Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 18, 2017

Posted on February 18th, 2017 by Calvin

Cringe Warning: ICBMCatcher discredits himself worse than last time, even “The Infamous Witt” couldn’t stand to listen to his logic. This time he sets an all-time new record of logical fallacies for one show!

Show Notes:

  • Explaining the force and violence inherent with taxation, again.
  • Right after Marc gave two examples of people who went to jail for not paying taxes, ICBMCatcher immediately claimed that “no one goes to jail for not paying taxes.”
  • If you’re not being forced to pay taxes, then why do you pay the amount that you do if you believe you should pay less?
  • Cringing through ICBMCatcher‘s incessantly abundant appeal to tradition, appeal to the masses, straw-man, no true Scotsman, appeal to the stick, blaming the victim, reification, appeal to authority, circular logic, moving the goal-post, might makes right, appeal to futility, and appeal to statism logical fallacies.
  • The one making the assertion (such as ICBMCatcher claiming there are STATES and citizens) bears the burden to objectively prove their assertions.
  • Despite objective evidence to the contrary, ICBMCatcher claims there actually are STATES and citizensno matter what,” but then goes on to claim Marc is the one who is resistant to changing his mind. Projection much?
  • ICBMCatcher does not seem to follow the logic and terminology of what the supreme court has unanimously and repeatedly defined what a citizen is.
  • ICBMCatcher keeps claiming Marc is wrong when he doesn’t even clearly understand the basics of what Marc is saying. (Notice how many times he erroneously summarizes Marc’s positions and Marc has to correct him, yet he’s so certain Marc is wrong when he can’t even get Marc’s positions straight.)
  • Again, where is the evidence that reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection were created and exist? ICBMCatcher immediately claims that simply talking about it proves they exist.
  • ICBMCatcher claims to Marc is “bringing a philosophical argument (note of logic: asking questions of evidence is not making an argument) to a legal question.”
  • ICBMCatcher constantly avoids directly answering Marc’s questions by responding with rephrasing the question into something he’d rather answer and talk about.
  • ICBMCatcher actually claims that “asking questions is making an argument.”
  • While ICBMCatcher wants to characterize asking questions of evidence as “philosophical,” he simultaneously claims that the law is purely theoretical. He’s provably wrong on both counts, but keeps carrying on as if he’s right.
  • ICBMCatcher claims “we decided to live under arbitrary rules.” Really? When exactly did this happen? I don’t recall deciding to such conditions… maybe he meant people 240+ years ago and misspoke (again).
  • ICBMCatcher again claims that “the evidence to prove the constitution applies is because it is being applied.”
  • ICBMCatcher has severe problems with historical fact, but accurately understands that “world history is a history of [violent] conquest.”
  • ICBMCatcher claims Marc is peddling BS by backdooring out of solid evidence-based conclusions by saying “in a sense” you’re right and “in a sense” you’re wrong.
  • Even though ICBMCatcher finds brief confirmation is his opinion that “the law is arbitrary” from the John Buttrick interview, Buttrick’s superior Scott Bales contradicts him by saying the law is based upon evidence.
  • ICBMCatcher claims all of Marc’s work is “baloney” because “its ineffective to a degree that anyone can point at to demonstrate it works” despite the mountain of evidence you can point to right here on the website.
  • In ICBMCatcher‘s world; “an opinion cannot be right or wrong.” Meanwhile in reality; statements of opinion can either be proven true or false based upon the evidence to support them.
  • ICBMCatcher claims we are a “fringe element of people that live in a fantasy land” for asking objective questions of evidence while his position is that the law is theoretical and not evidence based. (He’s seems to be ignorant of the metaphor of “the pot calling the kettle black”; projection much again?)
  • ICBMCatcher incessantly claims “anarchy never will work” despite being given historical examples of functioning and sustaining anarchy.
  • Painfully attempting to pin-down ethical and moral positions.
  • Examples of compulsive government services being offered on a voluntary basis: Detroit Threat Management police alternative.
  • ICBMCatcher is wrong, again, claiming that you can leave the country without a passport.
  • Conquering other nations and territories has always been about controlling the taxation resources (a.k.a.: people).
  • Overcoming opinion enforcement.
  • ICBMCatcher romanticizing violence, I mean, the CONstitution.
  • Why would you join a criminal organization to get rid of a criminal organization? What sense does that make?
  • Providing a living for yourself by offering your services and talents voluntarily.
  • ICBMCatcher claims that Marc is the one ignoring the rules of courtroom procedure when all we are doing as a defensive strategy is pointing out when and how the prosecution and judge are ignoring their own rules of procedure.
  • ICBMCatcher doesn’t recognize that in fairness; all legal opinion should be based upon fact and evidence. He wants to go on with “in a legal setting _____.”
  • Doing the math on the success rate of effective damage-control for ICBMCatcher, again.
  • ICBMCatcher wouldn’t call an attorney with a 25% success rate a scammer, but he will call Marc, with a much high success rate, a scammer. Go figure that one out….
              

133 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    I See Bowel Movements says, “Might makes right,” “might not be right.”

    Good. I’m glad we’re clear on that.

  2. NonEntity Says:

    Wait! When I pointed out the ethical contradictions of eating meat years ago you totally dismissed (and continued enjoying your carnivorous dinner) my position, but then someone calls your show and you’re instantly converted to veganhood?!?!? Oh, wait… it must have to do with my lack of entityness, huh? :-p

  3. Jim Says:

    For ICBMCatcher to search out for himself.

    California Government Code 11120 and 54950 clearly states “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” Does sovereignty imply an allegiance or does sovereignty mean the highest power? How can the highest power have allegiance to any creation.
    The State of California, above recognizes the people as the highest power.

    CA GOV CODE 845 says that Public agencies have no liability for not providing police departments or police protection. NO liability, no duty, no actionable cause. No duty no citizens(per Supreme Court, Luria v US).

    The Federal Constitution, Article 1,Section 8, clause 14 says congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulations for the land and naval forces(still gov). According to Assemblymen (told to me) the US Codes (1-50) are made by congress. Are they not then rules for the government? Also, there is no place in the Constitution where it says congress has the power to make rules for the people? 10th Amendment says powers not enumerated are reserved for the people. Anarchy is supported in the constitution, no?, when the people make their own rules.
    Public sector v private sector suggests self governance, no? The government is subservient to the creator, the people, not the other way around.

    Hasn’t President Obama said nothing could be done about the oil production in North and South Dakota because they had no jurisdiction on private property???

    USC Title 28, Section3002 says United States means a federal corporation. Is ICBMCatcher claiming to be a citizen of a federal corporation called the United States. A citizen of a fictional entity? Hmmm.

    That is like Hal(computer) in the movie 2001 Space “Odity” claiming jurisdiction over its creator, the humans. Is it not a maxim of law that the creation is never greater than the creator?

    ICBMCatcher mentions interpretation of the law? Is he suggesting congress is inept and incapable of expressing their intentions in writing? Who has been appointed to speak for congress whenever that “who” feels congress goofed?

    No injured party, no crime!(Criminal Justice Classes) No laws are required to have the one causing injury make restitution to the injured party(slavery and/or indentured servitude are still available for the punishment of a crime, 13th amendment). The laws, codes, statutes, etc, are political rules that apply to government(political entities) no??

    When the rules/laws can be changed they must be arbitrary. Mandatory can not be changed, no?

    If “Do not question authority” has validity, ICBMCatcher, why is there an appellate system?? Should “Authority” be able to “Shoot’em on site”???

    When I ask attorneys what facts and/or evidence law school teaches them to use to prove codes/statutes apply to someone they tell me they are not taught that or go into a long dissertation (nonresponsive) in hopes I forget my question.

  4. Andy Says:

    Applied, ICBMCatcher unwittingly is saying force is being applied during an arrest. Force is being applied, not the constitution. ICBMCatcher is definition mincing.

  5. Andy Says:

    I’m with Witt on this one. The first 45 minutes I had many laughs at ICBMCather’s absurd “answers”. In the next 15 minutes it became painful listening to him continue digging an ever deeper irrationality hole for which he has no where to go but keep digging a deeper hole.

    Might makes right. “Don’t quote laws to us. We carry swords.” -Pompeius Magnus. 

  6. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said: “An opinion can’t be true.” It’s my opinion that I am typing and posting this comment. Furthermore, it is my opinion that someone will read this posted comment.

  7. Andy Says:

    Does ICBMCatcher think it’s best that all human interactions be voluntary? That each individual can accept or decline to interact with any individual? That’s what 7+ billion people want. Men and women who call themselves government won’t accept individuals declining/refusing to interact with them.

    Government is the impossibility of reason. I thank ICBMCatcher for making that glaringly obvious.

  8. Andy Says:

    Nobody can be sincere yet be as contradictory as ICBMCatcher. So my question is, how much is he being paid to be a “government” shill despite having to make a near complete fool of himself?

  9. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM said, “Govt is theoretical and arbitrary.” OMG! Pretty much everything he says here solidifies Marc’s Socratic method and/or position.

  10. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM, is severely indoctrinated by the govt school system. In this world one of the worst things is people “forcing” their religion on others. Govt is one of the worst religions enslaving billions.

    Might only is right is used for defense.

  11. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Well folks let’s take a look at stevens desperate attempt to spin our conversation his way …

    <<>>
    Explaining the force and violence inherent with taxation, again.
    Right after Marc gave two examples of people who went to jail for not paying taxes, ICBMCatcher immediately claimed that “no one goes to jail for not paying taxes.”

    >>>
    People rarely if ever go to jail simply for not paying taxes. They are slapped with an IRS tax lien. People that go to jail on tax matters almost always get locked up for TAX EVASION. Tax evasion is not reporting income, or falsifying records to avoid taxes.
    >>>

    <<>>>><<>>
    If you’re not being forced to pay taxes, then why do you pay the amount that you do if you believe you should pay less?

    Why would anybody pay more than they have to for anything?
    >>>

    <<>> <<>>>

    Cringing through ICBMCatcher‘s incessantly abundant appeal to tradition, appeal to the masses, straw-man, no true Scotsman, appeal to the stick, blaming the victim, reification, appeal to authority, circular logic, moving the goal-post, might makes right, appeal to futility, and appeal to statism logical fallacies.

    <<>>
    The one making the assertion (such as ICBMCatcher claiming there are STATES and citizens) bears the burden to objectively prove their assertions.

    >>>
    First: the “burden of proof” standard actually only applies to one accusing another of a crime.
    Second: when stevens starts his “show me the evidence schtick claims he’s not arguing, or leveling allegations he’s “making assertions” Why then does he not have the burden of proof regarding his assertions?
    >>>

    <<<>>>
    Despite objective evidence to the contrary, ICBMCatcher claims there actually are STATES and citizens “no matter what,” but then goes on to claim Marc is the one who is resistant to changing his mind. Projection much?

    >>>
    A negative cannot be proven.
    Citizens have been around for centuries, but stevens comes along and suddenly discovers they are fiction … wonder how that works?
    >>>

    <<<<>>>
    ICBMCatcher does not seem to follow the logic and terminology of what the supreme court has unanimously and repeatedly defined what a citizen is.

    >>>
    So, the supreme court supports the claim there is no such thing as a citizen, or is it stevens interpretation of a supreme court ruling ?
    >>>

    <<>>
    ICBMCatcher keeps claiming Marc is wrong when he doesn’t even clearly understand the basics of what Marc is saying. (Notice how many times he erroneously summarizes Marc’s positions and Marc has to correct him, yet he’s so certain Marc is wrong when he can’t even get Marc’s positions straight.)

    >>>
    stevens position is simple … he really only has one … there is no evidence the constitution (or the laws that spring from it) apply to him. Implying that they don’t. When they clearly do … stevens would be arrested for committing a crime if caught. There is the law, which comes form the constitution being applied to him — SENSE OF THE WORD MATTERS —
    >>>

    <<>>
    Again, where is the evidence that reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection were created and exist? ICBMCatcher immediately claims that simply talking about it proves they exist.

    >>>
    That claim was NEVER made … stevens is really grasping now … run the tape back sports fans!
    >>>

    ICBMCatcher claims to Marc is “bringing a philosophical argument (note of logic: asking questions of evidence is not making an argument) to a legal question.”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    this is from juan galt read it and weep

    “One of these principles is that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.” Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878)

    This SCOTUS decision, IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT, is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to a reasonable person) that the law DOES apply to you just because you are in a certain geographic area. The legislation that conferred jurisdiction is further proof. The ONLY proof or evidence REQUIRED for jurisdiction – IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT – is the text of the law, the intent of the legislators, case law, tradition or policy. Note I am talking about the rules governing A LEGAL ARGUMENT not the rules governing a philosophical political or law debate. I don’t expect you to agree with this knowledge I am offering because you would lose out on selling your scripts, motions, etc – even though you are setting people up for failure. I used to give seminars and sell info like you in the 1970’s but I got ashamed of conning people.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ICBMCatcher constantly avoids directly answering Marc’s questions by responding with rephrasing the question into something he’d rather answer and talk about.
    ICBMCatcher actually claims that “asking questions is making an argument.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    again from juan galt

    You will claim – “I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question!” You should know that assertions and questions of law are called “arguments” in court proceedings.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    While ICBMCatcher wants to characterize asking questions of evidence as “philosophical,” he simultaneously claims that the law is purely theoretical. He’s provably wrong on both counts, but keeps carrying on as if he’s right.

    ICBMCatcher claims “we decided to live under arbitrary rules.” Really? When exactly did this happen?
    >>>
    Every election
    >>>

    I don’t recall deciding to such conditions… maybe he meant people 240+ years ago and misspoke (again).
    ICBMCatcher again claims that “the evidence to prove the constitution applies is because it is being applied.”
    ICBMCatcher has severe problems with historical fact, but accurately understands that “world history is a history of [violent] conquest.”
    ICBMCatcher claims Marc is peddling BS by backdooring out of solid evidence-based conclusions by saying “in a sense” you’re right and “in a sense” you’re wrong.

    >>>
    Look up what senses mean in english grammar – I am 100% correct
    >>>

    Even though ICBMCatcher finds brief confirmation is his opinion that “the law is arbitrary” from the John Buttrick interview, Buttrick’s superior Scott Bales contradicts him by saying the law is based upon evidence.

    >>>
    Yes the law is based on evidence. General statement … stevens oversimplifying again.
    All laws are ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean they cannot be applied to a person.
    >>>

    ICBMCatcher claims all of Marc’s work is “baloney” because “its ineffective to a degree that anyone can point at to demonstrate it works” despite the mountain of evidence you can point to right here on the website.

    <<>>>

    <<<>>>
    In ICBMCatcher‘s world; “an opinion cannot be right or wrong.” Meanwhile in reality; statements of opinion can either be proven true or false based upon the evidence to support them.
    >>>
    If it’s proven wrong then it was an incorrect statement factually
    >>>
    An opinion CANNOT be proven right or wrong. That’s why it’s an opinion … again, learn the nuances of our language. It’s my opinion the earth is flat is factually incorrect. It’s my opinion the constitution doesn’t apply to me is subjective, it’s what you thing can’t be proven right or wrong.
    >>>

    ICBMCatcher claims we are a “fringe element of people that live in a fantasy land” for asking objective questions of evidence while his position is that the law is theoretical and not evidence based. (He’s seems to be ignorant of the metaphor of “the pot calling the kettle black”; projection much again?)

    >>>
    You are a “fringe element that live in fantasy” land NOT for asking questions, but because there are very few people that believe the nonsense you do, and because you actually believe anarchy will some day be how we live … that it could ever work.
    >>>

    <<<>>
    ICBMCatcher incessantly claims “anarchy never will work” despite being given historical examples of functioning and sustaining anarchy.
    >>>
    Obscure examples of extinct anarchies.
    There are pitiful few examples of any anarchistic societies throughout history, NONE thrived and grew, they all died out because they did not and don’t work. Please name for us one surviving anarchy in the world today of more than a few hundred people … if there are any at all.
    >>>

    Painfully attempting to pin-down ethical and moral positions.

    <<<>>
    Examples of compulsive government services being offered on a voluntary basis: Detroit Threat Management police alternative.
    >>>
    This group is simply a private security firm, it doesn’t replace the police force. Another weak, desperate attempt by stevens to support his nonsense by trotting out some obscure example of a single instance (and it’s not even that) … this one is to pathetic to even type another word about it.
    >>>
    <<<>>>
    ICBMCatcher is wrong, again, claiming that you can leave the country without a passport.

    >>>
    One does not need a passport to leave … one needs a passport to enter. I can get on a boat and sail to another country (even though they don’t exists) I would not be barred from leaving, I would be barred form entering if I did not have a passport. No one is held in the U.S. unless they are in custody.
    >>>

    Conquering other nations and territories has always been about controlling the taxation resources (a.k.a.: people).
    Overcoming opinion enforcement.

    ICBMCatcher romanticizing violence, I mean, the CONstitution.
    Why would you join a criminal organization to get rid of a criminal organization? What sense does that make?
    >>>
    It’s only stevens opinion that our government/courts are “criminal organizations” if he’s so sure they are bring charges and crack the whole thing wide open! Thing is … he would lose if he tried. Because they are not criminal.
    >>>

    Providing a living for yourself by offering your services and talents voluntarily.
    ICBMCatcher claims that Marc is the one ignoring the rules of courtroom procedure when all we are doing as a defensive strategy is pointing out when and how the prosecution and judge are ignoring their own rules of procedure.
    >>>
    In your uneducated legal opinion.
    >>>
    ICBMCatcher doesn’t recognize that in fairness; all legal opinion should be based upon fact and evidence. He wants to go on with “in a legal setting _____.”

    Doing the math on the success rate of effective damage-control for ICBMCatcher, again.
    ICBMCatcher wouldn’t call an attorney with a 25% success rate a scammer, but he will call Marc, with a much high success rate, a scammer. Go figure that one out….
    >>>
    I never called stevens a scammer … I said he was a snake oil salesman
    >>>
    An attorney is trained and educated in the law, they win some they lose some, they are professionals. stevens is an amateur, he has no legal background yet he represents people in all intents and purposes as a lawyer. Just because he reminds everyone he’s not a lawyer and doesn’t claim to be that doesn’t stop him from acting like one.
    >>>
    <<<>>>
    stevens claim of a 70% – 75% win rate is 100% <<<>>> which is why he doesn’t even try to post a win loss record. A professional lawyer would be able to tell anyone what his win/loss ratio was … they keep records.

    cracks are beginning to appear in stevens wall of BS … it won’t be long now.

  12. Andy Says:

    “ICBMCatcher discredits himself worse than last time,” He proved that to be true in Spades. The evidence speaks for itself–verifies it.

    I mentioned it on the forum. Marc mentioned it on the show. If Marc’s methods are such complete BS, his audience so small and he won’t change anything, why has ICBMCatcher spent so much time and energy trying (in futility) to debunk Marc and his methods? Paid shill?

  13. ICBMCatcher Says:

    <<<>>>

    More BS exposed. The U.S. is NOT a corporation

    « Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took an oath to the ConstitutionThe “progressive” federal income tax ceased to be so for those who made more than $2 million in 2008 »

    The United States isn’t a federal corporation
    January 29, 2011 by FauxCapitalist
    Obverse of the Great Seal of the United States.
    Some point to the United States Code (USC) to claim that the United States is a federal corporation, and not a union of states as described in the original Constitution.

    From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:

    (15) “United States” means—
    (A) a Federal corporation;
    (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
    (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

    If you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s not saying that the United States is a federal corporation, but rather, it’s referring to federal corporations incorporated by the United States.

    At the beginning of the section, it says: “As used in this chapter:”

  14. Andy Says:

    All individuals can listen to the podcast of the conversation and judge for themselves.

    ICBMCatcher said: “this is from juan galt read it and weep “One of these principles is that every State possesses”

    There is no state thus nonexistent state can’t possess anything.

    citizen: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

    state: a political body consisting of citizens who have pledged their allegiance to a state in return for a duty of protection by the state.

    Every so-called Supreme Court has ruled that “government” has no duty to protect.

    No duty to protect means “government” has no reciprocal obligation, thus, there’s no reciprocal duty of allegiance on the part of an individual. Thus, there are no citizens. Absent citizens, there’s no body politic. Thus, there’s no state.

    Absent states and government, they’re men and women forcing people to pay them.

    Of course, there’s the fact that taxes are compulsory, not voluntary. Pay or go to jail refutes the notion that individuals consented to be governed.

    Fact, individuals never had a free will choice to decline being subject to government.

    What is freedom? It’s telling an individual that you chose not to interact with them and they leave you alone.

    What is crime: It’s telling an individual that you chose not to interact with them and the person doesn’t leave you alone. Even worse is when they claim to have the moral/ethical high ground while initiating force against you. Is that not delusional?

    I’ll say it again, government is the impossibility of reason.

  15. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said: “More BS exposed. The U.S. is NOT a corporation”

    True. The so called United States is men and women forcing people to pay them — a gang of killers thieves and liars.

  16. Andy Says:

    The so called United States is men and women who call themselves government and force people to pay them — a gang of killers thieves and liars.

  17. Andy Says:

    It had been bugging me for days. It was like déjà vu. Where had I seen it before? Declaring victory despite being resoundingly defeated — not having a leg to stand on. Then, it hit me…

    The Black Knight, aka ICBMCatcher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvqhk7YDH9U

  18. desertspeaks Says:

    I would also point out when bowel movement claimed people had a choice back when states were formed.. AGAIN he could not be more incorrect!
    Arizona Constitution Article XV
    15. Acceptance of constitutional provisions by existing corporations
    Section 15. No public service corporation in existence at the time of the admission of this state into the union shall have the benefit of any future legislation except on condition of complete acceptance of all provisions of this Constitution applicable to public service corporations.
    As we can see above, only CORPORATIONS were actually given a choice!
    There was NO OPTION for men and women written into any CONstitution to accept or reject said fraudulent documents.

    but as we all know by now, he’ll reject that FACT too!

  19. desertspeaks Says:

    @ andy. lmao,.. love that movie! great comparison too!

  20. ICBMCatcher Says:

    More stevens BS proven wrong.

    A valid passort is not required to LEAVE the U.S. one must be presented one WHEN RETURNING

    The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, effective June 2009, mandates that all United States citizens and residents leaving the country present a valid U.S. passport to U.S. customs officials upon their return trip. This includes persons traveling to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean islands. Each country has visa and passport requirements for foreign visitors, so get the specifics before boarding the plane. Some do not require that U.S. citizens be valid passport holders. Regardless of your destination, however, you will need to present one on the way home. Remember, a valid U.S. passport has not yet expired and will not expire during your trip.
    Sponsored link

  21. John Cokos Says:

    Andy: The State is providing protection: You from Yourself when you propose the jurisdiction argument instead of a sound and factual defense.
    I’m proposing a NEW project for Marc after hearing ICBM’s brilliant counterpoint to the Venue Issue: It’s called “SCRAP THE CRAP”. What is this new concept sweeping the Anarchist/Vegan axis?
    Drop the largely rhetorical/philosophical rants and concentrate on sound research and tactics that don’t wind up getting the unprepared novitiates to the law time in Jail, or worse.
    A RANDY KELTON style program with well thought out insight into the Legal System. Your money would be better spent on sound and proven tactics to counter attack the legal system. OZ has spoken….

  22. John Cokos Says:

    One additional point: I would upgrade ICBM’s assertion of a Philspohical Argument to one of a Rhetorical Argument : If you ask a rhetorical question it means you don’t necessarily expect an answer, but you do want an occasion to talk about something. Any answer you give is equally valid. A little like Quantum Physics where reality breaks down into a universe of infinite possibilities.
    Jurisdiction is always a question of Time, Place and Circumstance or Geography if you want a narrow definition.
    If you use the Rhetorical Argument in a Court of Law you will be stopped short by the Court and the Opposition Lawyer. Simple as that…

  23. Andy Says:

    Men and women who call themselves government put forth the claim if an individual is physically in Utah the Utah constitution and Utah code/laws/statues/rules apply to the individual and that they have jurisdiction. It is not the non-government individual who proposed the jurisdiction argument. It is men and women who call themselves government that propose/claim the jurisdiction argument.

    John Cokos, do you prefer that I say that you’re intellectually dishonest or delusional?

    If John sincerely believes it was me who proposed the jurisdiction argument he’s delusional. If he doesn’t sincerely believe it was me who made the argument, he’s intellectual dishonest.

    Reality check. Cop is court on the witness stand.

    Defendant/victim asks: When you arrested me did you determine on your own that because I was physically in Utah the Utah constitution and Utah code apply to me?

    Cop: Yes.

    [Commentary, the prosecutor had no objection to the cop having made a legal determination at the point of arrest because it supports the prosecutor’s jurisdiction argument.]

    2nd question: Do you have personal first hand knowledge of evidence that the Utah constitution and Utah code applies to me?

    Prosecutor: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion; the witness is unqualified to testify.

    Judge: Objection sustained.

    [Commentary, the prosecutor relied on the judge to impeach his own witness.]

    3rd question, (this one is for the judge): sir, can you ask the prosecutor if he has any witness with personal first hand knowledge the Utah code and constitution apply to me?

    [Commentary, at this point I’d expect the judge to make an excuse — not a fair-minded *reason* — to threaten me with contempt. Threatening me with contempt is not done to protect me from myself. It’s to protect the status quo of the court actors. Ie, the cop prosecutor judge and their gang of killers, thieves and liars who call themselves government.]

    Conclusion: the prosecutor and judge are not protecting me from myself. Rather, they are protecting themselves and their criminal organization.

  24. Andy Says:

    Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_602

  25. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I listened to all of the 2.5 hours except for the parts playing when I was using a grinder. I’m flabbergasted at what passes for ICBM’s logic. What I heard was a form of Gish Gallup.

  26. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Hab.. and the grinder made much more sense!

  27. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    @ desertspeaks,

    Yes.

    And it was more productive (as in making life better for the dude whose truck door handle I repaired).

  28. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/On_the_spot_fallacy

    I heard this in the podcast as well.

  29. juan galt Says:

    HERE’S REALITY –

    When Marc is in Court, court rules and procedures apply – period. Marc’s “question” of application or jurisdiction is considered, in Court, a legal argument. Legal arguments require the application of the rules that govern the reaching of a legal conclusion. To reach this conclusion of law the rules say the evidence required for this conclusion must be supported by legal authority IE: case law, statutes. Marc may disagree with the rules but that is of no effect in Court. Your disagreement would have to be on legal grounds not philosophical grounds. Actually I know of no legal grounds for rules suspension.

    What Marc seems not to grasp is that his “question” is seen by the Court as a part of his defense to the claim against him and as such is considered by the Court as part of the merits of his case which he will “argue” at trial. When there is an “overlapping” of “questions” (issues, arguments, merits), the Court uses an extremely low standard of proof (evidence) to initially answer Marc’s “application question” (argument) in order to proceed to trial where the standards of proof are much higher and the merits of both parties’ arguments are fully presented. This standard of proof is SO LOW that a statute, summons, complaint, etc. is sufficient evidence to proceed. Marc can register an objection to this form evidence – which will be overruled and the case should continue to trial on the merits. Marc can register objections and grounds for them throughout the trial. If Marc loses and he thinks the judge screwed up regarding his objections – he can appeal. Now IF Marc is in Court that’s the way the rules, procedures, case law and statutes would apply to him or anyone who is a party to a lawsuit being heard in a Court.

    Marc’s tactics (questions/arguments) have been used in Court since the 1980’s – way before he started – and each time they were “argued” they LOST. As I have said before, claims of logical fallacies, legitimacy (other than statutes), the Socratic method and other methods of logical reasoning are different from the methods of arguments used in legal reasoning. In Court legal reasoning is applied to reach conclusions. I have never heard of or seen a philosophical ideal or question (I didn’t consent so your law doesn’t apply) accepted as valid to winning a legal argument or a case in my 35+ years of experience. Except maybe the recent ruling on Trump’s “travel ban”.

  30. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://marcstevens.net/successes

  31. Andy Says:

    Critics Rejoice! I’ve upoaded both discussions that Marc and ICBMCatcher had. I’ve joined the two into one video. Plus, there’s simple easy instruction with examples of how to link to any specific time in the discussion.

    Here’s a link to the forum page: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854.html

  32. Andy Says:

    correction = uploaded

  33. Don Will Says:

    Marc, Thank you for ICBM as a guest, The belly-laughs I got from this ignorant and obfuscating joker are priceless!! You destroyed his points almost as much as he destroyed his own. GREAT JOB!!!

  34. Andy Says:

    @Don, ICBMCatcher has been posting comments on another article page on this website. He posts as though he was victorious in debunking Marc and his methods. I wonder how many people, if any, he’ll give a link to the discussion so they can see/hear for themselves.

    By me uploading the discussion video to the forum I’ve made it real easy for him to link to both discussions in one place.

  35. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I was victorious, and remain so –

    I am not nearly as eloquent or knowledgeable as juan gault, but I still crushed stevens’ little anarchist soul, when I sprung this on him. If only I could have seen the look on his face when I hit him with it!

    I found the valve that sends stevens’ whole BS theories right down the drain, and cracked it open full.

    This is for all of you anarchy supporters out there in fantasy land –

    Tell us oh wise ones – tell us exactly what it looks like when anarchy sweeps the land mass (formerly) known as the U.S.A. Describe for us a slice of everyday life when we finally make the move to “a voluntary society”

    Can’t wait to see this

    Your Pal, ICBMCatcher
    (crusher of anarchist hopes and dreams)

  36. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – Here’s the response I’m given to the “What will it look like?” questions –

    “I do have answers and opinions for that question. I just don’t find this the time to discuss that particular topic. I view that as a “but who will build the roads” argument. One used by statists to argue for keeping the men and women who call themselves government in place”.

    “I refuse to answer you WHO WILL BUILD THE CHILDREN questions because they have absolutely no bearing on the alleged authority of the present system. I refuse to let you change the subject.”

    They are so paranoid. Instead of answering simple “average Joe” questions about their project, they are guarded because, I guess, they think every question has a hidden agenda and is a challenge or invitation to a debate. It’s like they’re afraid they are going to have to justify their answers. They think our questions about “Spoonerville” are a prelude to an attack. For me – they are NOT! They are genuine questions simply asked for informational and awareness purposes only.

    Who knows, if they tried they might be able to convert me – if their ideas are sound, logical and rational.

  37. NonEntity Says:

    I See Feces Everywhere sed, “…but I still crushed stevens’ little anarchist soul…

    Aha. Spoken with grace and humility like a true gentleman. Kinda makes ya proud to be a human, don’t it? An example to look up to, huh Juan?

  38. juan galt Says:

    NonE – I am beyond looking up to anyone as an example for anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Most debaters, when there’s no referee to claim a winner, will more-likely-than-not claim victory.

    Like Trump, ICBM frames things in terms that I wouldn’t. That’s what makes the World so interesting – diversity of thought and expression.

  39. Andy Says:

    Do no harm. When an individual declines to interact with you, tells you to leave them alone, you leave them alone. How could you know best what will or will not harm the individual? Do no harm. It’s really that simple.

    If you don’t respect other people — do unto others as you’d have others do unto you — what makes you think you should be respected? To violate/harm a peaceful individual who isn’t bothering anyone and declare yourself having the moral/ethical high ground as government types do… and you’d trust those same people that have stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons… weapons they’ve used more than a few times. This situation isn’t going to end well for anyone… unless a much larger mass of people wake the f*ck up, in a hurry… like yesterday.

  40. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher continues making a fool of himself. Yet, it’s all he’s got — puff his chest and declare victory — it’s actually kind of sad, aye?

  41. ICBMCatcher Says:

    YouTube’s algorithm often displays stevens videos with those from cop-blockers, sovereigns, and those people that break into abandon homes trying to take possession of them through what they think is a loophole in the law. That’s the company anarchists keep.

    Our government, has it’s flaws like anything other. And it has it’s share of charlatans, abusers and incompetents, like any other. But the people that serve in our government are mostly dedicated, educated, conscientious, professionals, doing the best job they can, serving millions of individuals that all want what they want, regardless of how it effects the greater good.

    When hacks like stevens start referring to the folks that work as public servants, as crooks and thieves, and muck up our courts with their nonsense, as a hobby, they’ll have me to deal with. I’m not much more than an uneducated hack myself, I’m fine getting down in the dirt with guys like stevens and those that think like him. Those that have worked hard to earn the credentials it takes to hold positions in leadership, and have devoted their careers to the public good, need not get their hands dirty dealing with these ungrateful whiners. Me and millions of others just like me will deal with them.

    I’m not a cop, or a judge or a governor or lawyer. I have no connection to government. I’m just a regular guy that won’t stand a round while a bunch of loudmouth punks @$%& with fellow Americans.

    Best wishes ICBMCatcher

  42. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Before I forget … why can none of you free thinkers answer the simple questions I have been posing for some time now?

    If anarchy is such a great way of life, why has it never grown much beyond what it is now? Why is it barely a blip on the radar of history? Mankind started off in anarchy but decided at some point to form all these diabolical governments. Any thoughts … anyone … anyone?

  43. Andy Says:

    You’re a hoot. Talk about deceit… http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65663.html#pid65663

  44. les Says:

    @ ICBMCatcher….

    To answer your two questions, a community of sheep attracts a government of wolves. I hope you can understand that.

    It is often said that there are two types of people in the world, those who want to be left alone and those who can’t leave you alone. You seem to have an inability to see the obvious despite your claims to be able to see what is happening in practice. There is a group of people (nothing more and nothing less than people) who cannot leave others alone to live their lives in peace. These people call themselves government. It is these people who call themselves government who cannot leave others alone because they force themselves and their beliefs on the others by your own admission…. government by conquest.

    I’m astonished you cannot work that out for yourself, it’s really not that difficult to attain the answer. As you need to ask “free thinkers” to explain it to you, I put it to you, that you are not qualified to be making negative claims against Marcs work or anarchy.

    A question for you to help you work things out by yourself… If living in a world without violence, slavery, rape, assault, murder, extortion etc is a good idea, a great way of life, why has it never happened in the whole of the history of mankind?

  45. Boxer Says:

    I wrote:

    ———————

    Boxer Says:
    February 20th, 2017 at 10:22 pm
    @ICBM

    Your disdain for evidence is quite amusing. Here, take a look at statism:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/21/01/3D77A03C00000578-4242150-image-m-68_1487639773775.jpg

    Good times!

    ———————

    ICBM responded:

    ICBMCatcher Says:
    February 21st, 2017 at 12:16 am
    What are you talking about? A lady gets mixed up in an unruly crowd of out-of-control anarchists, hurts herself somehow, and two nice policemen help her to safety … what’s your point?

    ———————-

    Me thinks the troll has received far too much attention.

  46. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher could easily post a link to any time in the call to make a point but he doesn’t. So I’ll do it for him.

    To preface… Listen to ICBMCatcher glaringly contradict himself (one of many). ICBMCatcher *again* admits there *can’t* be any evidence proving the laws apply just because Marc is in Arizona. Fine. There’s no evidence their laws apply, so its not practical, it’s purely theoretical that their laws apply. IBCMCatcher says no, it’s not theoretical. Okay, then if it’s not theoretical it’s practical — where’s your evidence the laws apply? Hear it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI&feature=youtu.be&t=4902

    The link in my last post goes to a post on the forum with a video of their discussion wherein I give an example of how to simply and easily make the link to a specific time in video.

  47. ICBMCatcher Says:

    As usual, a supporter of stevens nonsense cites a tiny second or two of conversation and calls it a contradiction in a desperate attempt to validate his weak position. Only by ignoring the different senses of a word can Andy accomplish his task. On one hand one may say all laws are theoretical / arbitrary … after all, they are “made up” at some point. But on the other hand, if one breaks a law and is caught, they will arrested and tried. So how do you geniuses reconcile that? There you are, being arrested because you allegedly broke a law, that’s the reason you’re being hauled in, yet you say the law you’re being nabbed for doesn’t apply to you … as they cuff you and stuff you in the back of a squad car. For something that doesn’t apply to you, sure is odd how you wind up in a cell an hour later, then in court answering your charges after that. Doesn’t apply, yet there it is being applied. Brilliant!

  48. ICBMCatcher Says:

    2:17:46 I knew I never said the word deceit … that’s stevens saying “deceit” not me. You guys are joke. I did not use the word deceit until I was accused of it later. I said “plain to see” not deceit.

  49. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    “…yet you say the law you’re being nabbed for doesn’t apply to you.”

    There you go again making false claims and misconstruing what Marc has said time and again. Marc was right, you’re trying to argue what you think Marc has said so it fits your own narrative even though neither him or any of “us” have ever made such a claim.

  50. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    Can you please provide a picture of a ” broken law”? Yes or no?

  51. juan galt Says:

    l _ /-\ \ / \ /

  52. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM said, “the history of what you just described is plain deceit.” ICBM, is a terrible liar too. He started the deceit talk himself! Marc, was just defending him self and what he had said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI&feature=youtu.be&t=8245

    Look at his comments at the youtube video too. ICBM = a belief in double standards, legal & logical fallacies and he’s lying too. Totally mixed up logic to the point where it is not logic at all. Pretty much every post of his, shows how ridiculous he is!

  53. juan galt Says:

    Boxer –
    Broken –
    (Unfulfilled) adjective – disobedient, lawless, uncompliant, unlawful, violated. (Free dictionary legal definition)

    Therefore, a broken law is one that has been unlawfully violated by noncompliance or a lawless action. So a picture of one, I guess, would be a copy of the law that was broken (violated). I’m still looking for a picture of a broken heart, broken promise and broken spirit.

  54. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    Can you please provide a picture of a ” broken law”? Yes or no?

  55. spooky2th Says:

    Victimless Crimes – no rights violated and no harm done. No cause of action, so no case!

  56. spooky2th Says:

    Marc, has posted an IRS case won because of “no cause of action.” Got several years of so called tax violations dropped.

  57. juan galt Says:

    Spooky – You forgot – “Abracadabra” and “Shazam!”

  58. spooky2th Says:

    Only sick minded or completely mindless twits would think of, “Abracadabra” and “Shazam!”

  59. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Many words in the English language have several senses. See if you can find the one that answers your question. Thank you for providing a perfect example of how one can ignore the sense of a word that doesn’t support their point.

    Focusing on the super-literal meaning of a words and ignoring their different senses is the only way you can support your nonsensical views.

    bro·ken
    ˈbrōkən/Submit
    verb
    1.
    past participle of break.
    adjective
    adjective: broken
    1.
    having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order.
    “a broken arm”
    synonyms: smashed, shattered, fragmented, splintered, crushed, snapped; More
    antonyms: whole
    (of a relationship) ended, such as through infidelity.
    “a broken marriage”
    synonyms: failed, ended
    “a broken marriage”
    denoting a family in which the parents are divorced or separated.
    “he grew up poor in a broken family”
    (of an agreement or promise) not observed by one of the parties involved.
    synonyms: flouted, violated, infringed, contravened, disregarded, ignored, unkept
    “broken promises”
    antonyms: kept, honored
    2.
    (of a person) having given up all hope; despairing.
    “he went to his grave a broken man”
    synonyms: defeated, beaten, subdued; More
    3.
    having breaks or gaps in continuity.
    “a broken white line across the road”
    synonyms: interrupted, disturbed, fitful, disrupted, discontinuous, intermittent, unsettled, troubled
    “a night of broken sleep”
    antonyms: uninterrupted
    (of speech or a language) spoken falteringly, as if overcome by emotion, or with many mistakes, as by a foreigner.
    “a young man talking in broken Italian”
    synonyms: halting, hesitating, disjointed, faltering, imperfect
    “she spoke in broken English”
    antonyms: perfect
    4.
    having an uneven and rough surface.
    “broken ground”
    synonyms: uneven, rough, irregular, bumpy; More
    antonyms: smooth
    break
    brāk/Submit
    verb
    past participle: broken
    1.
    separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain.
    “the rope broke with a loud snap”
    synonyms: shatter, smash, crack, snap, fracture, fragment, splinter, fall to bits, fall to pieces; More
    sustain an injury involving the fracture of a bone or bones in a part of the body.
    “she had broken her leg in two places”
    synonyms: fracture, crack
    “she had broken her leg”
    antonyms: mend
    cause a cut or graze in (the skin).
    “the bite had scarcely broken the skin”
    synonyms: pierce, puncture, penetrate, perforate; cut
    “the bite had barely broken the skin”
    make or become inoperative.
    “the machine has broken, and they can’t fix it until next week”
    synonyms: stop working, break down, give out, go wrong, malfunction, crash; More
    (of the amniotic fluid surrounding a fetus) be or cause to be discharged when the sac is ruptured in the first stages of labor.
    “she realized her water had broken”
    open (a safe) forcibly.
    use (a piece of paper currency) to pay for something and receive change out of the transaction.
    “she had to break a ten”
    (of two boxers or wrestlers) come out of a clinch, typically at the referee’s command.
    “I was acting as referee and telling them to break”
    unfurl (a flag or sail).
    succeed in deciphering (a code).
    synonyms: decipher, decode, decrypt, unravel, work out; More
    open (a shotgun or rifle) at the breech.
    disprove (an alibi).
    invalidate (a will) through legal process.
    2.
    interrupt (a continuity, sequence, or course).
    “the new government broke the pattern of growth”
    synonyms: interrupt, disturb, interfere with
    “his concentration was broken”
    put an end to (a silence) by speaking or making contact.
    make a pause in (a journey).
    “we will break our journey in Venice”
    stop proceedings in order to have a pause or vacation.
    “at mid-morning they broke for coffee”
    synonyms: stop, pause, have a rest, recess; More
    antonyms: resume
    lessen the impact of (a fall).
    “she put out an arm to break her fall”
    synonyms: cushion, soften the impact of, take the edge off
    “a pile of carpets broke his fall”
    stop oneself from being subject to (a habit).
    synonyms: give up, relinquish, drop; More
    put an end to (a tie in a game) by making a score.
    (chiefly of an attacking player or team, or of a military force) make a rush or dash in a particular direction.
    “the flight broke to the right and formed a defensive circle”
    surpass (a record).
    “the movie broke box-office records”
    synonyms: exceed, surpass, beat, better, cap, top, outdo, outstrip, eclipse
    “the movie broke box-office records”
    disconnect or interrupt (an electrical circuit).
    (of a pitched baseball) curve or drop on its way toward the batter.
    SOCCER
    (of the ball) rebound unpredictably.
    “the ball broke to Craig but his shot rebounded from the post”
    (of a bowled cricket ball) change direction on bouncing, due to spin.
    3.
    fail to observe (a law, regulation, or agreement).
    “the district attorney says she will prosecute retailers who break the law”
    synonyms: contravene, violate, fail to observe, fail to comply with, infringe, breach; More
    antonyms: abide by, keep
    fail to continue with (a self-imposed discipline).
    “diets started without preparation are broken all the time”
    4.
    crush the emotional strength, spirit, or resistance of.
    “the idea was to better the prisoners, not to break them”
    (of a person’s emotional strength) give way.
    “her self-control finally broke”
    synonyms: give way, crack, cave in, yield, go to pieces
    “her self-control finally broke”
    destroy the power of (a movement or organization).
    synonyms: destroy, crush, quash, defeat, vanquish, overcome, overpower, overwhelm, suppress, cripple; More
    destroy the effectiveness of (a strike), typically by bringing in other people to replace the striking workers.
    tame or train (a horse).
    5.
    undergo a change or enter a new state, in particular.
    (of the weather) change suddenly.
    “the weather broke, and thunder rumbled through a leaden sky”
    synonyms: change, alter, shift
    “the weather broke”
    (of a storm) begin violently.
    (of dawn or day) begin with the sun rising.
    “dawn was just breaking”
    synonyms: dawn, begin, start, emerge, appear
    “the day broke fair and cloudless”
    (of clouds) move apart and begin to disperse.
    (of waves) curl over and dissolve into foam.
    “the Caribbean sea breaking gently on the shore”
    synonyms: crash, dash, beat, pound, lash
    “waves broke against the rocks”
    (of the voice) falter and change tone, due to emotion.
    “her voice broke as she relived the experience”
    synonyms: falter, quaver, quiver, tremble, shake
    “her voice broke as she relived the experience”
    (of a boy’s voice) change in tone and register at puberty.
    PHONETICS
    (of a vowel) develop into a diphthong, under the influence of an adjacent sound.
    “breaking due to a following r or h”
    (of prices on the stock exchange) fall sharply.
    (of news or a scandal) suddenly become public.
    “since the news broke I’ve received thousands of wonderful letters”
    synonyms: erupt, break out
    “a political scandal broke”
    make bad news known to someone.
    synonyms: reveal, disclose, divulge, impart, tell; More
    make the first stroke at the beginning of a game of billiards, pool, or snooker.

    Your pal ICBMCatcher

  60. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Boxer Says:
    February 21st, 2017 at 11:48 am
    @ICBM

    “…yet you say the law you’re being nabbed for doesn’t apply to you.”

    Apparently Boxer has a little trouble with reading comprehension.

  61. ICBMCatcher Says:

    spooky2th Says:
    February 21st, 2017 at 12:06 pm
    ICBM said, “the history of what you just described is plain deceit.” ICBM, is a terrible liar too. He started the deceit talk himself! Marc, was just defending him self and what he had said.

    That was PLAIN TO SEE not PLAIN DECEIT — you are so desperate to find fault with anything I say, now you’re hearing things PLAIN TO SEE

  62. spooky2th Says:

    Icbm, shows that he is the, down is up and up is down type of guy. Word mincing, using all kinds of fallacies and lying is typical with these types and especially 2-faced politicians and lawyers. Word mincers extreme! A product of the govt school system indoctrination.

  63. spooky2th Says:

    I listened to it again and it sure sounds like “deceit” to me. It seems that Marc, thought the same.

  64. NonEntity Says:

    diphthong – noun, really small underwear worn by someone who should never, ever, under any circumstances, wear such.

  65. NonEntity Says:

    deseat – noun, flat surface raised from the floor for humans to acquire relief from being constantly vertical, best covered with a towel if wearing a diphthong (however the dip is probably not cognizant of this quaint sanitary custom)

  66. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    @ICBM

    Can you please provide a picture of a ” broken law”? Yes or no?

  67. NonEntity Says:

    Ah come on, Boxer, you can’t really be taking any of this seriously, please?!? Chill baby. Relax and enjoy the big dicks swinging their big dicks around. Habby seems pathological, but I had higher expectations of you. Besides, he did show you a broken law. I saw it. All slashed up and stuff.

  68. desertspeaks Says:

    icbowlemovement is a proven liar,.. move on!

  69. NonEntity Says:

    bowle? Really??? 🙂 (it sure is annoying we can’t edit our typos and stoopidities, idn’t it?)

  70. NonEntity Says:

    I think it’s all Calvin’s fault. In fact I’m SURE it’s Calvin’s fault. (Now to try and twist some kind of Hobbsian pun out of this…)

  71. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM said: (“…yet you say the law you’re being nabbed for doesn’t apply to you.”

    Apparently Boxer has a little trouble with reading comprehension.)

    With ICBM’s stupid & childish logic, he’d probably say that the mafia’s law/rules apply if they kidnap someone. What a joke. Keep on typing, ICBM. I can always use a good laugh.

  72. ICBMCatcher Says:

    — BS ALERT —
    Despite objective evidence to the contrary, ICBMCatcher claims there actually are STATES and citizens “no matter what,” but then goes on to claim Marc is the one who is resistant to changing his mind. Projection much?

    A negative cannot be proven. There can be no evidence that something DOESN’T exist. Just like there CAN BE no evidence of a concept or idea (like a law or the constitution), and an opinion cannot be right or wrong.

    Ask any linguist.

    Just word-play by stevens … more of his BS. And all you anti-statists fall right in line with this nonsense.

    —- END BS ALERT —-

    Long live the state!

    ICBMCatcher

  73. ICBMCatcher Says:

    —– NONSENSE ALERT —-
    spooky2th Says:
    With ICBM’s stupid & childish logic, he’d probably say that the mafia’s law/rules apply if they kidnap someone. What a joke. Keep on typing, ICBM. I can always use a good laugh.

    So spooky, this is how logic really works. … if the mafia kidnaps someone. They have in fact been kidnapped, you said it yourself. Remember now … words have different senses … so

    If the mafias’ law/rules don’t apply, then the poor unfortunate soul that’s been grabbed-up really isn’t bound, gagged and stuffed in the trunk of a Cadillac Seville heading down the Jersey Turnpike(?) Is that what you’re saying? OR, better put … If the mafias laws/rules don’t apply to them, how then does this poor unfortunate soul find himself bound, gagged and stuffed in the trunk of a Cadillac Seville heading down the Jersey Turnpike?

    Apparently … the mafias laws/rules DO apply, otherwise they wouldn’t be bound, gagged and stuffed in the trunk of a Cadillac Seville heading down the Jersey Turnpike.

    Whether the mafias laws/rules SHOULD apply or not is irrelevant, but they obviously do, because there the kidnapped person is, bound, gagged and stuffed in the trunk of a Cadillac Seville heading down the Jersey Turnpike … even if they are kicking and screaming “hey … hey … your rules don’t apply to me!”

    —– END NONSENSE ALERT —–

    ICBMCatcher

  74. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – Now that’s funny! Let’s see if “Spooners” have a sense of humor. I actually laughed out loud.

  75. desertspeaks Says:

    lol @ non.. typo nazi!

    Now on to the two trolls, they are brainwashed and immovable in their indoctrination.. they are allowed to be stupid, even when they’ve been proven wrong BY JUDGES DECISIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION.. just move on and let them spew their idiocy, they’ll eventually go away, unless they’re PAID TROLLS!

  76. juan galt Says:

    Dessert – “even when they’ve been proven wrong BY JUDGES DECISIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION.”

    Where’s evidence that proves that statement is true? There’s no such evidence on this website of Marc’s. I’ve looked and there is NO evidence that ANY case was dismissed FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION. A Court order of dismissal that does not show the reasons (grounds) why it was dismissed is no evidence. You have to take Marc’s word that it was because of what HE did. Hell, there’s plenty of cases dismissed for lack of evidence if a witness (like a cop) doesn’t show up – which happens a lot.

    You remind me of the little girl in “Miracle on 34th Street” when she’s saying about Santa Claus – “I believe, I believe”.

  77. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said: “there CAN BE no evidence of a concept or idea (like a law or the constitution)”

    According to ICBMCathcher the constitution is just an concept or idea. Not four pieces of paper and ink. He claims it’s just an idea or concept so he can say there can’t be any evidence the constitution and laws apply. So the idea that the constitution and laws apply based on a person’s physical location is theoretical.

    It’s too absurd to make up. Hear him for yourself: https://youtu.be/tc9qZDJialI?t=4899

  78. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Among the “success stories” on his forum, Stevens claimed to have “helped” a taxpayer in Wyoming federal district court, docket number 05-CV-141-D. That case was an action by the IRS to enforce a summons to compel the production of financial records as part of a tax investigation into a man named Marc Edwards. Stevens is not a lawyer, so he was not allowed to represent Edwards in court or allowed to speak on the record, but one of the court documents describes his presence as “to aid in notetaking.” Edwards filed a few “motions to strike” the petition of the IRS. In them, he advanced the arguments Stevens makes, such in Document #4, in which he claims that the government lacks a “case or controversy” and “standing.” In http://www.box.net/shared/static/4ofo9og40c.pdf Document # 6], another motion to strike, he argues that the IRS agent lacks “personal knowledge”. These arguments all lost, and the court granted the petition to enforce the summons, referring to one of Edwards’s (and Stevens’s) arguments as “sophistry.”

  79. spooky2th Says:

    Both icbm and galt are apologists for criminal organizations. Especially criminal govt. Their typed words prove it. Psychopaths!

  80. spooky2th Says:

    There can’t be any evidence.

    So, it’s purely theoretical.

    No…

    What a joke, icbm.

  81. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Hey spooky2th – know how ya know when you have totally defeated someone’s argument? They fling some hyperbole and call you names … sound like anyone we know.

  82. juan galt Says:

    ICBM –

    WOW, I just read the rulings on that case. Yep, Edwards filed motions using EVERY tactic and allegation of Marc’s. No jurisdiction, no personal knowledge, no evidence, no state, no country (all theoretical), laws and constitution don’t apply, just being in a geographic area doesn’t mean the laws apply, etc. Edwards used them all. The Court found ALL of Marc’s arguments were not only without merit, but were frivolous and sophistry.

    That “frivolous” finding, thanks to Marc. cost Edwards $6000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Marc may not realize it, but because of this 10th Circuit appeal, precedent (if not already) has been set declaring Marc Stevens’ motions and knowledge of law and legal procedure – AS BULLS—! And if you use Marc’s misinformation, it could cost you $6000 – payable to We the People.

    The collective thanks you for your support, Mr. Stevens (although poor Edwards is the one who will pay – not Marc).

  83. ICBMCatcher Says:

    spooky2th … is flailing … apparently he’s run out of clever sounding nonsense

  84. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Holy Toledo ! Check out this link this details stevens BS and the damage it’s caused the poor schmucks he’s bamboozled!

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    Ohhh … boy marc … yer DONE buddy DONE!

    Courtesy ICBMCatcher

  85. ICBMCatcher Says:

    WoW is right!

    Although in many ways a run-of-the-mill anarchist, Stevens distinguishes himself with bizarre notion that the government does not have “standing” to enforce its own laws in court, and that the court therefore does not have jurisdiction. He also believes that jurisdiction must be “proved” even when the court has jurisdiction as a matter of law, and has raised questions about the difference between “United States” and “United States of America.”

  86. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Let us spread the word far and wide … stevens is now a confirmed snake oil salesman

    The whole story behind this charlatan is right here … follow the link

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    Your pal ICBMCatcher

  87. spooky2th Says:

    IRS Drops Attack For Six Years – No Evidence of Jurisdiction

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 by Marc Stevens

    http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-drops-attack-six-years-no-evidence-jurisdiction.html

    You moronic psychopathic twits should know that tax cases are complete kangaroo courts. But of course you don’t. The judge lets the IRS get away with everything. Breaking court rules, breaking laws, no evidence, no witness at all and more, on and on.

  88. spooky2th Says:

    icbm: There can’t be any evidence.

    So, it’s purely theoretical.

    icbm: No…

    What a joke you are, icbm. No evidence, it has to be theoretical.

  89. ICBMCatcher Says:

    <<>> DO NOT HIRE stevens UNTIL YOU SEE THE INFORMATION ON THIS LINK. HE CLAIMED A 70% – 75% SUCCESS RATE <<>> INFO FOUND AT THIS LINK IS MUST READ! >>>
    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens
    <<>>

  90. juan galt Says:

    Spooky – I finally understand! If Marc’s followers are as stupid as you, no wonder he has drones.

    Did you not read the link about the IRS you provided – NOT A SUCCESS. If you could read, the IRS was after this person for tax years: 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13. The letter Marc says covers 6 years, ONLY applies to tax year ending 12/31/2012 – 1 year. The letter said NOTHING about NO EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION. You and Marc are lying. They are still after him for the other years.

    READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. LEARN TO DO IT CORRECTLY!

  91. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Of course … of course ! It’s the system, not the now PROVEN fact that stevens is full of #@#%

    It’s a kangaroo court, not the now PROVEN fallacy of stevens effectiveness

    stevens has been gull of @#% since day one … anyone that would hire this guy should have bail $$ ready!

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    Yours truly, ICBMCatcher

  92. spooky2th Says:

    You psychopathic twits make your selves look more ridiculous with each post!

    The last sentence of the letter: “Your tax issue with the IRS has been resolved for tax years 2008 thru 2013.”

    Now that’s the “FULL” six (6) years!

    http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IRSReponse-2008-2013.jpg

    You a 2 psychopathic twits should take your own advice and actually read…

  93. spooky2th Says:

    “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

    “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

    US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

    A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

    “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

    “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

    “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

    “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

    “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

    “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

    ************************************
    “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
    ************************************

    “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

    “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

    “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

    “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

    “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

  94. juan galt Says:

    Spooky
    Yeah he paid them for those years. It was only 2012 that he didn’t have to pay. Duh

  95. Andy Says:

    The 12 court rulings posted above say jurisdiction must be proven. That pretty much explains why ICBMCatcher is the only one saying there can’t be evidence proving jurisdiction, which he has said several times.

    And explains why no one who has called in to the No State Project live broadcast has ever mentioned a judge or prosecutor said there can’t be evidence.

    ICBMCather says there can’t be evidence with such conviction that it’s true, you can hear it in his voice. He’s damn certain there can’t be evidence. Apparently juan galt believes ICBMCatcher is right/correct.

    Don’t take my word for it, listen to ICBMCatcher say it with such certainty in his voice/demeanor, for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI&feature=youtu.be&t=4899

    Apparently juan galt believes ICBMCatcher is right/correct.

  96. Andy Says:

    My diagnosis is that ICMBCatcher is delusional. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the conversation and decide for yourself: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65660.html#pid65660

  97. spooky2th Says:

    Galt said, “Spooky
    Yeah he paid them for those years. It was only 2012 that he didn’t have to pay. Duh”

    Me thinks you are mixed up again, as usual. Where is there any mention of paying for any of the six years??? (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

    IRS Drops Attack For Six Years – No Evidence of Jurisdiction
    Posted on February 6th, 2015 by Marc Stevens
    http://marcstevens.net/articles/irs-drops-attack-six-years-no-evidence-jurisdiction.html

    If you could point out exactly what you are talking about at the link just above, I would admit (unlike you would) being wrong here.

  98. juan galt Says:

    Spooky

    In IRS speak “resolved” means that the tax was paid. Otherwise they would haven’t separated out 2012, for which no tax was owed, from the other years. The letter says NOTHING about “no evidence of jurisdiction”. Marc relies on this saying “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled.”

    Check out:
    US v Edwards, No. 05-8085 (10th. Cir. 3/27/2006)
    US v Fitzpatrick, No. 13-30154 (9th Cir. 6/25/2014)
    Weatherford v Dept of Homeland Security, No. 13-1339, (4th Cir. 9/19/13)
    Scott Banfield v. State of Indiana, No. 02A04-1210-IF-536 (Ct. App. Ind. 7/16/2013)
    Ian Bernard, aka Ian Freeman, Dept. of Safety Hearing #13-8519, Report of Hearing Examiner (8/6/13)
    US v Crisandra J. Thornton et al.//, No. 0:13-mc-00087 (U.S.D.C. Minn. 8/1/2014)
    US v James R. Back, case no. 3:14-cr-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
    US v James Witt, case no. 15-cv-00418, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno Div. 2015)

    ALL lost using Marc’s motions and BS.

  99. NonEntity Says:

    HEY!!! Y’all be ignorin’ my authority!!! STOP, I SAY. STOP!!!

  100. Wise One Says:

    All of this proves what Oscar Wilde said “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

  101. juan galt Says:

    NonE – YOU my friend have a great sense of humor!

  102. NonEntity Says:

    See, I wrote some sit down and publicly posted it. That makes it the LAW, (Right? Idn’t that right? Ain’t that how laws is made?) I DEMAND y’all quit it. Ya hear? In the name of the LAW I DEMAND this. And don’t go askin’ ’bout no jurisdiction… I HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL A YOUSE. Now quit it!

  103. NonEntity Says:

    That’s better. I’m sorry I had to get nasty, but sometimes force is necessary to get other people to do what you think they should do.

  104. spooky2th Says:

    One of the other letters had several years in it. And the letter said “based on what you have provided.” The only thing that was provided was there’s no evidence of jurisdiction, where is it??? There is no evidence that anything was paid! For any of the six years!

    Marc, has said that if it get’s to court, there’s practically no hope. In my checking out some cases, I saw that the judge let’s the irs get away with murder. Irs in court is a totally rigged game against the people.

  105. juan galt Says:

    Spooky
    Yeah he provided money, in other words he had paid his taxes those years and he proved it. Any issues/questions for those years had been “resolved”. Why else would they separate 2012 from the others? Because he didn’t owe any taxes for 2012 – nothing to “resolve”. The other years he did. Where’s your proof that the “only provided was there’s no evidence of jurisdiction”? Look at the cases I gave you. Read them – they say that Marc’s claim there is no evidence of jurisdiction is WITHOUT MERIT AND FRIVOLOUS! The Court even fined one of Marc’s “clients” $6000 for making such a stupid claim.

    If you want to see the TRUTH about how the Court rules on Marc’s motions and interpretations of legal procedure and law read a case with ALL the info shown –

    US v James Witt, case no. 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno Div. 2015) at http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens. Read ’em and weep!

  106. John Cokos Says:

    Well, I’ve some experience with the IRS, and the standing argument will never fly in IRSLand. Like flies on a elephant’s ass. The system has a multitude of flaw’s that are right out there if you want too give them a run for their money. Simplistic Sophistry is a fools undertaking.
    There was another fellow named Luis Ewing on the net who used to make all the usual nonsense on how to beat the IRS. Ewing and his ilk for the most part are in in jail, testimony to who has “jurisdiction” and “standing”.
    I would think that a $6,000 fine would be an eye opener on just how dangerous
    Marc’s “Remote Viewing” note taking is.

  107. spooky2th Says:

    testimony to who has “jurisdiction” and “standing”.

    Actually testimony to the irs and/or govt criminality.

  108. spooky2th Says:

    Still no proof, galt. The last letter, it was just a form letter. All years were noted and said resolved. It is written on the web site what they gave to the irs. They challenged jurisdiction and got it recorded what was said. Now the irs will not talk on the phone and answer questions about jurisdiction, proof and etc. Especially if they know they are being recorded.

  109. spooky2th Says:

    This irs case was won by an attorney that was being attacked by the irs. They went after his main home and got it, then started after his get-away or vacation home. He was challenging jurisdiction all the way and was being ignored. When they went after his second home he discovered that the federal court it’s self had no jurisdiction over anybody that did not reside in DC or any of the territories. He challenged the court’s jurisdiction and the judges walked away. They never came back to the case to rule up or down.

    https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

  110. JOHN COKOS Says:

    Spooky2th: This case just reenforces that Jurisdiction is geographic and a subject matter issue. The only other cause for the IRS to walk away is that like any other for profit organization is that it wouldn’t be cost effective from the standpoint for a labor intensive response

  111. desertspeaks Says:

    @ juan galt “amusing that you can’t even get my id correct when it’s printed in front of you,. desert not dessert, tard much?”

    Imagine my lack of shock that you’re obviously a melting snowflake participation trophy failure who desperately needs to be spoon fed the proof you were too incompetent to locate on your own because it’s sooooo hard to READ THE EVIDENCE! http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/jerry-dismissal.jpg

    READ WHAT THE JUDGE WROTE ON THE TICKET!

  112. juan galt Says:

    Dessert
    I purposely used “dessert” because you sound like a “candy” ass. You Spooners are slow witted and have no sense of humor or sarcasm.Only NonE is sharp. That first link you posted @12:45 is NOT a court case.

    I’ve looked at Marc’s “successes” and none provide real evidence of the grounds for any dismissals – just Marc’s word or the ONE page of the Order without showing the grounds in full. I’ve got in my hands and have given you links to copies of the actual court pleadings, IN FULL – not just the Order page. Copies of Marc’s motions are there in full and the Courts specifically addresses the points he makes. You’ve heard them all – no jurisdiction can be proven, the constitution and laws can’t be proven to apply just because I’m in a geographic location, no first hand knowledge, non-sequitur, circular logic, logic fallacy, double standard, they are all there at that link. They are copies of the actual papers filed with the Court. The Court said Marc’s points are bullshit, and one guy Marc “helped” got fined $6000 for filing Marc’s motions.

    What the hell more do you need to snap you out of your trance?

  113. juan galt Says:

    Dessert
    The 2nd link you posted at 1:19 pm. ANYBODY could have written that – a judge issues a formal order – not “hen scratches”. You do know what a Court order looks like, right?

  114. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Where is the evidence the judge wrote that? Looks like someone who is not a judge’s handwriting.

    Something is fishy here …

    Suspiciously, ICBMCatcher

  115. spooky2th Says:

    The judges walked away, not the irs. It would be a crime them to rule against or give orders to anybody that does not reside in DC or any of the territories. They would be criminal no matter how they ruled, up or down. He was challenging the irs/prosecution jurisdiction the whole time. Then researching, he found the reality of the court and challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

    And this case only proves/shows more govt/irs criminality.

    No matter what govt or country, collectivism is wrong, criminal. Forcing people to pay you money is criminal, immoral, unethical and plain wrong. Obey or else, pay up or else! Opinions backed up by men with guns.

    And no matter what is written on any paper, there are no actual facts that prove territorial jurisdiction.

  116. juan galt Says:

    Hey ICBM
    Did you read about my former associate (may he rest in peace) Irwin Schiff at that website? It covers him too.

  117. ICBMCatcher Says:

    JG to deesert

    “purposely used “dessert” because you sound like a “candy” ass”

    hahah candy ass

    shaking head at how weak the the Spoonerville “legal team” is getting, ICBMCatcher

  118. ICBMCatcher Says:

    JG to deesert

    “purposely used “dessert” because you sound like a “candy” ass”

    hahah candy ass … meaning he’s a light weight with no manly attributes, uses either bathroom

    shaking head at how weak the the Spoonerville “legal team” is getting, ICBMCatcher

  119. NonEntity Says:

    “Looks like someone who is not a judge’s handwriting.” WHAT???
    It just keeps getting better and better and more betterer. What would someone who IS a judge’s handwriting look like?

  120. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You see … NonE … judges write like judges, and people who are not judges don’t write like judges, it’s pretty darn simple.

  121. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Yet more of stevens — BS — EXPOSED ! In his conversation with me last week, I pressed him to give us a “success rate.” He said 70% to 75% but conveniently left out “because the cop doesn’t show up” which is why I called it a “tall claim” as soon as I heard it.

    Thousands of traffic citations a year, all over the country, are thrown out because the cop doesn’t show up. Does stevens smear a little snake oil on the courthouse steps to keep cops from entering the building? More evidence that in many of these cases, it’s nothing stevens does that gets a case thrown out.

    Listen to this!

    https://youtu.be/RNNnwBEJ928 at 6:44 stevens himself says he has 70% to 75% success rate BECAUSE THE COP DOESN’T SHOW UP

    Who would ever pay this guy a dime?!

    Slapin’ stevens around all over the internet, ICBMCatcher

  122. Andy Says:

    Interesting that ICBMCatcher doesn’t direct people to either of the two conversations with Marc and tell them, don’t just believe me. Listen to our conversation and decide for yourself.

    Listen to the above podcast recording. Or, listen to the combined two conversations in one YouTube video. The embedded video can be watched/listened to here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854.html

    Alos, there’s some interesting conversation on that forum thread.

  123. desertspeaks Says:

    @ juan galt, do you recall where on youtube you postbragged about suing private corporations: QUOTE ” Hint: I made my money suing corporations and govt when they violated the rights of one of We the People. Of course, there is always a chance that I’m using a nom de plume.”
    Do you recall saying that?? you should really go after reddit facebook google et al, for censoring “what’s that one right called again? oh yeah, free speech” you could make a bundle, right?? Oh that’s right, your claim was a BLATANT LIE!

  124. juan galt Says:

    dessert
    Are those businesses subject to the 1st Amendment? Can’t you exercise that right elsewhere? You choose to partake of their service – you are not forced to use those businesses. If you don’t get what you want from them, here no censorship, don’t use them. Start your own business.

    I didn’t make all my money litigating the wrong issues.

  125. Ben Says:

    “Patience is bitter, but it’s fruit is sweet.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    Well done Marc (slow clap), well done. 🙂

  126. desertspeaks Says:

    well juan galt, what rights do you speak of it doesn’t include freedom of speech??
    Be specific and post a link to ANY case you were personally involved in where YOU WON that money you postbragged about.. I’ll bet you not only won’t but YOU CAN’T because it never happened! You’re a liar!

  127. juan galt Says:

    dessert
    Not an argument.

  128. NonEntity Says:

    dessert
    Vanilla ice cream, with sprinkles.

  129. Andy Says:

    desert said: “I’ll bet you not only won’t but YOU CAN’T because it never happened! You’re a liar!”

    jaun has no argument with that.

  130. juan galt Says:

    Andy shows he is ignorant of my favorite and one of the most popular anarchists on YouTube, who uses “Not an argument” with those who use personal attacks instead of rational discussion.

  131. Andy Says:

    There’s a slew of things I’m ignorant (without knowledge) of. I have learned over the last two weeks to have zero respect for you — you’re irrelevant — you don’t matter. Which is why for the most part I ignore you.

  132. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Andy Says:
    February 26th, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    … Which is why for the most part I ignore you.

    You wish you could ignore juan galt. You’re praying he just goes away, because he makes you, and your fearless leader look like nothing more than petulant school boys, especially stevens.

    I learned only today how deep stevens ignorance runs, how truly absurd his schtick is. The atomic rebuttal to stevens entire act … the crusher … the harbinger of his doom, is all around you. Beware the ides of March.

    Ominously, ICBMCatcher

  133. Andy Says:

    Listen to the discussion of Marc Stevens and ICBMCatcher: Listen and you decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI

    Interesting that ICBMCatcher has not, as far as I know, told anyone to listen to the discussion and decide for themselves.

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