lies , deceptions , perceptions,
A special comment about lying
They lied and gave us the GST
They lied and gave us freetrade
they lied and gave us fractional lending
they lied on airbus
they lied on air india
they lied to get New Found Land into confederation
they lied about canada's involvement in MK ultra still 150+ cases in the court settled for 77 in like 77 or 78
They lied to cancel the Avero Aero( they like to use delta winged shapes to fly and we had the pegasus engine , Air Superiority)
they lied and opted us out of the Nuclear Weapons Game in the 60'sbut let us make the reactors to make them for China and stuff( Uranium city Sasachewan northern portion )
They lied about bell island New Found Land in 1978
they lied about the billions of rayalties they stole federaly and provicially
they lied about evolution and through our heritage on barges and sink them to the bottom of the atlantic
The New Democratic Party is a commie based system look how they wreacked Saskcatchchewan they lied
they lied and said they would lable GMO foods and here we sit again in court ordering them to do it
Stallmach is just one false leader cause the party lied
dinning and morton are liars
Harper is a half Liar but a liar
they lied about treatises of all countries we are for Human rights but allow them to happen as long as it is over there
they lied about who we are in order confuse us
No a lies a lies a lie and I say why
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 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?
in the particular case before it." (emphasis mine).
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.
my favourites list of todays favourited you tube clips[allways some new [neo] revelation,
revealing the vision behind the s/words
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
A completely unexpected discovery beneath the ice.
- Scientists find remains of a tardigrade and crustaceans in a deep, frozen Antarctic lake.
- The creatures' origin is unknown, and further study is ongoing.
- Biology speaks up about Antarctica's history.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, explains his plan for success.
- Jeff Bezos had a clear vision for Amazon.com from the start.
- He was inspired by a statistic he learned while working at a hedge fund: In the '90s, web usage was growing at 2,300% a year.
- Bezos explains why books, in particular, make for a perfect item to sell on the internet.
It's one factor that can help explain the religiosity gap.
- Sociologists have long observed a gap between the religiosity of men and women.
- A recent study used data from several national surveys to compare religiosity, risk-taking preferences and demographic information among more than 20,000 American adolescents.
- The results suggest that risk-taking preferences might partly explain the gender differences in religiosity.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.