http://adventuresinlegalland.com/bureaucratsneverhaveacase.

html

Bureaucrats Never Have a Case
By Marc Stevens 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

is limited to determining rights of persons or of property. 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. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights. .” Allen v.” Article II § 2 (emphasis mine). however. This means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain individual rights. Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right. 179 US 405 (emphasis mine). This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome. The Art. has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. Judges of the Court of Registration.” The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal: “the duty of this court. 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. People under the influence of statist mind control automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”.” Tyler v. 430. 468 U. Wright.” United States v. the government. especially when they are the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in regards to the NSA spying program. 737. which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right.” Allen page 750. And make no mistake.S. Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights. this is considered a very important issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys. Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements of standing: “The requirement of standing. More explicit. as of every judicial tribunal. Interstate Commerce Commission. 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. 337 US 426. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line of defense.

The other requirement is the violation of a legal right. No. Even if you’ve never read such “indictment”. those allegations must be based on facts. Statists . Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence. Seldin. And if facts are alleged. Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended “state” and “United States” attorneys. Now we’ll look at a “tax” case. such as failure to wear a seatbelt. 498 (1975). when. Second. First.S. the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. ever. it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations. According to the “Supreme Court. there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation. the “case” is called State of Arizona v.and 2) personal injury.” There are several problems with such a argument though. Allegations or not.” I have read several of these so-called “indictments” and there is no standing. I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.” Warth v. 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. 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. there is no injury to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt. those facts must establish where. 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. all they do is write the defendant “violated the law. 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. Traffic cases represent a significant source of energy stolen from people every year. Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I violated the pretended “state’s” rights? Again. I’ve already established the pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” there is no standing to complain against me regardless of the fact I may not have had a seatbelt on. 490. Marc Stevens. To prove an obligation or legal right was created. common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury and the violation of a legal right. 422 U.” However. we’ll look at a traffic case. then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge. why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. First. “willful failure” to file a “tax return. not a chance.

they are: 1) violation of a legal right. placing the words “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and thirty years later. What legal right have I allegedly violated by growing plants? None. Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is app licable or relevant. Has the growing of plants on my property caused any “personal injury” to the non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again.” 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. It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money. The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism.S. there’s no personal injury of any kind. Just because someone thinks . why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone. let’s look at a drug case. Consider that legally. If you doubt this. The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the world from my plants. Surprisingly. assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. and 2) personal injury. when. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with. Unless you believe in magic. and lose big time. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my property. no case. United States. the requirements for standing are not the raiding of my garden by troops armed with machine guns. then read cases such as Perry v. No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign.immediately point out the “constitution. or “constitutionally. Think big Al would have standing? Last. It binds no one and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and thirty years ago. 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. No thought is given to any facts to prove where.” And that is the point where they lose. it’s one of the most sacred of cows.” Notice in the cases cited above there are no “legal” or “constitutional” exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or religious objections. 330 (1935). Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped apart. No standing. 294 U. like most people. 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.

it’s because governments are gangs of killers. thieves and liars. and 2) personal injury. However. so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder should not be held accountable are ridiculous. 751 (1984) (emphasis mine). Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary are. Newdow et al. v. I believe all human interaction should be voluntary. medically speaking. at best. an abstraction called the “State of Arizona”. or a member of. There is no such thing as a legitimate government. but anti-social as in "sociopath" and "psychopath". a fictional third party. This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a “legislature.S. Not un-social. and is. 737. 468 U. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. 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. the socalled “State of Arizona” because there is no such thing as the “State of Arizona. so nothing they do is legitimate regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up. the moment they do so.. Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis. Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you don’t. 1 (2004). pay or get shot. there are no such things as “citizens” and “states”.S. 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. And there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part of. antisocial.” As I’ve written in my book Adventures in Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State Project. certainly there is the 1) violation of a legal right. 542 U. 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). 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).” Allen v. The plaintiff is literally a spoken and written phrase.it’s “immoral” or against their religion to grow or possess marijuana.” Now some may protest by bringing up the murder argument. does not confer standing to complain. Not even in a murder case is there standing to complain. Wright. That’s quite the conundrum. they cease to be a government. .

That’s because statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to promote freedom or protect “Life.Just using statism against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what they “charge” someone with. 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. and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Liberty. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful