Debunking Barry Cooper’s Hit Piece – Logical Fallacies, Misrepresentations and Ad Hominen

I wasn’t going to respond to this, but think it’s necessary as it may score high on a search. I didn’t expect to ever have to debunk Barry Cooper though, but given how erroneous he is about me and that he was on my radio show, I probably should. Evidence from the article/video are here http://marcstevens.net/articles/debunking-barry-coopers-hit-piece-logical-fallacies-misrepresentations-ad-hominen.html

Barry emailed me after posting a video about me. I did a search for the video and was a bit surprised Barry lumped me in with the sovereign citizen/freeman on the land/common law crowd. That is Barry’s first of many fallacies, but when you don’t investigate first, you have to expect errors.

I’ve done many shows debunking strawman/UCC/FMOTL/common-law/sovereign citizen/right-to-travel law stuff for years. I’ve stated I’m an anarchist many times, my videos have the black flag. The fact Barry lumps me in with them is bad, but his motivation is not honest. He thinks my position is “crazy” and in the email tells me he’s interested in collaborating with me. This seemed odd, so I asked him why he wants to collaborate with someone who’s selling crazy? Barry responded with profanity and now seems to be on a mission to discredit me. He’s done a poor job of it as I’ll show.

Barry strawman’s my position claiming all I do is tell the judge he has no jurisdiction. The judge then throws you in jail proving he does have jurisdiction.

First, we use the Socratic Method, we ask questions regarding the prosecution’s burden of proof, e.g.,

Has the prosecution submitted evidence proving the constitution and code apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona?

Second, if a judge does throw someone in jail for asking for evidence of jurisdiction, that’s not proof the constitution applies, it’s evidence the lawyer with the robe is a criminal with an anger management problem. I’ve heard that fallacy before.

My jurisdictional challenge is a question/issue of fact, what Barry brings up in his video are questions/issues of law. The strawman/UCC/FMOTL/common-law/sovereign citizen/right-to-travel people are arguing legal interpretation, I’m asking questions of fact. They are two different things, one has proven to be very successful, the other hasn’t.

Also, the jurisdiction challenge is only part of what I teach people. For example, we learn about objections and cross-examinations. Many people I’ve worked with have impeached police officers and tax agents. Rebecka in Chandler, Arizona, not only had the cop declared incompetent, but she got a not-guilty verdict from the jury on one of the two charges.

Barry makes the claim the only reason I get so many tickets kicked out is because we’re too much trouble. Apparently we’re seen as porcupines, so the prosecution just gives up and dismisses. The same could also be said of any of success Barry claims.

The claim is false, it’s a generalization at best and speculation. The motion has been granted, that is direct evidence the jurisdictional challenge was effective. Anything else is speculation. Even if circumstantial evidence, it’s very strong and rules out any other explanation.

Barry claims as a cop he lost a probation case on a jurisdiction issue, but it wasn’t because they could not prove the laws applied. That may be true, but, did the defendant raise the same jurisdictional challenge I do? If not, then I fail to see the relevance of his anecdote.

Barry claims I am lying in the article about Joe in Hawaii. He thinks I “flat out lied” that the charges are dismissed because of Joe’s defense, challenging jurisdiction.

First, the main point of the article was that contrary to some critics’ claims, I have helped people get more serious charges kicked out. I helped Joe, he defended himself against drug charges and they were dismissed. Barry emailed for proof the charges with dismissed because of the jurisdictional challenge.

I wrote Barry telling him I didn’t have direct evidence, but there was very strong circumstantial evidence. There was the motion and what Joe reported on the show, his constant objections and asking for the prosecutor’s evidence. Barry thinks this means I’m lying, Barry insists it’s because Joe was causing too much trouble, despite the fact he has no evidence to prove it. Again, the same could also be said of any of success Barry claims.

Barry claimed I make an assumption and should google logical fallacies. Admittedly, I made an inference based on evidence, that’s what the evidence bears out. I did not assume based on prior accounts or absent evidence, that is ironically what Barry does in his video.

Barry claims the dismissal was only because we’re too much trouble, it had nothing to do with the motion and Joe’s defense, there is only one explanation, his. Barry is so absolutely certain there are no other plausible claims that he claims I’m a crazy liar. Barry is speculating and ignoring the circumstantial evidence. While I openly admit there may be cases where there are other plausible explanations, the circumstantial evidence strongly favors it was our defense.

Making an inference based on strong circumstantial evidence doesn’t mean I “flat out lied” about the dismissal. All one needs to do it is look at the successes from three continents to see many others have replicated my success. There is no evidence I’m trying to mislead anyone because I’m not.

Barry should investigate prior to condemnation as this next piece of evidence further shows. Barry repeats the claim there’s no evidence anything has been dismissed because of the jurisdictional challenge. A little time spent in the Successes part of my website may have stopped him from doing that video about me.

I don’t care if Barry wants a transcript or tries to marginalize this evidence, I’m posting this article and video so people are not misled by Barry. Anyone reading this and investigating more on my website can make up their own minds, I don’t need Barry Cooper to vouch for me, the evidence is here.

A few other examples are Helen and Bradly in England that not only had the charges dismissed, but had costs awarded against the prosecution. Their defense was challenging the applicability of the constitution and code. Helen prevailed by proving the prosecution was guilty of an abuse of process; meaning the prosecution did not have any evidence of jurisdiction and wrongdoing and should not have pursued the charges.

So the evidence is against Barry; he’s wrong I’ve never helped anyone get anything more than a minor traffic ticket dismissed and that we’ve never been successful challenging jurisdiction. That’s a lot of being wrong, but wait, there’s more.

Barry, who teaches people how to hide drugs from cops, is claiming I’m hurting people with what I’m teaching. He presents no evidence of course, just an accusation. However, following what Barry teaches, attempting to obfuscate an ongoing investigation of a police officer, can put one in serious danger and can produce several unintended consequences.

Barry claims I don’t handle criticism well, he’s wrong again. I welcome criticism, I do a three hour live broadcast most Saturdays and I don’t screen calls. All are welcome to call in and correct me if I’ve presented something that’s not true.

Barry insists I’m getting his argument wrong. I don’t see how lumping me in with the SovCit/FOTL/common law people, strawmaning my position, then calling it “crazy” and hurting people is mistaking his argument.

Barry is claiming that I “got angry” when he asked for evidence, again he has his facts wrong, kind of backwards actually. I provided circumstantial evidence and asked why he would want to collaborate with someone he thought was selling people lies. Barry is the one who responded by calling me crazy and telling me to go “fk myself” a few times. He then told me not to contact him any further. I thought that was funny as he contacted me first and I don’t communicate with people who tell me to “fk myself”.

I have no problem with criticism of my work, you have to actually address my work though.
[youtube]

[/youtube]