03/31/13 KL vs.

Marc Stevens
KL: well thats what Im saying, you always say something about ah, the code
doesnt apply;
Marc Stevens: I say theres no evidence the code applies;
KL: okay, and uh, I dont know if we are on the air;
MS: ya, we are live on the air;
KL: okay, fine; its like youve heard of the domestic authority doctrine, right?
MS: domestic authority doctrine?
KL: okay, Ill give you an easy one; you know when Hilary Clinton says we cant go
into Syria, because we cant involve ourselves in some foreign states domestic
affairs?
MS: I believe it has to do with, like, the law of nations whatnot, their respect of
sovereignty, ya.
KL: right, a state like a societal belief that you have a right to engage in your own
private domestic affairs without intervention of a foreign state intervening. (Ya) ya,
thats basically it. So its like, so why when you say the court doesnt apply, do you
believe that people within a certain district do not have a right to establish its
societal rules of law; and then when you enter into their society why do you feel
that you are not liable for causing harm to others within that society, when you
violate their code?
MS: well, I never said that I dont feel that if I cause harm to somebody, that Im not
liable to make them whole; I adhere to the none aggression principle and if I
damage somebody then I will make them whole; and I think I got a pretty good
track record for that, when I do, if I do that or I dont follow through on business and
I dont, you know, and something gets screwed up; what Im talking about evidence
that someone elses code applies to me, like a political code; now what youre
talking about has a lot of assumptions, that a group of people have engaged in
some kind of voluntary agreement, and that is not what were discussing as far as
what we are talking about states;
KL: ok, well its a presumption, thats okay, as this what Im saying, by you saying
the custom of a society in which you are entering, in which they claim you did
wrong, you saying not make their societal beliefs into a code system, are you saying
that is not applicable to you?
MS: I dont believe that what you I think what youre talking about, youre trying to
conflate what, what, lets say the ah, whats known as, Ill use me as an example,
where youre conflating with what the government has done with what the people in
the area have done; and theyre two separate things; you have to narrow down, and
actually be very specific about what you are talking about; and its one thing about
a custom having a drivers license is not a custom; I dont think thats what you
are getting at; we would disagree that that is a custom; that is something that is
violently imposed on people, by a very small minority of those people;
KL: thats exactly what Im talking about; its complete opposite, a custom of the
people, like say, if you went through a local county here and you wanted a jury trial;
and you said, you could say I dont need a drivers license; well, Im telling you
when you get 12 little old ladies on the jury, they will say the custom and our beliefs
of our society is: you must have a drivers license; thats why I say to folks,
sometimes it is better to talk to the black robed one and show him the black and
white letter of the law, because he is bound by that letter of the law; he cant
interpret it; but the little old ladies will say the customs of our society, within our
district is we want you regulated, we want you insured, and we want you to
maintain a proper drivers license; and you are going to lose in front of a trial by jury
of a whole bunch of the people of that community;
MS: at least with my situation, its kind of rare, you wouldnt have a jury for a
drivers license; you may have one in Michigan or Main or in Florida, ah, and there is
merit to that of course; that happens all the time, we could just ring up our good
friend Larkin Rose, where even if the judge comes out and tells the jury in front - or
says to Larkin in front of the jury, that he was sincere in his belief that he was not
required to pay taxes; the jury still convicted him anyway; and for whatever social
reason, we can only speculate exactly why the jury did that; your assuming that you
are going to have 12 people unanimously say, no, it is our custom, were going to
do this, even though the prosecutor may not have had any evidence;
KL: the prosecutor in Mikes case, in that tax case, do you realize, he went to a
federal tax court, correct?
MS: no, he went to a federal, ah, it was the district court, in Coeur DAlene, Idaho; it
wasnt the tax court;
KL: so he went to a county court?
MS: no, he went to the federal district court;
KL: and was he the defendant or was he the prosecutor?
MS: Mike was the defendant, he was the one that was indicted, hes the one sitting
in jail right now;
KL: and so when a prosecutor files a case, what rights do defendants have under
the rules of the court?
MS: well according to the principles of due process: a fair hearing before a cold
impassioned neutral judge, theyre supposed to have a presumption of innocence;
theyre supposed to have ah, ah, this is some pretty basic stuff, I mean, are you
really calling about that?
KL: its not, its what you might think its, what youre saying is pretty basic stuff,
but why didnt Mike not file a claim of his own and establish the rules of court in
which he was going to appear?
MS: Mike challenged at least initially, he challenged the Laurie Hendricksons
evidence to prove jurisdiction;
KL: what Im saying is why did he bother, address the court? Until there was a
proper claim filed before that court, why didnt he -
MS: because he did raise that there was no valid ah, cause of action;
KL: you dont raise an issue within their you dont raise an issue within their case,
within their case number, within their claims and their complaint; you establish your
own claim with your own case number and when you do that, youre requiring the
court to place a proper claim before the court before you will address that case that
is now before - THEIR CASE before the court, you have to establish
MS: so what you are saying is you have to invoke their jurisdiction, in order to
challenge the jurisdiction over you?
KL: you have to invoke your jurisdiction and make THEM prove that they have
jurisdiction over you; that (but if) anything written on that paper has any merits or
any kind of control or jurisdiction over you, as the man;
MS: so you have to invoke the courts jurisdiction by filing your own claim, before
you
KL: you invoke its your court, you move your court into that venue; its just a
building, its just a building so you are moving your court, and your claim and your
case into that venue and you are evoking your jurisdiction and saying where do they
have the authority to move I as a man? May the proper claim be made forth before
this court so I may answer it; is there a claim submitted before this court? Is it, and
you make sure say is it I (garbled)
MS: hold on, hold on a second, well finish off, we are up against a break ok, Karl,
so you are saying you have to invoke your own court and bring it into their building,
before they
KL: its not, okay, this the problem you are having big time its not their building, its
public courthouses, they are not private courthouses; is there a private legal bar
society operating in it basically from 9 5 absolutely, you have to make it a public
building, again; you have to bring mans claim into that public building, where the
private side, the BAR association has no control, or authority or jurisdiction over it;
its a public building; its not their courthouse; its your courthouse, your grand
pappy built it, my grand pappy built it;
MS: I dont have any evidence of that; my grandfather from Sicily; my other
grandfather came in from Ireland by way of Nova Scotia; who cares who built the
building 30, 40, 50 or 100 years ago? What does that have to do with me, today?
KL: because a private organization did not build that courthouse; it is a public
building, like a public library, you can do whatever you want in a public library; you
can do whatever you want in that public courthouse;
MS: you cant do whatever you want; but, ah, youre gonna have to break this down,
this doesnt seem, its not making any sense to me; and it may be because I know
you dont have a very high opinion of me, I get that;
KL: I have a very high opinion of you; I do; you are what I was a couple of years ago;
MS: you, you have, youve been pretty lets say, lets use a nice term critical, which
is fine, youve, youve, youve gone beyond just critical of me; youve accused me of
not letting you on the air, which, okay (well) is not true; I have let you on the air and
you are on the air now, although this particular part is going to be on the pod cast,
but I, I, its not making any sense to me when youre saying you have to cre - bring
your own court, but youre going to file the paperwork, with their clerk of the court
right?
KL: no, you know, okay, Im dont want to get into semantics with you because it is
not a clerk of the court, its the court clerk (oh, oh) its the public office, thats the
public office, is the court clerk; and shes
MS: what is the basis of the jurisdiction of the public clerk then? Where is there
basis of authority coming from? Is it from the constitution?
KL: its from the county, like where their operating out of, the commissioners office,
theyre the ones who established the court because of the will of the people;
because the people decided to elect certain representatives to do their legal law
work for them, they sent them to Washington, or their state capital or to their
county control board, and they are doing the peoples work on behalf of the people
that elected them;
MS: but, when, you, you were using the example of Mike in Idaho, it was the federal
court; (okay) what does that have to do with the county?
KL: I just asked, did Mike go into a federal court, a county court, a municipal court,
what kind/type of a court did he go into?
MS: I told you it was a federal court.
KL: and they moved a federal complaint against him?
MS: they had a federal grand jury, (aha) indict him; and they filed (why didnt he) it
apparently with the district court in Coeur DAlene, Idaho;
KL: why didnt he file a claim in that court, in that building, through that court
clerks office as well; establishing the fact that they had no jurisdiction over his
property and they had no right to administrate his property without his consent;
MS: he filed paperwork showing that the prosecutor, Laurie Hendrickson, by her own
admission had no evidence the codes applied and that there was jurisdiction over
him; he did that;
KL: Im not - you dont answer a prosecutor; you become the prosecutor; if you dont
prosecute a claim, youre not going to win; the best youre going to do if youre a
defendant is going to be a draw or youre going to lose; when you go to court, you
go to court to win; its a battle; its a duel; you dont want a draw; you want a win;
so you file a claim, that whoever this person is claiming to be, Laurie Anderson (He
meant Hendrickson) is making a false claim before the Court; that she has no
verifiable proof, evidence or
MS: whoa, whoa, hold on a second Karl doing another segment with Karl, and Karl I
gotta be honest with you, the more youre talking about this, and sounds like Bill
Thornton type stuff, the more youre talking about it, the more convoluted it seems
to get and its, and it just doesnt seem like its something that is very easily
relatable to people; that its its a mushroom; one second Karl, one second, we got
a whole segment here; one thing leads to three, and then when you start explaining
those three, that balloons up into seven; and it just keeps getting more and more
and more convoluted; from what Im getting from you, youre saying is dont ever
engage the prosecutor directly, file your own claim first, in with the same clerk and
then address the accusations that the prosecutor is making, am I getting that right?
KL: ya, Ill make a simple example of how to explain everybody, because theyre
coming at you under a code, right? They are bringing a code at you, right?
Attacking you with a code, right? (Yes) Okay we agree with that? (Ya) How - like this
is just like say making a code for a computer program or a video game; how in the
world do you expect me to interpret your code? I did not program those codes,
every key is case specific or code specific; I do not understand what that code
defines or what it relates to; its not in common language; it is in machine language;
its in a code language; you and I can look at a Picasso painting for 20 years and
interpret what it means, Picasso is going to come in the room, spin it around and
say, no its an elephant holding a banana standing on a ball; Who had my picture
upside down? Why are you trying to interpret their code? You did not create their
code; you have no right to interpret their code; you are wasting your time trying to
decipher their code; you are not the creator of that code; so what you do is you
bring your law, your claim before that court and say how does that code have
anything to do with me? And how does that code have any way to show that it has
the right to administrate my property, can you please show me; because then you
are going to have to bring the person, that established that code, created that code,
before the court and verify viva voce by mouth saying that he knows that beyond a
shadow of a doubt that somehow I am liable for violating that code that he wrote;
its that simple;
MS: thats what I do with the motion; thats what I do when I call the prosecutors, I
dont file a claim, ah say a counter claim kind of thing with the same clerk under the
impression that its public here, its private over here; I dont even acknowledge that
its public, its all private; I mean even (you dont) if we went by Dunn and
Bradstreet its all private; all of its private; so the fact that theyre bringing, some
prosecutor is bringing a code violation, it doesnt seem to be any more effective, or
it would be better to try to file a claim instead of addressing them head on; where is
your evidence sir?
KL: when you motion in their court, right, youre motioning their court, right? You
must appear in that court; if - I dont appear in that court; like lets say it was Mike
vs. IRS, I cant motion that Court; Karl cant motion that Court, cause I dont appear
in that case; Do I? So if you motion in their court in their case, you are accepting
that youre appearing in that court; and you believe that you are a party and you
are accepting the role of the defendant;
MS: no, you dont, I - some of them may look at you that way, but there is plenty of
just their own case citations; that - where they have dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction; they, they may have jurisdiction just for the purpose of the motion,
which is fine; I - as long as they are addressing the motion I dont care if Im ceding
or waiving jurisdiction just for the purpose of the motion; and I make sure that I let
know I know if there is any jurisdiction it is just to dispose of this nonsense, that the
prosecutor has no evidence to support; but I dont see any merit to what youre
saying as far as that youve got to file your own claim on the public side because
they are acting privately; I just, I it just doesnt make any sense to me;
KL: if somebody was trying to come after me, if - claiming that they were going to
take my property or my money, i dont care if its the government or I dont care if
its my neighbor next door; I going ask them to please cease and desist
immediately, and try and settle the matter on the private side outside of the court;
Im making Im fully aware whos ever prosecuting me, they have to stand in open
court and under oath or affirmation, testify that they know what they are saying is
true; and thats that Trinsey vs. Pagliario 1964; that no lawyer is allowed to motion a
court or demand a court summary judgement, unless he has first-hand knowledge
of the wrong; now thats how you knock the attorneys out of every single case; you
say are you an attorney? Yes. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of the events
that occurred here today that you filed? No. who is the person that is going to come
before the court and under oath or affirmation, make a verifiable claim before this
court? Id like to see Mr. United States or Mrs. United States take the stand; Its that
simple;
MS: well, its not just that simple; because even from a stand point of playing devils
advocate, the plaintiff is not always the witness, it does not have to be a witness
with personal first-hand knowledge; that, I mean thats basic thing - I mean, its
anyone can be a plaintiff that has been damaged but not initially have first-hand
knowledge of the damage, because they have witnesses that do have personal first-
hand knowledge; so, I dont think that Im splitting hairs, when Im trying to be as
accurate as possible; Im not saying, I think that we are in agreement that you want
to challenge the application; the application, the facts that the code applies, I think
you are coming at it from ah, ah, a different way; youre under youre saying, you
know, you have to file your claim, that you mentioned before about semantics, Im
filing a motion, youre filing a claim, as if the claim is somehow any different that
you are actually appearing in their court; if you file a complaint with them or a
claim, you are ceding jurisdiction to them as a plaintiff;
KL: what is this make it simple; this is not France, this is not a code land; you do
understand that the common law is the superior law of this land? There is no higher
law;
MS: no I do not; I do not concede that; there may be some aspects of common law
that I agree with, but as far as the common law itself, no I do not concede that at
all; what I believe is that, I like how the lunatic Justinian put it: three precepts of the
law are this, live honestly, injure no one, give every man his due; I believe that the
nonaggression principle is the superior, you know, law or principle, not the common
law;
KL: what is the common the common law is just the custom of the people that
happen to live within a certain district;
MS: that is generally the way it is understood, but it is not necessarily applied;
because like I say a common law remedy in taxation, was to pay it first, so I really
dont think it was the custom of the people to be robbed blind and then have to
bring an action; there is so many things wrong with ide - with the common law,
when you actually start examining it; that it
KL: I just gave you Marc I just gave you the common law remedy; I said if
somebody is trying to administrate you property without your consent or by right,
all you do is file - you ask him nicely on a private side, before you walk in before a
judge, cease and desist immediately; there has got to be some man who is going to
come forth and testify on oath or affirmation that that tax or that code is applicable
to me; so if they refuse to cease and desist, - (you wanna file??)
MS: no, Karl, very little time here, if you go and you file a claim or something in
court to stop taxation that is not the common law remedy; the common law remedy
is to pay it, first;
KL: no, the common law remedy Im telling you the common law remedy is you file
a claim and you say that this person is trying to administrate my right - or my
property without right; and I order them to cease and desist immediately or bring a
verifiable claim before the court in 21-2 days; and thats it and you demand
compensation for the administration -
MS: if we just focus, on lets say on income taxes or, you know, okay, if you do that
you will have it thrown out immediately on ah, because of the anti-injunctive tax act
and sovereign immunity; it doesnt work that way with tax; there may, like I
mention, there are some very good things about the common law; that there has to
be injury and damage; I will agree with that, ya, thats common sense; but when
you start looking at the common - there is some, you know in general more aspects
of it, it is disastrous; absolutely
KL: do you believe, do you believe the people have a bill of rights under the United
States constitution?
MS: I believe that a bunch of politicians, a bunch of rich psychopaths in 1789 or
1790 whatever, wrote that; I dont think
KL: do you believe we have inherent rights, given to us by our creator?
MS: no I do not;
KL: no? That we have our right to property, (no, I do not) that we have the right
MS: no, no I do not, Ive gone on record on this show many, many, times, I do not, I
do not accept the concept of rights; I believe that people have life, liberty and
property; I do not believe that they have rights to that; that is a legal concept that I
reject;
KL: do you believe that a person could claim property is all what they believe is
proper to their person, exclusive to all others within society, and that they claim as
own, it is own vested interest, they have sole vested interest in that property?
MS: sure they can claim that; I believe, ya, people claim that all the time; but what
does that have to do with, ah, my belie - the concept of rights though? The concept
of rights is a legal concept; its just not something that I, I, ah buy into; I used to;
KL: all your rights is, all rights is, is a subcategory of property; your rights are your
property; your heartbeat is your property, your breath is your property; they cant
claim your rights; they cant take away your breath, they cant take away your
heartbeat; that is your property exclusive to
MS: Hold on let me finish this off; we got a couple of minutes here, to finish Karl;
KL: uhm, alright, like I said, man, because like I said we have inherent rights, we
have inherent property; we own our bodies, we own our rights; nobody may take
our rights away; we cant sell our rights; we cant transfer our rights; we cant
destroy or diminish or do anything with our rights; like our heartbeat, there is
nothing we can do, we are stuck with it; its part of us, there is nothing we can
about it; and like I said when I always tell people article 7, all you people call the 7th
amendment, it just says at common law, when any value of a controversy including
taxes exceeds $ 20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by
a jury shall be re-examined by any court of the united states; not any court of the
common law, any court of the United States; so United States Court system
recognizes the fact that a common law trial by jury is superior to their courts of the
united states;
MS: but the problem is, Karl, Karl, I gotta be real quick here; the problem is if you
are looking at taxes they have whats called the anti-injunctive tax act and they go
back hundreds of years not only through British Rulings but American Rulings; it has
always been held under the common law, even if its more than $20; you have to
pay it first, when you bring an action for a refund you can put that before a jury;
that it is true; but it does not stop, it does not stop them from throwing it out for
sovereign immunity and because they have the anti-injunctive tax act; the courts,
they have limited exceptions, there are some exceptions but nobody that I know of,
weve ever got a judge to even acknowledge it;
KL: Marc, Marc thats merchant law and thats statute staples you are talking about;
MS: no Im talking about, and I dont have the things right before me but there were
plenty of their opinions that is common law remedy is to pay it first, the only time
they, they have an exception is, and nobody acknowledges it though, its like Enoch,
ah, the Enoch Case; I forget the whole thing, is where if you can show where they
cant prevail under any circumstances, which is why I attack the facts so hard; but
Ive never seen any recent history, no one has ever gotten the courts that I am
aware of, state or federal, to acknowledge the exception to the anti-injunctive tax
act; we cant even get them to take judicial notice it exists, its that bad;
KL: but, Marc, you remember Holtsville, Long Island, NY? You remember that huge
tax center that was up there? (I told you I lived, I lived right on the other side of
Bald Hill) Right, so what Im saying is my mom was a tax / IRS auditor since 1972 till
1993; I know everything about the IRS; I know everything where you people are
stepping in your land mines, and why youre doing; she prepared the tax cases
against people; so she told me every trick in the book, because she knew I was
skootch kid, and I was going to get myself thrown in jail, because Im messing with
the tax system in this country; so she explained to me how i get out of it and stay
away from them; okay, my moms name is Patricia Grace XXXX, and she worked up
there in the Holtsville office, since 1972; this is all she did; so when you folks are
trying to argue me about tax and tax court and I feel bad for Erwin Schiff; because
he did not understand, that he came into that tax court, federal tax court; when
you come to federal tax court, you come in as a prosecutor, the burden of proof is
on you, that you do not owe them that tax; like you were trying to say earlier, you
pay the tax first and then you prove that you dont; thats what Erwin Schiff had to
do;
MS side kick: well the problem Erwin Schiff made, though, is he filed a bunch of
returns and that was a dumb thing to do; he signed jurat statements thats why he
ended up in that court;
KL: he just had to file that he was exempt; all he had to say is he is if you look at
those W4 forms
MSSK: its like playing with a ring of fire you cannot play with their power base and
expect to beat them; thats what he thought he could do;
KL: read the line, where it says Do you believe that youre exempt . . . , only man
has the capacity to believe, Coca Cola doesnt have the capacity to believe -