whether on the radio, in my book or articles, and provide contradictory evidence. And while I may make it sound easy (that’s subjective) I go out of my way to actually say it isn’t easy.
However, despite writing: “it’s not easy and their [sic] is no silver bullet or magic paperwork”, Mr. Ewing peddles his “flyer” claiming it works every single time. I know this because he told me on the phone himself. Do you really think you’re going to stop ten or more machine gun armed DEA agents because you hand them a flyer? Mr. Ewing does.
Try calling in to his show and asking him to give you a Case No. ___________ of any case that he has ever won for himself or for any of his clients on anything more important than a CIVIL INFRACTION or low level misdemeanor offense and he will either refuse to answer the question and move on, start calling you names and put you down and/or he will just cut you off the air like he did to me for fear of being cornered and exposed as the pretender and fraud that he is.
Mr. Ewing has his facts wrong. Each one of my shows are archived, just listen and you’ll know Mr. Ewing is, once again, factually inaccurate. And if you do call the show, all are invited to, please remember, keep on topic. Keeping on topic shows respect not only for the host, but more important, it shows respect for the listeners.
Listen to the show, Mr. Ewing was not cut off. As stated, he was on the air for almost nine minutes (of a one-hour show) and I was going to commercial. Had Mr. Ewing not refused to discuss the topic of the show, I would have had him hold on until after the break. If Mr. Ewing equates his nine-minute refusal to discuss the topic of the show with being cut off because I have a “fear of being cornered and exposed as the pretender and fraud that [I am]”, then that’s his business and says something about his thought process. Mr. Ewing should try and produce some evidence though, it makes one more credible.
The fact is that he cut me off the air, because he knows that I could easily out debate him and make a monkey out of him, because I can back up my arguments with Case Numbers proving that I win cases whereas he can’t with the exception of minor and trivial matters like speeding which ARE TRIX WHICH ARE FOR KIDS.
Mr. Ewing was given almost nine minutes to discuss something that wasn’t a topic of the show. Exactly how much time does Mr. Ewing think he’s entitled to in order to discuss something off-topic? Am I somehow required to dedicate my whole show to a topic dictated by Mr. Ewing? I guess because I did not permit my show to become the Luis Ewing Show, I must know Mr. Ewing can “easily out debate [me] and make a monkey out of [me].”
Just because Mr. Ewing was not permitted to take more than nine minutes of off-topic time does not mean I know he can “easily out debate [me]”. That’s a good example of a non sequitur.
Just because he has case numbers does not prove what Mr. Ewing presented is why the case was dismissed, consider “the judges do not dismiss because his arguments hold any water, they only dismiss because they do not want to spend 20 minutes to half an hour to an hour arguing with some patridiot making ridiculous arguments…”
I show CERTIFIED COPIES OF COURT DOCKETS and CASE REPORTS and give out Case Numbers of numerous cases that I have won for myself and many of my clients at all my Seminars and this is something that no other speaker including Marc Stevens can do.
This is showboating. I teach at my seminars it’s not about winning court cases, it’s about exposing the fraud. I do not need to bring any court cases to prove government is a group of men and women providing a service on a compulsory basis. And again, “the judges do not dismiss because his arguments hold any water, they only dismiss because they do not want to spend 20 minutes to half an hour to an hour arguing with some patridiot making ridiculous arguments
Mark Stevens is a fake, just call in and ask for Case Numbers and you will find out yourself.
Again, just Mr. Ewing’s opinion. Mr. Ewing provides no facts to establish I am this alleged “fake.”
I am working on a 70 Kilos Cocaine Case and 10 Kilos Meth case and the 3rd largest bust of this kind ever in the State of Illinois worth over 7 MILLION DOLLARS and I guarantee you that Mark Stevens could NEVER in a MILLION YEARS get this kind of case, because he does NOT have any where near the long and well established and PROVEN record of WINNING CASES THAT I DO.]
I don’t seek cases. I’m interested in bringing about a voluntary society. The line: “could NEVER in a MILLION YEARS get this kind of case” reminds me of grade school. What’s next, is Mr. Ewing going to claim his brother is bigger than me? It’s also no evidence I am a “fake” or what I present is factually inaccurate.
He is a Fraud with a good talk and awesome sales pitch and gives all the patriots their patriot fix and tickles their ears with all the smoke up their butts that they want to hear, but I predict in less than a year when people like yourself wise up and start asking for Case Numbers ___________ to prove it, that he will soon fade into obscurity like so many other dime a dozen patriot gurus, but me, I will still be here WINNING SERIOUS AND REAL CASES.]
Once more, I’m not a patriot. Again, like IRS lawyers, Mr. Ewing provides no facts to establish I’m this alleged “fake.” I specifically wrote in my book:
“This isn’t a book about “how to win” conflicts with bureaucrats or a “self-help” book…once you’ve had any communication with them then you’ve already lost…I think of it as “damage control.” Once a bureaucrat sets his guns on me then I am going to be damaged. I only need to decide what is the best way to keep the damage to a minimum…”
Patriots don’t want to hear they cannot win; they want to hear they can win every time and Mr. Ewing’s the one telling them. Mr. Ewing is the one claiming everyone who uses his flyers drives away from a traffic stop without a ticket. He also claims every single person who uses his flyers has not been charged with drug offenses. I know this because Mr. Ewing told me himself during a phone call this year.
I’m not a “patriot guru”; anyone familiar with my writings and radio shows knows that. Mr. Ewing just doesn’t understand I don’t need case numbers to prove government is illegitimate. And if Mr. Ewing’s helping people win cases, then more power to him and congratulations. His winning cases doesn’t prove I am an alleged “fake” though.
In court, the only thing that counts is WINNING CASES PERIOD.
There is no “winning”. Engaging bureaucrats at all is a losing proposition. Nothing productive is being done even if your case is thrown out. Getting a case thrown out is great, but it’s still damage control and if a charge is dropped to fifty bucks and no record, then that’s great and “counts”.
Marc Stevens is all TALK and can’t back up his crap as he is all theory and sales pitch.
Again, like an IRS lawyer, Mr. Ewing equates facts and questions with theory. My main point is “government is men and women providing a service on a compulsory basis.” If Mr. Ewing thinks this is “crap” that can’t be backed up, then why doesn’t he present what the facts are? Also, if it’s “crap” then Mr. Ewing should explain why he wrote: “All the stuff he is talking about now is stuff that I talked about more than ten years ago.”
WHAT FELONY CASES HAS HE EVER WON WITH HIS SILLY ARGUMENTS THAT THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR CAN’T SAY THAT THEY REPRESENT THE STATE OR “I HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO PARTICIPATE.” — HA HA — WHAT A JOKE.]
First, no one needs to “win” a felony case to prove government is a group of men and women providing a service at the barrel of a gun.
Second, I don’t use arguments and I never said or wrote judges and prosecutors “can’t say that they represent the state or ‘I have a right not to participate.’”
What I have said and written about is judges and prosecutors refuse to be responsive to the question regarding who the judge represents. Mr. Ewing’s facts are once again, wrong. There have been a few cases where the judge was responsive and said he represented the “state.” I spoken about them on the air on several radio shows, in particular Higher Ground with host Pastor Don Massad on www.truthradio.com.
What I have said is the judge can’t responsively answer the question without exposing the fact he “represents” the plaintiff. I have never claimed that getting such an admission will cause a judge to dismiss. It’s about exposing the hoax. A hoax Mr. Ewing still clings to.
THE JAILS AND PRISONS ARE FULL OF PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T WANT TO PARTICIPATE!
Of course the jails are filled with such people. Again, I never made such a claim. I think the clue as to why Mr. Ewing is so off-base factually, is given in his next statement about the “best Purple Bud”. I think it’s “clouding” his judgment.
Just last year, I beat a Multiple Felony Count Prosecution for Manufacturing Marijuana of 166 Pot Plants that were all over Six Feet Tall of the best Purple Bud you ever smoked in your life PRE-TRIAL by arguing STATUTES, COURT RULES AND CASE LAW in the Snohomish County Superior Court Cause No. No. 02-1-01835-6 — NORMALLY THE FEDS COME IN AFTER THE STATES DO IN ANY CASE INVOLVING OVER 100 POT PLANTS, BUT WE KICKED THE STATE OF WASHINGTON’S BUTT’S SO BAD, THAT THEY DECLINED TO PLAY.]
Great. I wonder why it went to trial when Mr. Ewing has his flyers?
O.J.’s lawyer argued if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit. What’s the point here?
THE FUNNY THING IN THIS CASE WAS THAT THEY HAD NO LESS THAN NINE (9) COPS IN THE COURT ROOM WITH DOUBLE BULLET PROOF VEST’S ON EACH TIME KURT AND I CAME INTO COURT.
WE FELT SO PROTECTED!
Below is the email Mr. Ewing was responding to (I’ve edited the person’s name and email address):
————– Original message ————–
From: “G******* ” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I heard Marc Stevens on RBN hand you your hat.
Marc Stevens is right, there are no States, only figments of the imagination, political trusts which Christ rejected.
But if you really want a Law form that you can “argue” and shakes their boots, try the Word of God.
Its a contract and its powerful.
Last, I googled Mr. Ewing’s name. It was very enlightening. The Washington State Bar was after him for unauthorized practice of law. He took $10,000.00 from two elderly women claiming he would win their case. He lost. Then he engaged in calling them “dizzy broads”. He is profane. How a person speaks says much about them. Mr. Ewing’s language is crude. This does not help him in the credibility department. Mr. Ewing depends on insults to make his point and persuade others. Debating is not synonymous with profanity. He has not persuaded me at all and whatever points he was trying to get across became ridiculous. He would do better to use the kind of language that encourages and uplifts. I have been told that this type of communication is typical for him. That is truly sad. When he used profanity on my radio show, I should have ended his call. I apologize to my listeners for not doing so. Vulgarity is not something I want to be associated with. I prefer intelligent and bright conversation. Mr. Ewing’s language and demeanor are vulgar.
There you have it. Look at the facts and make your own decision. I think you’ll agree, bureaucrats are not the only ones who refuse to look at the facts.