Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

01-02-2011, 10:57 AM

Montana Scott Wrote:I even stepped out for a few weeks, and my posts get more hits than anyones in less time. And somehow, in your mind, you think arguing crap that has nothing to do with the subject makes you "look" smarter. I'm kinda feeling sorry for you and people like you that are so insignificant, so far off base. We see the "SATURN DEFENSE" once again. :'(

You get replies because thee People want you to define the foundation of freedom. You instead describe slavery and call it freedom.
The STATE is a group of Men and Women gathered and writing in books the things they are going to force upon all other Men and Women.

Who/what decided that the STATE group has authority over any other group (Russia, China, Montanna) or any Man/Woman? That the STATE, in order to pay their wages, can point guns at Men, telling Men that he must pay the STATE to protect him or the STATE will kill him.

MS, you are doing nothing more than demanding the STATE appear and trespass in order to provide you opportunity to extract additional funds from thee People in your pretended effort to free thee People from the grasps of the fiction (legal or otherwise) commonly referred to as the STATE.

01-06-2011, 12:58 AM

PatriotOne Wrote:
Montana Scott Wrote:I even stepped out for a few weeks, and my posts get more hits than anyones in less time. And somehow, in your mind, you think arguing crap that has nothing to do with the subject makes you "look" smarter. I'm kinda feeling sorry for you and people like you that are so insignificant, so far off base. We see the "SATURN DEFENSE" once again. :'(

You get replies because thee People want you to define the foundation of freedom. You instead describe slavery and call it freedom.
The STATE is a group of Men and Women gathered and writing in books the things they are going to force upon all other Men and Women.

Who/what decided that the STATE group has authority over any other group (Russia, China, Montanna) or any Man/Woman? That the STATE, in order to pay their wages, can point guns at Men, telling Men that he must pay the STATE to protect him or the STATE will kill him.

MS, you are doing nothing more than demanding the STATE appear and trespass in order to provide you opportunity to extract additional funds from thee People in your pretended effort to free thee People from the grasps of the fiction (legal or otherwise) commonly referred to as the STATE.

You guys are so full of crap. So, in order for Marc Stevens to be legit in your eyes and to "keep it real" for you he has to be broke and destitute? I don't know about anyone else but as far as I'm concerned Marc is UNDER CHARGING for his products and services, in my opinion. I've learned so much about how this system works since I've started listening to him and after I've read his book and have been a participant in this forum.

The irony is that you utilize a Marc Stevens talking point and then attempt to knock him simultaneously. Priceless.

:frobro: Holip

01-06-2011, 05:22 PM

holip,
you got me wrong. I was referring to Montanna wanting $ as an attorney, not Marc offering solution/remedy. From Montanna's post he seems to present himself as a hired attorney re-presenting Men to a JUDGE. Marc wants the Man to stay a Man.
In the past I've used a Bill of Particulars before hearing (after cop citation - before 1st visit with Maj/Judge) in an effort to establish No State exist, no OFFICER exist, no cause exist. The BoP seemed to me to be the long form of 'factually, what is the State/STATE/state'.
Me being a truck driver, not a COURT live in, I am lost when it comes to jumping through COURT hoops. But I know that if I hire an OFFICER OF THE COURT, I belong to the COURT. Marc seems to try to keep Man out of COURT.
Can I simply tell JUDGE, "I will not call you JUDGE/HONOR, I will call you by your Name until you produce evidence that I have given you permission to JUDGE me". <- COURT should be that simple if truth and honor existed.
What I said above applies to Montanna ONLY.

01-06-2011, 11:39 PM

PatriotOne Wrote:holip,
you got me wrong. I was referring to Montanna wanting $ as an attorney, not Marc offering solution/remedy. From Montanna's post he seems to present himself as a hired attorney re-presenting Men to a JUDGE. Marc wants the Man to stay a Man.
In the past I've used a Bill of Particulars before hearing (after cop citation - before 1st visit with Maj/Judge) in an effort to establish No State exist, no OFFICER exist, no cause exist. The BoP seemed to me to be the long form of 'factually, what is the State/STATE/state'.
Me being a truck driver, not a COURT live in, I am lost when it comes to jumping through COURT hoops. But I know that if I hire an OFFICER OF THE COURT, I belong to the COURT. Marc seems to try to keep Man out of COURT.
Can I simply tell JUDGE, "I will not call you JUDGE/HONOR, I will call you by your Name until you produce evidence that I have given you permission to JUDGE me". <- COURT should be that simple if truth and honor existed.
What I said above applies to Montanna ONLY.

I apologize to you, Sir. See, this is what happens whenever you have trolls and turds in the punch bowl. It puts everyone on the defensive and I'm definitely guilty of that. I hope you accept my apology, Bro. ONE!

Holip :frobro:

01-15-2011, 08:09 PM

Apology accepted but not necessary. I learn much from Marc just listening to the "show" (class would be a much better word).
I wish I had heard of Marc in 03'. I took my defence to a "lawyer" and asked him to walk it and me through the court. The "lawyer" looked at my cites (did mine match his?) of LAW and comapred them to the books of LAW. He refused my wanted outcome.
I quickly learned that my WIN would put him out of business. If I WON everyone would WIN! Rendering the shyster out of work.
On todays (1/15/11) class Marc "choked" when the caller told about his beating. The Prosecutor OBJECTED the Judge SUSTAINED the caller didn't "Judge, what was the basis of the Prosecutors OBJECTION?". (do not allow the Prosecutor answer a question put to the Judge)
Me, a truck driver, would say "WAIT A MINUTE TOM (Judge) WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THAT OBJECTION?" (I'm not a "licensed" attorney, I'm not required to talk like one)(Neither have I given Tom permission to be a JUDGE over me)
The STATE is appealing to the JUDGE, not me. I am simply (trying to) telling Tom that he has authority over the STATE (not me) and he must JUDGE the STATE and call it off of me.
I think that informing the JUDGE at the start that I am willing to plead guilty (give JUDGE authority) once I comprehend the Nature and Cause, and if they ARE upon me, is a good move.

Marc provides more for nothing than most others, and every "lawyer".