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”?