I am hoping the Steemit audience will watch my video and Mr. Marc Stevens' rebuttal video. I sincerely need help making sense of the argument and want to insure I am not wrong.
Anarchist/Activist Marc Stevens and I have more similarities than differences. In fact, we are both a lot alike. Despite our kinship, we have one gigantic and significant obstacle that has recently caused a riff between us. I am hoping this post will act as a catalyst to repair the disparity. I realize I am walking a tightrope but I am confident we are both smart enough to work something out.
The dispute between us does not pose a threat to my finances, popularity, or credibility so I am coming from a sincere place of selflessness and diplomacy. I do not want to cause harm to Mr. Stevens in any way and want to be considered his friend.
Mr. Stevens is a passionate anarchist/activist whom I respect very much. He tirelessly fights the government with an undeniable passion for justice. I have always considered Mr. Stevens a coequal peer because we share similar occupations. We are both non-lawyers who work with citizens in the hopes our expertise will result in our client prevailing in U.S. court proceedings.
There are only a few differences in terms of our day-to-day duties. Although we both sometimes step outside of our genres, I primarily work drug cases while Mr. Stevens primarily works traffic offenses. While I collaborate with my client and their lawyer, Mr. Stevens works primarily with "Pro se," clients who are acting as their own attorney.
Our problem begins with an obligation I feel to warn the public it is dangerous to use his defense strategy in certain cases. While I support, promote and recommend using his method in traffic court and certain civil cases, I strongly caution my fans to never use his strategy in drug cases and other more serious criminal proceedings.
The specific defense strategy I am referring to is known as the Common Law or Freeman Defense. Believers in this court tactic promote the idea a defendant will win if he or she demands the judge to dismiss the case claiming the law doesn't apply to them and therefore the court does not have jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
The theory is derived from the belief that since the defendants never entered into a contract with the United States of America, none of the laws apply to them therefore they are not subject to the court's authority. It's taught the method can be used to get any case dismissed but unfortunately it is not true.
Mr. Stevens calls what he does "The Socratic Method" and refers to it as a legal theory or legal defense. The Socratic Method is a form of argumentation and is not a legal theory or defense. The Socratic Method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals. It is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It's considered one of the most effective forms of argumentation a person can use.
I agree Mr. Stevens could be correct about his jurisdictional argument in terms of historical understandings and written law but I am positive applying these truths to defend serious crime will not work. There are many examples of being correct in theory but wrong in reality.
For instance, there is a law protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizure. No matter how eloquently a person argues their marijuana case should be dismissed because it violates the Fourth Amendment, American judges ignore the “truth” and unlawfully throw the accused in jail.
Mr. Stevens' teaching is harmful because he promotes using the method in cases other than traffic court and civil tax suits. Judges view his method as a challenge to their authority and often throw the defendant who uses the method in jail. I personally know at least six people who became my clients after attempting the jurisdictional argument and spending a few days in jail for Contempt of Court.
There is a Super Lawyer section on the front page of my website, NeverGetBusted.com. Each lawyer featured in that section is a personal friend of mine with whom I have worked many cases. I personally know scores of attorneys and have worked with hundreds more throughout the years. They all state the jurisdictional argument is dangerous and none of them will work with clients who want to use the method. Neither will I.
Each lawyer I have discussed the jurisdictional theory with states the reason the argument sometimes works when defending a traffic ticket is because it overwhelms the court. Instead of fighting the defendant who is usually very passionate and files piles of motions, it's less costly to simply dismiss the case.
The defendant wrongly assumes the judge dismissed the case because the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction. Many lawyers and I have personally heard judges and prosecutors reticule the defense and admit they dismissed the case because it was too big of a headache to prosecute.
For eleven years, I have been arguing individually with well meaning proponents of this strategy. I have noticed an increased interest in Mr. Steven's method trending in the anarchist community. I have been asked dozens of times for my opinion so instead of repeating myself over and over, I published a video on Youtube titled,
I absolutely never believed the video would offend Mr. Stevens. I specifically remember a comment I made the day we shot the clip. I explained to the NeverGetBusted videographer, L-Dixon, I was going to make my point without trashing anyone.
In the video, I give Mr. Stevens props and congratulate him on his many successes. Since I knew he has often and unfairly criticized for working mostly in traffic court, I explained regardless of the level of offense, a person should never belittle a win. Sadly and according to Mr. Stevens’s rebuttal video, he interpreted my words as calling him a fraud.
Mr. Stevens, I publicly apologize my video hurt you. I sincerely believed I was being polite and respectful. In the future, I will look for other ways to get my point across. Many who have viewed the video advised I do not owe
Mr. Stevens an apology. For me, if I'm not sure, I will always lean toward the side of building a bridge instead of burning one.
When I published "Beware, The Freeman, Sovereign, Common Law Defense is CRAZY," I never expected to hear from Mr. Stevens and I never did. Approximately two months after posting the video, I noticed he published an article on Steemit.com titled,
I was excited when I read the title because I am always looking for a new way to help my clients avoid lengthy prison sentences and I was happy Mr. Stevens' strategy finally worked for an offense more serious than a traffic ticket. My excitement quickly waned after I read the post. I could not find proof the drug case was dismissed because the prosecution could not prove jurisdiction.
I considered the title he used in the article misleading so I sent him a polite email that turned into a fight. I asked Mr. Stevens for proof the case was dismissed for the reason he claimed on Steemit.com. He stated he did not have proof and offered an assumption. When I explained assumptions were logical fallacies, he became offended and his tone changed.
I felt misunderstood and disrespected so in my final reply, I told him "fuck you" three times. I am known for the bad habit of telling people "fuck off" and "fuck you" and am constantly working to correct the distasteful behavior.
I was raised in Texas around some of the roughest people in the world and using the word "fuck" is just as normal as a kid saying "mother." I probably use the word over a hundred times a day but no more the ten when I'm asleep.
This does not excuse my bad mannerism of telling people to "fuck off" and I have struggled my entire life to break the habit. I promise to continue working on that.
Mr. Stevens, I am positive I owe you an apology for saying that to you. I should have taken a step back before flaring up and typing those words. I am sorry. Please forgive me.
In the email, I mentioned the video I published to Mr. Stevens which triggered a rebuttal video he published titled, "Debunking Barry Cooper’s Hit Piece – Logical Fallacies, Misrepresentations and Ad Hominen." He refers to this email a lot during his rant so for full disclosure, I am sharing it here.
There is no proof Joe in Hawaii won because the prosecutor couldn't prove jurisdiction. In fact, I have only seen one case where the Socratic Method was used and the judge actually wrote, "Dismissed because of ...jurisdiction." It's the dismissal of a speeding ticket Mr. Stevens refers to in the email above. Here it is:
The other case he references in the email contains no court records that state the case was dismissed because the prosecution could not prove jurisdiction. Mr. Stevens titled the article , Motion to Dismiss Granted Again – Jeffrey M. Shock Cannot Prove Jurisdiction but the court record provided in the article says no such thing. Here it is for the readers review:
As I stated in the email, there are many reasons a judge can dismiss a case for jurisdictional reasons. The only way to prove these two cases were dismissed because the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction is to review the court transcripts, which Mr. Stevens refuses to provide.
Since the claim is the Socratic Method is effective, there must be an excuse why the majority of persons who try it do not win. The big escape goat for using his method and losing accusing the defeated of "not practicing enough" or "there is something you didn't say right."
To help prove I am not out to assassinate, discredit or harm Mr. Stevens, I will share a recent incident that happened after the email fight.
In a private chat a Steemit member coincidentally mentioned he supported Marc Stevens and asked if I had ever connected with him. This person knew nothing about the riff or the video I published. This was my exact reply:
"Marc and I disagree on some major court issues so we have trouble getting along. I mentioned him in a video I produced and although I made it a point to give him props, he took it as an attack. That stated, continue to support him because he is a sincere freedom fighter who fights the government passionately. I'm glad you are supporting him. I really appreciate your passion for supporting the cause by upvoted people like Marc and I."
A NeverGetBusted policy I have strictly obeyed is that I do not publicly speak negatively about other activists. One can check my eleven year online record of activism and will not find a single instance where I have called out or trashed another freedom fighter.
Years ago, when NORML, LEAP, FlexYourRights and other activist organizations were slandered me during media interviews, I defended against the comments they made and never said anything bad about them again. I realized we are all in the same game and trash talking each other was foolish and harmful to the cause.
I believe in this principle so much, I posted this to Facebook so others might adopt the same good habit:
I walk so carefully to not be wrong, I won't even step on a beetle. After eleven years of challenges, I still have not been shown proof a case has been dismissed because a judge agreed the prosecutor could not prove jurisdiction. This is why I recently offered Mr. Stevens the opportunity to have a friendly and lighthearted debate at the upcoming Anarchapulco Conference in February 2017.
Last night I posted this message under his video, Joe's video and Mr. Steven's articles on his website and Steemit:
"Mr. Stevens, If you are attending Anarchapulco this year, we should have a friendly debate about the video I posted. I'm sure the debate will attract a sizable audience. We can film the debate and post it on Youtube. Are you up for the challenge? I am offering you first chance and if you can't, Joe get's the second. If he can't then this offer extends to any of the commenters under this video."
I promise to be respectful, fun and polite and will not ever say "fuck you" to Mr. Stevens again. I do not want to harm Mr. Steven's reputation in any way and sincerely desire to have peace and friendship with him.
I am hoping the Steemit audience will watch my video and Mr. Stevens rebuttal video and help me make sense of the argument. Please comment your findings here or email me at info@nevergetbusted.com.
Upvoting this article does not mean you are taking my side and you are against Mr. Stevens. Although each person should develop their own opinion on who is right, I don't want any Steemit member to be against either of us.
I want your upvote if this publishing: 1. Taught you something. 2. You feel I deserve the upvote for spending hours writing it. 3. I am trying to repair a feud between two sincere and hard working activists.
If any of these three apply to you, Upvote now please.
Vote for this witness tdv.witness by Click here and place your vote for tdv.witness Scroll down and find "tdv.witness." Now click the arrow next to it. Two personal friends who are both geniuses and have a deep passion to see Steemit dominate the market operate this witness. This witness also funds SteemTrail.
Photo of Mr. Stevens credit: Mr. Stevens Youtube Channel
Photo of "I am Sorry" hands credit: Freshmorningquotes
Youtube video of Joe's rant against Barry: CopWatch Hawaii Youtube Channel