There is no state

Email idiocy

2006-10-03T16:32:00.000-07:00

People tend to email the most idiotic things. I got this twice today; it's supposed to be a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, and in the subject line it read: "good quote". It says:

"No man who refuses to bear arms can give sound reason why he should be allowed to live in a free country"

First, "free country" is an oxymoron. Where there is government there is no freedom.

Second, if there's freedom, then why must one "bear arms"? Now while I'm all for people carrying guns and keeping them in their homes, why must someone "bear arms"?

And what about the phrase "be allowed"? Is that consistent with a free society?

I wish there was a program to block stupid emails from coming through.

More Bush Propaganda

2006-09-19T16:03:00.000-07:00

Two things appear impossible:

1. Real questions from a reporter to a politician; and
2. A responsive answer from a politician.

This is an exchange from a press conference held this week by George "I'm the decider" Bush:

Reporter: "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

George Bush: “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think -- that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

The reporter never calls the decider on his non-responsive answer and I've seen nothing in the media calling attention to it.

The reporter's question was regarding "a flawed strategy" and the decider, instead of addressing the "strategy", decided to be non-responsive and said, “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic..." That clearly wasn't the question and the reporter does not call him on it; none of the reporters do. They permit him to equate a "strategy" with the "American people" as if they are they same thing.

It's more of the same tactics always used by politicians. Politicians always equate the government with the people they control. Therefore, questioning the government is questioning yourself. If government does something evil, we're all evil because we are the government.

The technical term for this BS is non sequitur.

Labor Day - What a Joke

2006-09-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

Sorry to sound cynical, but the purpose behind this "holiday" is to "celebrate the economic and social achievements of workers." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Day.

Seems to me the best way to celebrate workers (or anyone for that matter) is to leave them alone. What do I mean?

A real celebration would be to stop continually robbing and controlling workers in the name of "taxation" and "regulation."

It's amazing any productive work is done at all with all the "taxes" and "regulations" to comply with. I found out the other day Wells Fargo Bank receives THOUSANDS of "tax subpoenas" a day. That's right, a day, every single day. There's a whole division of the bank dedicated to just compliance with these so-called "subpoenas." And Wells Fargo is just one bank. My those anti-social accountants at the IRS have been busy.

And that's only one example.

Maybe that's the real reason behind "Labor Day", the fact that despite all that robbery and control (i.e., government), we are still productive.

Sean Hannity - Sheer lunacy

2006-09-01T09:35:00.000-07:00

Well, to be more accurate, anything coming from Fox News is scripted lunacy.

This week, Sean Hannity said one of the things worth dying for is ensuring Nancy Pelosi does not become speaker of the house of representatives.

Let's hope Sean meant it.

But of course, Sean is an actor, paid to play a role; something his audience may never accept. Sean is no different than a lawyer who is paid to "zealously" defend a position he may not agree with for the sole purpose of getting paid and paid very well.

Now I have nothing against getting paid well for services rendered; however, most people know lawyers don't believe the nonsense they spew forth. Judging from the size of his audience, most don't know Sean is just a paid shill, ready to defend his money masters regardless of his personal beliefs.

While I don't participate in politics, and see government as a cancer on the world, it would be great for Nancy Pelosi become the next speaker of the house.

Tax Obligation? Show Me the Facts

2006-04-17T16:38:00.000-07:00

I hate this time of the year. The dreaded "tax day". The day when millions of scared people desparately try to comply with the masters' demands: Pay us or get shot!

Most have heard the line: "What if they had a war and no one showed up?"

Well, how about: "What if tax day came and no one filed?" I like what Hopper said in A Bug's Life:

"You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back!" (emphasis mine)

What is the basis for the alleged "power to tax"? It's the so-called "constitution." The "constitution" is four unsigned pieces of paper. If there is an alleged "obligation", then it must be based on the "constitution." What facts are there to prove those four pieces of paper created this alleged "obligation"? If you think there are facts to prove an "obligation" to pay "taxes" exists, then please email me at marcstevens@adventuresinlegalland.com, I'd love to see them.

In ten years not one "tax agent" or "tax" attorney has been able to produce one shred of evidence. It is impossible to prove a "tax obligation" exists using just facts. Again, anyone who disagrees is free to come to the plate and provide the facts. And don't respond by saying my "argument" is "frivolous." I'm asking for facts, not presenting an "argument."

And if you cannot provide the facts, then why do you file? Oh, that's right, you don't want to get shot. Stop deluding yourself, you do not pay for protection, there is no duty to protect you.

What will those anti-social parasites (politicians & bureaucrats) do when millions of people just decide not to file anymore? When millions of people start working for themselves and refuse to aid in the robbery of their fellow man's money by acting as "withholding agents"? Imagine millions of people refusing to help rape and plunder their fellow man by "issuing" those stupid 1099's.

An example I give in my book is where hundreds of thousands take that asinine "tax" plate off their cars.

Is it possible? Of course, look at the millions who followed Ghandi's example: and he didn't have the internet. Consider how the cops would do their "job" if people did not cooperate in the rape? I am not talking about violent resistance here. This is non-violent, non-cooperation. As I've said before, if someone cannot ask for my permission, then he should not expect my help.

The day is not far off when enough people just refuse to cooperate and those acting as "government" will be helpless to stop it.

For those who think "governments" are "necessary", let me ask this question, it's a yes or no answer only:

Should a service or product be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Unless you're a psychopath, the answer is no. And that is how "governments" operate. Instead of bringing their talents and services to the market like normal people, they provide them on a violent "pay or get shot" basis.

Trust a politician?

2006-04-13T08:55:00.000-07:00

This is a gem. I came across this story this morning posted at http://rense.com, you can get it at http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4761664. It's titled: Scalia says he's proud he didn't recuse himself in Cheney case.

This black-robed super lawyer is quoted as saying, "For Pete's sake, if you can't trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a life,".

I guess that overrides the federal law requiring a "judge" to recuse himself if there is the "appearance" of bias. When will people wake up and realize the "law" only applies to those being murdered, tortured, spied on, plundered and deceived? However, let's examine, as objectively as possible, if it's reasonable to trust a "Supreme Court justice" at all.

It is undeniable a so-called "Supreme Court justice" is just a lawyer. Do the lawyers pretending to be a "Supreme Court" provide their services on a voluntary basis? Of course not; if you don't pay their salary you are shot and have your property stolen.

Now, is it reasonable to trust someone who thinks you should be shot for not paying a lawyer you never hired? I would think even the most loyal Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity fans would agree; no, it's not reasonable.

I agree with this lawyer though. We should all "get a life," one that does not include calling violent, anti-social lawyers "honorable" or "justice". We should "get a life" that does not include politicians, "states" and so-called "citizens."

Sick Irony

2006-02-24T12:09:00.000-08:00

I don't have much to say about this, I think it speaks for itself:

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4536948&nav=3YeX

Below is the full text of the article:

Officer charged with drunk driving

"(Hamden-WTNH, Feb. 22, 2006 12:45 PM) _ A Hamden police sergeant is under arrest on charges of driving drunk, crashing his truck and then lying to police about who was behind the wheel.

"Sgt. Keith Benway allegedly told police another man was driving his truck and overturned it in the woods in North Branford.

"Investigators say the 37-year-old Benway was the driver.

"Sgt. Benway, who has been with the department for almost 20 years, received law enforcement awards in 2003 and 2004 from Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

The emphasis on the last sentence is mine. Guess MADD won't be giving him too many more awards.

State of the Union? What Union?

2006-02-06T13:21:00.000-08:00

I know this is a few days late, but given the amount of energy expended in discussing that "speech", it seems appropriate; I get to point out what an incredible waste of time such discussions are.

Has anyone in the mainstream or "alternative" press discussed the blatant lie in the title of the speech? It's called the "State of the Union" address and there's NO "Union"!

Let me point this out again:

1. A so-called "citizen" is a member of a body politic owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection;

2. government has no duty to protect anyone;

3. with no duty to protect, there is no duty of allegiance;

4. without these two duties there are no "citizens" or "Citizens";

5. without "citizens" there is no body politic and therefore, no "state";

6. without "states" there is no "Union" of "states" or "United States".

The lies start with the title itself. There is no "Union" or "president"; just people pretending.

I'm sure you now understand why I wrote any discussion on the speech is a waste of time, unless of course you're pointing out the fact there's no pretended "Union".

If you refuse to believe this, then what facts do you rely on to prove there are "states"? And keep in mind "states" are not geographic. Here's a hint: it requires evidence (tangible facts) of an obligation (duty) to protect.

Good luck!

Also, regarding the recent comments; I do not know how to delete comments. I want to point out the comments about killing government agents are unsolicited, inconsistent with my beliefs and should be deleted. I do not condone the intiation of physical force and certainly do not support the killing of government agents. I advocate peaceful, non-violent, economic methods of ridding the world of government. Violence makes government look legitimate. Non-violence exposes government for what it is: a gang of killers, thieves and liars.

Big surprise, another cop shooting an unarmed man

2006-02-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

When will people learn? The police, like the rest of government, are not here to protect, but to govern. And what does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean protection:

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first world of compliant, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." P.J. Proudhon.

As I've written before, there is no duty or obligation for government to protect anyone. This is not my opinion, but a matter of "black-letter law".

Government is a group of men and women providing a service (they never provide) at the barrel of a gun. Why would you protect a man YOU'RE willing to kill to have him pay for a service he may not want?

Knowing this, there is no surprise when horrifying videos like the most recent one surface (watch the video here http://adventuresinlegalland.com/cop_shooting.wmv). Once again, as the video shows, a "cop" is shooting an unarmed man for no reason. The man was a passenger, not the driver in the high speed chase. Even if he was the driver, he posed no physical threat at the time three bullets were shot into him.

The victim happens to also be a "cop" (military police) who just returned from Iraq. it will be interesting to see how the media deals with this since it involves two from the same team.

The bottom line is this: these atrocities will continue until the time arrives when people wake up and say enough is enough. We will no longer accept government, we will have a voluntary society. Government is the most deadly threat to human life and we will not quietly submit to your control any longer.

If you have this compelling need to protect us, that is fine, bring your service to the market and let the market decide if your service is valuable enough to pay for.

Provide your service on a voluntary basis like NORMAL people.

This will not happen until people see government for what they are: gangs of ruthless killers, thieves and liars.

If there is any good that comes from a tragedy such as this shooting, it's that more people will see government for what they are, thereby bringing us that much closer to a voluntary society.

Federal Bread Police Arrest 30,000 Loaves

2006-01-13T08:17:00.000-08:00

Tragedy of unprecedented proportions was narrowly avoided when fearless bread warriors heroically arrested more than thirty-thousand "loaves of bread". It comes as no surprise the nefarious "loaves" were hiding in a compound called the "French Meadow Bakery" in Minneapolis. The full story is here: http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S13349.html?cat=1

While the French have long been America haters and supporters of the "blame America first" cults, this blatant attempt to terrorize patriotic Americans with a dangerous chemical called "spelt" is sending shivers down the very spine of American Democracy.

The leader of this French death cult, Steve Shapiro, insults all real Americans with his disgraceful apologetics and excuses: "Spelt is an ancient grain. People with wheat allergies can tolerate spelt". Yeah, if by "tolerate" you mean a horrible, wretched death. And what exactly is in those croissants?

The federal bread police should be highly commended for thier actions, especially when you realize the "bread" outnumbered the police by more than a thousand to one.

The "loaves" are being held without bail and as enemy combatants are not entitled to any legal protections or by the Geneva Convention. Insiders inform me America's toughest sheriff, Joe Arpiao, of Phoenix, Arizona, is procuring the "loaves" for use in his Phoenix area gulags. He is reported as saying the "loaves" are a perfect compliment to the green bologna he usually serves.

Who Cares If There's A Warrant?

2006-01-06T14:26:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of noise lately about the Smirk and his accomplices wiretapping and spying on Americans without a "warrant". Most in the mainstream and "alternative" media seem focused on the lack of a so-called "warrant" from a secret court. Again, the so-called "warrant" is political sleight of hand to divert attention from the real issue. That issue is the invasion of privacy.

Even with a "constitutional" "warrant" it is still an unjustified invasion of privacy and a trespass by a gang of killers, thieves and liars. This is why i don't focus on the issue of the "FISA" court being a joke. The joke is on those who believe there is a valid or legitimate "warrant".

I'll focus on two issues, 1) what a "warrant" is; and 2) so-called "delegated authority".

First, what exactly is a so-called "warrant" factually? A "warrant" is a piece of paper with scribbles on it by an man or woman who is either incapable or unwilling to provide his or her services on a voluntary basis.

I leave it to you to figure out what facts there are, if any, that gives someone with a piece of paper with scribbles on it a "right" to invade your privacy.

Second, there is the issue of so-called "delegated authority". We're told those people who act as a government do so as "representatives" of the people, exercising only a "delegated authority". I find it very hard to believe there are still people who believe such nonsense.

As I wrote in my book Adventures In Legal Land, if you want to know if a government agent is justified or has a "right" to do what he is doing, then ask if you or your neighbor have a right to do the same act. If the answer is no, then guess what, he could not have "delegated" the "right" to his pretended agents.

If I don't have a "right" to go into your home without your freely given consent, then I have no "right" to delegate to any agent, pretended or otherwise.

I want to also address the statist nonsense you hear in regards to government invasion of privacy. You know the line: "Do you have something to hide?" As if privacy is only for those people who have "something to hide".

To those people who defend government invasion of privacy, let me ask this: Do you think it's OK for your neighbors to just walk into your home and look around, copy your hard drive and listen to your phone messages?

I'm sure you would not want your neighbor doing that and you certainly don't believe your neighbors have a "right" to just come into your home without your freely given consent.

If you don't think your neighbors have the "right", then a government claiming to "represent" your neighbors doesn't either.

But let's not leave a door open for those still stuck in the church known as the "state." Statists claim the so-called "warrants" are for the "protection of Americans." For those who still cling to this propaganda, I will state the obvious again.

Government's do not protect the people they control; they control, kill, lie, steal, harass, torture and spy on them.

There is no duty to protect anyone and the sooner the people in the world realize and accept that, then the sooner the world can be rid of this cancer called government.

Joe Arpiao - Your fingerprints or your life!

2005-10-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

As if Joe Arpiao and his men needed another reason to kill people. A friend in Arizona sent me this link recently: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1019tickets-ON.html.

It's a article called: "Arpaio to traffic violators: Give a thumbprint or go to jail." This is from the article:

"Motorists cited for criminal traffic violations will have to give their thumbprint to Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies or go to jail.

"This will be mandatory. No exceptions," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Wednesday. "If they don't want to give the print, they're going directly to jail. Period.""

Wow, another "program" from "America's toughest sheriff." Why not be open and honest Joe? If you were, then you'd say, "If they don't want to give the print, they're going directly to jail OR GET SHOT. Period." And just in case you doubt Joe and his henchmen's willingness to kill, check this out:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=5EA95096ECE9FFC28025690000693391

It's disgusting how this man is not only tolerated, but hailed as some kind of hero. Read on the link above about how Scott Norberg was murdered and how Richard Post, a paraplegic, was put in a restraint chair so tight he is now also paralyzed from the waist up. You sure are tough Joe, thanks for "protecting" Phoenix from a man in a wheelchair. Joe's men alleged Mr. Post was a "threat" to their safety! A guy in a wheelchair was too much for Joe's tough guys to handle.

And you don't have to take Amnesty USA's word for it, I've been to the Madison Street dungeon, I mean jail. It's medieval. I was held there for a few hours on a traffic stop.

Anyway, getting back to this "program," the article has:

"Officials at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said they had not been consulted about the new policy and could not comment on if it was legal." How much time do you need?

Let's take a minute to consider this. Failure to provide ID is a criminal traffic offense in Arizona. If I do not have government identification, then I am committing a crime in Joe's mind. If I don't give a fingerprint on demand, Joe or his men will shoot me. Hypothetically, if I go to court for this vicious crime, the plaintiff is "THE STATE OF ARIZONA."

Is this legal? The Arizona constitution states very clearly the government was "established to protect and maintain individual rights." Article II section 2. In my experience, police officers have always testified I did not violate anyone's rights when I failed to give ID to them.

If the government was "established to protect and maintain individual rights" and there are no rights involved in the traffic stop, then NO, the "new policy" is not "legal." Think this would stop tough Joe? Let's look at what Joe has said: "Once I start something, I don't stop."

Yeah, real stable individual there. You're real tough Joe. When was the last time you read article II section 2 of the Arizona constitution?

Tough Joe Arpiao is just another shining example why we should have a voluntary society.

Another "failure" another plea for more control

2005-10-04T18:26:00.000-07:00

It's really getting surreal in these parts. Someone emailed the link to this story: Bush: Military may have to help if bird flu breaks out, http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/04/bush.avianflu/index.html.

It begs the question: What will the military NOT be used for? Let's have the Marines take over public schools; maybe then no child will be left behind.

Is there a hidden agenda using the military in this way? Let's see, governments do not protect, they violently control. Yeah, I would tend to think the smirk is lying yet again. This should be no surprise as practically everything he and his henchmen have said in the past 5 years is a lie. But I don't want anyone to misunderstand this to be a personal attack: all politicians and bureaucrats lie.

What's incredible is the how the masses lap it up without a concern in the world. "Failure" after "failure" after "failure" and the masses (because they do not to question the endless propaganda fed to them by the mass media) still support this gang of killers, thieves and liars. These are the same killers, thieves and liars who publicly announce they have no duty to protect anyone!

They tell people they (government) have no duty to protect anyone. Events such as 9/11 and hurricane Katrina happen; they lie through their teeth saying it was a "failure": a "failure" to do what they are NOT supposed to do. The lie is bought hook, line and sinker. Despite accepting it was yet another colossal "failure", the masses not only permit the same people to continue NOT protecting them, but, they welcome more violent control over their lives and property. Is your head also spinning?

If not, then I think the following quote from the article will help:

"Healy said soldiers are not trained as police officers, and putting them in a civilian law enforcement role "can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.""

Four Years After 9/11

2005-09-10T14:04:00.000-07:00

Four years after 9/11 and those responsible are have still not been held accountable. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of people here in the so-called "United States" are too heavily invested in the government hoax to accept the truth. That truth is 9/11 was an inside job and could ONLY have been an inside job. People apparently cannot accept that "their" government, whom they believe is really them, could do such a thing.

The government is not the "people." Government is a group of men and women controlling other men and women without the latter's consent under the guise of protection; protection they never provide. Can I prove this? Sure; look no further than 9/11. There is also now the tragedy of hurricane Katrina.

It's undeniable the "people" were not protected on 9/11. So here we start with violent men and women who do not protect anyone. Is there proof it was an inside job though? You tell me. I will not go through every detail, you can check out the following links.

Look at the "official" time line for 9/11. A few good sites are at http://www.911timeline.net/ and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=dayOf911.

At 8:13 am American Airlines Flight 11 stops transmissions and goes off course by 20 degrees and at 8:20 it's transponders are turned off. At this point flight 11, regardless of what was actually happening, had to be treated as a highjacking. We know the interceptors (Two F-15 Eagles) weren't scrambled until 8:52 from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Excuse me, the greatest military in history cannot get the interceptors off the ground for 39 minutes? It's called a stand down.

How did they accomplish it? Simple, there were several training operations going on at the same time. The nature of the training? Responding to terrorists using highjacked planes as weapons. Innocent coincidence? Yeah right. Let me see, what did Condi Rice say:

"And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."" http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/.

Really, check out the sources for the training operations: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm.

More evidence Condi was lying through her teeth? Let's see, I remember something about planes being used as missiles...that's right, it's called KAMIKAZE: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/kamikaze.htm.

Still, the inescapable truth is, regardless of who carried out the attacks, government did not protect and continues to not protect. Men and women doing business as a government continue to not perform the one professed legitimate function of government and yet people still support them.

Let's not forget this simple truth. We need to inform as many people as we can. Anyone who supports government for the stupid reason: "But we've GOT to have police protection!" Look them in the eye and tell them the truth, THERE IS NO POLICE PROTECTION NOW.

Government never has, and never will have a duty to protect anyone. And the moment men and women doing business as a government do have a duty to protect, then they will cease to be a government.

Anarchy in New Orleans, who are they kidding?

2005-09-03T14:06:00.000-07:00

Politicians will use anything to justify their shameful existence and increase their control. The tragedy in New Orleans is no exception.

All the major news organizations are telling horrific tales of "anarchy" in the aftermath of the devastating hurricane last week. What facts do they put forth? People looting and stealing. Wow, talk about a non-sequitur. Yes, there are people looting and stealing, but is that what anarchy is?

Anarchy, of course is an absence of government. What is government? A group of men and women providing a service at the barrel of a gun. So, anarchy is the absence of men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun.

Were the L.A. riots described as anarchy? There was plenty of looting and PLENTY of government. No anarchy there.

Have any of the major news organizations been reporting an absence of government in New Orleans? It is just the opposite; there's plenty of government there, local, state and federal: they may not have been doing much, but they're there. Despite all this government though, the talking heads on those pretended "news" shows continue to rattle on about anarchy. What are the chances all these "reporters" are illiterate or just don't know what the word anarchy means?

It's more diversion. Divert attention away from the fact that despite all the propaganda about protection, despite the trillions of "dollars" to allegedly pay for protection, government (men and women) once again did not protect.

The lack of protection cannot be spun, at least not effectively. That's why attention is again diverted away from this undeniable fact. Any talk of weather modification is easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory; the masses just turn off. Most people would probably not entertain the idea those calling themselves a government have weather modification technology; let alone that it was used as a WMD against Americans. The focus should be on another catastrophic example there is no protection. There's no doubt there was no protection. Only an idiot would insist there was protection.

Like on 9/11, there was no protection; call it a deliberate "failure" or gross negligence, it doesn't matter. There was no protection.

Someday the masses will wake up. They will either realize government is not there to protect them or they'll realize government cannot protect them. That day cannot come fast enough for me though.

Politicians lie?

2005-08-18T16:40:00.000-07:00

I read this blog yesterday by a radio show host named Phil Hendrie: http://www.georgewbushisgod.com/. It's called: "Bush Didn't Lie...But First This Update". While I'm sure the name of the site is not meant to be taken seriously, this post appears to be serious. People listen to him everyday?

Let me state upfront this is not a hit piece against Phil or George; it's about politics in general, not any particular individual.

It's amazing people so adamantly defend politicians; claiming they did not lie. If you understand what politics is, then there is no real need to focus on the particular lie of the day; it's all lies all the time. That's what politicians do.

Let's look at lies that CANNOT be spun by radio, television and newspapers.

Those familiar with my writings and radio show appearances (www.adventuresinlegalland.com) know there are no "states" and "citizens". It's all a hoax, like the pretended "War on Terror."

Every time someone claims he is the "president of the United States" he is telling two lies. There is no "United States" and therefore, no "president". He is pretending regardless of his level of awareness.

Every time someone claiming to be "president of the United States" says he has a "solemn obligation to protect the American people" he is telling three lies because there is no duty to protect anyone. Doubt this? Look at 9/11 again. Who was held accountable for failing to protect? It then follows that any acts, particularly acts of aggression, based on this lie are frauds because they are based on a lie: debile fundamentum fallit ous, when the foundation is weak, the structure falls.

When a politician claims a "law" must be passed to protect, again, he/she is lying. There's no duty to protect anyone. Attacking me is not going to magically create a duty to protect someone. And just because you say there is a duty does not mean there is one and a court will recognize it. A legal obligation or duty you cannot enforce in court is not a legal obligation.

Look at the so-called "law" forcing psychological testing and medication on children. There is no duty to protect, so when a government imposes such a "law", then it is to GOVERN and that means to control. Forced psychological testing is for control. Forced medication is for control. And no, the control is not a means to protect.

When someone gives a "State of the Union Address", it's guaranteed the lies are coming fast and furious for no other reason than there is no "Union." There are no "citizens," no "state" and no "Union" or "United State." Here's my state of the union address, THERE IS NO UNION. That's the only truth you're going to get from such an "Address."

There's no duty to protect anyone; this alone exposes the deplorable "War on Terror" as a complete fraud. And this will not change by snarling at me to "leave if you don't like it!" Last time I looked legal obligations or duties are not created by such remarks.

Let's see statists spin that. Is anyone who disagrees with the above willing and able to provide verifiable facts proving WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW an unsigned, written instrument creates obligations on someone? I won't be holding my breath for that one.

Larken Rose Convicted

2005-08-13T11:17:00.000-07:00

I read yesterday Larken Rose was convicted of five counts of willful failure to file. You can read about it here: http://triallogs.blogspot.com/.

I cannot understand why Larken felt the need to teach those twelve people about section 861. I also don't understand why he felt it necessary to bring evidence when the us attorney didn't bring evidence.

Who cares what section 861 means when it's impossible to prove the "constitution" and "code" is applicable?

More to the point, the issue of standing, as far as I'm aware, was not addressed. The supreme court has consistently held,

“[c]ourts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 at 430 (1949).

There was been great success in asking "Is there evidence of a complaining party?" to exploit several fatal flaws in the "system", such as there is no "state" or "United States." This is NOT to say if Larken asked this question (among many others) his case would have been kicked out. However, it would have established facts to prove he was not being informed so he could understand and properly defend himself. Do not get caught up in having the questions answered, they don't have to; not answering is an error in a matter which they have no discretion.

If some lawyer claims to "represent the United States", then let him prove it. Ask him to produce tangible evidence in open court. Again, who cares about 861 when no lawyer claiming to represent a "state" or "United States" can produce evidence of a client? The burden of proof is supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the "law" requires "courts [to] look behind the names that symbolize the parties..." This means just spewing, "The United States" is not enough; not even close.

Just recently, in admittedly a less grave situation, a friend had a traffic case kicked out for a failure to prosecute because no less than four "state" attorneys would answer "yes or no" if there was evidence of a complaining party. What if the "judge" jumps in? Then obviously this black-robed wonder lawyer is incapable of providing a fair trial. To really turn the screws on the robed one I would ask the following questions:

Am I entitled to a fair trial?

Yes.

Can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?

No.

If there was a conflict of interest would you recuse yourself?

Yes.

Who do you [the judge] represent in these proceedings?

I believe Larken can still ask these questions. I'm sure his wife can because her trial has not started. This, in my experience, is far more effective than trying to teach twelve people about section 861.

More evidence traffic courts are a sham

2005-08-12T20:10:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine went to traffic court today. It was for a "civil" traffic ticket and he had one of my scripts. I've been waiting a long time for an NLP practitioner to use one of my scripts in court. I figured this would be real good. I will be posting the entire MP3 recording in a few days for everyone to listen and laugh at. (The following is from memory, please don't flame)

His adventure with the professional anti-social of society took all of nine minutes. He did not see the "honorable" Wayne Johnson first, he was ordered to appear before a "hearing officer" named Charles Eckert (for some reason "hearing officers" are not "honorable"). Charles also pretends to be a "constable."

My friend went in and told Charlie he intended on pleading "responsible" to the charge, but being a non-lawyer, he was incapable of defending himself and did not understand the nature and cause of the charges and proceedings. He had a few questions though and would then plead and pay the fine.

Charlie answered a couple of questions and refused to answer a few. He was asked if a valid cause of action was presented to the court and that was about all Charles could take; he threatened my friend and ran to get the "judge" to rescue him from the arduous task of having to answer a question. My friend must be a sadist; after all, he had already asked poor Charlie as many as five questions. How much can a person take?

So in comes the Man, Wayne Johnson, to take on this trouble-making, question asking hoodlum. He answered a few questions and his famous temper flared up in record time. Do all bureaucrats have anger management problems? Wayne barked at my friend to "shut up" and threatened him with contempt. And for what? He only asked if there was a valid cause of action before the court. He never got to ask Wayne a REALLY tough question, such as who he represented. Lucky for Wayne too; he probably would have had a stroke trying to get his way out of answering that one.

Now furious, Wayne insists my friend is pleading responsible and must pay a fine. He told him he didn't enter a plea and Wayne said he did. In reality, this ticked off lawyer entered the plea of responsible himself as a convenient pretext for refusing to conduct a trial. Apparently Wayne believes INTENDING on pleading is synonymous with pleading. Does putting that ridiculous black robe on make them illiterate as well as angry?

Do you think Wayne wanted my friend to ask the cop if his precious little ticket presented a valid cause of action? I don't think so, especially when he, the "honorable" one, couldn't answer yes or no. How do you think a cop would respond to that question?

My friend said he was going to appeal and went to the front desk to get the paperwork. Wayne met him there and asked him if he had any more questions. He said he did and asked if they could go back into the courtroom so it would be on the record. Wayne, true to this nature, refused.

This is just one more example how a few simple questions reveal the true anti-social nature of bureaucrats and exposes the fact there is no case. No amount of ranting and threats is going to make a valid cause of action magically appear on that ticket or give Wayne the integrity and honesty necessary to answer a simple question. It's just too bad there wasn't fifty people watching Wayne Johnson expose himself.

Do yourself a favor; always go the speed limit or less so you decrease your odds of having to visit a pariah like Wayne and his sidekick Charlie.

Vote fraud? No kidding

2005-08-08T16:29:00.000-07:00

There are so many reasons for having a voluntary society as opposed to the violent, involuntary society we have now; vote fraud is just one. I found this video http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm on Frank Whelan's site www.franklyspeakingradio.com/home.html. While new technology has given vote fraud more attention, vote fraud is nothing new and is only part of a much larger fraud, politics itself.

Consider the difference between political voting as opposed to economic voting. Political voting accomplishes nothing productive and only gives legitimacy to a gang of killers, thieves and liars; men and women incapable or unwilling to provide a service people will voluntarily pay for. The people who vote politically have no power because they have no real choice whether or not they want the services provided by government. Political democracy is a scam; it's called a false choice.

But what about economic voting, or economic democracy? In a voluntary society where the protection of life, liberty and property is still provided by men and women, though on a mutually voluntary basis. In the involuntary society we have now the protection of life, liberty and property is NOT provided and you are shot if you don't pay for it.

Could there be vote fraud in a voluntary society? Let's presume in a voluntary society the mediums of exchange would probably follow the thousands of years tradition of using precious metals such as gold and silver, as opposed to worthless pieces of paper we are forced to use now. Do you know anyone who has to be forced to accept silver and gold?

A company protecting life, liberty and property in a voluntary society gets votes in the form of precious metals, not pieces of paper or computer keystrokes that cannot be verified. In other words, in a voluntary society a company in the business of protection must turn a profit. It has to do this by doing what? That's right, by providing PROTECTION (remember, "states" are not here to protect). In a voluntary society if such a company refused or failed to protect their customers they could not force MORE money from their customers as happened here after 9/11. Such a company would have to provide the service it promises and do so better and more efficiently than it's competition. Companies that cannot go out of business as they should.

Yes, a company can falsely report profits, just as they do now. But for how long? How would they pay their debts and employees? Borrowing will only last so long and there would be a profit motive for the lender. In a voluntary society a lender would be a true lender, not the pathetic, criminal system called "banking" we have now.

It's clear who has the power in a voluntary society, the people. Hundreds of millions of people whose vote actually counts because they are not forced to spend their money. With economic democracy each member of society, men, women, children, whether black, white or whatever, is free to choose who and what they'll vote for and where they'll spend their money. If they don't like the service or are not getting what was promised, then they can stop paying instead of waiting four years hoping they can get their guy in. No more life time appointments - get it?

Why won't politicians put their guns down and provide their wonderful services on a voluntary basis like normal people? Why don't you call one up and ask them? The answer is in the previous paragraph. Politicians and bureaucrats can't stand the idea of not being able to control others and tell them what to do. The thought of people freely choosing what services they pay for must chill them to the bone. If you do question one, when you get the typical answer: "Not everyone will pay." You can respond by telling him/her not everyone pays now. If that's a reason not to have a voluntary society, then it's a reason not the have the involuntary one we have now.

It's a no brainer. Let's see, you want to protect me, but if I pay you then you won't protect me? Can't I get the same service by not paying? Oh, you'll shoot me if I don't pay?

If politicians put their guns down, then their pretended customers, i.e., citizens, would walk away laughing. As they should.

Governments control, not protect

2005-08-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

I'm back; I spent a few days in the police state of Kalifornia. I really hate the fact some of the worst bureaucrats live in places like Newport Beach. I wish they could be content to live in places like New York and Chicago.

A very close friend of mine was the victim of the fearless drug warriors this past weekend. Thank goodness no one was hurt and those faithful protectors of life, liberty and property noticed my friend had a license plate light out; who knows what would have happened if those brave cops had not stopped him? Can't see a logical connection between a license plate light and drugs? Let's examine this "routine traffic stop."

First, keep in mind the drug warriors have no duty to protect anyone and the single professed purpose of "states" is to protect people's rights i.e., life, liberty and property. So when these warriors saw my friend traveling down the street, their decision to stop him was not to protect anyone or their rights. Let's assume the cop's only wanted to give a ticket for a license plate light being out. Would the cops have standing to complain on that issue? Unless the ticket alleged a legal right was being violated that caused loss, harm or injury, then no, the cops lacked standing to complain. If the only professed purpose is to protect rights, then standing in court require the violation of someone's rights.

So without any standing to complain about the issue for which they stopped my friend [already an "illegal stop"], these police decided to do something where they would never reciprocate - they searched my friend's van without permission. Could you imagine what would happen if you tried to do that to a cop? Yeah right, pull a gun and inform a cop you're going to search his car whether he wants you to or not.

Keep in mind the cops have no idea what they are looking for, they're just looking for anything "suspicious." At the time these pretended "public servants" decided to search the van, could they identify the rights allegedly being violated? Oh, that's right, none; how silly of me, the cops are not here to protect.

Now we can see the logical connection between a license plate light and a search for non-existent drugs - CONTROL. It was just another pretense for control. Oh Marc, you cynic, why would they only be interested in control? Let's see, government is from the root word govern. And we know govern does not mean protect, it means control.

When will the majority of people realize governments CONTROL, they do not protect?

What will it take?

2005-07-27T16:35:00.002-07:00

By now you've probably heard the story about the "pentagon" refusing to comply with a court order and release additional footage of torture, rape and murder from the Abu Ghraib prison, you can read it here:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2142

What will it take for people to see these people for what they are? No matter how many times politicians and bureaucrats lie, people still support them and their system of slavery and plunder. How will republicans spin this? Will they claim the judge who ordered the release of the footage is a liberal or worse, he's French? I almost forgot, republicans think torture and rape are nothing but "fraternity pranks" and just "blowing off steam". But if only harmless pranks, then why not release the footage? (Just so any republicans reading this don't write and accuse me, I am NOT a democrat, but a voluntaryist)

There are three issues I want to address here. First, has anyone forgotten about 9/11 and how this mass murder was not investigated? I remember the politicians who benefited the most from the attacks resisting any investigation into it (big surprise there). Eventually a whitewash "commission" was put in place and the lies continued. That's what governments do when they plan and carry out terrorist attacks. Check out Victor Thorn & Lisa Guiliani's site for more information: http://69.28.73.17/, as well as www.rense.com.

Second, I thought the so-called "law" or "rule of law" was sacred? When a judge barks an order it has to be obeyed; after all, it's the "law". Is this not another example of politicians refusing to subject themselves to the "law" they ram down our throats? Do those people who still support the "system" think this is unacceptable? I thought a court order had to be obeyed until vacated by the judge barking the order or by an appellate court? I guess the "laws" only apply to the peons, I mean citizens or Citizens.

Third, last time I looked, not obeying a court order was called "contempt of court." Whether termed civil or criminal, it usually involves being thrown into a cage for humans called a prison. Does anyone think the "pentagon" will be held in contempt for not complying with the "law"? I doubt anyone at the pentagon is going to jail, do you?

Think about it, fail to comply with an order of a traffic court judge (the lowest of courts) and you go to jail, no questions asked. If a warrant is issued, then "deadly force" may be used to bring you to prison. Refuse to comply with a federal court order and you'll probably get promoted. That is, if you keep your mouth shut.

Does a tree have to fall on someone for them to notice the forest?

No smoking law in New Jersey

2005-07-26T14:05:00.000-07:00

I heard about this absurd "law" last night from Bill Brumbaugh while a guest on his show ProActive News, http://www.proactivenews.com/. You can read about it here: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--smokingdrivers0724jul24,0,5663929,print.story.

I want to make two comments on this nonsense. First, there is no duty (on the part of those men and women pretending to be a "state") to protect anyone or their property. Any claim this "law" is to protect is an outright lie. Not a "misrepresentation", not "cooking the intelligence" or some other politically correct nonsense; but a lie.

Second, there is the issue of standing. Notice the article contains not one word about difficulties in prosecuting such cases; all it has is, "Offenders would be stung with a fine of up to $250, under the measure". Really? What about standing to complain?

There is only one professed purpose of establishing a government i.e., to "protect and maintain individual rights". This is in most "state constitutions" as well as the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, as courts have held for years, standing to complain requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of his legal rights. If not, there is no standing and the case is supposed to be kicked out.

Let's assume I have been given a ticket for smoking while driving. Who's legal rights am I being accused of violating? And if I am accused of such a thing, then which legal right have I allegedly violated? There are three general legal rights under American "law".

Do you think John McKeon, the sponsor of this so-called "law" asked such questions? Do you think his fellow "legislators" will ask and answer such questions? Maybe the one pretending to be a "governor" will "veto" it because he can't identify any legal right being violated?

It should be impossible to maintain such an action in court because no legal rights are involved. But, why bother those exalted men and women commonly called "legislators" with such frivolous matters?

It's not about protection. It's about control over our lives and property by men like John McKeon who are unwilling or incapable of providing their "services" on a voluntary basis like NORMAL people.

Welcome to the There is no state blog!

2005-07-25T13:29:00.000-07:00

I figured, what the hell.

I'm not aware of any other person on the net discussing current events without some kind of political spin. Every story or event is told as if there are "states."

Not here though. While I will be posting links to current stories I think are relevant, my entries will not be written through "statist" eyes. Please feel free to email me links. I like Frank Whalen's page, he always has a ton of news posted and updated daily: http://franklyspeakingradio.com/home.html.

Politics is a virus, it's high time the world was rid of this public relations scheme. Geez, even a lot of libertarians just don't get it. This writer gets it though and while Lew Rockwell refuses to post my articles, I think it's great he posted Jim's that was rightly critical of Lew's thinking: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies1.html.