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?
The State/City of … is:
- a so-called title, or sound someone answers to?
- 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:
- assuming to know who/what (the people of) the state of … is
- assuming to know who/what is being charged
- claiming to be in/on the state/city of …
- claiming to own ID/license/name/case/car/house/money etc and/or be the name
- 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?