+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: No STATE Projects (/forum-15.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-21.html)
+--- Thread: Standing (/thread-631.html)
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-21-2010 08:32 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:Second: What if Marc's argument works just as well for a murderer or someone who clearly stole valuables, should we still exploit it to get out of trouble?
All murderers require food in order to be strong enough to kill their victims. Therefore all food should be outlawed! It's obvious.
- NonE
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-21-2010 11:25 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:Two things: I only say Marc's argument meaning...The Argument Marc wants me to make. Or.... If you prefer, the Questions Marc wants me to ask.
Second: What if Marc's argument works just as well for a murderer or someone who clearly stole valuables, should we still exploit it to get out of trouble?
In response to the second, I think I've said it many times, I really can't see anyone who is aware of the fraud that is the system assisting a murderer in defending prosecution.
But, how do you exploit an exploitative system? That's like slaves finding the underground railroad to escape the plantation and asking is it right to use because bad slaves may use it. You can't agree it's fraud in one instance and then ignore the fraud for your own ends.
Everything is inherently good and bad, right and wrong, there is no escaping it. It's what we do within situations that determine our own character. You can't change the character of others. And if you believe it's better to have an organized band of liars, thieves, and murderers who monopolize lies, thievery and murder, over those who don't, then you only allow the monopoly to get better at it, further reducing your ability to protect yourself from them.
~Nomos 8)
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-22-2010 12:00 AM
NonEntity Wrote:holipsism Wrote:How can "The State" satisfy anything when THERE IS NO STATE? ???[move]...:bootyshake:
[center]Kudos, Dude!
Kudos![/center]
- NonE
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-22-2010 08:23 PM
Nomos Wrote:In response to the second, I think I've said it many times, I really can't see anyone who is aware of the fraud that is the system assisting a murderer in defending prosecution.
That could be true, but it's not like this forum or Marc's book are under lock and key. The information makes its way around.
I also tend to disagree about anyone actually stepping in to help out a murderer. I know Marc talks a lot about how lawyers try to keep this information "secret" for one reason or another, but that makes little sense to me. If you have a fool proof argument to win any case, why wouldn't a lawyer exploit that information? If lawyers are as crooked as Marc makes them out to be, I can't see why they wouldn't be using this info all the time to get clients out of trouble, whether the charge be speeding, drug dealing, or murder and rape.
As for me, I think you should use whatever information you like, no matter who might exploit it. I just don't think it's going to be very effective when a judge will know letting a drug abuser off the hook this week based on the "no state" argument could lead to a murderer getting off the hook next week using the same argument. I know the phrase PR gets used a lot here in reference to judges trying to save face. How does it look for the PR if they let you off for speeding this week because they decide there's no evidence of a State, but then next week they either need to let a rapist off the hook cause there's no state, or come up with a reason why there's evidence of a state's existence when the charge is rape?
If the whole point is to make the judge look like an idiot to reveal corruption or fight the system, then I think Marc might be on to something, but if the goal is damage control, I would personally prefer to avoid making a fool out of a judge in his courtroom 5 minutes before he decides the outcome of my case.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-22-2010 08:24 PM
NonEntity Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:Second: What if Marc's argument works just as well for a murderer or someone who clearly stole valuables, should we still exploit it to get out of trouble?
All murderers require food in order to be strong enough to kill their victims. Therefore all food should be outlawed! It's obvious.
- NonE
So... You've come crawling back to the debate, eh?
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-22-2010 09:18 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:NonEntity Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:Second: What if Marc's argument works just as well for a murderer or someone who clearly stole valuables, should we still exploit it to get out of trouble?
All murderers require food in order to be strong enough to kill their victims. Therefore all food should be outlawed! It's obvious.
- NonE
So... You've come crawling back to the debate, eh?
LOL, good one skinny.
Unreal that his thread has dragged on, so far off topic. Marc admits in one of his recent shows, that civil standing does not apply to criminal cases. I forget which show it was, but bet I could find it. I commend you for that Marc, you are being honest.
In my cases, I've got this judge do damn pissed off, he's screwing up left and right. Next complaint to Judicial standards commission comming up, and first complaint to the FBI soon to follow. All for a mere 200 clams. 3rd prosecutor (got the last prick removed) 2nd judge(soon to have a major conflict as I make my complaints), and 14 months, and I STILL HAVE MADE NO PLEA!!!! I love it. I hope it goes another year, as I live to fight with judges, lawyers, and cops. I F'N love it.
As Ray from the trailer park boys would say-"That's the way she F'N goes". :winkwink:
You know, when you plant shit seeds, you get shit plants.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-23-2010 11:39 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:Nomos Wrote:In response to the second, I think I've said it many times, I really can't see anyone who is aware of the fraud that is the system assisting a murderer in defending prosecution.
That could be true, but it's not like this forum or Marc's book are under lock and key. The information makes its way around.
I also tend to disagree about anyone actually stepping in to help out a murderer. I know Marc talks a lot about how lawyers try to keep this information "secret" for one reason or another, but that makes little sense to me. If you have a fool proof argument to win any case, why wouldn't a lawyer exploit that information? If lawyers are as crooked as Marc makes them out to be, I can't see why they wouldn't be using this info all the time to get clients out of trouble, whether the charge be speeding, drug dealing, or murder and rape.
As for me, I think you should use whatever information you like, no matter who might exploit it. I just don't think it's going to be very effective when a judge will know letting a drug abuser off the hook this week based on the "no state" argument could lead to a murderer getting off the hook next week using the same argument. I know the phrase PR gets used a lot here in reference to judges trying to save face. How does it look for the PR if they let you off for speeding this week because they decide there's no evidence of a State, but then next week they either need to let a rapist off the hook cause there's no state, or come up with a reason why there's evidence of a state's existence when the charge is rape?
If the whole point is to make the judge look like an idiot to reveal corruption or fight the system, then I think Marc might be on to something, but if the goal is damage control, I would personally prefer to avoid making a fool out of a judge in his courtroom 5 minutes before he decides the outcome of my case.
Fair enough, but I think you may be ignoring some critical factors.
The state is NOT REAL. It doesn't exist.
You're not making a fool out the judge. The judge is making a fool out him/her self. If the judge gets pissed it can only be because you can see behind the curtain, and now his leverage is gone and his illegitimacy is exposed.
Second, they're not going to "admit there is no state," then they'd have no jobs. Remember the first law of nature: self-preservation?
Third, and most importantly, I think you keep attributing the requirements to Marc, this IS NOT MARC speaking, IT'S THE COURT'S.
I take it you really haven't had any significant problems with the "state." Just a traffic ticket once in a blue moon or so?
~Nomos
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 12-23-2010 05:55 PM
I think it boils down to this:
There is not a valid cause of action for a speeding ticket. There IS a valid cause of action for rape or murder. The existence or non-existence of the state doesn't really enter into it to any significant degree.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-23-2010 10:27 PM
Dionysus Wrote:I think it boils down to this:
There is not a valid cause of action for a speeding ticket. There IS a valid cause of action for rape or murder. The existence or non-existence of the state doesn't really enter into it to any significant degree.
So, back to the same dumb fucked argument you need a "valid cause" or "standing" in a criminal case?
Jesus Christ, take some law class's so you don't post such retarded shit.
It's getting old girls, really fucking old.
None of you dumbass has been in court, I can see it now.
I have won cases for 10 years, and jerk off like you make me fucking sick with your stupid little arguments, that won't make it past a fucking lower case judge, let alone, a state judge, or state supreme court.
Knock off the stupidity, you are looking like a real dumbfuck. :mad:
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 12-23-2010 10:35 PM
^^ Just who do you think you're talking to???
Banned in 5... 4... 3...
And I thought you left. Remember that little tantrum you had? I do. That makes you a liar as well as an Internet bully.
At length, get welded. :bootyshake:
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-24-2010 03:27 AM
Dionysus Wrote:^^ Just who do you think you're talking to???
Banned in 5... 4... 3...
And I thought you left. Remember that little tantrum you had? I do. That makes you a liar as well as an Internet bully.
At length, get welded. :bootyshake:
Good, when I get banned, you better goddamn well take down everything I've posted.
Take your "civil standing in criminal cases" and shove it up your ass, god knows a judge will soon enough.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-24-2010 05:33 AM
Dionysus Wrote:^^ Just who do you think you're talking to???
Banned in 5... 4... 3...
And I thought you left. Remember that little tantrum you had? I do. That makes you a liar as well as an Internet bully.
At length, get welded. :bootyshake:
Don't waste your time. He is both an habitual liar and a troll. NEXT :rolleyes:
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-24-2010 05:47 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:So, back to the same dumb fucked argument you need a "valid cause" or "standing" in a criminal case?
Cone: Non-parties lack standing in criminal case
In U.S. v. Cone, No. 09-13824 (Dec. 17, 2010), the Court held that once the district court vacated its preliminary order of forfeiture, non-parties to the criminal proceeding lacked standing to challenge the district courtâs vacatur of the order of forfeiture. The Court noted that once the district court vacated the forfeiture order, nothing remained at stake in the criminal case for the non-parties, and they therefore lacked standing. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal, for lack of jurisdiction.
Damn, you are a dumb ass.
Re: Standing - Marc Stevens - 12-24-2010 09:59 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:I also tend to disagree about anyone actually stepping in to help out a murderer. I know Marc talks a lot about how lawyers try to keep this information "secret" for one reason or another, but that makes little sense to me. If you have a fool proof argument to win any case, why wouldn't a lawyer exploit that information? If lawyers are as crooked as Marc makes them out to be, I can't see why they wouldn't be using this info all the time to get clients out of trouble, whether the charge be speeding, drug dealing, or murder and rape.
As for me, I think you should use whatever information you like, no matter who might exploit it. I just don't think it's going to be very effective when a judge will know letting a drug abuser off the hook this week based on the "no state" argument could lead to a murderer getting off the hook next week using the same argument. I know the phrase PR gets used a lot here in reference to judges trying to save face. How does it look for the PR if they let you off for speeding this week because they decide there's no evidence of a State, but then next week they either need to let a rapist off the hook cause there's no state, or come up with a reason why there's evidence of a state's existence when the charge is rape?
If the whole point is to make the judge look like an idiot to reveal corruption or fight the system, then I think Marc might be on to something, but if the goal is damage control, I would personally prefer to avoid making a fool out of a judge in his courtroom 5 minutes before he decides the outcome of my case.
I don't think I wrote/said lawyers keep the info secret, I've mentioned they do not use the info to get complaints dismissed. The reason I give is one with a mountain of circumstantial evidence: money. There is more money taking huge retainers and going through a trial than getting it dismissed with a motion or impeaching witnesses at the preliminary hearing to determine probable cause.
While I do not advocate it with real crimes such as rape, yes, someone could very well use the "no state argument" in a rape proceeding. They need to be able to prove presence within the state and there won't be a competent witness to that. Just as the Wright brothers were probably horrified their invention was used as a tool of mass destruction, I would not want to see someone use my material if they have committed a real crime.
Damage control does not consist in only making the judge contradict himself. I have always said to scapegoat someone other than the judge and the system itself. That scapegoat is usually the cop or tax agent and is very easy for the judge to take the heat off himself or the criminal system he administers.
Soooo, the cop is not summonsed to appear or is declared incompetent. Path of least resistance.
Re: Standing - Marc Stevens - 12-24-2010 10:07 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:Dionysus Wrote:I think it boils down to this:
There is not a valid cause of action for a speeding ticket. There IS a valid cause of action for rape or murder. The existence or non-existence of the state doesn't really enter into it to any significant degree.
So, back to the same dumb fucked argument you need a "valid cause" or "standing" in a criminal case?
Jesus Christ, take some law class's so you don't post such retarded shit.
It's getting old girls, really fucking old.
None of you dumbass has been in court, I can see it now.
I have won cases for 10 years, and jerk off like you make me fucking sick with your stupid little arguments, that won't make it past a fucking lower case judge, let alone, a state judge, or state supreme court.
Knock off the stupidity, you are looking like a real dumbfuck. :mad:
Do us all a favor, if you disagree with an argument/idea or whatever, then take issue with that. Don't make such profane personal attacks. Leave that behavior for the pro-government extremists.