Claims or Testimony?

Claimant: (The people of) The State/City/Township of …

[… is a violation of the rules of the claimant …]
When can I speak with [the claimant]?

[the claimant can’t be spoken with because … (“fictional entity”, “legal entity” etc)]
If [the claimant] is not testifying that I agreed with [the claimant] to [rules] of [the claimant], why would anyone think there’s a violation/offense of [the rules] of [the claimant]?

The [rules] of [the claimant] … apply when you’re in/on [the claimant]. You’re a resident, right? You’re a citizen, right? You got a birth certificate, right? This is your name/case, right?
I believe I’ve heard I was in/on … , how might one prove such a claim?
I believe I heard I am a citizen, I believe I’ve heard that I own something called a birth certificate, I believe I’ve heard I own that name…

You signed this document, right?
I believe I scribed some ink on that paper. Is someone claiming that piece of paper is equivalent to [the claimant] testifying? If there’s a difference, what is it?

How will you be paying?
Is it mine to give? Is someone claiming it’s possible to own something to pay with?

If one lets the dragon of chaos grow into a so called case:
I’m here for that matter…

If one can’t prove a claim, would it make sense to refrain from making them, considering it’s said ‘what you say can, and will, be used against you”?

Could it be the only one possibly knowing firsthand there was agreement to rules of the claimant, be the claimant?

Could the only one with firsthand knowledge of who or what is allegedly being charged be the claimant?

Some so-called representatives might seem to believe they know, but would they be willing to testify that what they’re saying is firsthand knowledge, or even claim to have heard the claimant say such things? So called sovereign citizens and freemen on the land claim the name is being charged, but how might anyone prove such claims?

Thoughts to consider:

Why assume you know who or what The State of …, Verizon, Walmart etc are? Is it, the word or phrase, a “collective noun”, “fictional entity”, “legal entity” etc or could it be a “title”, or simply sound someone answers to?

People might say “I don’t assume who or what The State of … is. It’s written right here, or said right there.” Why cite what someone wrote or said, unless you believe they’re a so-called authority? Unable to speak for the self? Author.ity?

How might one “prove” any claim, such as “owning”? Citing a piece of paper, or so-called authority? Will that piece of paper be testifying to what you say it says/shows?

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/44889

How might ‘we’ get ‘them’ to make all the claims, that there’s no way to speak with the claimant (so agreement with the claimant is impossible), and that so called codes/statutes/laws etc apply, WITHOUT using so called legalese? Join the group linked below to work on these questions, and similar ones, with me:

Skype Discussion Group

Is the claim being represented accurately?

Why ask representatives for ‘evidence’ of a claim, if the one being said to be represented isn’t going to testify that the claim is being represented accurately?

Will The State of … be testifying that there was agreement to The State’s codes?

Will The State of … be testifying that the claim is being represented accurately?

If neither, why would anyone believe the claim is being represented accurately or the codes apply?

If there are reasons people believe codes apply or a claim is represented accurately, could that be the perfect opportunity to testify about what you’ve heard or read, instead of claiming? Could that be what it’s alleged that Jesus did: “you say I am”?

Why focus on records of thoughts and actions, and call it evidence?

Is ‘evidence’ ever used to describe something considered ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘just’ or ‘fair’?

Asking for ‘evidence’: ‘evidence’ you believe someone did ‘wrong’, ‘bad’ etc?

What Causes Codes/Statutes etc to Apply

Marc Stevens might say it’s physical location, or “jurisdiction”, as evidenced by focusing on evidence of jurisdiction. Thing is, that’s the same thing the ones he calls thieves and liars claim.

Batman might say claims, including assumptions. If Batman is right, which claims specifically?

Could the most important assumption be that it’s not possible to speak with the claimant? If one believes what’s been read/heard over the years, will one fail to ask to speak with the claimant? Would that show no interest in agreeing with the claimant? Would that show being more interested in dealing with representatives, than the one said to be represented?

A representative might claim the rules of x apply, but is that the same as x claiming the same thing? Would that be the same as x claiming there was agreement to rules of x?

If someone says rules of x apply, how about asking “will x be testifying that they apply?”

Could the claimant be the only one with firsthand knowledge of agreement to the claimant’s rules? Or who/what the rules apply to? Or who/what is allegedly being charged? Will the claimant be testifying that there is/was agreement to rules of the claimant, and if not, why would someone think the rules apply?

The name, owning (house, car, money, birthday, case, ID, etc), citizenship, residency, occupation, male/female. These are all claims to be mindful of, but focusing on them, and bringing them up can put one in a defensive position, I believe. I played the name game before doing 4 days… I believe I was defensive, just trying to keep separate from the name and “you”, but never asking about testimony from the claimant. I believe I was afraid of appearing crazy… after all, “everybody knows” it’s not possible for the claimant to speak, right? How does one come to know that? By what was heard or read? Or by firsthand experience, by asking when the claimant will be testifying?

Bring forth evidence of No Agreement

Asking to speak w/ claimant: bring forth evidence of no agreement WITHOUT using so called legalese? One could ask for evidence that jurisdiction applies, evidence that constitutions apply, or evidence that law/code/statue etc applies, but why bring those terms up, unless completely necessary? I believe there’s a way to help “them” make all the claims, without bringing up any of the language “they” define…

picture1

Why ask to speak with the claimant? Is it because you believe someone answers to that phrase? I believe I wrote just a month or two ago here, on this blog, that the state/city of … settles matters honorably, if asking to speak with him/her, or something like that… since then, I believe a valuable thought or two occurred…

Seem highly likely to me, when asking to speak with the claimant, the one you’re speaking with is going to tell you that it’s not possible to speak with the claimant (because it’s an entity). Could that be all the evidence you need that you never agreed to anything?

Questions to bring forth final claim(s), that … applies

If it’s not possible to speak with the claimant, how could I have agreed in the first place to these things you’re saying were violated?

If neither of us can speak with the claimant, why would you think those things have anything to do with me?

If nobody here has spoken with the claimant, how would anyone here know firsthand that there is a controversy, or that it concerns me?

If nobody here has spoken with the claimant, how would anyone here know firsthand who or what is allegedly being charged?

“Final” claim(s)

The codes/laws/statues of The State of … apply when you’re in The State of …

I believe I’ve heard I’m in … how might anyone prove such a claim? Unless I can prove a claim, would it make sense to make any, considering what you say will be used against you?

This is your name, right? This is your case, right? You have a drivers license, right?

I believe I’ve heard I own that name, case, so called drivers license etc … how might anyone prove such a claim? Will drivers license be providing firsthand testimony that I agreed to something? Unless I can prove a claim, would it make sense to make any, considering what you say will be used against you?

You signed … , right?

I believe I scribbled some ink on paper… will that so called document be providing firsthand knowledge?

“Ask the wrong question, get the right answer” -Batman

Hearsay of a Controversy existing?

Could the claimant (often the state of …) and you be the only two capable of providing firsthand testimony(/”knowledge”?) that there’s a controversy concerning you? Why be a witness against the self?

Could “it” be as simple as using questions to bring to light the fact that there’s no firsthand knowledge of a controversy even existing, much less concerning you?

Without firsthand testimony from the claimant to confirm that a controversy even exists, much less has anything to do with me, would it make sense to discharge this matter?

Marc Stevens asking for firsthand knowledge?

Someone on marcstevens.net just informed me Marc Stevens asks for a witness with first-hand knowledge that the laws apply to him just because he’s in ____. I can see that “working”… seems, to me, similar to firsthand knowledge of who/what is being charged…

Marc mentioned evidence of cops claims on latest show… he believes the cop makes the claims? Seems so called cops claim The State/City of … claims or does/did something…

Speech patterns I seem to recall

“(not) doing … is a violation of the … of The State/City of …”
“by authority of The State/City of …, ‘you’ are being charged/placed under arrest”
“The State/City of … is charging ‘you’ with …”

Marcatic Methodists say the patterns are

“jurisdiction, constitution & code applies”

Someone will claim that crap does apply, if you bring it up… would those claims ever even come up unless you bring up jurisdiction, constitutions, code etc applying?

The State/City of … is said to claim or do something, like charge or issue warrant, and that brings to mind so called jurisdiction, constitution and code? How do you draw a connection between The State/City of … and jurisdiction, constitution, codes etc and why do that?

Could bringing up words like jurisdiction, constitution, codes, statues etc be evidence you believe what you read/heard about who/what The State/City of … is? If someone asks why you believe The State of … is a what, and you cite what someone wrote or said, could that mean you believe whomever you cite is a so-called authority?

Could jumping from The State/City of … charging or issuing warrants to laws applying, be evidence that you’re trying to get out of something, namely, the stuff you bring up applying?

picture1

The State/City of … is:

  1. a so-called title, or sound someone answers to?
  2. a “fictional entity”/”collective noun” tasked with …?

Must one or the other be chosen, or even assumed, to then formulate questions based on? Guess one could go one step further, and ask who or what The State/City of … is, but I hear every man (and woman) is a liar… could it be?

Assuming The State/City of … is a fictional entity leads to believing:

  • you and “others” are under attack
  • criticizing anyone believing they work for the system
  • surrounding the self with people that criticize the system
  • generally shying away from those that respect the system

Assuming The State/City of … is a so-called title leads to:

  • believing “it” is a “test”, rather than attack: testimony or claims?
  • humility… it’s not “their” fault you, or anyone else, chose to fight with representatives, instead of asking to speak with the one being represented, and it’s not “their” fault you made all those claims
  • respect for the so-called system, and people involved
  • generally shying away from those that claim the system is unjust

Why assume that it’s ‘you’ being charged, as opposed to just the name, until speaking with someone at least claiming firsthand knowledge of who/what is being charged?

Why claim to be and own a name, claim to be in the country, state, county, city of …, claim to be a citizen, occupant, resident, tenant etc, claim to own bank accounts, money, birthday, birth certificate, house, car, phone etc?

How might anyone “prove” any of those claims? If you can’t prove a claim, and what you say will be used against you, would it be wise to refrain from making claims, and at least add “I believe …” or “I heard/read …” before testifying? Testimony or claim? Which “side of the cross” are you on? In the world, or of the world?

[4:54:00 AM] [NSPer]: a “talkie” is needed
[4:54:08 AM] [NSPer]: simple “role play”
[4:54:27 AM] Me: meh… role play works when everyone agrees on the game being played…
[4:54:48 AM] [NSPer]: yes…
[4:55:09 AM] [NSPer]: do you have a game you would like to play and set the rules?
[4:56:34 AM] Me: games and playing are good and all… but how about just discussing why bring up evidence of so-called jurisdiction, constitutions, law etc applying instead of asking to speak with the one said to be charging?
[4:58:57 AM] [NSPer]: its the same thing..you are asking the same question sort of.
[4:59:04 AM] [NSPer]: ROLE PLAY NEEDED.
[4:59:26 AM] Me: agreed… thing is… words jurisdiction and constitution are words “they” came up with, from what I can tell
[4:59:37 AM] Me: why use “their” language?
[4:59:52 AM] [NSPer]: good point and Gary’ ish

[6:31:02 AM] Me: right, like I titled the topic on the forums… you’re trying to show someone is wrong… someone you haven’t even met?
[6:31:27 AM] NSPer: sort of
[6:31:37 AM] NSPer: you want THEM
[6:31:47 AM] NSPer: to find their own error.
[6:31:53 AM] Me: well, why argue with the socalled representatives, instead of speaking with the one represented?
[6:32:18 AM] Me: maybe the one being represented doesn’t want to argue and there’s nothing to show wrong?
[6:32:19 AM] NSPer: who cares?
[6:32:19 AM] Me: could it be?
[6:33:04 AM] Me: just gonna take hearsay as evidence that there’s a controversy?
[6:33:17 AM] Me: until you meet the claimant, could the representatives only provide hearsay?
[6:33:38 AM] NSPer: ever hear of the unsigned plea of guilty and the con cept ?
NSP Marcratic Methodist: Is consent the only evidence of jurisdiction?

How might you define such things?

If I define a word (jurisdiction) to mean you’re subject to my rules, connect that word in writing(s) to a term that’s written to be the “entity” that does punishing if rules are broken (the state of)… then someone claiming to represent that entity/phrase says you broke the rules of the entity/phrase, and you respond by asking for evidence that the word I made up applies…

Could it be by bringing up jurisdiction, you’re connecting the same dots that were connected in writing, between jurisdiction and The State of …, and that proves you believe what you read or heard about who/what The State of … is?

[2:08:21 AM] Rob: Well when I hear you have one win with these psychopaths or even one encounter then I’ll reconsider the tens of wins me and my freinds have with a 10 % loss ratio and we can explain why that happened and what your solution is to that is to appeal
[2:08:23 AM] TOM: at least I am still under 1 per day goal.
[2:08:29 AM] TOM: (whew)
[2:09:33 AM] TOM: Well when I hear you have one win with these psychopaths or even one encounter then I’ll reconsider the tens of wins me and my freinds have with a 10 % loss ratio and we can explain why that happened and what your solution is to that is to appealWELL THEN SPARKY PLEASE DO TELL because Marcs “method” has a 90 failure record..
[2:09:53 AM] TOM: yep I said it 90%
[2:10:21 AM] TOM: so SPARKY if you have a better mouse trap lets see it.
[2:10:26 AM] Rob: did you just admit that Marc fails 90% of the time?
[2:10:33 AM] TOM: yes SIR
[2:10:41 AM] TOM: so SPARKY if you have a better mouse trap lets see it.
[2:10:45 AM] cweykamp: Whatever we ate listening
[2:10:51 AM] cweykamp: *are
[2:11:01 AM] TOM: YEP
[2:11:09 AM] TOM: tell us SPARKY
[2:11:17 AM] TOM: how do you “WIN”?
[2:11:20 AM] Rob: 90% fail?!!?
[2:11:26 AM] TOM: YES
[2:11:33 AM] “His” Dudeness: COME ON ROB…
[2:11:43 AM | Edited 2:12:50 AM] Alan Williams: What if you took a holiday in “France”, like I have five times, where guilt is presumed not innocence. Play that shit out. Napoleonic code stuff. Choose any “French territory” like “Saint Pierre et Miquelon” or “Tahiti”.
[2:11:55 AM] Rob: Well there is no real win as it always costs you time and currency somehow
[2:12:01 AM] Alan Williams: Remember this is a global chat.
[2:12:06 AM] “His” Dudeness: I have yet to find anyone actually win in court with any method.
[2:13:16 AM] Rob: but a 90% conviction against your defence?!? REALLY??!!??
[2:13:44 AM] Alan Williams: [2:11 AM] Alan Williams:

<<< What if you took a holiday in “France”, like I have five times, where guilt is presumed not innocence. Play that shit out. Napoleonic code stuff. Choose any “French territory” like “Saint Pierre et Miquelon” or “Tahiti”.No takers huh?
[2:14:40 AM] Rob: Alan …. that is the norm despite their cliam to the opposite
[2:14:41 AM] TOM: [2:11 AM] Rob:

<<< Well there is no real win as it always costs you time and currency somehowof course that’s why its “DAMAGE CONTROL” and 90% failure rate.

Perhaps if Marc Stevens questioned some of “his own” sacred cows… he might help people do better than 90% failure… could it be?

Marc Stevens’ Sacred Cows:

  1. assuming to know who/what (the people of) the state of … is
  2. assuming to know who/what is being charged
  3. claiming to be in/on the state/city of …
  4. claiming to own ID/license/name/case/car/house/money etc and/or be the name
  5. assuming using words/phrases like “evidence of jurisdiction applying” are “best” way to bring up whether or not there’s a controversy to settle

Asking for evidence of jurisdiction: assuming there’s an assertion or controversy, in the first place?

Conspiracy theories or Honor?

Gottschall argues that conspiratorial thinking “is not limited to the stupid, the ignorant, or the crazy. It is a reflex of the storytelling mind’s compulsive need for meaningful experience.” He goes on to make the compelling point that ultimately, conspiracy theories are used to explain why bad things happen. He writes, “To the conspiratorial mind, shit never just happens,” and the complexities of human life are reduced to produce theories that are “always consoling in their simplicity.”
His conclusion about conspiracy thinking on the societal level reflects some of the exact same problems at the personal and relational levels. Gottschall writes that for conspiracy theorists, “bad things do not happen because of a wildly complex swirl of abstract historical and social variables. They happen because bad men live to stalk our happiness. And you can fight, and possibly even defeat, bad men. If you can read the hidden story.”

I used to believe there’s a hidden story, and that bad men are stalking our happiness, or something like that. Seems I used to believe the hidden story needed told, so I spent all day on reddit, forums and such to tell it. Now I believe that story is harmful, and that people desperately need an alternative.

When it’s said “The State (of …) has issued a warrant for …”, or “The State (of …) is charging … with …”, why do so many fail to ask to speak with the claimant, The State (of …)? Did you come to believe The State (of …) is someTHING, such a so-called collective noun, or even just an idea, instead of what someONE answers to, like a so-called title? If so, how? What you read or heard?

Could it be that The State (of …) is the only one with firsthand knowledge of who, or what, is being charged? I’ve heard the “sovereign citizen”/”freeman” types claim the name is being charged, but how can anyone prove that? If a representative claims it’s ‘you’, not the name, being charged, could it be wise to ask if what they’re saying is based on firsthand knowledge?

When it’s said “Verizon says you owe …”, why not ask to speak with the claimant, Verizon? Did you come to believe there’s nobody answering to that sound, in the same way you came to believe those things about The State (of …)?

If you agreed to pay someone, please do so. If someone says ‘you’ owe Santa Clause could it be wise to ask “is it mine to give?” I hear some believe The Federal Reserve or The Treasury claims to own all the currency in circulation. How might any prove owning anything, or prove anything at all, for that matter? If you can’t prove what you’re claiming, and what you say will be used against you, could it be wise to use phrases like “I believe …” and “I was told …”?

http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/44889

Simplicity

Why speak with the one said to represent “so and so”, or said to do something on his behalf, instead of asking to speak with so and so? Seems people come to believe the state of …, the city of … etc are collective nouns, rather than someone to speak with, or a sound someone answers to. In so-called court, people are answering to the prosecutor, the plaintiff, the defendant, the court stenographer, the judge, the bailiff etc, so are you sure that someone doesn’t answer to the city of …, or the state of …? How about Verizon, AT&T, Walmart, Lowes etc, are you sure nobody answers to those sounds, if you ask?

Why claim to own things, unless you can “prove” such a claim, and how might anyone ever do that? Seems most claim to be and own the name they use, along with claiming to own anything else that might show on paper as registered to the name they’re using… why be so common? If asking to speak with the claimant, maybe you’ll meet someone that shows you how he proves owning whatever he’s wanting paid for, so you might then prove owning money to pay with. “(How might I prove) it’s mine to give?”

Seems if one stays in honor, by not making claims, except maybe “I believe …” or “I heard ….” and “I was/am using …” and asks to speak with the claimant, they’ll meet someone that settles the matter honorably. Too simple? You would have noticed? What’s the alternative, blaming and complaining?

https://join.skype.com/z2GgKi6kr1Fb

Marcratic Methodists

Seems I recall Marc recommending “taking the ticket”, and then asking for evidence of jurisdiction and/or evidence that laws/constitutions apply, in so-called court.  If you ask, I believe you’ll find most there believe “(the people of) the county/state/city of” says… something. Why go from what’s being claimed, that so and so says something, to bringing up constitutions and jurisdiction, and evidence of them applying? Could that be evidence that you believe what you were told about who and what “(the people of) the county/state/city of” is? Could that be the sound someone answers to? Seems like the logical interpretation to me when someone says so and so says or claims something. Also seems honorable to speak with whoever is claimed to have said they’re offended.

Seems the Marcratic Methodists believe the “evidence” they’re asking for doesn’t exist. Why would anyone ask for something they believe does not exist? In an effort to “disprove” something, a claim they believe exists perhaps? Why try disproving a claim, unless/until you’ve met the alleged claimant?

Although the Marcratic Methodists seem to believe asking questions beats making claims, they also seem to believe claiming to be and own the name you use is for the best. Maybe one will show how any claim is “proven”, such as “ownership”?

Conspiracy theories or Honor

[7:01:59 AM] Alan: Fuck the name game.
[7:02:04 AM] Steve: (y)
[7:06:41 AM] Steve: Fuck bringing up evidence of jurisdiction, and fuck bringing up evidence that the constitution applies, too. Why bring any of that shit up?
[7:15:47 AM] Alan: Because there is no evidence that jurisdiction appiles which comes before a claimant making a claim. Night.
[7:16:12 AM] Steve: “which comes before a claimant making a claim” marc tell you that? (chuckle)
[7:16:30 AM] Alan Williams: No. It is self evident.
[7:16:44 AM] Steve: whatever helps you sleep at night 😀

Any Marcratic Methodists wanna explain why “there is no evidence that jurisdiction appiles which comes before a claimant making a claim”?