Home

Articles

Old Blog

Excerpts

Civil
Disobedience Spotlight

Forum

Old Forum

Media

Audio

NSP
Commercial Free!

Interviews/Other

Call of
Shame

Video

Store

Links

Contact

Email List

Chat

Newsflash

Upcoming
Events

I'm now accepting Bitcoins
for some purchases, check the store for details. Also,
feel FREE to aid fellow "domestic
terrorists" with your contribution to the Adventures
in Legal Land Wiki knowledge-base.

June 11, 2011
[Saturday]: NSP radio broadcast.
We'll be joined again by Dr. Judy Wood,
author of Where Did the Towers Go?  We're taking calls, so listen
LIVE from 4-7pm est and call in at (218) 632-9399 with your
questions or comments about 911 and the evidence.

October 21-23,
2011 [Friday to Sunday]: I will be speaking at Libertopia 2011 in sunny San
Diego, California.  We're also going to be having the
1st annual, all voluntaryist BLUES JAM, including a head cutting duel
between Greg Diaz on
tenor sax, and Chris Case on guitar.  I'll also be doing a strength
& conditioning workshop.

Home \ Articles \ Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

Bureaucrats
Never Have a Case

Written by Marc Stevens Tuesday, 21 November 2006 07:33

User Rating: / 0

PoorBest

It doesn’t matter what “charge”, indictment or complaint is brought against
someone by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their very nature
dictates they can’t. While many would cry out in protest, no doubt those
invested economically and/or emotionally in statism, it is nonetheless an
accurate statement.

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

Statism is mind
control; people surrender their property to men and women pretending to be
“governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe they are “citizens” of a
so-called “state” and “must pay their fair share.” Talk about abstract
concepts.

Because of these beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending
to be a “cop” or “state attorney” files a “complaint” against a statist, no
attention is paid to the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending
he has a client, the so-called “state attorney.” The issue of standing is a
great way of demonstrating these absurdities. One of these is despite the fact a
“complaint” is filed, there is no “case” presented to the “court.” Statist
programming equates “complaint” with “case.” People under the influence of such
programming don’t challenge what a “cop” or “state” attorney files as both are
perceived as“authority
figures.” By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint”
presents a “case” to a court.

Standing is legally defined as “The
position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular
instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1209.
The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States Supreme Court” have
written: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular
issues.” Warth
v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

If a plaintiff lacks standing,
then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding
because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United
States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Notice the
litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt”
from standing requirements. People under the influence of statist mind control
automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their
“authority figures”, the government. This psychological response is not unlike
the Stockholm
syndrome.

And make no mistake, this is considered a very important
issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are
the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in
regards to the NSA spying program. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line
of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements
of standing:

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component
derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal
injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct
and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

This of course
references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires
a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: “The judicial power
shall extend to all cases…”:

“The case-or-controversy doctrines state
fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The
Art. III doctrine that requires a litigant to have "standing" to invoke the
power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen
page 750.

More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally
(government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this:
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from
the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain
individual rights.” Article
II § 2 (emphasis mine).

This means everything “governments” do must
be to “protect and maintain individual rights.” The “Supreme Court” has held
consistent with this principal: “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, 179 US 405

Standing consists
of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2)
personal injury. Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended
“state” and “United States” attorneys.

First, we’ll look at a traffic
case, such as failure to wear a seatbelt. Traffic cases represent a significant
source of energy stolen from people every year. I get a ticket for not wearing a
seatbelt; the “case” is called State of Arizona v. Marc Stevens.

One of
two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has
the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by
not wearing a seatbelt? Of course not: that’s one essential element missing,
I’ve already established the pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the
court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth
v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury
to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt.

The other requirement is the
violation of a legal right. Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I
violated the pretended “state’s” rights? Again, not a chance. According to the
“Supreme Court,” there is no standing to complain against me regardless of the
fact I may not have had a seatbelt on.

Now we’ll look at a “tax” case;
“willful failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called
“indictments” and there is no standing, ever. Even if you’ve never read such
“indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury
and the violation of a legal right. No, all they do is write the defendant
“violated the law.”

However, just being accused of “violating a law” does
not mean my failure to file a “tax return” violated someone’s legal rights and
caused an injury. Statists would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal
right to receive a “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of
“tax revenue.” There are several problems with such a argument
though.

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s
fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those
allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where, when, why
and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged, then
they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule
602 Federal Rules
of Evidence.

No attempt is made to put such allegations in an
“indictment” because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to
file a “tax return” was created. To prove an obligation or legal right was
created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and
the person who allegedly has this obligation. Statists immediately point out the
“constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose big
time.

No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the
“constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one
and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and
thirty years ago. Unless you believe in magic, placing the words “constitution”
on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and
thirty years later.

The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that
usually pacifies those critical of statism. Most people will not challenge
opinions the “constitution” is applicable or relevant; it’s one of the most
sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with, like most
people, assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. No thought is given to
any facts to prove where, when, why and how the “constitution” applies to
anyone. It is very unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the
facts his opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has
not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped
apart.

A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the
“United States” had a right to the property in question or the “required”
action. If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry
v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a
complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money. Think big
Al would have standing?

Last, let’s look at a drug case. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my
property. The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the world from
my plants. Surprisingly, the requirements for standing are not the raiding of my
garden by troops armed with machine guns, they are: 1) violation of a legal
right, and 2) personal injury.

What legal right have I allegedly violated
by growing plants? None. Has the growing of plants on my property caused any
“personal injury” to the non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again, there’s no
personal injury of any kind. No standing, no case.

Consider that legally,
or “constitutionally,” the botanical warriors may not even look at my property
unless there is “probable cause” or “reasonable articulable suspicion” I am
violating someone’s legal rights: “governments…are established to protect and
maintain individual rights.”

Notice in the cases cited above there are no
“legal” or “constitutional” exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or
religious objections. Just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” or against
their religion to grow or possess marijuana, does not confer standing to
complain. This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a
“legislature.”

Now some may protest by bringing up the murder argument,
certainly there is the 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.
Not even in a murder case is there standing to complain. Why? Because it has to
be a “personal injury” to the plaintiff: “A plaintiff must allege personal
injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely
to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

The plaintiff is
literally a spoken and written phrase, an abstraction called the “State of
Arizona”, and is, at best, a fictional third party. The “Supreme Court” has
repeatedly held: “we have explained that prudential standing encompasses "the
general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights…” Elk
Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1
(2004).

And there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part
of, or a member of, the so-called “State of Arizona” because there is no such
thing as the “State of Arizona.” As I’ve written in my book Adventures in
Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State
Project, there are no such things as “citizens”
and “states”.

Ad
hominem attacks such as “Marc doesn't want people to wear seatbelts” are classic
diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of statist mind control
(remember the Stockholm
syndrome). The fact bureaucrats never have a case has nothing to do with my
opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because it’s a safety issue),
it’s because governments are gangs of killers, thieves and liars. There is no
such thing as a legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate
regardless of the endless red herrings
statists throw up.

Government is men and women providing services on a
compulsory basis; pay or get shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop
their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment
they do so, they cease to be a government. That’s quite the
conundrum.

Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary
or you don’t. Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary
are, medically speaking, anti-social. Not un-social, but anti-social as in
"sociopath" and "psychopath". I believe all human interaction should be
voluntary, so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder should
not be held accountable are ridiculous.

Just using statism against itself
proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what they “charge” someone
with. That’s because statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to
promote freedom or protect “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; it’s
mind control to divert our attention away from the actions of anti-social
individuals who are so desperate to “protect” us they are willing to kill us and
steal our property.

Comments

+1 #
Freeman? — PatriotOne 2010-09-07
09:37

So? Who could bring a case for murder
on behalf of the murdered?
If someone's life was stolen, and the lost life is
not able to seek redress, who is able to arrest/trial/convict/incarcerate the
trespasser?
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+1 #
RE: Freeman? — andy
jackson 2010-09-13 12:07

The injured party(s) would be the
family, friends, etc. They under common law would claim their rights violated by
the defendant. The STATE brings all criminal charges but it should only do so
when a "real party of interest" (FRCP 17a) is 'joined' to the 'plaintiff-STATE'.
The injured party would then use the State resources (DA) to sue.
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

0 #
RE: Bureaucrats Never Have a Case — Tony Gutierrez 2011-05-24
11:27

Loved the information, I think it is
outstanding, keep me posted. Thank you for all you do. Tony
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

Refresh
comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

Add comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

Website

Title

Notify me of
follow-up comments

Refresh

Send

Cancel

JComments

Search

Login

Username

Password

Remember Me

Forgot your
password?

Forgot your
username?

Create an
account

Most Viewed Articles

Standing
Cross-reference

Still
Love Governments?

Attorneys
and Bureaucrats - Always Non-responsive

We
Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence

Bureaucrats
Never Have a Case

Most Viewed Videos

Marc on
The Hidden Truth - Nov 12, 2004

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: Standing - Nov 26, 2007

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: Impeaching a Witness - Dec 6, 2007

Kop
shooting an Iraq War veteran - Jan 9, 2006

The Drug War
Is A Scam - Feb 5, 2007

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: "Fair Trial" Impossible - Feb 5, 2008

Win
Every Political Argument - Jan 7, 2008

Liberty
Forum - "Delusions" - Mar 7, 2009

Torture OK
in Utah for Signature - Dec 4, 2007

Thought on
Terrorism - Nov 1, 2007

Most Viewed Shows

NSP -
Feb 13, 2010

NSP -
May 15, 2010 - Co-host: Kurt Tischer & Guest: Larken Rose

NSP -
May 27, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Steve

NSP -
Oct 10, 2009 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Larken Rose

NSP -
Oct 31, 2009 - Guest: Jackie

NSP -
Sept 12, 2009 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Pete Hendrickson

NSP -
May 1, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Sovereign Curtis

NSP -
Feb 6, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Alex Knight III

NSP -
Dec 12, 2009 - Co-host: JT

NSP -
Jan 9, 2010 - Co-host: JT

Most Viewed Interviews

No
Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Annual
NSP Radio Archive Downloads

Marc
on Mysteries of the Mind - Feb 12, 2004

Marc
on The Bill Meyer Show - Mar 19, 2007

Marc
on The National Intel Report - Nov 8, 2004

Marc
on Wing TV - Jul 14, 2005

Marc
on the National Intel Report - Oct 6, 2004

Marc
on The Jayne Carroll Show - Oct 17, 2005

Marc
on The Jeff Farias Show - Sept 20, 2007

Marc
on Free Talk Live - Jul 9, 2005

Most Viewed Call of Shame

Kimberly
Clark from the IRS - Dec 15, 2010

Rolando
Garza from Hidalgo County Appraisal District - Mar 4, 2011

Daniel
from the California Franchise Tax Board - Jun 9, 2010

Attorney
from the DSHS - Sept 22, 2010

Jon
Doe from the IRS - Aug 26, 2010

Tsion
from the Maryland DOR - Aug 13, 2010

Desiree
from the California Franchise Tax Board

Carol
from the California Franchise Tax Board - Nov 16, 2006

RSS

Syndicate this page

World's Shortest Political Quiz

Should a service or product be provided at
the barrel of a gun?

Yes

No

The No State Project - Podcast

Full
Feed

Your Cart

Your cart is empty