Marc Stevens: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

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.


.

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.

Courts, 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.
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].
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).

What 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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

Be Sociable, Share!