Could claims of ownership (“my name”, “my house”, “my phone” etc.) and claims of innocence (”I didn’t do that”/”I did this instead”) cause controversy, leading to all the nonviolent people behind bars?
How might we experiment with different ways of conversation, to help brothers and sisters stop charging each other, and stop landing behind bars?
I hear asking to speak with the claimant keeps the peace (no controversies). Some claim it’s best to ask for “evidence of jurisdiction”, although I fail to see what would ever accepted as such. I believe both ways can keep people out from behind bars, for now, but I expect the (Marc Stevens’) Methodists will encounter an increasing amount of resistance as time goes on.
I would love to see some more experimenting, with both questions/strategies, so the results can be compared. So far, it seems more people are experimenting with what Marc Stevens says, but I attribute that to people wanting to believe in ownership. It’s likely impossible to still believe in ownership and do what Batman says he does.
The two share many similarities, I believe, at least when compared and contrasted with Sovereign Citizen or Freeman on the Land strategies. They both emphasize minimizing claims and maximizing questions. Marc Stevens talks about shifting the burden of proof. Batman might ask “what can anyone really ever prove?”
Marc Stevens tells people to ask for evidence of jurisdiction and/or ask for evidence that the constitution applies, even if they’re physically located wherever… to me, these questions seem to be voluntary admissions and confessions. Why bring up jurisdictions or constitutions unless you believe in those things?