Customer Reviews

Marc Stevens' Adventures in Legal Land

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

For all those who believe that "we must have government," this book will convince you otherwise. The basis of government's power is the "justice system;" anyone who controls this can do virtually anything they want. Stevens shows how the "system" is a hoax and indeed, how all of government and politics is nothing but rule by violence. No, I don't mean that if "we" just vote in Party X or Candidate X, "government will be more responsive." Government, by its very nature, will never be free of corruption; in fact, governments must be corrupt. If you can't face this fact, you can't face reality. This is a book that no politician, bureaucrat or anyone who derives their power from the political system will even address.

The bottom line is this: governments make their money by violence or threat thereof; they admit that they're not obligated or have no duty to do anything for you or anyone in return for this money. Why does anyone tolerate this?

Marc Stevens has compiled information that will change the way you view the political and legal institutions that attempt to rule your life. After reading this book, you will never be able to think of Judges, Police Officers or lawyers in the same way again. Mr. Stevens masterfully illustrates the fraud that continues to be perpetrated upon the unsuspecting American public. I highly recommend this monumental work.

Stevens tells how if you ever find yourself dealing with a bureaucrat you have already essentially lost. Whether it's your time or money, they have zapped away some of your productivity. He tells why you might not wanna just pay whatever ransom they're demanding. If they are going to take away your time, you may as well counter it by asking them questions as to exactly what entitles them to your productivity being as you were just minding your own business and not harming anybody.

I did not give this book five stars as the writing style seemed quite repetitive and one wonders whether the author could have been a touch more pragmatic, but none of that should efface the fact that he brings to the fore many points that bear pondering. As a non-Statist, the man is in line with the thinking of Lysander Spooner and Andrew Galambos both of whom are referenced in the book. Even if one thinks that the man is a trouble maker, it is the trouble makers that help secure our freedoms. This book is highly recommended in spite of its flaws.

Marc does an excellent expose' on the (in)justice system that has taken over in America today. Hopefully this work will be read by more of us that need to be awakened so that we can do what is necessary to get the government back to the republic our founding fathers tried to give us that we had for a short time. Even though it's not a guide on how to win in court it is a good place to start in finding out that we can and should do something about overcoming the corruption that has taken over the court system in our society by becoming educated through other avenues of study that WILL arm us to that end. He shows in this work that what we think we have in the court system IS NOT the truth and is, what I believe, what most people secretly suspect really is "a criminal enterprise".

I finished the Marc Stevens book "Adventures in Legal Land" today and I feel the need to write a small report about the impressions it left on me.

I realize that no one is asking for my opinion, least of all the author. But I still feel the need to share. I truly appreciate what Marc Stevens is attempting to do in his book, if I am to understand him correctly, by demonstrating the Orwellian nature of our legal sytem, and the inherent Catch 22's of our statutes and laws. I want his message to spread successfully, and rational debate to ensue. Which is why I feel the need to review his book in such a lambast-manner. Surely his opponents will be no less harsh.

First off, I had a bit of trouble trying to establish Mr. Steven's intent in the book. Within the first few pages he decrees that he is not anti-state nor anti-government, but then proceeds in such a farcical and sarcastic manner when discussing the state and its so-called legal system, that a shadow of suspicion is cast on his former claim. If he were to just do away with the sarcasm and double-talk and bluntly assert, "I am anti-state, and these are my reasons why" then my measure of respect for him would increase. As it stands, I can't help but feel that his introductory admissions of not being anti-state smack of insincerity, and perhaps a desire to not ruffle the reader, who may have picked the book up in passing and is perusing only the first few pages. Why pull punches or masquerade your true identity?

Secondly, when reading a work of non-fiction, there are two predominant elements that are note-worthy: Form and Function. As I said, I was having a bit of time trying to establish Mr. Steven's intent, or the "function" of his book. It seems like a collection of anectdotal works that were jammed together with very little thought given to organization. This lack of organization hampers the function of the book and probably is the result of choosing a poor editor. The lack of editoral skill is evident in the hyperbolic over-italicizing of every fifth word. My god, I have not read such a herky-jerky book, non-fiction or otherwise, since William Burroughs stopped writing. It is as if the book is a tonal transcription of a dramatically read audiobook, where the transcriber was diligent in capturing every inflection in the reader's dynamic voice. To a reader, not a listener, this effect on the page is very distracting and irritating. The form of this book nearly robs the pages of their impact.

Having never heard Mr. Stevens in podcast or live narrative, I cannot know if he is as cluttered a speaker as he is a writer, but I would assume not. Eloquent speakers don't always self-translate well to the written word, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

None of this would matter to me very much if I weren't so entirely interested in the topics on which he is attempting to elaborate. I felt myself rooting for him in various chapters, and feeling as if I were rooting for the underdog. A common phrase throughout his book is, "...but that will be discussed in a later chapter, as you will see." All these sentences are basically apologies for a total lack of organizational layout. Is the book a How-To guide, or is it a historical narrative? Is it a collection of short essays, or conversational anectdotes, like a Reader's Digest publishing? I'm not sure the author, or the editor, ever asked themselves these questions, so excited were they at the concept of raising their mighty pen and striking at the armor of the system.

Suggestions: Lay the chapters out in a thoughtful, useful manner. Eschew the italics, emboldened font, and high school-level parenthetical citations. State your mission clearly in your introduction. Proof read more than once. And for the love of pizza, have a point! Is it a call to arms? Is the reader to be empowered and raise pointed questions in the courtroom? Or is it merely to provoke thought?

If it was designed as supplemental material to a blog, podcast, lecture or otherwise, it should be marketed as such. As it stands, it certainly does NOT stand strong on its own two feet.

There is surely content enough inside this book to incite any one of these possible ends, but it is far too clusterfragged to be of any lasting value.

To Mr. Stevens: Strike One!

Keep swinging, Marc. We're rootin' for ya!

If you prefer not to learn the truth about our lives today, don't read this book.

But, what if your life were nothing more than a lie rammed down your throat since you were a child? Using absolute logic and common sense, this author completely - and both honorably and rightly - demolishes our current system of laws and courts, showing how it is nothing but violent persecution.

If you ever wonder whether a bureaucrat (including government/congress/judge/lawyer) has a right to do something, just ask yourself whether your neighbor would have a right to do it to you - and vice versa. If you "decree" your neighbor's car belongs to you and then take it without their consent, you are a car thief - even if you state it is "necessary". So, if you cannot do that, how can you authorize anyone else, even a congressman or policeman, to do the same thing?

What's the real difference between that and passing laws forcing you to eat only certain kinds of foods? If your neighbors have no right to force you not to eat pork rinds, how can they authorize government to force you not to ingest herbs or plants (like marijuana or magic mushrooms) or alcohol (as in Prohibition)? If your neighbor doesn't have the right to do any of this, then his pretended delegates, deputies, agents, commissioners, governors, presidents, kings, ministers, secretaries and servants don't either. It's that simple.

Our legal system is irrational. And that's why they have to threaten violence - it's the way the irrational get the rational to act. Ask yourself WHY do they need someone in a costume (uniform) with a gun giving traffic tickets and guarding courts? If you refuse to cooperate, even peacefully, they will use whatever physical violence is necessary to reach their end goal.

If you don't stop your car when the "cop" flips his lights on, he will eventually use his car to stop you. Having done so, he'll run up to your car SCREAMING at you to get out with his firearm pointed directly at your head, ready to murder not a peaceful human being but what he now believes is a "criminal" or a "perp".

See the sick IRONY in such a situation? The "cop" is the violent one and the guy minding his own business, not harming a soul, is somehow the criminal. Yeah, I can hear it now, "You should have stopped your car..." That's right, blame the victim. Just like the lawyer argument that the rape victim should not have dressed a certain way. I guess you had it coming to you.

Don't you find it incredible that "cops" use violence to stop your car, violence to search your vehicle, violence to take your property and violence to put you in a cage (called prison) but, if they fail to read you your "rights" before putting you in a cage, THEN they've done something wrong? Maybe it's just me but it appears to be rank hypocrisy to read someone their "rights" while callously DISREGARDING every one of them.

Actually it's cruel. To make matters worse, these violent individuals then promise you a "fair trial". This is an example of where the words used are not congruent with the actions. If they can take control over your life and property, it's clear they do not believe you have any rights, except whatever rights their mercy wants to extend to you.

The point is, because the relationship is based on violence (or the threat of violence), there is no actual limitation on what they can do to you except what they feel is needed to maintain the illusion of legitimacy. For, if you accept that a "cop" has the right to control you without your freely given consent, then you are in no position to complain if he orders you to shine his shoes. The only reason they don't is that, if they start going too far beyond the accepted "norm" on a regular basis, their illusion of legitimacy would suffer and then disappear as more and more people withdraw their pretended or actual support.

Bureaucrats go to a lot of trouble trying to convince people that what they do is legitimate. Like magicians, bureaucrats give you a "trial" to distract you from the truth while they conceal the violence underlying it all; the true and sole basis for their pretended "authority". (If you doubt this, just ask any simple but fundamental question in court - there are many in this book - and watch them threaten you with contempt.)

Their BS public relations scheme is why they "give you" a trial, whether you want one or not. It's political sleight of hand that distracts you while they perform their "magic", concealing the true basis of their so-called "authority". Then they can say "you had your day in court, your equal protection, and your due process". (Most cops don't know this, by the way. They don't know more than they've been told by "authority". But the higher up the political pecking order you go, the more of them seem to know.)

The bottom line is: don't expect fairness and good faith from those doing business at the end of a gun. Don't expect fairness from the agents of any coercive "state" because to them we are cows to be milked.

The above are all excerpts from this excellent and worthy book. The author claims - and proves - that bureaucrats don't create value, they only take it; bureaucrats never ask permission to attack someone or their property yet political words and opinions are used so there is a perception that bureaucrats are a wonderful, benevolent group "protecting" people and their property; their real purpose is to steal as much property as possible, using the least amount of violence; bureaucrats think valid obligations are created by violence and organized coercion.

The author logically backs up everything and explains it in great detail. However, it can be dangerous to try out the challenges suggested in this book without a lot more research and commitment. To help you begin to understand why Stevens usually fails in court, the 2 books by The Antiterrorist offer highly intelligent information on this aspect. Also try an internet search on "patriot mythology", consider Max Igan's views of Trust Law on thecrowhouse dot com and have a look (on youtube) at "The Law - stand up and reclaim your rights" by MrAstrotheology and as well as what Dean Clifford has to say (Clifford is probably the most accurate of all the leaders of the reclaim your rights movement).

(However, despite his many failures, it is trailblazers like him, heroes who are willing to fail and fail and fail in their determination to find a way, who blaze the path for the rest of us. Thank you, Marc Stevens.)

Thomas Paine wrote in his book, Common Sense, January 1776:
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right,
and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides."

Stevens' book could have this same introduction.

Paine's writing is often said to be the very impetus that birthed people's freedom from monarchy rule(monarchy-think).
Marc Steven's writing, just as unfashionably at the popular present, is about the next concept-- not of "no kings", as in the "old" age of 1776 --but of "No State" in the old age of 2006.

As it was then, so it is now: Government is all a State of mind. Mr. Steven's book captures the essence of Alice In Wonderland & Neo in The Matrix and brings them remarkably and clearly home. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. As Marc brings to light, we never were; there is no State! Marc's writing is akin to Dorothy's tornado for so many raised in The State education.

Theodore A Rushton (Phoenix, Arizona United States) writes regarding Paine:
"Paine faced the world's mightiest power and wrote of hope with confidence in the future; it is a glowing contrast to today's climate of fear, doubt and suspicion which shows the absence of a modern Tom Paine."

It is my opinion that the Stevens' work walks into this same arena and is perhaps simply a natural continuation of the spirit of Paine, the spirit of geunine freedom and liberty.

Have you heard the terms "standing", "citizen", "jurisdiction", or "state"? Have you ever been taught what those words actually mean? Well, until I read this book, I had not ever really thought about them or been taught about them. This book will explain to you what rights you are supposed to have under Western governments, how governments get around those rights, and how you can defend yourself in court. This book gives you a whole new way to look at the world and gives you the courage to live free.

This is one book everyone who has the slightest feeling of injustice with this world we experience really aught to read. Marc help's the reader, via courtroom experiences, to begin to see how silly the whole legal system really is and how corrupt that system has to be in order to preserve it's very precarious position in the minds of the masses. Lawyers, Judges, Police officers and all involved in the legal profession are very plainly portrayed for what they are:- People in Costumes using Words that they themselves Define.

Now if that's not the basis for your defense, you are starting from a defenseless position!

Begin to understand and not Stand-Under.

Read This book.