Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

[marc stevens]

I've posted a new article:

adventuresinlegalland.com/bureaucratsneverhaveacase.html

[Darren Dirt]

Agreed.

(my response to the thread title -- without having to even read the linked article )

[eye2i2hear]

Marc, first thanks for all the hard work inherently obvious in the article. It is very informative-- in a purist sort of vein.

I would only like to cover a couple of perspectives from my initial read of it. First might be to ask if you feel overall the points covered therein are for the already-adhering No Statist's further edification, or are they more towards opening the eyes of the still duped, or are they for presenting/arguing in said "court"(s)? (or of course, some combination of these all)

As to the latter, i personally find the position that "pledges" (aka in some circles as "oaths" and/or "testimony") pretty well cover the "citizen deal". As it covers the CONstitutional "deal" (no signature required; we'll take your word- and actions -on it etc). The typical central-north-american has "pledged" up one side, and as well as "signed" down the other [my question of why a driver's license requires a "testimony" of U.S. Citizenship for example; i see it as just another "witness"]. The Powers that be simply take them (us/U.S.) at their "word". Granted, we the awakening ones can see the coercian. But its really only in hindsite. And i honestly question how genuine it is for us in the acceptance of a plethora of comforts to say we do said pledging and signing "at the barrel of a gun"; seems the most we've empirically faced is a holstered gun; just as easily seen as a defensive mount. Regardless, we dumbly did it as our own State of mind before our enlightenment; i speak generally here of course.

And so honorably we should be allowed to walk our own way upon the land; holster our own defensive piece. But the Nature of the Beast knows that to be a death knell.

Which then gets us to "arguing" with said Beast-0-crats and Rubi-cons as the (a presumed) prime point of the article. I feel we do ourselves a great energy waste in attempting to pin said Powers down to defining "THEIR" terms. They are the expert word miesters/masters after all. It takes that State of mind really to even enter into any discussion with them, for the most part. WE KNOW They are liars, killers, and theives, so why seek to in-force them to further admit what's already undeniably Their nature per Their recordings? And that They even go so far as to put into writing (called "precedence" ala "case siting"). Of course, as I believe you state in your book, hopefully any such public presentment as to argument is done to shake the audiences of said tribe-urinals/tribunals so as to help them see the con game-- or at least have it slap them in the proverbial face, so that self-deception is no longer the case and so they become "Them" for the record. But most, as outside the AiLL league, are way too stupified/mezzmerized to get into the intricacies of this article imho. Rather for many, it could too easily turn into another "silver bullet", hi ho Silver, away!

I guess what I feel I sensed in the article is almost a machine gunning; a verbal thrashing. It's like "SEE how RIGHT WE are!?!"
Granted, it could just as easily be my predisposition.
But all the while we're using Their very munitions in the process: terms. Its almost an insane double-speak imho. Trying to validate using the double-speak (triple-speak/quadruple-speak) insanity ourselves?! We might like to think that some precedent at some time past is still engrafted in said "rules and regulations". But at the core we're dealing with the long delusional.

Then we of course come to such terms as "duty to protect". How IS IT that They can claim "citizens" exist and yet turn right around and have it "on the record"/in our faces that They have no such duty- yet just as clearly State a duty is required? Are They insane? Or are are They artists? Of course Humpty Dumpty and all the king's men can do whatever They please. But it seems much more clever to simply continue what they started way back: allow for mulitiple meanings; allow terms. Where its really more than allow, it's require them! And therein play the cups and ball trick. In LegalLand the duty to protect is the status quo-- The State=us quo. Its for our own good, of course, that They are protected. Of course.

I've offered before the distinct possibility that said 14th Ammendment defines one definition of "citizen". One term. A lifetime one-- akin to a prison "sentence" = a term --at that. Their own Code establishes there are "several" United States; so why not "several" citizens? And of course Humpty uses the terms like the cups with the ball. Do we really want to play this term game? If (since) there are many daffynitions of citizens, then wouldn't there many interpretations of "duty to protect"? One, "official" of course-- watch THAT cup! All the while the flurry continues mentally-- in that State of mind --as to how that "protection" is defined in "that" (one of "several") U.S.

Thus finally, "ditto" that with yet another term, "standing"? Who says how many definitions there are? Do we believe Their words or Their actions? Which then "defines"?! If its all make-believe to start with, why does it have to ground in any reality/factuality/terminology?

I suppose i'm just doin' a tad of venting here; but i sincerely wonder if, in doing these term loop-de`loops, we aren't doing gymnastics, where the body in such excercise is strengthened and made agile. Rather we're jumping in Their hoops and expending precious energy. I suppose i tend to feel Stefan hits the essential energy focus: hit the immorality of it and hit it face to face. For until that is acknowledged and accepted, all the rest is Their game. Ball and cups morphed to balls and chains.

One quick specific here too; it seems to many there is a debate as to whether the Government does anything. Or debates whether it does work. Some imho confuse this with asking the question as: does Government - or can it do --any "good". Marc, in this article you put it as you oft express it: "Government IS men and women providing services...". Thus I think it is crucial to allow that Government* "does" work. So the crucial hammer for the nail is the immorality of how it supports its "good work". Not whether it works (or to any cost/benefit comparison). *[as to Government really being people, Government is simply a term for the concept of said people; no different from using Voluntary Society for the same people doing the same work, no?]

Thus, i like that the article touches on the religion and theocratic aspects of The State. For most, "their" morality is centered in and conceived via their religions. Many even find said State supported (as to financially support; or at least to be tolerated) in "their" religious inDoctRiNations termed "revelations". The immorality of said religion as The State is crucial to being presented over and over. Hopefully when we touch the heart strings of one superstitious delusion we'll start the chain reaction that will break them all!

offered of course as my "map" (or from it), but with a desire of due respect,
eye2i,2here

ps: perhaps such articles need some inclusion as to primary or main intent in them? beyond of course the cursory "for educational purposes only"- as the State terming -- State compliancing...

[Darren Dirt]

Okay, now I've read it.

Brilliant, as always.

In fact even more brilliant (brillianter?) than any of your other articles, Marc.

Yes, it is the brilliantest little piece of verbiage your gifted fingertips have ever put together.


Seriously though, if there was any kind of justice in this world, it should become a "viral email": all you have to do is "wrap it" inside a "Nigerian bank offer" spam, and millions will see it by the weekend

[dentistsugardust]

Justly done,Marc and a very, very interesting pose and response eye2i2hear.

who's with me and what's to stop me from posting this kind of stuff on other sites?


great great great

[Darren Dirt]

dentistsugardust said:

Just

...um... "Unjust"?

[eye2i2hear]

darrendirt said:

... all you have to do is "wrap it" inside a "Nigerian bank offer" spam, and millions will see it by the weekend

lol

actually tho, as a verbalized anarchist, i think most that get email from me feel I am a Nigerian bank offerer... ;D

regardless, small little sphere that it is, this article has gone out to some email receipients... testing the waters with it as they say~

[marc stevens]

Thanks for the comments guys. ;D

Does anyone think there was too much legalese?

[lummox2]

You can't win on the legalese point I think.

If you put it in, then it makes for slightly harder reading, if you leave it out, you look like you are stating opinion.

---------------------------------------

Btw, I can sign that I am a unicorn but that doesn't make it so....

[Freeborn]

Well said Marc. Actually Bureaucrats are suffering of psychosis too; they have lost the contact with the reality.
Their all scam is based on imagination and it is the only way they have found to make their living, and this is done by frudulent contract backed by guns.
If you do not want to voluntary contract with them you get shot.

Anti-social, psychopath it is scary when you think about it but the term is so true. I heard somewhere that 80% are living at a fecal state of mind. This means that the only thing they care is materials accumulation, sex, eating and agression and violence.

It is not with guns that they will bring peace.
Comes to the term don't resist to evil.

Where there is unjustice there is no peace

[Darren Dirt]

Uh-oh, I just realized that by sending a copy of the article to a handful of friends (who typically just ignore ANYTHING political I post on our forum -- perfect example HERE -- I may have inadvertantly indirectly communicated with, or appeared like, a terraist... And since Smirk's pushing for a RETROACTIVE application of the new "law", well, uh-oh...

But it's okay since I'm in "Canada". Isn't it? :-\ ... *shivers*

[NonEntity]

Marc,

I think your article is excellent, excellent! I do not think you use too much "legalese." I think it is an excellent balance. Enough to provide links to pursue and to give crediblility, while sparce enough not to get in the way of the flow of your argument.

I do question one thing. You are dealing with two issues: Standing, and the fictional nature of States and Citizens. You deal very clearly with the first: Standing. You throw in the second without really clearly laying out your argument. The fact that you talk about citizens and states being fictional may cause a reader who has not followed your prior reasoning on this to think you are just a nutcase and to dismiss the main point which is your very clear exposition on "standing." I therefore suggest that maybe those issues would best be left OUT of this particular argument.

The case for standing seems to be very clear and can stand on it's own. Maybe an article should be devoted just to that, since it seems less controversial than the issue of citizens and such. It might get more traction that way.

- NonE

(Note that this criticism comes from one who has rarely, if ever, been able to write a coherent thought in his life!)

[Darren Dirt]

Yeah, well some of us also feel that way about our own writing ability... but haven't published anything in STR (Strike The Root)


PS: I almost agree with you re. the citizens/states mythology -- but doesn't Marc LINK to one of his other articles? Maybe he should add a sentence (see this other article proving there is no such thing as a "citizen" or a "state": ) or something. :-\

[marc stevens]

I knew I was forgetting something, I'll put the link in to the government hoax article and the illegal alien one. Thanks.

[Darren Dirt]

This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use statism against itself to prove it. By statism, I mean the belief “citizens”(link#1) and “states”(link#2) exist and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.

#1: www.adventuresinlegalland.com/governmenthoax.html
#2: www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.html

Perfecto!


PS: Don't know which I am more surprised/disappointed by, the "silence" from my friends, or the following...

darrendirt said:

Uh-oh, I just realized that by sending a copy of the article to a handful of friends (who typically just ignore ANYTHING political I post on our forum -- perfect example HERE

So I get the following response from one of my buds, "Lazybones" ( big shock )...

"This kind of thing is better left in the forum."

Confused, I simply said:
"Dude, are you sure? See this as a perfect example of why maybe the forum is *not* the better place:
forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,3804.0.html

"
(notice that it was Lazybones that essentially 'ended' any discussion in the above *forum* thread )

And so he responds thusly:
"
I do not share your political views on many topics, the forms are a place to discuss your views on a variety of topics however don't expect everyone to agree or be interested. *
My email is generally reserved for direct correspondence and the occasional joke. It is not where I expect to see heavy handed political discussion.
"

Ouch.

Ah well, scratch that name off "direct correspondence" of anything of substance


* I _know_ most of them are at least remotely interested in "political discussions", however it seems they're mostly NOT interested in anything that questions their underlying STATIST assumptions... They will discuss elections, political parties, government monopolies (presumed as good and/or necessary) but start questioning the morality of coercive violence, the myth of "representive agents" i.e. "public servants" and the response is always silence and/or mockery and/or completely off-topic or slightly-related objections, strawman arguments, etc... like Ian on Coast To Coast.


I suppose I'd have more success just standing on a downtown street corner handing out pamphlets with pointed excerpts of Spooner- and Stevens- wisdom ;D