Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

NonEntity · 02-20-2011, 04:45 PM

Micah68 Wrote:To sum of what I've read here so far:

1. The "assistance" provided by Marc Stevens consists mainly (entirely?) of providing questions like...

Actually the value that Marc provides is the opening up of one's mind by the examination of the factual nature of the situation one often finds oneself in, as opposed to the mythology you seem to be hanging on to.

FACTUALLY, what is a state?
FACTUALLY, what is a tax?
FACTUALLY, what is jurisdiction?
and so on...

Micah68 Wrote:Does Stevens charge money for this kind of "assistance," or does he give it away?

Both. He provides an enormous amount of his thinking and his experience for free on the radio and on his web site. He also provides a book wherein he has tried to make his thinking as clear as possible in a structured venue. And he also provides workshops for which he charges a very nominal fee.

Keep in mind, ALL of what Marc does is done between voluntary participants seeking mutual gain. NOTHING that Marc does involves threats or actual forceful interventions in the lives of others.

Do you have a problem with someone sharing his ideas with someone else for a fee? How do you earn the money to put food on YOUR table?

- NonE

Zyrq · 02-20-2011, 07:11 PM

Micah68 Wrote:That's it? You really want to live or die on that argument?

Who says that my reply was supposed to be considered as a "live or die argument". I doubt those judges care about any of the arguments "tax payers" try making.
I basically wanted to point out that your example, accidentally or intentionally, missed the issue...
Letâs step a little bit back?!

Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state?
The agent would also have difficulty proving that Edwards was a human being, that the earth is round, or that the sky is up.

Whether the agent would "have difficulty proving" something, is not the main issue! The main issue is - why that agent has to prove anything,...or "what" and "why" that agent "claims" and "demands" something. Got that?
--So wonder why that agent would have to prove there is a "State"? Well maybe because his/her accusation, that someone's a tax payer, is based on the "belief" that "tax payers" are subjects to "jurisdiction" due to them being born and/or being physically located in the "State" and have some income which is "taxable"? And if that agent has difficulty proving any of that, then why would I give away my money I've spent a part of my life to get? Consider this, if someone would come to you and say that you have to pay him 30% of your monthly income because you are allegedly a martian and you, in fact, live on Mars, and if you won't comply with his request he'll put you in a cage,...does that scenario look ok to you? Is it you who has to prove you're not on Mars? If you think you do, then good luck, but I don't. And if he has "difficulties proving" he's right, then why the heck should his "demand" be satisfied? ... Ahhh, of course,... because he has a gun and a cage...

--Now you tell me WHY would that agent have to prove "that the earth is round, or that the sky is up."?

02-20-2011, 10:00 PM

Dionysus Wrote:Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist

I didn't know that it was necessary to prove that "a state" exists. I thought that was sort of a given.

States are referred to in the constitution. Are you saying that the constitution is wrong. or are you saying that the constitution doesn't exist?

02-20-2011, 10:18 PM

NonEntity Wrote:FACTUALLY, what is a state?

FACTUALLY, what is "is"?

FACTUALLY, what is "what"?

Do you see where I'm going here? Sophistry can be a two-edged sword.

NonEntity Wrote:Do you have a problem with someone sharing his ideas with someone else for a fee? How do you earn the money to put food on YOUR table?

I share my ideas with other people for a fee. Do you have a problem with that?

02-20-2011, 10:25 PM

Zyrq Wrote:
Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state?
The agent would also have difficulty proving that Edwards was a human being, that the earth is round, or that the sky is up.
Whether the agent would "have difficulty proving" something, is not the main issue!

Mr. Zyrg, meet Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens, meet Mr. Zyrg.

Mr. Stevens believes that the agent admitting that he could not prove that Mr. Edwards was within a "state" had significance.

Mr. Zyrg says that whether the agent could prove something is "not the main issue."

As soon as you two agree on the "main issue," I'll explain why you're wrong. But I don't want to waste time addressing an issue that might have no significance to one or both of you.

Dionysus · 02-20-2011, 10:50 PM

Micah68 Wrote:States are referred to in the constitution. Are you saying that the constitution is wrong. or are you saying that the constitution doesn't exist?

FACTUALLY, what is the "constitution?"

Hint: It's 4 unsigned pieces of paper.

02-21-2011, 01:06 AM

Micah68 Wrote:You're saying that there's no such place as Wyoming? That the maps of the United States showing a rectangular area marked "Wyoming" are all wrong?

What was the name of that area before someone marked it and named it Wyoming? The reason why this thread keeps going on and on and on is because I KNOW you haven't listened to one broadcast of the show. You keep raising irrelevant points. How they hell do you injure a rectangular area marked "Wyoming" on a map? how are you obligated to pay that rectangular area marked "Wyoming" on a map taxes? How do you cross examine a rectangular area marked "Wyoming" on a map when it supposedly accuses you of injuring it? I mean, damn son....wow.

Brickwall

02-21-2011, 02:57 AM

Zyrq Wrote:
Micah68 Wrote:That's it? You really want to live or die on that argument?

Who says that my reply was supposed to be considered as a "live or die argument". I doubt those judges care about any of the arguments "tax payers" try making.
I basically wanted to point out that your example, accidentally or intentionally, missed the issue...
Letâs step a little bit back?!

Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state?
The agent would also have difficulty proving that Edwards was a human being, that the earth is round, or that the sky is up.

Whether the agent would "have difficulty proving" something, is not the main issue! The main issue is - why that agent has to prove anything,...or "what" and "why" that agent "claims" and "demands" something. Got that?
--So wonder why that agent would have to prove there is a "State"? Well maybe because his/her accusation, that someone's a tax payer, is based on the "belief" that "tax payers" are subjects to "jurisdiction" due to them being born and/or being physically located in the "State" and have some income which is "taxable"? And if that agent has difficulty proving any of that, then why would I give away my money I've spent a part of my life to get? Consider this, if someone would come to you and say that you have to pay him 30% of your monthly income because you are allegedly a martian and you, in fact, live on Mars, and if you won't comply with his request he'll put you in a cage,...does that scenario look ok to you? Is it you who has to prove you're not on Mars? If you think you do, then good luck, but I don't. And if he has "difficulties proving" he's right, then why the heck should his "demand" be satisfied? ... Ahhh, of course,... because he has a gun and a cage...

--Now you tell me WHY would that agent have to prove "that the earth is round, or that the sky is up."?

I think the problem is that we are trying to figure out the right way to phrase our comments so that the statist will have an "AH HA!" moment. Apparently, this is the only flawed aspect of our approach. Because after the brilliant explanation you so eloquently provided above, what else needs to be said? The statist gets it. The statist always got it. The statist is just mad that we aren't submitizens like he is and that we resist the bully when they attempt to take our money by force. Unlike the statist, who gives the ass up smooth :bootyshake:

WorBlux · 02-21-2011, 02:58 AM

Micah68 Wrote:You're saying that there's no such place as Wyoming? That the maps of the United States showing a rectangular area marked "Wyoming" are all wrong?

A state can include geography, but it is something more that that. To prove it ask yourself two question.

Does the prosecutor represent a piece of land as absurd as that would be, or does he claim that there's something more?

Where was the State of Wyoming in 1889? (It didn't exist even though the land did)

***Marc Stevens*** · 02-21-2011, 08:58 AM

Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:Nice try, the judge reluctantly let the agent on the stand, he was sworn in and asked questions. The judge refused questioning and said the witness was incompetent to give legal opinions, he, the judge, was the only one competent to give legal opinions in his court. Mr. Edwards moved for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken. Judge rages and denies.
Now it's starting to make sense.

As the judge said in his oral opinion, he didn't need to take testimony from agent Gilbert, but he did anyway.

As the judge said in his oral opinion, Gilbert was perfectly competent to testify to the only FACTUAL issues that were relevant to the petition to enforce the summons, namely what Gilbert was investigating and why he wanted the papers requested by the summons.

Just don't get it do you? Gilbert made many legal opinions in his testimony under oath, including "the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose under the law". That legal opinion is essential for the IRS to prevail (provided they present a case). But, Gilbert was not competent, according to the judge to give such an opinion.

Micah68 Wrote:But Edwards (the taxpayer) then proceeded to ask him some of the idiotic and irrelevant questions we've seen here in this forum, probably something about how Gilbert determined that Edwards was a "taxpayer," and the judge refused to allow Gilbert to answer the questions because the questions called for legal conclusions and Gilbert wasn't competent to give legal conclusions.

Edwards raised objections and persisted in the idiocy, and the judge got (understandably) angry.

Bottom line: So what?

Yes, how/why the agent determined Edwards is a taxpayer is idiotic and irrelevant, especially when you consider the IRS's entire attack is based on this legal opinion. Gilbert's not competent to give legal opinions, but it's OK for him to apply federal law to someone. Yeah, challenging an opinion is really idiotic. LOL

Micah68 Wrote:All you and Edwards succeeded in doing was annoying a judge. The summons was enforced, Edwards eventually produced the required papers, and the IRS is slowly working towards its determination of a deficiency or assessment of taxes.

Which means that, as far as the summons is concerned, Edwards (and you) lost.

What we did was demonstrate to a room full of people the judge was as much a criminal as the IRS. And now, we have you demonstrating your lack of critical analysis and credibility.

Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state? Wow.
The agent would also have difficulty proving that Edwards was a human being, that the earth is round, or that the sky is up.

You really should look up the meaning of the word "sophistry." Judge Downes thought that it applied, and I think you're going to be hearing that word many more times in your life, so you might as well get to know the meaning of it.

Judge Downs didn't think the case and controversy clause applied to complaints in this court and accepted the legal opinions of a witness he said was not competent to give them. Judge Downs is a criminal and his use of fancy words doesn't impress me, though you seem impressed.

***Marc Stevens*** · 02-21-2011, 09:00 AM

Micah68 Wrote:
NonEntity Wrote:So the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever that the man was in Wyoming is not a problem for you?
You mean, other than the fact that he actually was in Wyoming?

No, he could not prove Edwards was within the State of Wyoming, just as he couldn't prove, under oath, Edwards was a taxpayer.

***Marc Stevens*** · 02-21-2011, 09:17 AM

Micah68 Wrote:
Zyrq Wrote:
Micah68 Wrote:You really should look up the meaning of the word "sophistry."

It seems like you've looked that word up a long time ago...

The difference between claim someone is a tax payer and a claim that the Earth is round is that in the second case no one cares if the claim is right or wrong as the consequences don't affect peoples' life.
Don't want to prove anything? - Don't make allegations you can't prove!
That's it? You really want to live or die on that argument?

I live in a world in which there are consequences for winning or losing arguments in court. People gain or lose money, or they go to jail or go free. But to you nimrods it's like a parlor game that you can play and then go home and sober up in the morning.

Guess what: Law is real. It's not a game and it has real consequences for those who have battled and then win or lose.

And you armchair voyeurs, you Internet weekend warriors arguing about traffic tickets and other trivial crap, pretty much disgust me.

Armchair voyeurs? Sober up? Do some research, do some investigation and learn some facts before you come here and make such statements. If you had any idea about the facts, you'd realize 95%+ of us are here because we have been attacked by people pretending to be a government. But we're used to quatloos types, you never have your facts straight, all you can do is condemn with personal attacks, it's no wonder you quatloos guys refuse to come on my radio show and makeup stories about me being afraid of dissent and not allowing you guys you post.

No one is more aware it is not a game as us, agorists and voluntaryists. We detest the violence you seem to love and apologize so much. We are not afraid to look critically at how governments operate, to look at the facts without prejudice or bias. Unlike you, what disgusts us, is the fact governments claim to protect while threatening to put us in jail.

We disgust you? Really? But the millions of lives damaged by the IRS does not? The thousands dead from wars of aggression and under false pretenses does not?

We disgust you, but the fact governments have ZERO voluntary support does not? Yeah, we can all see through your personal attacks and know why you are afraid to come on my radio show.

***Marc Stevens*** · 02-21-2011, 09:50 AM

Micah68 Wrote:To sum of what I've read here so far:

1. The "assistance" provided by Marc Stevens consists mainly (entirely?) of providing questions like "Can you prove I'm in Wyoming?", "What's the difference between Wyoming and the State of Wyoming?", "Would there be an obligation to pay federal taxes if there were no constitution?", and "What's the difference between 'United States' and 'United States of America'?".

2. Those questions are claimed to work in traffic court, small claims court, and other courts which are not courts of record (which means that there's no way of verifying what actually happened in court).

3. Stevens cannot provide any evidence that anyone he has ever "helped" has ever won in a court of record. The one cite he provided, United States v. Marc Edwards, No. 05-CV-141-D (D. Wyo.), was actually a loss, with the client being sanctioned $6,000 by the 10th Circuit for a frivolous appeal.

Does Stevens charge money for this kind of "assistance," or does he give it away?

I teach critical thinking and investigation, no sacred cows. What I do is ask questions to bring out the one making the accusation doesn't know what he's talking about. Not only am I very effective at it, many people, without a law degree, have replicated it.

Who cares if the court is not one of record? The principals are the same and what is important is limiting the amount of damage caused by people who are incapable of providing their services to the market on a voluntary basis. And I do that every week and yes, I charge for my time and unlike lawyers, I do not rely on a violent monopoly to do so.

Is that your problem with me? That I can help people without using violence? Lawyers need a monopoly and violence to stay in business, I don't.

OK, is the Miami bankruptcy court a court of record? Let me know and I'll dig up the case number. Look at the words you use, you wrote "cannot provide any evidence". That means I don't have it and can't post it, instead of I just chose not to for some reason. Again, accusations without personal knowledge. Kinda the MO for quatloos. If you listened to my radio show you would have heard me talk about that case many times, including reading the judge's orders. But I cannot provide proof? LOL

You guys are hilarious sometimes. None of us are surprised you won't pick up the phone at call into the show (218) 632-9399. LOL

NonEntity · 02-21-2011, 09:54 AM

I'm so embarrassed that my heeeero Marc has stooped to my level and is now personally feeding the trolls himself. It's a sad day in Adventureville. :'(

- NonE

Zyrq · 02-21-2011, 10:14 AM

Micah68 Wrote:Mr. Stevens believes that the agent admitting that he could not prove that Mr. Edwards was within a "state" had significance.

Mr. Zyrg says that whether the agent could prove something is "not the main issue."

Are you trying to tell me that "significance" and "main issue" are synonyms? Do you think anyone would care what IRS wants if IRS didn't make claims that people have to pay tax and enforce those claims? Do you agree that if there is no "claim" - there can be no need to have "difficulties proving" the "claim" was not made out of thin air? So isn't the root of the problem the "claim", imposing obligations on people, which can not be proven?
Claim that the Earth is round doesn't obligate people to pay tax, so even if agent would have difficulties proving that, ... who cares? So try to find a better argument to defend your support for robbery.