Ninja Skills

Hello All,

I am wondering if we can start a thread discussing Marc Stevens Legal Ninja Skills. I have a few questions regarding his technique;

Is there a flaw in showing the corruption the way he does?

If so, what is it?

To me it seems that through his reasoning, by asking these questions you take away all the validity they pretend to have over the Sovereign.

I'm still a newbie here, and am doing as much research as possible. I think that everything else being said on this site is likened to the preparation of the arsenal for battle, gathering the mental troops to their posts, and Marc would be the front line mental tactic, simply show them how ridiculous and powerless they really are. Just kinda thinkin out loud here. I'd appreciate to hear all of your opinions on this matter. Peace and Blessings!








"You never knew that you were the Freest Slave? No shackles on your wrist, because you behave." S. Bennett

by Lmntal

Marc Stevens Legal Ninja Skills....

Not familiar with Marc Stevens.

Is there a flaw in showing the corruption the way he does?

You won't win any friends, that's for sure.

...by asking these questions you take away all the validity they pretend to have over the Sovereign.

In what setting are these questions asked? In court with "them" being under "oath"? In writing? Anything short of a courtroom with "them" under oath and "they" are free to say and do pretty much as they damned well please--unless, until, AND up to the point YOU would be willing to initiate court action and then introduce as real "evidence" their "testimony."

...simply show them how ridiculous and powerless they really are....

These folks are not "ridiculous." At best, they are merely everyday folks, like us, who are "just doing their jobs" and, in this case, completely ignorant AND apathetical about the "truth." At worst, they know all this stuff and simply don't care because, after all, and once again, they are "just doing their jobs" and nothing else is more important to them then their own self-interests.

And do not fall for anyone's BS who tells you that they are "powerless." More truth than humor in the old "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." So if you're going to assume they're "ridiculous," you'd better know "they" have the entire "power structure" backing them.

This is not--all contrary opinions withstanding--a battle for "truth, justice, and the American way." It's a battle for power, pure and simple. Those with it seek to hang on to it.

WE are the perceived enemy in this. WE are the ones challenging the "status quo" and conventional wisdom, not "them."

Just kinda thinkin out loud here.

Understood. Just don't be too hasty to fall for some dude's hype, that's all. My money says that whomever this guy is, he's not actually jumped into the arena with the beast and tried any of his own advice. I could be wrong, of course.....

Randy







"You never knew that you were the Freest Slave? No shackles on your wrist, because you behave." S. Bennett[/quote]

Originally Posted by Randy

Just don't be too hasty to fall for some dude's hype, that's all. My money says that whomever this guy is, he's not actually jumped into the arena with the beast and tried any of his own advice. I could be wrong, of course.....

Randy

First time for everything.

www.adventuresinlegalland.com

You won't believe how wrong you are.

Hope yer doin ok.

HB

[Ice]

Randy,

Marc's stuff is goooood. Check it out. And it doesn't have some outrageous pricetag on it.

The proposition is to get them to back themselves into a corner with no way out but to "dismiss" or expose the entire charade ( all based on violence -- they have the guns, right ? )

Ice

[Bird]

Ditto HB and Ice's post:

Marc's book is a very economical way to increase the skills of your arsenal. It is a very easy read which can benefit the uninitiated to the seasoned vet.

What? Me? Wrong about something? Oh, that's never happened, right? (Do the math: 3 engagements, 2 marriages, 1 divorce, 41 jobs: Yeah, I've proven to myself and the world that *I* am my own worst enemy and capable of some really lame-assed choices....)

Just spent the last hour or so going over the website. Yes, the guy is "different" and has a refreshing, but not that "unique" of approach to things. Okay, it's that or I've been around way too long paying way too much attention to "authority figures."

Okay, confession time. True story. The conscious beginnings of a life dedicated to challenging authority figures.

Me. Third grade. Nine-years old. 1961. Teacher discussing "marriages" and "families." Says: "When a man and woman get married, the woman changes her name and takes on the man's name."

Me: "Why?"

All the kids busted out laughing. Teacher: "I don't know. It's just tradition."

Okay. I can accept that. But what I KNEW from the reaction of the other kids to my question was this:

1. They were too "stupid" to think of the question themselves. Or,
2. They were too "shy" to ask something that they "assumed" everyone else would probably know, and therefore, would rather remain "ignorant" than ask a perceived "silly" question.

From that moment, I've never let "authority figures" get away without at least giving me a pretense of an answer. *Anything" is acceptable as long as it is not "...because I said so..." (You know, "I'm the boss." "I'm a cop." And the one I hate more than all others: "I'm just doing my job.")

And from that moment, I gave caring what others thought about me in this search for the legitimacy of "authority figures." (41 jobs! See why?)

So, back to Mr. Stevens. In one of his excerpts he mentions how he "questions everything." That's precisely what I, and probably everyone else here at SJ, do. We are NOT being argumentative nor confrontational when we want honest answers to honest questions about those claiming power and authority over our lives.

And this is where perhaps "destiny" comes into play. To put it more precisely, a man's personal experiences simply must become, for him and him alone, THE deciding factor by which all further "truth" will be known and understood.

So, for me, the "truth" is this:

Authority figures perceive Mr. Steven's form of "non-confrontation" as precisely that: Confrontation. It is, in my life and my experience, a "no-win" situation.

E.G.: Claiming the "right to remain" *should* be viewed as the legal, correct, and intelligent thing for ALL persons to do when confronted by the police. More often than not, however, is not such silence *perceived* as guilt? I.E., "if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind answering our questions, letting us search your car, etc...."

Simultaneously, "co-operating" is *perceived* as an acknowledgment and acceptance of a power and authority that I, for one, know they do not have, and serves only to reinforce and perpetuate an abusive situation.

I guess what I'm saying is this: If by nothing more than intuition only, you could say I've been doing this stuff for my entire lifetime. "It" doesn't work all that hot for me because, in the final analysis, I've yet to encounter an "authority" figure who cares about anything other than maintaining the status quo, perpetuating and perserving his own self-interest.

I've not yet seen a judge, for example, who cares one bit about showing his "true colors," that is, that he's abusing his power. Why should he care? What am *I* going to do about it?

In short, and again, in *my* experience, the passive method of "asking" has the exact same results as "demanding." From "their" point of view, it has always, always been perceived as "challenging their authority." And it has been met, each time, every time, with clear and open hostilit and resentment.

Now, as to whether I care or not? Why, hell no! I haven't stopped yet and have no plans to. Why?

Because I have lived by two laws, and only two, my entire life. These two are the ONLY absolutes I know: True for me, true for you, true for everyone:

1. People make choices.
2. Actions have consequences.

I choose no battle, take no action, until I have weighed ALL the possible consequences. Then I begin "pushing." I simply know, intuitively, when it's time to declare victory, or capitulate, cut my losses and run.

Mr. Stevens experiences in these areas clearly have had different results, and all I can say is "Hooray for him." But I will continue, for the rest of my life, to say it is completely and thoroughly disengenuous for anyone, at any time, to say, of any thing, any product, any plan--any "thing"--"Hey. It worked for me. It'll work for you."

The outcome of any confrontation--physical attack, legal challenge, anything--will never be 100-percent predictable.

I'm just sad that our weakness--"our" meaning the people here at SJ and all "regular" people--is our morality. "They" win by using our own innate sense of goodness, decency, and civility against us.

As Zorro's nemesis in "Zorro, The Gay Blade" (gotta see if you haven't!) said: "I have always counted on my enemies being nicer than me and I have never, ever been disappointed."

The old saying has it: "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." True. So very true.

But evil will always prosper simply because "good" men have limits. Evil does not.

Thanks, y'all, for not beating me too badly. I *almost* checked out his site before I said anything. But I thought, "Well, THIS time I'll go out on a limb...."

So I do stand corrected.

Randy

His approach is not just "Question everything," rather "Question everything in such a way as to embarrass the .... out of the opposing party, since his prior answers to your previous questions will force him to obviously contradict himself."

Marc has the true picture, in that "they" don't care about what the law says, but they do care about being forced to contradict something that they themselves said just 45 seconds earlier, then being asked how that contradiction matches their earlier statement.

I will say that Marc Stevens' stuff will work better on the defensive than on the offensive.

If you read his book, you will know you have a goldmine in your hands.

HB

byHenryBowman

...rather "Question everything in such a way as to embarrass the .... out of the opposing party, since his prior answers to your previous questions will force him to obviously contradict himself."

Understood. BUT in *my* experience with this, the result is always, always, always self-defeating. Yes, you "win" the argument/debate/discussion, whatever. But if this is in conjunction with those "power figures" who have control over our lives, the end result of such "contradiction" is, of course, embarrassment. They've been put on the spot. And I'm to believe they'll just "walk away," and let me/us/you do the same? Again, NOT in my experience.

Also understood is that in this area we're talking about exposing their "presumed" power and authority. I'm in complete agreement that we're all playing a game, that, for example, we're using Monopoly "money" to "buy" stuff, and so forth.

This is my problem: As I said, I've lived by this approach nearly all my concious life. Pointing out contradicitons is what I do best. But the "success" of "his" method seems to be that those who have been summarily embarrassed are honorable enough, decent enough, civil enough, indeed human enough, to acknowledge and accept the "errors of their way," that once they've "seen the light" they're going to do the right thing, the legal thing, the moral thing and just "let it go"?

Again, *not* in *my* experience. And *my* experience is all I have and all I know.

And you want to talk about "contradictions"?

Okay. So let's say you, personally, are successful at "embarrassing" Judge Crow ("crow" is my cb-handle--had to come up with something, right?). Now, ol' Judge Crow has been sitting on the bench for 40 years. Has he "known" all this time of his little "charade"? Doesn't matter at this point.

So you catch him in his contradictions and he lets you go. Now, we're going to assume that, me, as the Judge, values his career entirely too much to simply toss it all away based on something as ethereal as "morality."

(Only a few folks do that in *real* life, like me, getting fired from a job I had for almost 13 years because--oh, yeah, that's right, I pointed out the contradiction to my employer of him first accepting an "exempt withholding" statement, then only 3 months later, refusing to cease income tax withholding when I presented him with "evidence" that he didn't have to. I even showed him how he broke the law by accepting my "exempt" withholding statement! Did I "win" the argument? Hands down. Did I lose? Hands down. You don't "win" in these matters.)

So anyway, I continue to sit on the bench. How will I treat the next guy? Right. By all those "pretend" rules, well, as long as the next guy doesn't know any better.

So nothing really changes, does it? I understand, with all of my heart and soul, that it always has been, and will always be, a battle of the one against the many. But I've simply been at this too long now to see where anyone should be overly enthusiastic about a "plan of attack" which has, at it's very heart, a "cya" mentality which leaves everyone else behind. After all, isn't "cya" the very thing our "honorable" opponents do every single day be refusing to acknowledge and accept the truth?

We go full circle. It's all just a silly-assed game. We're adults, playing a child's game of who's going to bully whom.

I'm just really weary of seeing so many people claim to have "the" answer when there are SO many "variables" invovled. And I simply resent when one man's experience is touted as being applicable to all. That's the stuff of preachers, politicians, and snake-oil salesmen. I've got no use for any of 'em any more.

So, again, out there, somewhere, maybe, just maybe, there are men and women who will capitulate under those conditions of having been confronted with the contradictions inherent within their positions of power. Personally, I've not found one yet. And God knows I've challenged more than my share.

Damn I've rambled a lot. I'm sorry.........

Randy

Randy,

Did you ever see the movie Cool Hand Luke?

The warden says a line in there that relates to you and me.

"Some folks, you just can't reach."

I know what you just said about they don't care, but my goal is to make them care.

I am at the point of "no matter what."

I cannot "learn" from losing. It appears you are in the same boat.

I still believe wrong is wrong, and next time, I will be more aggressive.

Someday,


I better shut up...

HB

Good Evening,

I thank all involved for this discussion. Randy, I see where you are coming from in your statements, and I will agree with you that there are variables in every situation that make it hard to say "HERE'S THE ANSWER!"

But would you agree that there's something we can all agree upon, and in which we all have in common, and that is we are human? And with that knowledge, comes some responsibility? I think some humans have forgotten who they really are, and have accepted themselves into the system, being a part of the BEAST, the BORG, the MACHINE. Those who REMEMBER that there was a time when the BEAST was not in control, we fight in any way we know how, because we know something is not right. I'm sure others on this forum, along with myself feel an obligation to the rest of humanity to disseminate the knowledge they have collected on the journey.

I think that Marc's tactics really just point out the absurdity of it all. It shows to those who might be sitting on the fence of reality that all is not what it seems. More ammo in the fight for freedom. Can you fight for peace, or do you peace for peace?













"Counter-clockwise is the motion of the hands upon your watches..." S. Bennett