Questions from seminar attendee

[denizen]

Thank you Svarstaad !!

Was sure that Marc had said Wrenn, and it is now apparent that it was Warren. Funny thing was (in my searches using Wrenn) I found numerous cases relating to 'no duty to protect'; but NONE of them involved government! This guy Wrenn appeared to have done a lot of suits - but I was chasing down the wrong rabbit hole

[marc stevens]

Sorry about that Den, I got the two mixed up.

[denizen]

Marc – no problem on that confusion of the name – you did come thru with the link which had the Dial 911 Book, and there were plenty of references on that point there; so I was satisfied. And your responses for the other questions were very much appreciated also!

I have two more questions now to submit. The first question concerns the “evidence of a complaining party” aspect, and the second question concerns the “burden of proof” aspect.:

First question: evidence of complaining party:

1. Is the following correct:? When one asks for “evidence of a complaining party”, one is asking for the proper identification of a party who has either (a) the duty of allegiance owed to him or (b) has the duty of a legal (?) right that has been ignored, abused or violated.

(I mean by this that there must be EVIDENCE – that is, facts, - to show not just the NAME of a complaining party. but the FACTS that such party is owed an allegiance or a right.

2. And (that party) has been injured or damaged as a result of the non-performance of the required duty. (Here, again, the FACTS of the injury or damage to the complaining party must be identified. (Is that correct?)

Second question: “burden of proof”<br>
The party with the “burden of proof” must show BOTH the “evidence of a complaining party” aspect (that is: identify the Plaintiff); AND he/she must show that the defendant is the guilty party in regards to that Plaintiff. Is this correct?



3. And, I could ask a third question: MUST there be a “burden of proof” party, or can the judge substitute?

Thank you, Marc – or anyone who wants to answer. I will welcome any clarification.

[Rizzotherat]

denizen said:

Marc – no problem on that confusion of the name – you did come thru with the link which had the Dial 911 Book, and there were plenty of references on that point there; so I was satisfied. And your responses for the other questions were very much appreciated also!

I have two more questions now to submit. The first question concerns the “evidence of a complaining party” aspect, and the second question concerns the “burden of proof” aspect.:

First question: evidence of complaining party:

1. Is the following correct:? When one asks for “evidence of a complaining party”, one is asking for the proper identification of a party who has either (a) the duty of allegiance owed to him or (b) has the duty of a legal (?) right that has been ignored, abused or violated.

(I mean by this that there must be EVIDENCE – that is, facts, - to show not just the NAME of a complaining party. but the FACTS that such party is owed an allegiance or a right.

2. And (that party) has been injured or damaged as a result of the non-performance of the required duty. (Here, again, the FACTS of the injury or damage to the complaining party must be identified. (Is that correct?)

Second question: “burden of proof”<br>
The party with the “burden of proof” must show BOTH the “evidence of a complaining party” aspect (that is: identify the Plaintiff); AND he/she must show that the defendant is the guilty party in regards to that Plaintiff. Is this correct?



3. And, I could ask a third question: MUST there be a “burden of proof” party, or can the judge substitute?

Thank you, Marc – or anyone who wants to answer. I will welcome any clarification.

If there was a state, nation, citizen, real judges (as opposed to "pretend" judges)
then all of the things you asked for ie evidence, burden of proof would be based on facts. I believe that "facts" are merely opinions which lawyers (including judges) put their own spin on. As you said or asked, the judge will substitute, and using the word substitute is being nice. The word "lie" works better.

I sat in a witness chair next to a judge who knew the prosecution was lying. My testimony was meaningless to him. I was not in the "lawyer" club.

[marc stevens]

This was sent to me from one of my Mates in OZ and it sums up legal land:

It is section 165-55 of the GST (goods and services tax) ACT 1999

"For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

;D ;D ;D While I have not verified this for me self, it explains a lot.

[Neo]

It appears to be real. Put "165-55 GST goods services tax ACT 1999" into google.com. Talk about "political sleight of hand" ... and voodoo.

[marc stevens]

Yes Neo, thanks. It is legit. Pretend things didn't happen. And in "tax" cases no less. I guess they can pretend you earned a million dollars and didn't pay them.

People in OZ should stop pretending there is a "state".

[Rizzotherat]

marc said:

This was sent to me from one of my Mates in OZ and it sums up legal land:

It is section 165-55 of the GST (goods and services tax) ACT 1999

"For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

;D ;D ;D While I have not verified this for me self, it explains a lot.

This is truly amazing. This really supports my last post. Thank you for your comments Mr. Stevens.

[ghost of Lysander]

marc said:

This was sent to me from one of my Mates in OZ and it sums up legal land:

It is section 165-55 of the GST (goods and services tax) ACT 1999

"For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

(a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:
(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:
(i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

;D ;D ;D While I have not verified this for me self, it explains a lot.

In other words "state" sanctification for lying? Why not just opt for the "necessary and proper" clause that the "state" here opts for. Less wordy but equally effect at dismissing the need for FACTS.

[Neo]

Is that OZ as in Wizard of Oz?

[NonEntity]

Denizen,

You asked two annotated questions.

I'm not quite clear I understand what is being asked.

The first question was:

Is the following correct:? When one asks for “evidence of a complaining party”, one is asking for the proper identification of a party who has either (a) the duty of allegiance owed to him or (b) has the duty of a legal (?) right that has been ignored, abused or violated.

(I mean by this that there must be EVIDENCE – that is, facts, - to show not just the NAME of a complaining party. but the FACTS that such party is owed an allegiance or a right.

My understanding is that "is there evidence" is not the same as "provide the name." It only asks if such a party EXISTS. This should elicit a yes or no response. Any other response would be "non-responsive," as you didn't ask the name you aske about existence.

In order to answer that question there would need to be evidence that such a party suffered a harm specific to the nature of the law. If I speed and cause and accident then the person I ran into has been harmed. But if I don't cause an accident then there was no one harmed.

I think that what you are asking is "what are the specific things that have to be present for the harm to have occurred?"

Or, to rephrase, to have a "complaining party" one needs two elements, 1) a party, and 2) a valid complaint. Absent BOTH of these items there is no evidence of a complaining party.

I don't have the answer to what it is that makes the complaint valid, and I hope someone else can provide that information. I'm simply trying to clarify, for myself at least, exactly what your question is.

AFTER the above has been answered then a separate question would be WHO that party is, but I don't think it is part of the initial question. And I think, for Marc's purposes, that is not relevant.

Have I interpreted your question correctly?