bureaucrats never have a case
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
1/6
http://adventuresinlegalland.com/bureaucratsneverhaveacase.html
Bureaucrats Never Have a
CaseBy Marc Stevens
It doesnt matter what charge, indictment or complaint is brought against someone
by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their very nature dictates they cant.
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 manyabsurdities 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 presentedto the court.Statist programming equates complaint with case. People under
the influence of such programming dont challenge what a cop or state attorney
files as both are perceived asauthority 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 instance19 Am J2d Corp 559.Ballentines 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
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/governmenthoax.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://adventuresinlegalland.com/sp203_authority.wavhttp://adventuresinlegalland.com/sp203_authority.wavhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://adventuresinlegalland.com/sp203_authority.wavhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/governmenthoax.html -
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
2/6
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 youre 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 theStockholmsyndrome.
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 bureaucrats 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 plainti f f must allege personal in ju ry fair ly traceable to the
defendant' s allegedly unlawful conductand 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.Allenpage 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:
governmentsare established to protect and maintain individual rights.Article II
2(emphasis mine).
This means everything governments do must be to protect and maintain individualrights. The Supreme Court has held consistent with this principal: the duty of this
court, as ofevery judicial tr ibunal, is limited to determin ing rights of persons or of
property, which are actually contr overtedin the particular case before it.Tyler v.
Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405(emphasis mine).
Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=337&page=427http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=337&page=427http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=337&page=427http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=405http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/2.htmhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=337&page=427 -
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
3/6
and 2) personal injury. Now Ill apply this standard to cases brought by pretended
state and United States attorneys.
First, well 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: thats one essential element missing, Ive 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 states 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 well 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. Evenif youve
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 someones 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 thats fatal. Second, its 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 ofwitnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602Federal Rules of Evidence.
No attempt is made to put such allegations in an indictment because its 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
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=422&page=490 -
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
4/6
immediately point out the constitution. And that is the point where they lose; and
lose big time.
No connection to the constitution can bemade 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 believein 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; its 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 asPerry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). Its tantamount to Al
Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his protection
money. Think big Al would have standing?
Last, lets look at a drug case. Im 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, theres no personal injury of any kind. No standing, no case.
Consider that legally, or constitutionally, the botanical warriors may not even lookat my property unless there is probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion I
am violating someones legal rights: governmentsare 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
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330 -
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
5/6
its 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 therestanding 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 plaintiffis 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 rightsElk Grove
Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
And theres 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
Ive written in my bookAdventures in Legal Landand said many times on my radio
showThe No State Project, there are no such things as citizens and states.
Ad hominem attackssuch as Marc doesn't want people to wear seatbelts are classic
diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of statist mind control
(remember theStockholm syndrome). The fact bureaucrats never have a case hasnothing to do with my opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because its a
safety issue), its 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 endlessred herringsstatists 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.
Thats quite the conundrum.
Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you dont. 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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://adventuresinlegalland.com/http://adventuresinlegalland.com/http://adventuresinlegalland.com/http://rbnlive.com/programs.htmlhttp://rbnlive.com/programs.htmlhttp://rbnlive.com/programs.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/Christian_nation.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/Christian_nation.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndromehttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/Christian_nation.htmlhttp://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/noillegals.htmlhttp://rbnlive.com/programs.htmlhttp://adventuresinlegalland.com/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737 -
7/29/2019 Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
6/6
Just using statism against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of
what they charge someone with. Thats because statism and its supporting theology
are not here to promote freedom or protect Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness; its 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.