Unruly State of Affairs in the United States of America

Recent Discoveries

USOA Latest Content

Portal Home

USOA v2.0 -- April 2025 -- Education & Outreach Committee -- HelpDesk Support is available... Click here to visit the Contact Page...

Bureaucrats Never Have a Case

By: Marc Stevens
Adventures in Legal Land

It doesn’t matter what “charge”, indictment or complaint is brought against someone by a prosecutor; bureaucrats never have a case; their very nature dictates they can’t. While many would cry out in protest, no doubt those invested economically and/or emotionally in statism, it is nonetheless an accurate statement.

This is such a simple exercise; I only have to use statism against itself to prove it. By statism, I mean the belief “citizens” and “states” exist and the thought patterns supporting such beliefs.

Statism is mind control; people surrender their property to men and women pretending to be “governors” and “presidents” etc., because they believe they are “citizens” of a so-called “state” and “must pay their fair share.” Talk about abstract concepts.

Because of these beliefs, or programming, when a man pretending to be a “cop” or “state attorney” files a “complaint” against a statist, no attention is paid to the many absurdities present, even by the lawyer pretending he has a client, the so-called “state attorney.” The issue of standing is a great way of demonstrating these absurdities. One of these is despite the fact a “complaint” is filed, there is no “case” presented to the “court.” Statist programming equates “complaint” with “case.” People under the influence of such programming don’t challenge what a “cop” or “state” attorney files as both are perceived as “authority figures.” By that, I mean they do not challenge the assertion a “complaint” presents a “case” to a court.

Standing is legally defined as “The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance…19 Am J2d Corp § 559.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1209. The nine lawyers commonly referred to as the “United States Supreme Court” have written: “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

If a plaintiff lacks standing, then courts, all courts, are legally/constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.” United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Notice the litigants in the last case if you’re thinking “government” is somehow “exempt” from standing requirements. People under the influence of statist mind control automatically start trying to find “loopholes” and exemptions for their “authority figures”, the government. This psychological response is not unlike the Stockholm syndrome.

And make no mistake, this is considered a very important issue by the “Supreme Court” and government attorneys, especially when they are the defendants as proven by the recent case the Bush administration lost in regards to the NSA spying program. Standing is usually a bureaucrat’s first line of defense. Pay attention to what the “Supreme Court” wrote about the elements of standing:

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

This of course references Article III § 2 of the “United States” “constitution” which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases…”:

“The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Art. III doctrine that requires a litigant to have "standing" to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines.” Allen page 750.

More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article II § 2 (emphasis mine).

This means everything “governments” do must be to “protect and maintain individual rights.” The “Supreme Court” has held consistent with this principal: “the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405

Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Now I’ll apply this standard to “cases” brought by pretended “state” and “United States” attorneys.

First, we’ll look at a traffic case, such as failure to wear a seatbelt. Traffic cases represent a significant source of energy stolen from people every year. I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt; the “case” is called State of Arizona v. Marc Stevens.

One of two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt? Of course not: that’s one essential element missing, I’ve already established the pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt.

The other requirement is the violation of a legal right. Has the “State of Arizona” (a fiction) alleged I violated the pretended “state’s” rights? Again, not a chance. According to the “Supreme Court,” there is no standing to complain against me regardless of the fact I may not have had a seatbelt on.

Now we’ll look at a “tax” case; “willful failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called “indictments” and there is no standing, ever. Even if you’ve never read such “indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury and the violation of a legal right. No, all they do is write the defendant “violated the law.”

However, just being accused of “violating a law” does not mean my failure to file a “tax return” violated someone’s legal rights and caused an injury. Statists would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal right to receive a “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of “tax revenue.” There are several problems with such a argument though.

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal. Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged, then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.

No attempt is made to put such allegations in an “indictment” because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a “tax return” was created. To prove an obligation or legal right was created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation. Statists immediately point out the “constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose big time.

No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and thirty years ago. Unless you believe in magic, placing the words “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and thirty years later.

The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism. Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is applicable or relevant; it’s one of the most sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with, like most people, assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. No thought is given to any facts to prove where, when, why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone. It is very unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the facts his opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped apart.

A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the “United States” had a right to the property in question or the “required” action. If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money. Think big Al would have standing?
in the particular case before it.” (emphasis mine).

Last, let’s look at a drug case. I’m indicted for growing marijuana on my property. The botanical police raid my home and heroically save the world from my plants. Surprisingly, the requirements for standing are not the raiding of my garden by troops armed with machine guns, they are: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury.

What legal right have I allegedly violated by growing plants? None. Has the growing of plants on my property caused any “personal injury” to the non-existent “State of Arizona”? Again, there’s no personal injury of any kind. No standing, no case.

Consider that legally, or “constitutionally,” the botanical warriors may not even look at my property unless there is “probable cause” or “reasonable articulable suspicion” I am violating someone’s legal rights: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Notice in the cases cited above there are no “legal” or “constitutional” exceptions to the doctrine of standing for moral or religious objections. Just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” or against their religion to grow or possess marijuana, does not confer standing to complain. This is true even when the moral crusaders call themselves a “legislature.”

Now some may protest by bringing up the murder argument, certainly there is the 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Not even in a murder case is there standing to complain. Why? Because it has to be a “personal injury” to the plaintiff: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).

The plaintiff is literally a spoken and written phrase, an abstraction called the “State of Arizona”, and is, at best, a fictional third party. The “Supreme Court” has repeatedly held: “we have explained that prudential standing encompasses "the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights…” Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

And there’s no merit to claim the murdered person is a part of, or a member of, the so-called “State of Arizona” because there is no such thing as the “State of Arizona.” As I’ve written in my book Adventures in Legal Land and said many times on my radio show The No State Project, there are no such things as “ citizens” and “states”.

Ad hominem attacks such as “Marc doesn't want people to wear seatbelts” are classic diversion tactics employed by those under the influence of statist mind control (remember the Stockholm syndrome). The fact bureaucrats never have a case has nothing to do with my opinion about seatbelts (I personally use them because it’s a safety issue), it’s because governments are gangs of killers, thieves and liars. There is no such thing as a legitimate government, so nothing they do is legitimate regardless of the endless red herrings statists throw up.

Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis; pay or get shot. To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That’s quite the conundrum.

Either you believe all human interaction should be voluntary or you don’t. Those who do not believe human interaction should be voluntary are, medically speaking, anti-social. Not un-social, but anti-social as in "sociopath" and "psychopath". I believe all human interaction should be voluntary, so ad hominem attacks that I think people who commit murder should not be held accountable are ridiculous.

Just using statism against itself proves bureaucrats never have a case regardless of what they “charge” someone with. That’s because statism and it’s supporting theology are not here to promote freedom or protect “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; it’s mind control to divert our attention away from the actions of anti-social individuals who are so desperate to “protect” us they are willing to kill us and steal our property.

© 2008 Adventures In Legal Land

Details
Written By: Marc Stevens
Parent Category: Reading Materials
Category: Unruly States of Affairs in the United States of America
Hits: 326

USOA Menu

Member's Virtual Center

  •  

     

    THE ABUNDANCE PARADIGM: WHY AI FORCES A RETHINKING OF MONEY ITSELF — PART 1

    By Ellen Brown on May 11, 2026

    A Universal Basic Income (UBI) has long been proposed as a way to cushion the blow of jobs lost to automation. Under that model, everyone receives a modest monthly payment – enough to cover basic needs and prevent extreme poverty. 

    But Elon Musk has gone further. On April 16, he posted on X:

    Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI.

    Rather than a subsistence stipend, Universal High Income (UHI) would be a level of income allowing ordinary people to live well in a world where machines do most of the work. Musk has also said that AI and robotics are the only things that can solve the massive U.S. debt crisis. 

    That sounds promising, but where will the government get the money to pay the UHI? Critics say any government that tried it would go bankrupt. There are also other concerns, which will be addressed in Part 2 of this article. Here we will look at the financial underpinnings: why UHI is even thinkable, why AI forces a reexamination of how money enters the economy, why the current system cannot scale to meet what is coming, and the implicit transition needed to meet that challenge.

    Why the Current Money System Cannot Scale

    The national debt of the U.S. government just topped $39 trillion. China’s is $18.7 trillion. Japan’s is $8.6 trillion. Those of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are each in the multi-trillion-dollar range. Collective global debt now stands at $353 trillion, 305% of the world’s annual economic output. So even if, hypothetically, everything produced in the world in a year were applied toward liquidating the debt, it still would not be enough to pay it all off. 

    In fact the debt can never be repaid, because of the way money currently enters the system. Nearly all of the money supply today is created by banks when they make loans. Banks do not lend their existing capital. The loan itself creates the money. The bank adds the loan amount to the asset side of its balance sheet and balances that sum with the same amount on the liability side. When the borrower withdraws or transfers the funds, either the bank takes them from its reserves in “vault cash” or the Federal Reserve debits the bank’s digital reserve account at the central bank. But the lending bank typically has funds coming into its reserve account at about the same rate as they are going out, so its reserves are continually replenished. Thus a very small reserve account can support a much larger money creation engine. For decades before the Fed discontinued the reserve requirement in 2020, it hovered at around 10%.

    The chief problem with this debt-based system is the interest, which the bank does not create in its original loan. For a typical long-term loan, interest can double the total tab or more. Where is the money to come from to pay this added liability? Across the system as a whole, it must either come from more borrowing or from existing funds. In the case of governments, that means issuing interest-bearing bonds or tapping taxes and other revenues. The interest on the debt compounds, meaning the government is paying interest on interest. This makes the debt increase exponentially, until it is mathematically unsustainable. Then bankruptcies occur, of banks or even whole governments. Booms turn into busts, and the cycle begins again.

    Today, interest on the federal debt is the second largest budget line item after Social Security, exceeding $1 trillion. Meanwhile, workers are losing jobs to AI/robotics, shrinking the income tax base. The system is clearly unsustainable.

    How to Raise Demand to Scale to the Upcoming Supply

    A Universal High Income would replenish the shrinking tax base by replacing the lost wages of unemployed workers. But where will the money come from to pay the UHI? The only sustainable solution is for the government to issue it interest-free. That does not mean through the Federal Reserve, which creates money in the same way banks do: it buys federal interest-bearing securities with accounting entries. The Fed collects the interest, which it is supposed to return to the Treasury after deducting its costs. But since 2008, its costs include paying interest on the reserves of its participating banks, which consumes its profits. (See my earlier article here.) 

    The only interest-free, debt-free solution that will actually increase the money supply sufficiently to match the projected productivity of AI/robotics is for the money to be issued directly by the Treasury.

    This is not a radical new idea. It is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, which provides in Article 1, Sec. 8, that “The Congress shall have Power To … coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof .…” Abraham Lincoln used government-issued “Greenbacks” to avoid a crippling debt to British-backed bankers. Debt-free government-issued money was also the funding mechanism by which the American colonists succeeded in creating a thriving economy and liberating themselves from the oppressive yoke of the British Empire.

    In his 1729 pamphlet “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency,” Benjamin Franklin argued that a lack of currency was a tax on industrious farmers and producers, and that a reliable, locally issued paper currency was the “oil” for the gears of trade. The “Nature and Necessity” of this currency was to facilitate the movement of goods between neighbors. Franklin observed that the British strategy of keeping the colonies short of cash was a method of economic suppression. By forcing the colonies to use gold and silver, which were constantly drained back to London to pay for imports, the Crown kept the colonies in a state of permanent debt and low productivity. When the money supply matched the productive capacity of the people, universal prosperity resulted without inflation. 

    This logic evolved into the “American System of Political Economy” championed by Henry Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln. He wrote:

    Two systems are before the world… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. … One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.

    In the context of the 21st century, the “oil” that best lowers the friction of trade is debt-free government-issued money similar to Lincoln’s Greenbacks and colonial scrip. Rather than implementing a radical financial innovation, we would be returning to our roots.

    Inflation or Deflation?

    The chief objection to the colonies’ paper “scrip” was that they tended to over-print, so that “demand” (money) outstripped supply. Too much money chasing too few goods produced price inflation. But in the 21st century, we will soon have the opposite problem: too little money chasing too many goods. Machines don’t need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical treatment or other services. So who will buy those goods and services? 

    Money needs to be issued to human consumers, and not just to a few wealthy human consumers serving as debt brokers thriving on interest. To create sufficient demand for the voluminous output of AI/robotics, it needs to go to the whole national population, evenly distributed. Not only can UHI work in that sort of abundant supply without producing price inflation; it is actually essential to prevent deflation.

    In a conversation on X, Musk wrote:

    In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robotics massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. 

    As paraphrased on Yahoo Finance (reposted from Benzinga), Musk wrote that handing out more dollars becomes a problem only when the economy’s supply of goods and services fails to surge alongside the money supply. His claim is that AI and robotics could lift production so sharply that the bigger risk would be falling prices, not rising ones.

    But aren’t falling prices a good thing? In this case, no. Prices would be falling due to a lack of demand, meaning producers can’t find customers for their products. They wind up laying off workers and eventually going bankrupt. When spread across the whole economy, the result is a deflationary spiral: prices fall, businesses lose revenue, and the economy contracts, not because production is inadequate but because purchasing power is insufficient. The result is recession or depression. In the Great Depression of the 1930s, food was rotting in the fields while people were starving, because they were out of work and had no money to spend. 

    Job cuts from AI are already happening. According to the same Benzinga article:

    Evidence of near-term strain is showing up in corporate announcements: employers disclosed more than 27,000 job cuts linked to AI in the first quarter of 2026, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The outplacement firm said that figure was up 40% from the same period a year earlier. 

    Robert Reich reports that wages are around two-thirds of the typical corporation’s total cost, and that in the first four months of 2026, big U.S. corporations cut over 128,000 jobs. 

    How Soon Will All This Happen?

    Another Benzinga article, reposted on Yahoo Finance on March 16, detailed Musk’s projected time frame:

    Speaking remotely to the Abundance Summit last week, Musk told XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis that the global economy is on the verge of an explosion so massive it defies historical precedent.

    “I’d say the economy is 10 times its current size in 10 years,” Musk said, before quickly clarifying that the growth could be even more explosive. “Greater than,” he added, framing the projected shift in economic output as a “fairly comfortable prediction.” …

    Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, sees AI reaching Artificial General Intelligence (human-level intelligence across virtually all domains) by 2029, and full transformative abundance by 2045.

    Other experts question these time projections, but a radical transformation of traditional manufacturing and trade is likely to happen sometime in the reasonably near future. The question is, will the money system transition soon enough to rescue all the laid-off workers from homelessness and famine?

    The Sovereign Wealth Fund Alternative

    There is another model for distributing the gains of automation, one that can be phased in gradually as the AI workforce expands. It comes from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. In an ironic twist, Altman and Musk, who jointly founded OpenAI in 2015, are now locked in a high-profile legal battle over whether Altman diverted Musk’s $44 million investment to transform what was conceived as a nonprofit “for the benefit of humanity” into a highly lucrative for-profit enterprise.

    That dispute aside, Altman’s alternative model for sharing AI-generated wealth is a national sovereign wealth fund seeded by the profits of AI and robotics. His proposed American Equity Fund would take public stakes in the companies and technologies driving automation, capture a portion of the resulting productivity gains, and distribute them as universal dividends. The Fund would not replace a Universal High Income but would complement it.

    This approach has several advantages. It ties payments directly to real output, scales automatically with productivity, and can be introduced gradually, avoiding the shock of issuing large payments before the supply side has fully expanded. It would resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil revenues to residents, except that here the resource would be the most powerful general-purpose technology since electricity.

    Conclusion: A New Monetary Logic for a New Productive Era

    For centuries, money has been issued as a claim against the future productivity of human labor, repaid from the income that labor generates. The logic of this debt-based system collapses when machines become the primary producers of goods and services. Then the limiting factor becomes purchasing power — the ability of human beings to access the abundance their own technologies create. That requires a monetary architecture that expands with output rather than debt, and distributes income not through wages alone but through mechanisms tied to the productive capacity of the whole system.

    Universal High Income and a sovereign wealth fund are two ways of doing that. One ensures a stable floor of demand; the other ensures that the public shares in the gains of automation. Both would be grounded in real production. But for the public to have access to those gains, the money supply needs to expand in proportion to the expanding pool of goods and services. This can be done by restoring the innovation our forefathers baked into the Constitution: debt-free money issued by the government itself.

    How to fund a UHI without triggering inflation or driving the government into bankruptcy is the first objection critics raise, but there are others. They argue that people would stop working or stop learning, that society would collapse into idleness or chaos, that life would lose meaning without jobs, that the government would have the power to control how people spend their money.  Will a UHI ring in the promised utopia or lock us into a state-controlled digital prison? Part 2 of this article will address those concerns. 

    _______________

    This article was first posted as an original to ScheerPost.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.tom of Form

     

     

  •  

    WAY TO GO MR PUTIN - RUSSIA FINALIZES 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

    Posted By: The_Fox [Send E-Mail]
    Date: Thursday, 1-Dec-2022 05:31:08
    www.rumormill.news/212414

     

    Many a time I often think about moving to Russia, so sick and tired of living here in the West.

    Over there things get done and child molesters etc don't just get away with a slapped wrist, free to again prey on the innocent.

    Those promoting society's moral decay will now have to answer for their actions also.

    Way to go Mr Putin.

    Read more: 'LBGTQ PROPAGANDA' BAN

Older Content

Similar Items