Questions from seminar attendee

[denizen]

Marc has not responded to the questions below which were asked via PM. So thought I might see if it was appropriate to ask them publicly??
----------------------

I purchased your book some time ago – have read it twice and refer to it often. It is a huge help. I attended your recent seminar and that, too, was a help. However, I seem to need more help and am hopeful that it will not be too much of an imposition to ask for information or comment on the following:

1. Wrenn v. D. of C. We have been unable to locate that case. Do you have a cite? Such cases would seem to be key in establishing some of the premises for AiLL?
There were many hits on Findlaw for Wrenn but none seemed to be the one sought?
Findlaw was helpful for locating the Lurie case

2. You commented that Arizona Rule 17 says “No pleas can be given if you don’t understand.” And, I recall you saying (somewhere), that any plea (or agreement of the party in question)(unless voluntarily waived, I guess), required the party to be in possession of something expressed in three words – but I do not recall the three words (understanding?; knowledge? Comprehension?”) Do you have such a quote available? – and the source of such a quote?

3. I am having trouble with “standing”. Unless I misunderstood, there is no ‘standing’ in a criminal case. Standing, however, requires two things: a wrong and a loss (causes of action). Or, the Plaintiff must have suffered a violation of a legal right and, also, damage. Both are required for ‘standing’ to exist. And there are ‘civil’ cases and ‘criminal’ cases. Civil cases can be on the basis of a contract (dispute) or a tort (no contract) . And a criminal case somehow involves the “whole society”. And yet, a criminal case also involves the same two things which constitute a ‘cause of action’: - namely, a loss and damage. – or, a breach of duty and damage. And, of course, if there is no Plaintiff, there can be no case. So – if a legitimate Plaintiff exists (a party who has suffered some invasion of a legal right - whatever that may mean – and damage – then that Party is legitimate – but “standing” is not the term used? (I can imagine medical malpractice cases would fit into the criminal aspect against the “whole society” – if any of that has any real meaning.) So – a “complaining party” needs those two aspects in order for a Plaintiff to have legitimacy – which is not called “standing”?? I think your “evidence of a complaining party” question eliminates the ‘state’ or related entity since citizens with allegiance are required in order for a ‘state’ to exist and that is reciprocal to protection offered by the ‘state’ in question – which is not supplied.

Is this just a ‘word’ game – in that ‘standing’ must exist in either civil or criminal, but it is only called ‘standing’ in civil cases and the term is not used in criminal cases – but the aspects of ‘standing’ (causes of action – loss and damage) still must be present in the Plaintiff?

4. If something is called ‘frivolous’, how would you respond? Would you ask for the facts on which that term “frivolous” was based? Would you ask: “Factually, what is the basis for the term “frivolous” in this case? Or??


Your book is a tremendous help. I thank you for writing and publishing it and for all the subsequent help you offer – your forum and comments. Thank you for all of it.
----------------

If this posting is inappropriate on the forum please inform me and I will delete it

[Neo]

Marc's a very busy guy and may not have checked the PM recently, or put responding to it in his to-do-list. There are some who know some or all of the answers to your questions. Like me. Wait a week or more and if he doesn't respond, ask others to respond instead. If he never responses, remember, Marc gives a lot for free, his comments on this message board for example, are worth their weight in gold, for those who search them out.

[marc stevens]

denizen said:

1. Wrenn v. D. of C. We have been unable to locate that case. Do you have a cite? Such cases would seem to be key in establishing some of the premises for AiLL?
There were many hits on Findlaw for Wrenn but none seemed to be the one sought?
Findlaw was helpful for locating the Lurie case

OK, Wrenn is not a supreme court case and that is probably why you can't find it. I do not have the citation handy, though as soon as I find it I will post it. If you look at Aaron Zelman's website www.jpfo.org/, you can find information from Richard Stevens (no relation). he wrote the book call 911 and Die; he lists a bunch of cases on the issue of no duty to protect and should include Wrenn.

Such cases are key to understanding the premise for AiLL because they demonstrate the deception. However, you only need to know you cannot maintain a lawsuit against the "state" if your car is stolen. Everyone seems to know you cannot sue the police if your car is stolen. There is no duty to protect property.

Also, no duty to protect could be created unless that service was provided on a voluntary basis. Knowing that, then it doesn't matter if politicians do claim a duty to protect. Unless the service is provided voluntarily there is no duty.

[Neo]

No rational duty.

My name is Agent Smith, and I'm going to protect you whether you want me to or not, and I'll never leave you, from birth until death, by using a hole in the back of your head that you don't even know is there ... oh, and did I tell you how you pay for all of this?

[marc stevens]

denizen said:

2. You commented that Arizona Rule 17 says “No pleas can be given if you don’t understand.” And, I recall you saying (somewhere), that any plea (or agreement of the party in question)(unless voluntarily waived, I guess), required the party to be in possession of something expressed in three words – but I do not recall the three words (understanding?; knowledge? Comprehension?”) Do you have such a quote available? – and the source of such a quote?

Rule 17.1(b) "A plea of guilty or no consent may be accepted only if voluntarily and intelligently made." Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[marc stevens]

denizen said:

3. I am having trouble with “standing”. Unless I misunderstood, there is no ‘standing’ in a criminal case. Standing, however, requires two things: a wrong and a loss (causes of action). Or, the Plaintiff must have suffered a violation of a legal right and, also, damage. Both are required for ‘standing’ to exist. And there are ‘civil’ cases and ‘criminal’ cases. Civil cases can be on the basis of a contract (dispute) or a tort (no contract) . And a criminal case somehow involves the “whole society”. And yet, a criminal case also involves the same two things which constitute a ‘cause of action’: - namely, a loss and damage. – or, a breach of duty and damage. And, of course, if there is no Plaintiff, there can be no case. So – if a legitimate Plaintiff exists (a party who has suffered some invasion of a legal right - whatever that may mean – and damage – then that Party is legitimate – but “standing” is not the term used? (I can imagine medical malpractice cases would fit into the criminal aspect against the “whole society” – if any of that has any real meaning.) So – a “complaining party” needs those two aspects in order for a Plaintiff to have legitimacy – which is not called “standing”?? I think your “evidence of a complaining party” question eliminates the ‘state’ or related entity since citizens with allegiance are required in order for a ‘state’ to exist and that is reciprocal to protection offered by the ‘state’ in question – which is not supplied.

Is this just a ‘word’ game – in that ‘standing’ must exist in either civil or criminal, but it is only called ‘standing’ in civil cases and the term is not used in criminal cases – but the aspects of ‘standing’ (causes of action – loss and damage) still must be present in the Plaintiff?

Look in the book where I quote from US v. ICC. Courts may only adjudicate justiciable cases or controversies. There is:

"The prime object of all litigation is to establish a right asserted by the plaintiff…the action should be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been affected, against the party who committed or caused the injury…the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it." Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 21 SCt. 206, 207, 208.

Notice it says "all litigation". A crime is a public tort.

Yes, it is a word game, played by a gang of killers, thieves and liars. If you look at the Arizona constitution as an example, it states in article 2 section 2, the purpose of the government was to "protect and maintain individual rights," it is obvious that even criminal cases (public tort) must involve a legal right.

[marc stevens]

denizen said:

4. If something is called ‘frivolous’, how would you respond? Would you ask for the facts on which that term “frivolous” was based? Would you ask: “Factually, what is the basis for the term “frivolous” in this case? Or??

It depends on what is described as frivolous. I would not ask what you suggested though.

Let me give you an example. A lawyer recently called a tax court petition "gibberish" and "nonsense." One of the statement of facts she referred to was: "The United States government is a group of men and women."

I take one line at a time and ask, "Do you understand this sentence or is it gibberish. My PC rates it at 12 grade English."

We were supposed to go to court last week about and had we gone, we were going to bring in an English professor to testify it was not gibberish. The judge would have refused to permit it stating, "It was not necessary." Meaning, he agreed it was not "gibberish." That was all that was needed to defeat the motion.

Also, that is the benefit of not taking a position except what the bureaucrat has spewed out. Remember, most of what I do is to ask questions. And yes, I have had my questions described as frivolous.

[Neo]

D,

It's all a game. That's the most important thing to remember. A game. Problem is, in this particular "game" the stakes are very real. It's a game in the sense that they know they can ultimately force their will upon you one way or another so they're going to do it by either "persuading" you to either actually believe their contradictory nonesense or to gradually wear you out so that you "voluntarily" give up and give in. If none of that works and you "force the issue," their guns will eventually come out. Not the judge. S/he is a coward. The one with the badge--carrying their "court order."

[kingram]

marc said:

It depends on what is described as frivolous. I would not ask what you suggested though.

Let me give you an example. A lawyer recently called a tax court petition "gibberish" and "nonsense." One of the statement of facts she referred to was: "The United States government is a group of men and women."

I take one line at a time and ask, "Do you understand this sentence or is it gibberish. My PC rates it at 12 grade English."

We were supposed to go to court last week about and had we gone, we were going to bring in an English professor to testify it was not gibberish. The judge would have refused to permit it stating, "It was not necessary." Meaning, he agreed it was not "gibberish." That was all that was needed to defeat the motion.

Also, that is the benefit of not taking a position except what the bureaucrat has spewed out. Remember, most of what I do is to ask questions. And yes, I have had my questions described as frivolous.

Interesting Marc.

So how have you responded when your questions are referred to as "gibberish"? I would be stymied if I encountered such a response.

[marc stevens]

Look at reply #6 above. I responded with: Ms. Sommers [IRS lawyer] is either illiterate or a liar. My PC rates the petition at 12th grade English.

These lawyers actually think: "The United States government is a group of men and women." is gibberish.

I read the sentence/question to them and ask them if they understand the idea being conveyed.

[Darren Dirt]

marc said:

OK, Wrenn is not a supreme court case and that is probably why you can't find it. I do not have the citation handy, though as soon as I find it I will post it. If you look at Aaron Zelman's website www.jpfo.org/, you can find information from Richard Stevens (no relation). he wrote the book call 911 and Die; he lists a bunch of cases on the issue of no duty to protect and should include Wrenn.

Such cases are key to understanding the premise for AiLL because they demonstrate the deception. However, you only need to know you cannot maintain a lawsuit against the "state" if your car is stolen. Everyone seems to know you cannot sue the police if your car is stolen. There is no duty to protect property.

Also, no duty to protect could be created unless that service was provided on a voluntary basis. Knowing that, then it doesn't matter if politicians do claim a duty to protect. Unless the service is provided voluntarily there is no duty.

Related, horrifying information is found on a site no longer "up" but thankfully stored at the Wayback machine (archive.org) - it's called "CopCrimes.com".

Especially see web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm

[svarstaad]

www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4593

Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection

Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - April 2000
by Richard W. Stevens

Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).

[excerpt]

No Duty to Protect

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”[5]

[Footnote 5]
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

[svarstaad]

Get an online edition of:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

at: www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

[Dirt]

awesome link find, Svar!

I can't tell what sickened my stomach more, the description of what these beasts did to these 3 women or the fact that the justice system did not find the individual "peace officers" negligent just on a purely human level (ignoring their "official" capacity).


But there it is, the reason why it was dismissed:

The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

The Warren v. case is a great example, but the principle applies everywhere (otherwise by its very definition, no government "service" could stay in "business", I guess!)

[Dirt]

...finished reading (ouch my brain!) and now it actually makes (twisted) sense:

As both the Bloom and Florence courts noted, the concept of special duty is actually no more than an application of the cardinal principal of tort law that, even where no duty to act may exist originally, once one undertakes to act, he has a duty to do so with due care. Florence v. Goldberg, supra at 196, 404 N YS.2d at 587, 375 N.E.2d at 766; Bloom v. City of New York, supra at 1079, 357 N.Y.S.2d at 981. Cf. Security National Bank v. Lish, D.C.App., 311 A.2d 833, 834 (1973) ("[o]ne who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.") (quoting Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236, 239, 135 N.E. 275, 276 (1922)).

More precisely, one who begins to perform a service to another[/]b, whether gratuitously or not must perform with reasonable care; thus, he subjects himself to liability for any harm suffered because the other reasonably and foreseeably relied upon the actor's performance.

So I guess "peace officers" are just as afraid of the lawyers as the rest of us