Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

    ksp
    ksp
    Dedicated Investor
    Dedicated Investor


    Posts : 221
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case Empty Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

    Post by ksp Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:45 am

    http://musicians4freedom.com/2013/01/bureaucrats-never-have-a-case/

    This page has the full version E- book of "Adventures in Legal Land"
    Takes a while to listen, Stevens explains his view of what is really going on with Govt. and law.


    .
    ksp
    ksp
    Dedicated Investor
    Dedicated Investor


    Posts : 221
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case Empty Re: Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

    Post by ksp Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:06 am

    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case


    January 18, 2013 by Vengeancia Ed. Note: Here’s a Marc Stevens playlist. Here’s a sovereignty-related playlist. Who are you? Check out Fundamentals of Contract Law. Read Fundamentals of Agency Law by Luigi Fascati. Read Stating Your Claim. Read about common law and UCC.

    Freedom School
    It doesn’t matter what “charge”, indictment or complaint is brought
    against someone by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their
    very nature dictates they can’t. While many would cry out in protest, no
    doubt those invested economically and/or emotionally in statism, it is
    nonetheless an accurate statement.

    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case StockholmSyndrome.001-500x373Courts, Police, Attorneys: Family substitutes?
    This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use statism against itself to prove it. By statism, I mean the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.
    Statism
    is mind control; people surrender their property to men and women
    pretending to be “governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe
    they are “citizens” of a so-called “state” and “must pay their fair
    share.” Talk about abstract concepts.


    Because of these
    beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending to be a “cop” or “state
    attorney” files a “complaint” against a statist, no attention is paid to
    the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending he has a
    client, the so-called “state attorney.” The issue of standing is a great
    way of demonstrating these absurdities. One of these is, despite the
    fact a “complaint” is filed, there is no “case” presented to the
    “court.” Statist programming equates “complaint” with “case.” People
    under the influence of such programming don’t challenge what a “cop” or
    “state” attorney files as both are perceived as “authority figures.” By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint” presents a “case” to a court.

    Fast Tube by Casper
    Standing
    is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his
    capacity to act in a particular instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary,
    page 1209. The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States
    Supreme Court” have written: “In essence the question of standing is
    whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of
    the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
    If
    a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are
    legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only
    adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430.
    Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government”
    is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements. People under the
    influence of statist mind control automatically start trying to find
    “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”, the
    government. This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome.
    And
    make no mistake, this is considered a very important issue by the
    “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are the
    defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in
    regards to the NSA spying program. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s
    first line of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote
    about the elements of standing:
    The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) [emphasis mine].

    Fast Tube by Casper
    This
    of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States”
    “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a
    court may proceed: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…”:
    “The
    case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal
    judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III doctrine that
    requires a litigant to have “standing” to invoke the power of a federal
    court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.
    More
    explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government)
    recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to
    secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the
    Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and
    maintain individual rights.” Article II § 2 (emphasis mine).

    Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case Iceburg-of-FreedomWhat lurks beneath? The shadow government.
    This
    means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain
    individual rights.” The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this
    principal: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted. See Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405
    Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.

    Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended “state” and “United States” attorneys.
    First,
    we’ll look at a traffic case, such as failure to wear a seatbelt.
    Traffic cases represent a significant source of energy stolen from
    people every year. I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt; the “case”
    is called State of Arizona v. Marc Stevens.
    One of two
    requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…”
    Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a
    “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt? Of course not: that’s one
    essential element missing, I’ve already established the pretended
    plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the
    dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don’t wear a seatbelt.
    The
    other requirement is the violation of a legal right. Has the “State of
    Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I violated the pretended “state’s” rights?
    Again, not a chance. According to the “Supreme Court,” there is no
    standing to complain against me regardless of the fact I may not have
    had a seatbelt on.
    Now we’ll look at a “tax” case; “willful
    failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called
    “indictments” and there is no standing, ever. Even if you’ve never read
    such “indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of
    personal injury and the violation of a legal right. No, all they do is
    write the defendant “violated the law.”
    However, just being
    accused of “violating a law” does not mean my failure to file a “tax
    return” violated someone’s legal rights and caused an injury. Statists
    would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal right to receive a
    “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of “tax
    revenue.” There are several problems with such a argument though.
    First,
    the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second,
    it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those
    allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where,
    when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts
    are alleged, then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with
    personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.
    No
    attempt is made to put such allegations in an “indictment” because it’s
    impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a “tax
    return” was created. To prove an obligation or legal right was created,
    there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and
    the person who allegedly has this obligation. Statists immediately point
    out the “constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose
    big time.

    Fast Tube by Casper
    No
    connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution”
    is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one and
    created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and
    thirty years ago. Unless you believe in magic, placing the words
    “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on
    someone two hundred and thirty years later.
    The “constitution” is a
    very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism.
    Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is applicable
    or relevant; it’s one of the most sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I
    have had experience with, like most people, assume the “constitution”
    applies to everyone. No thought is given to any facts to prove where,
    when, why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone. It is very
    unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the facts his
    opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has
    not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality
    ripped apart.
    A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the “United States” had a right to the property in question

    …or the “required” action. If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).
    It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner
    for not paying his “protection” money. Think big Al would have standing?
    Last,
    let’s look at a drug case. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my
    property. The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the
    world from my plants. Surprisingly, the requirements for standing are
    not the raiding of my garden by troops armed with machine guns, they
    are: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.
    What
    legal right have I allegedly violated by growing plants? None. Has the
    growing of plants on my property caused any “personal injury” to the
    non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again, there’s no personal injury of
    any kind. No standing, no case.
    Consider that legally, or
    “constitutionally,” the botanical warriors may not even look at my
    property unless there is “probable cause” or “reasonable articulable
    suspicion” I am violating someone’s legal rights: “governments…are
    established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
    Notice in
    the cases cited above there are no “legal” or “constitutional”
    exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or religious
    objections. Just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” or against their
    religion to grow or possess marijuana, does not confer standing to
    complain. This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a
    “legislature.”

    Fast Tube by Casper
    Now
    some may protest by bringing up the murder argument, certainly there is
    the 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Not even in a
    murder case is there standing to complain. Why? Because it has to be a
    “personal injury” to the plaintiff: “A plaintiff must allege personal
    injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct
    and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).
    The
    plaintiff is literally a spoken and written phrase, an abstraction
    called the “State of Arizona”, and is, at best, a fictional third party.
    The “Supreme Court” has repeatedly held: “we have explained that
    prudential standing encompasses “the general prohibition on a litigant’s
    raising another person’s legal rights…” Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
    And
    there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part of, or a member
    of, the so-called “State of Arizona” because there is no such thing as
    the “State of Arizona.” As I’ve written in my book Adventures in Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State Project, there are no such things as “ citizens” and “states”.
    Ad
    hominem attacks such as “Marc doesn’t want people to wear seatbelts”
    are classic diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of
    statist mind control (remember the Stockholm syndrome).
    The fact bureaucrats never have a case has nothing to do with my
    opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because it’s a safety
    issue), it’s because…
    governments
    are gangs of killers, thieves and liars. There is no such thing as a
    legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate


    …regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up.

    Fast Tube by Casper
    Government
    is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get
    shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide
    their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so,
    they cease to be a government. That’s quite the conundrum.
    Either
    you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you don’t.
    Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary are,
    medically speaking, anti-social. Not un-social, but anti-social as in
    “sociopath” and “psychopath”. I believe all human interaction should be
    voluntary, so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder
    should not be held accountable are ridiculous.
    Just using statism
    against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what
    they “charge” someone with. That’s because statism and it’s supporting
    theology are not here to promote freedom or protect “Life, Liberty, and
    the Pursuit of Happiness”; it’s mind control to divert our attention
    away from the actions of anti-social individuals who are so desperate to
    “protect” us they are willing to kill us and steal our property.
    Written by Marc Stevens
    Tuesday, 21 November 2006
    © 2008 Adventures In Legal Land
    ——-
    Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:

    1. common law
    2. equity
    3. admiralty
    4. maritime
    At the common law- a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.
    In equity-
    otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is
    involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract
    and damages.
    Maritime
    or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the
    high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military
    organizations.
    Admiralty- is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)
    All
    birth certificates, licenses, registrations, insurances, bank accounts,
    permits, titles, deeds, etc. are commercial contracts created under the
    UCC – (Uniform Commercial Code) and this is where the
    confusion begins. Most people do not know that commercial law cannot
    regulate private dealings between civilians much less where to draw the
    line. Read more.

    Fast Tube by Casper
    Fundamentals of Agency Law
    The relationship between an agent and his principal is created by
    contract. Under the Agency Contract the agent is given authority to do
    certain things in his principal’s place. In exchange for the service
    provided by the agent to act on his principal’s behalf, the principal
    pays the agent a fee or commission.
    Agents are not employees. The
    distinction between an agent and an employee is the degree of control
    and method of remuneration. A principal tells the agent what he wants
    and leaves it to the agent how to bring about the result. An employer,
    on the other hand, tells the employee what to do and how to do it.
    Furthermore, the agent is usually paid by way of a commission that
    becomes payable only when he brings in the result.
    An employee,
    instead, expects to be remunerated for the number of hours he works
    regardless of whether or not the result is accomplished. Real Estate
    Agents are a particular kind of agents. A real estate agent acts on
    behalf of his principal, almost always the Seller, but can also act on
    behalf of a Buyer and can, in fact, act on behalf of both Seller and
    Buyer at the same time subject to certain restrictions. The contract
    that spells out the terms and conditions of the authority confered by a
    Seller to the real estate agent is called the Listing Agreement. With
    the Buyer, the name changes to Buyer’s Agency Agreement.
    Based
    upon the wording of the contractual agreement between the principal and
    the agent, the authority to act confered upon the agent falls into one
    or more than one of the following categories. The agent’s authority to
    act can be express, implied, , by ratification, , usual, and apparent.
    Express Authority

    Express
    authority is the authority given by to the agent by the contract. The
    contract can be in writing or verbal. Real estate agents are given
    usually express authority under a Listing Agreement and here in British
    Columbia all listing agreements involving land or an interest in land (
    such as a lease ) must be in writing in order to be enforceable,
    pursuant to the Real Estate Services Act . It must be understood that a
    listing agreement is not a contract to sell or otherwise convey an
    interest in land but, rather, an agreement by and through which one
    party ( the Agent ) agrees to market an interest in land and the other
    party ( the Principal ) agrees to pay a commission on completion.
    Implied Authority

    Even
    when precise words are used in the express authority, an agent may find
    himself in circumstances where the acts he wants to do are not covered
    by those words. It is sometimes possible to imply authority from the
    precise words. More specifically, an agent would have implied authority
    to carry out an act if the agent has no choice but to do it in order to
    fulfill his express authority. For example, a real estate agent’s
    authority may be only to sell a certain parcel of land or a certain
    house for his principal. The agent may wish to show the property to
    prospective purchasers during the owner’s absence. If the agent had no
    authority to do so both he and the prospective purchasers would be
    trespassers and, therefore, liable to the owner in damages. Because
    showing a property is necessary and incidental to effecting a sale, the
    agent can imply the authority proximately from his express authority,
    provided nothing in the contract states otherwise.
    Authority by Ratification

    Sometimes
    an authority can be created retroactively. For example, where an agent
    enters into a contract on behalf of his principal but the contract is
    beyond the agent’s express authority, he can be given authority in the
    past. This is done by ratification. If the principal consents after the
    fact to be bound by the unauthorized acts of his agent, he has ratified
    the contract. The end result is, therefore, that the principal is bound
    by the contract just as if the agent had been so authorized in the first
    place.

    Fast Tube by Casper
    Usual Authority

    Usual
    authority arises when an agent is engaged by the principal to act in a
    particular transaction and such transaction is governed by ‘customs of
    the trade’ . In such case the principal is considered to have consented
    to the agent acting in accordance with such customs, as long as they are
    lawful and reasonable and the principal has not indicated otherwise.
    Apparent Authority

    Under
    certain circumstances, furthermore, an agent can bind his principal to a
    third party even though the agent was not authorized to do so. This
    arises where a principal has acted in such a way that he leads third
    parties to believe his agent has authority to perform certain acts on
    his behalf. If the third party deals with the agent in the bona fide
    belief that the agent has the authority represented, it is called
    apparent authority.
    In general, any person of sound mind can act
    as an agent, since the agent does not need to have the capacity to
    contract out that the principal must have ( refer to my Article entitled
    ‘Fundamentals of Contract Law’ for further information ). As a result,
    an infant agent ( i.e. an agent under the age of majority ) can
    negotiate a binding contract between the principal and a third party.
    The infant agent is, however, a party to the agency contract and could
    therefore use his own incapacity to contract out to repudiate the agency
    contract with his own principal. Luigi Frascati

    Fast Tube by Casper

    Fast Tube by Casper

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Current date/time is Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:09 am