Louis Ewing says AiLL won't work in Washington

[theghost]

Marc, I was listening to some Louis Ewing radio archives today, and a caller brought up your name and methods, and Louis said he'd heard of you, but that your methods would definitely not work in the state of Washington (his home state). I had to laugh. I think you should send him a personal invitation to your Seattle seminar, and ask him why he thinks his methods are superior to yours, the obvious reason (money in his pocket, not yours) notwithstanding. Should be interesting.

[Neo]

I have to agree with Mr. Ewing. They don't work on the Moon either, or Mars. No cops. Or states.

[Rizzotherat]

Neo said:

I have to agree with Mr. Ewing. They don't work on the Moon either, or Mars. No cops. Or states.

And I have to agree with Neo. It amazes me that some people still think of Mr. Stevens' work as a "method". In the introduction of his book he specifically and clearly states that it is NOT a self help book or a "how to win in court". Instead it is a group of stories telling of his experiences. Mr. Stevens personally and emphatically told me he has no "method". He also strongly clarified that he is not a "patriot", but a true Libertarian.

It is sad to say that it sounds like Mr. Stevens is being misrepresented. People who say they have heard of him, like Louis Ewing, in fact have no idea who he is or what he is really about. The Marc Stevens they have "heard" about is a fiction.

Mr. Stevens, I have hope and support for your Libertarian ideology. I wish you were not thought of as a "patriot", as I know you are not one. I don't know what it will take to shake the category these people have tried to force you into. I guess it will take more people like Ernest Hanc o c k and that libertarian television program you were on to either convert "patriots" to reality, or make them leave you alone entirely. Again, you have my support.

[marc stevens]

All I do is ask questions to expose the scam i.e., there is no state.

Doing so does expose the scam in places such as Washington and has been done already.

Exposing the scam to as many people as possible will help bring about a voluntary society. Winning a few traffic cases, even hundreds of them, will not.

[theghost]

Rizzo, not really sure why you chose to attack my choise of words, instead of commenting with something a little closer to the true spirit of the post. Marc's "ideas" (hope that one's nuetral enough for you) from the book most certainly are "methods". Challenging bureaucratic opinions, boxing judges and persecutors into corners, handing judges unsigned pleas of guilty in exchange for answers to questions, all methods/actions/ideas that can be duplicated by anyone of us. If you don't like the word "method", why don't you offer an alternative. And this talk about classifying Marc as a "patriot", where did this come from? Not me, or my post. I think I may have just been misrepresented.

[Rizzotherat]

Guest-theghost said:

Rizzo, not really sure why you chose to attack my choise of words, instead of commenting with something a little closer to the true spirit of the post. Marc's "ideas" (hope that one's nuetral enough for you) from the book most certainly are "methods". Challenging bureaucratic opinions, boxing judges and persecutors into corners, handing judges unsigned pleas of guilty in exchange for answers to questions, all methods/actions/ideas that can be duplicated by anyone of us. If you don't like the word "method", why don't you offer an alternative. And this talk about classifying Marc as a "patriot", where did this come from? Not me, or my post. I think I may have just been misrepresented.

I did not attack you. My whole post was not in response to yours. I will adamantly disagree with that Mr. Stevens ideas in his book are "methods". They are his experiences and stories (very good and entertaining stories) about what happened to him. He has never put himself out as "here's what I did and if you do it you'll win in court every time. Many have wanted him to be a "patriot", but he is not. Louis Ewing is a "patriot". I did not misrepresent you. I really did not comment on your post, but took it a step further, which in my opinion needed to be done. Once again, the word semantics comes to mind.

[Rizzotherat]

marc said:

All I do is ask questions to expose the scam i.e., there is no state.

Doing so does expose the scam in places such as Washington and has been done already.

Exposing the scam to as many people as possible will help bring about a voluntary society. Winning a few traffic cases, even hundreds of them, will not.

Exactly. Spoken like a true Libertarian!

[Neo]

Someone please provide a link for Ewing. I put L.E. in google and get nothing looking like it might lead to him.

[tharrin]

The problem is spelling, Neo. It is Luis Ewing. Try that. Worked for me. Luis has done some interesting things some along the lines of Marc. He espouses there are no legitimate governments based on their constitutions. He claims to win many court cases with his methods but there are at least a couple of people who counter-claim they lost their case and were jailed having him represent them. Take with a grain of salt.

[tharrin]

Neo, if you really want to contact Luis this is his email address: [e-mail].

Again I have nothing pro or con Luis Ewing. His research which espouses there are no legitimate States because they were reconstructed into FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. He believes there were real states at one time counter to Marc's non-belief in states as anything more than a legal fiction. He has a article called "Old Union vs New Union" interesting research to tell you when and where those D/B/A government, changed all their own rules so they could ramp up they revenue machines.

Would like to hear your opinion. I don't believe Luis claims to be a patriot or is pushing a patriot argument. I think he puts forth something short of Marc's position where he believes all legitimate government has been bastardized into Federal Municiple Corps. Draw your own conclusions.

[marc stevens]

Tharin,

I have spoken with Mr. Ewing and he is a patriot and espouses patriot arguments. He is not a libertarian/voluntaryist. That is why he says Adventures will not work in Washington. Needless to say Ewing and I do not agree. What he does is based on the false premise there is a so-called "state."

[Neo]

As with so many of the disagreements that exist every where all over our peaceful world, it all depends on how one definds the words being used to discuss something.

I define patriot either as "one who loves the system as it currently exists to the point they will fight and die for it (soldiers) or give the order to others to do so (agents)."

OR "One who loves / supports the 'original' 'organic' system as they understand it reportedly once existed."

Using that second definition, he is a patriot.

[tharrin]

Luis Ewing is duly noted as being a patriot. I have heard some of his interviews and felt that he did leave himself wide open in the interpretation department. I also understand Marc, that taking a position with these people is akin to self sacrifice. Not a place I want to be but how successful can any of us be in the tax shedding arena even with your approach. If they want your money bad enough they will come and take it.

[guest]

It all depends on the meaning of "your" money? Do you mean the "black letter" definition as outlined on page 103 of "AiLL" and Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 906:

owner. One who has complete dominion over particular property.

Or to you mean the "statist" definition:

"The ULTIMATE ownership of ALL(emphasis mine) property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of the Government, i.e. "law"(quotes mine), amounting to MERE(emphasis mine) user; and that use MUST(emphasis mine)be in accordance("necessity";paraphase mine) with "law"("written opinion";US Supreme court et al...)and subordinate("inferior") to the necessities of the "State"(mine again) - "Senate" "resolution" # 62, from April 1933 - page 105, AiLL

The lesson for today, he who has the guns DEFINES the MEANING of the WORDS...

[marc stevens]

tharrin said:

Not a place I want to be but how successful can any of us be in the tax shedding arena even with your approach. If they want your money bad enough they will come and take it.

Remember, success is exposing the scam. There are cases that will NOT be thrown out, we have to accept that. That's why I call it damage control.

The idea is to play them and make the terrorcrats commit the worst possible errors i.e., impeaching the sole witness, denying cross, so that if I don't win, at least I've got something for appeal.

Even if Mr. Ewing (or anyone playing the legal argument/interpretation game) is correct, the burden on appeal is to "shock the conscience" of the reviewing court (honorable lawyers).

However, ANY position that accepts the premise there are "citizens" and "states" is flawed and does nothing to help bring about a free/voluntary society.