"Fight" the man, not the fiction

[zonsb]

This is a quote from a response posted at:http://marcstevens.net/articles/no-witne...a-ftb.html

Quote:Hiding off grid from the criminals calling themselves government doesn’t solve the problem. It’s Stockholm syndrome lite. The saying: “you can’t fight city hall,” should be changed to, fight the man/women, not city hall. That is, sue the man and woman, not the office of the State. Sue the man, not the police officer or IRS agent pretending to not be a man. There is no state. Don’t sue the fiction, sue the man. Was a legal right violated and was there injury? I’m pretty sure being kidnapped and put in a cage is reason for valid cause of action. The plaintiff’s case includes there is no State. That’s how and why the plaintiff is suing the man, not the fiction. Plus, a civil suit, a tort, requires a preponderance of evidence. Whereas a criminal charge requires beyond reasonable doubt.

Before commenting I quote: http://www.otto-graph.com/samples/3/civil.html

Quote:Burden of Proof in Civil and Criminal Law
Civil and crminal law may be further distinguished in terms of burdens of proof. In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff's case must be proved by a preponderance of evidence, meaning that the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury that his or her version of the facts is more likely than not and that he or she is entitled to judgment. This degree of proof is sometimes called presenting a prima facie case, or "crossing the 51 percent line", because the plaintiff must outprove the defendant by more than half the evidence.

In certain cases, such as those involving fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and probate contests, the plaintiff must prove his or her case by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard and more difficult to meet that a mere preponderance.

By contrast, in a criminal lawsut the prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that judge or jury must believe the defendant's guilt without significant reservations. This burden of proof is much more difficult than either of the proof levels required in civil cases. This heavier burden on the government exists to protect defendants from overzealous prosecutors who might succeed in convicting innocent individuals with less evidence if the proof requirements were easier to satisfy.

Seems to me that when the defense attorney makes the case for the man was acting as a police officer the plaintiff can then question the validity of the alleged State and elements of a valid cause of action. Any takers to how to present either or both sides of the case?