Government: Indicted (Book Review #6)

Column by Alex R. Knight III.

Exclusive to STR

It’s now been almost 11 years since the publication and release of Marc Stevens’ first book, Adventures in Legal Land, a volume which has heretofore – along with Marc’s radio show – served as a primary point of reference for Voluntaryists and others seeking to stop bureaucratic attacks by The Man in his own government courts.

But late 2013 just saw Marc issue a much more compendious work, which has a decade’s worth of additional hands-on experience, and literal trial and error, to claim as both an addendum and sequel to the first book.

Government: Indicted is over 550 pages of legal analysis and actual examples of the conduct of bureaucrats, both in one-on-one dialogues and in government courtrooms, along with an in-depth study of their psychology – this latter aspect of which was only touched upon in a very general sense in the preceding title. In addition, the new volume provides an abundance of recommended and now time-tested procedures for dealing with government bureaucrats, in everything from traffic fines to IRS tax cases.

The essential tenets of Marc’s strategy are – like libertarianism itself – not complex. They consist of repeatedly asking a short series of very simple and rational questions:

*What facts and evidence do you rely upon to prove that the Constitution and code apply?

*What, factually, is the (plaintiff) “state”?

*What facts and evidence do you rely upon in your assertion that I’m a “taxpayer” with “taxable income.”

*Do you have witnesses with first-hand personal knowledge of any of this, and if so, what facts and evidence do they rely upon?

The very fact that no bureaucrat can answer these questions in any meaningful way demonstrates a simple but chilling truth to the uninitiated: That the whole of government “law,” and the system that enforces it, is naught but a cynical lie. A game of domination and theft run by the cunning and pure deceit of psychopaths and sociopaths. An evil house of cards, backed up by lethal weaponry and physical violence.

Marc puts this into his own words at the beginning of Part One, page 45, where he begins discussing the difference between mala in se violations of “law” (those in which there is an actual injured party), and those which are mala prohibita: “I’ve had bureaucrats tell me clients are not accused of any wrongdoing, they’re accused of non-compliance. That’s what bureaucrats are after, not protecting people, but control. They want to control behavior and they will kill you to get compliance.”

It’s hard to imagine a more urgent case for the elimination of political governance, but this is a book replete with such conclusions, based on actual examples and irrefutable logic. For a taste of just a very short one, here’s part of page 174:

“I got this from a Ms. Garret with the IRS on 2 July 2012 when I asked about facts a client was a taxpayer with taxable income: ‘I don’t have to discuss the facts I rely on!’

“Oh, but you are allowed to hide them from me? Most adults, and certainly anyone older than seven, will recognize the agent’s statement as a dodge. That’s why they need guns. ‘Under all that paperwork is a gun.’”

And indeed this realization is the essence of understanding the typical government bureaucrat’s totally anti-social lack of concern or empathy for those whom they target for destruction by taxing, fining, harassing, prosecuting, and jailing them. Us, that is. We who are not part of any government clique, and who moreover oppose the existence of such monopolized cadres of aggression. Dens of tyrants who do not continue to exist through voluntary support, but through tribute paid at gunpoint.

To clarify further the practical basis of Marc’s approach towards getting government attacks thrown out of their own courts, we can have a look at page 290:

“So for a prosecutor to argue there is a case or cause against us, they have to go by the facts in evidence. With a traffic complaint, what facts are there to support his argument that there is jurisdiction, that the laws apply, or that he represents a true adversary against us?”

Again, more of the government scam laid bare by the posing of some very plain and foundational questions. Note that Marc isn’t challenging the “laws,” statutes, or regulations on the basis of actual content – he’s calling into question their wholesale applicability to begin with. In other words, as Thoreau of course counseled, dispensing with the leaves and branches, and striking the root.

The full content of Government: Indicted is far too voluminous to do much more than scratch the surface of here. From jury selection processes, to out-of-court measures that can be taken in order to further the fruition of a voluntary society, it's a treasure-trove of valuable information that should intellectually arm any activist or government victim with the tools needed to mount an effective defense. Of course, Marc nowhere claims that these methods are 100% foolproof: Given the inherently criminal and duplicitous nature of government-monopolized courts, there is always ample chance that anyone can be viciously railroaded, charged with contempt, or otherwise decimated by the mendacity of the lunatics running their own asylum. That said, there are a large number of success stories – many of them stunning and encouraging – and at either event . . . it is all the more reason why the existence of the government system and concept must be fought now more voraciously than ever.

I’ll close by saying this isn’t merely a book you should want to have, but one I honestly believe every modern libertarian anarchist needs. I found it a most illuminating eye-opener, even for the well-seasoned.

Enough said here. I can almost taste the collapse of government. Go ahead and get yourself a copy, and dig in.

0
Your rating: None
Alex R. Knight III's picture
Columns on STR: 111

Alex R. Knight III is the author of numerous horror, science-fiction, and fantasy tales, including Tales from Dark 7.  He has also written and published poetry; non-fiction articles, reviews, and essays for a variety of venues; and is former Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.  In 1998, he was awarded Activist of the Year for that organization.  He now lives and writes in rural southern Vermont where he holds a B.A. in Literature & Writing from Union Institute & University, and looks forward to living in a governmentless society of liberty.

Comments

Jim Davies's picture

Marc is a light-year or two ahead of most of us!
 
Having read his latest work, can you explain to us what is the meaning of "fact" in Legal Land? And why is it that "no bureaucrat can answer these questions [about facts]"?
 

Alex R. Knight III's picture

Well, do you mean facts (or lack thereof) according to rational empirical observation, or "facts" according to the bureau-rat class?
 
When you put the question to some government parasite, what is his or her evidence that the precious "law," or statute, or code section, etc. in question applies, you only get circular arguments:  "Because you have taxable income."  "Because the code says so."  "Because Congress passed it."  "Because I've determined it does."  Blah, blah, blah.
 
But where are the facts and evidence?  Those are just opinions and platitudes at best.  If they wanted to give a real answer, they'd simply say, "Evidence?  Facts?  We (those calling themselves government collectively) have more manpower and weapons than you do.  That's why and how the law applies."
 
In short, Marc's book shows undeniably that the basis of all government -- perhaps even especially the "democratic" flavor -- is nothing more at day's end than Might Makes Right.  And this is why it cannot remain.

Jim Davies's picture

I mean "facts" in the sense used in the legal system.
 
Take one of your examples: "what facts are there to support his argument that there is jurisdiction...?"
 
He might say "The fact is you chose to be born in these United States, for 24 years you chose not to leave these United States, and these United States have a Constitution that gives this Court the needed jurisdiction. Next question?"
 
Are those facts, as they use the term, and what others might relate?
 

Alex R. Knight III's picture

What, factually is or are "these United States"?  IOW, prove to me you actually have a valid plaintiff.  Then, further prove that you have a valid antagonistic assertion of "rights" -- prove there's been an injury.  Still further, prove that the place of my birth, my whereabouts at the time of the alleged violation, and my current whereabouts -- or my whereabouts at any given time -- have any bearing whatsoever on any of that.
 
You can't?  Well then, we're back to the first question:  How can you maintain the constitution and code applies?

Glock27's picture

How, then, can you maintain that any code applies?

Jim Davies's picture

Sorry to be so slow, Alex, but I still have a hard time grasping why this approach should present a judge or b-rat with a "Gotcha!"
 
'What, factually is or are "these United States"?' is a question whose point we on STR will well understand, for example from my own Where's the State? But that question would, if posed to a judge, surely draw little more than a rude sneer. If he deigns to reply at all (except with "Frivolous. $200 fine. Next case!") he might, in a really good mood, also refer one to those sacred documents in the National Archive.
 
I did once challenge the jurisdiction of a government court, by calling to the judge from the back row "I didn't give you jurisdiction, so you don't have it!" The prosecutor at once introduced the traffic ticket with the words "But your honor, Mr Davies has signed this form granting jurisdiction to the Court" but his words died on his lips when he saw that my John Hancock was missing - by deliberate omission. It was a very delicious moment. But to challenge it on the grounds that the USA does not exist as a fact... still seems dodgy. Shed more light for me?
 
 
 

Alex R. Knight III's picture

Well, based on the successes Marc and his clients have had, I'd say that's pretty good prima facie that the bureau-rats are in a lot of cases loathe to try going down the path of defending that which cannot be defended.  Yes, in many cases a lawyer in a black gown will simply overrule objections, deny cross-examination, etc., but then they face having their wholesale corruption and bias exposed to the public - which more and more now contains NSP witnesses as Marc's show expands.  Further, when there's a jury involved, it gets even dicier.  All it takes is for one juror to see the judge fly into a rage simply because easy, relevant questions are being asked to blow the whole case for the DA.  And you just keep hammering the points home: 
 
What facts and evidence do you rely upon that the constitution and code applies?
 
What, factually, is the "State?"
 
Do you have personal, first-hand knowledge that I was within the "State?"
 
You get the idea.  What answers they can give, if any, are entirely non-responsive.  And if the judge wants to get angry, deny motions, overrule objections, etc., the jury and spectators get to see that. 
 
As I point out, it's not foolproof, of course.  Nothing is in a sacrosanctly corrupt government court.  But the dismissals of tickets and other government attacks serve as testimony that on many occasions, the bureau-rats are just too ill-prepared, taken off-guard, etc.  to challenge the unchallengeable.  Or a jury sees through their games -- if not in the first case, then on appeal.  There was recently an incredible traffic fine case in England where Helen not only got all the charges dropped, but was compensated to something like 900 pounds for her time and trouble.  All by simply asking repeatedly for evidence the law even applied.
 
My final advice is, of course, get and read the book.  :-)