NOTE: This discussion was originally classified as "hosted" but has now been moved to the "member initiated" category.  In the view of the OC Stewards, what is taking place here is a debate rather than dialogue.  In a "hosted" discussion here at, we request that balanced participation be encouraged and that regular summaries occur recognizing all the views being presented.  

While we have no objections to people using the OC forum to engage in debates, as long as they don't cross the line into personal attacks, such discussion is not what we are seeking in the "hosted" category.  

Ben Roberts

We are delighted to have Occupy Cafe member Mark E. Smith offer this hosted discussion on the provocative idea of an "election boycott."  

As "host," Mark will strive to keep the conversation orderly, offer regular summaries of the perspectives being presented and encourage balanced participation among all those who are engaged.  Here's Mark's initial summary:

An election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government. It doesn't overthrow the government, it simply denies it the consent of the governed so that the government can no longer claim to have the people's consent. Among the many forms of noncompliance, such as removing money from big banks, boycotting corporate brands, withdrawing from the system and creating alternative systems, learning to live on less so as not to have to pay taxes, etc., refusing to vote can be one of the most crucial and effective tactics.

Thank you, Mark, for volunteering your services as "host!"

Views: 4549

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

NDK, your theory may have made sense back when people in the US were entitled to due process. That is no longer the case. You have the right to believe that is still the case, just as you have the right to believe that the earth is flat, but both beliefs require a total disconnect from reality.

Obama has asserted several rights he did not have before he asserted them. And killed over a million innocent people with the rights you believe he doesn't have.

A local judge is not the judiciary system. The judiciary system is not the government. Being arrested and winning your case because a judge happens to have the same belief system you have, does not delegitimize a government. But if you believe that you can boycott and delegitimize the government that way, nothing is stopping you from getting yourself arrested and solving everyone's problem.

You can infer what meaning you wish, just as anyone else can infer what meaning they wish. You prefer to disregard the dictionary definitions of words, I do not, so we are not speaking the same language, which is one of the many reasons I'd like you to stop disrupting this topic and start a topic of your own where you can stipulate that the dictionary be ignored and everyone accept the word definitions you infer.

Starting your own topic and not continuing to disrupt this one would be the civil, polite, respectful, and cooperative thing for you to do. But I don't for a moment think that you're any of those things, so I'll just have to cope as best I can. Some readers find it amusing when I expose disruptive people as being out of touch with reality, so that's what I'll have to continue to do, since you apparently don't mind looking foolish, irrelevant, and disruptive.

I did assert that "an election boycott is the only known way to nonviolently delegitimize a government." Your voluntary or involuntary appearance in court, or anyone else's voluntary or involuntary appearance in court, may or may not turn out the way you'd wish, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever with delegitimizing a government. A local judge may give a favorable ruling, but it can be reversed by a higher court, and those decisions can be reversed by the Supreme Court. The power structure of the system of government remains intact and is not delegtimized in the least. One particular legal theory may be delegitimized in one particular court, but that doesn't delegitimize the judiciary system, no less the entire system of government.

Fraud, perjury, and many other criminal acts by the courts have been fully documented, but very few resulted in any penalties to the government and the system was not delegitimized in the least. It can still drag you off to court involuntarily when you'd prefer to boycott, although if you're promoting a theory that can only be used in court, you obviously don't want to boycott the judiciary because then you'd never get to try out your theory.

In some courts before some judges you might prevail, and in other courts before other judges you might not. So why don't you go try it out a few times and report back? I've stopped voting and there have been no adverse consequences. Put your freedom where your mouth is before you urge others to do something that cannot have the desired effect of deligitimizing a government, only the possible effect of delegitimizing one legal theory in certain specific court districts, and could be extremely harmful to those individuals attempting it if they should happen to get the wrong judge.

This reminds me of the jury nullification tactic that so many people are promoting. It can be extremely effective, but only when somebody has already been charged with a crime and was granted a jury trial. Since the US government no longer requires itself to charge people with crimes before renditioning or assassinating them, and no longer requires itself to afford such people a trial or any other semblance of due process, jury nullification would be of no use to anyone who is renditioned or assassinated without due process, as they'd never get to see a jury.

Similarly, your theory might be useful and effective for people who are allowed to go before a judge, but it would be of no use to anyone who is renditioned or assassinated without due process, as they'd never get to see a judge.

But that's reality and you obviously don't believe in reality.

The straw man protocol described at does not require due process in order to be effective. This is because fraud is odius at law, and attempts by the judge to draw attention away from it are prima facie mens rae.

Obama's assertion of rights are only relevant for his citizens. How many of the people he killed were American citizens, and how many were foreign nationals? The fact that they haven't been brought to account for the killing yet doesn't mean that it will not happen.

Governments are only legitimate to the extent that they have the consent of the governed. I find it interesting that you would bring up the issue of language, since language was part of the initial event which played out into the conflict we see before us.

Can you please tell me again how pointing out the existence of a non-violent means of changing a broken system constitutes disruption of the thread when your summary stated that such means were unknown? Or does everyone know that the only way to change things by non-violent means is to sit on your hands? Yes, starting my own topic would be civil, which, strangely enough, is a reason for me to continue to argue with you. By pursuing the argument, weaknesses in your position can be shown, and this information is useful for people who want to compare the relative merits of the positions that are presented here.

The fact that crimes have been documented as being committed by court is only relevant if those crimes related to procedure rather than the specifics of the case. Again, I'm not saying that governments have no legitimacy, only that their jurisdiction is not universal. The issue of boycotting the process is only relevant when you are aware that the act of pleading lowers your legal status. Like most things in life you might not get what you expect, but if you know what you are talking about and know how to show the proper respect then your odds are better than average.

NDT, you're saying that it doesn't require due process in a court of law to be effective, and that the reason it doesn't require due process in a court of law to be effective is because fraud is odious in a court of law, and attempts by a judge to draw attention away from it in a court of law, are prima facie mens rea in a court of law. You are babbling gibberish that isn't even useful outside of a court of law because legalese isn't a lingua franca except in a court of law.

As for Obama being brought to account, Bush and Cheney weren't either, and the Military Commissions Act along with Obama's renunciation of the Nuremberg Principles is meant to ensure that they won't be.

But what's this about foreign nationals and US citizens. Are you saying that one has more human rights than the other because one is more human than the other? Of course you won't admit it, but that really is what you're saying. And if you stick around, you will eventually admit that's exactly what you're saying. That slaves, blacks, undocumented workers, and foreign nationals aren't as human as free white men and women born within the USA, and therefore aren't entitled to the same human rights.

I'm talking about nonviolent means of changing a system that is NOT broken, that, in fact, is working exactly was it was designed to do, to ensure that the 1% would always rule. You're talking about trying to get a part of that system, the judiciary, to change what you believe is broken in that part of the system, and in order to fix the part of the system that you believe is broken, you need to continue to support the system so that you can fix what you think is the broken part.

Thank you for admitting that you are not civil, never intended to be civil, and don't intend to stop being uncivil. That's what people will notice, along with your inability to formulate a logical argument.

And you're talking about knowing how to show the proper respect? To whom? Where? Why would you be showing respect to a system you think is broken and that you're trying to change? How does showing respect to the system differ from pleading? You're still asking the system to do something, which, in its majesty, it may or may not deign to do.

Yes, in our legal system (it really shouldn't be called a judiciary system, as it is not very often judicious), only procedures matter, not the facts or specifics of the case. The Supreme Court has allowed the executions of people who were factually proven innocent, as long as all the proper procedures were carried out.

In most cases where crimes have been committed by the government, by attorneys, or by judges, appeals on the basis that crimes were committed have been found to be irrelevant. It's just like insider election fraud, where election integrity activists document that thousands or tens of thousands of votes were stolen, disappeared, didn't get counted, or were miscounted, and the courts find that they are correct, the crimes were indeed committed, but since the crimes didn't effect the outcome of the election, the results still stand and there is no remedy.

In Mumia's book, he tells the story of a man on death row who was certain that his appeal would be sustained because he learned that the jury had broken sequestration, a crime that the law said was grounds for a new trial. But the appeals court, while admitting that the jury had broken the law, ruled that it hadn't affected the outcome of the trial, his appeal for a new trial was denied, and the order of execution was allowed to stand. The guy did go insane for a while, but other inmates were eventually able to snap him out of it.

Of course you're not saying that governments have no legitimacy, or even that this particular government has no legitimacy. Neither are you attempting to delegitimize this system of government. You just believe that its jurisdiction isn't universal and that it doesn't apply to you because you know what you're talking about and you know how to be properly respectful when a court takes jurisdiction over you against your will and then refuses to uphold the laws you believe in and rely on.

You're not concerned about delegitimizing the government, you're concerned about your personal legal status with regard to that government. You're no different from the liberals who want government to respect their rights but don't really care if government doesn't respect other people's rights.

Now that the US government no longer respects habeus corpus, nobody has any rights that the government is bound to respect.

Try cutting and pasting your meaningless nonsense next time, because you aren't familiar enough with Latin to parrot it.

Here's a link to an article from 1955, an interview with the late Philip Agee, that gives quite a few details on how the US meddles with elections in foreign countries. The US government does the same things here of course.

The Nature of CIA Intervention in Venezuela


Yes, absolutely.  In the 1970s there were brutal military dictatorships in all of the Cono Sur [Southern Cone]—Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, and of course, in Chile with Pinochet.  And these were all supported by the CIA, by the way.  It was during this period that a process of new thinking began in the upper echelons of the makers of US foreign policy, the new thinking being that these military dictatorships, with all the repression and the disappearances and death squads and so forth, might not be the best way to preserve US interests in Latin America, or other areas for that matter.  The new thinking was that the preservation of US interests could better be achieved through the election of democratic governments formed by political elites who identify with the political class in the United States.  Here I mean not the popular forces, but the traditional political classes in Latin America, to speak of one area, known as the ‘Oligarchies.’  And so the new American program, which became known as “Project Democracy,” was adopted and United States policy would seek to promote free, fair, transparent democratic elections but in such a way that it would assure that power went to the elites and not to the people.

Exactly what happened in Egypt.

Re: Alternative nonviolent delegitimization of government

"NDT, you're saying that it doesn't require due process in a court of law to be effective, and that the reason it doesn't require due process in a court of law to be effective is because fraud is odious in a court of law, and attempts by a judge to draw attention away from it in a court of law, are prima facie mens rea in a court of law."

To clarify, prima facie mens rae means "what on the face of it appears to be the act of a guilty mind". For example, asking a technical question constructed from three separate sentences immediately after the fraud was admitted is evidence that the judge was attempting to draw attention away from the fraud.


To clarify, NDT,  no judge can attempt to draw evidence away from a fraud commited in a court of law, without being a judge in a court of law. And that Latin phrase you continue to misspell can only be applicable if it is brought before a judge in a court of law and decided by a judge in a court of law.

In other words, you lied when you said that it didn't require due process in a court of law to be effective, because it can only happen in a court of law and can only be decided in a court of law.

The judge was not trying to draw attention away from the fraud in a sports stadium or a shopping mall. That judge was in a court of law, which is the only place that judges in our legal system preside. And it was not declared to be clear evidence of a guilty mind by a a department store manager or a sports referee, but by another judge in another court of law.

I think the reason you're lying and being deliberately disruptive is because you hope there might be somebody here as gullible as you are. You could be right. There have been several trolls here and I'm sure some of them are every bit as disruptive, irrational, and dishonest as you.

If you think your theory can be effective without due process in a court of law, why aren't you providing examples of how it can be effective in shopping malls or sports stadiums, and how it can be ruled on by ordinary people who aren't judges and aren't in a court of law?

The only example you gave, and the only example you can give, is something that happened in a court of law and could only have happened in a court of law because it would not have been subject to that law outside of a court of law, and could only be decided in a court of law, and therefore cannot be effective outside a court of law. But if you wish to ask a department store manager or sports referee or any other ordinary citizen who is not a judge in a court of law, to recognize your sovereignty as a free man or woman, go right ahead--just don't try talking to them in Latin, which you probably can't pronounce any better than you spell, or they'll probably think you're a dangerous lunatic and have you arrested. Then you can test out your theory in the only place that it can be tested, which is in a court of law.


"To clarify, NDT,  no judge can attempt to draw evidence away from a fraud commited in a court of law, without being a judge in a court of law."

And your point is?

I was talking about due process within the context of a court of law - any other context is irrelevant. My point is that the protocol can be applied even if due process does not exist in court.

NDT writes: "I was talking about due process within the context of a court of law - any other context is irrelevant."

Yes. The context, for example, of it being a means of delegitimizing government, doesn't apply, because your argument is only relevant within the context of a court of law.

Theoretically, a citizen could go to court and file suit against the government for fraud, Constitutional violations, and crimes against humanity, asking the court to delegitimize the government. But the coiurts are part of the government and could not exist without the government, so they can't delegitimize the government because they'd be delegitimizing themselves. If a court finds that the government is illegitimate, then the court itself, which is a part of that government, is also illegitimate.

In order for there to exist the context of a court of law, you need to have a government which has established the legitimacy of such courts. If the government was illegitimate, the courts would be also.

Since our government no longer accords people due process in a court of law unless it happens to feel like it, as it no longer requires itself to do so by law, that is, by its own laws, your protocol can only have the only context in which it is relevant, if the government allows it to. You can demand to be heard in a court of law, but whether or not you can be heard in a court of law is up to the government. Of course such court may or may not respect your rights, but in order to get to court you first have to have that right. Our Supreme Court only grants cert to about 1% of the cases brought to it, so 99% of people who file for a writ of certiorari are not granted due process--their cases are never heard in the court to which they've applied to be heard.

Now that you've admitted that your protocol can only be applied in a court of law, not in a shopping mall, sports stadium, or voting booth, you still fail to understand that the use of your protocol in a court of law can legitimize or delegitimize the free men and women or the class of free men and women who are parties to that litigation and used that protocol, but cannot delegitimize the courts themselves, or the government of which the courts are a part. If the government was delegitimized, the courts which are part of that government would be delegitimized, and if the courts were delegitimized, any ruling it made for or against you would be illegitimate.

So in order for you to use your protocol in a court of law, the only context in which it is relevant, you have to ensure that the government, and the courts which are part of the government, are not delegitimized. Your protocol can NOT be used to delegitimize the system of government upon which it depends for the only context in which it is relevant.

But if you start your own topic, you might find people who don't understand what you're talking about and who therefore might be persuaded to support you. You're welcome to copy any language you wish from my introduction to this topic. Everything I write is farther left than copyleft and can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere, with or without attribution.

Also, your website states clearly that, "This technique should only be used for minor offences related to civil rights issues like contempt of court arising from refusal to acknowledge an eviction notice." Therefore, by your own admission, it should not be used to delegitimize a government, and should only be used for minor offenses related to civil rights issues. More to the point, it CAN NOT be used to delegitimize a government for the reasons I've given, and you came here under false pretenses, fraudulently claiming something you knew not to be true.

The delegitimization of government arises from the fraud comitted by the court being seen by the public and from the understanding of the nature of the fraud. While the protocol which causes the fraud to be seen can only be applied in court, arguments arising from knowledge of the conflict of law at the root of the issue can be applied in a general context. An application to a court in which the applicant is deemed to be a person (i.e. of reduced status) will most probably be ineffective because the application gives implicit consent to the usual assumptions made by the judge.

The general public has seen and is fully aware of much greater cases of fraud, not just by courts, but by the government itself. This understanding has not led to and can not lead to delegitimization of the government. It constitutes nothing more than an understanding that the courts are corrupt and the government is corrupt. Delegitimizing the courts can not be done by going to court, and delegitimizing government can not be accomplished by merely understanding that it is corrupt, or by utilizing and participating in the corrupt system.

Since you may not know how to use a dictionary or do a google search, once again I'll do it for you:

  1. de·le·git·i·mize/ˌdēliˈjitəˌmīz/

    Withdraw legitimate status or authority from (someone or something): "efforts to delegitimize nuclear weapons".

delegitimize - definition of delegitimize by the Free Online Dictionary ...

de·le·git·i·mize (d l -j t -m z ). tr.v. de·le·git·i·mized, de·le·git·i·miz·ing, de·le·git·i·miz·es. To revoke the legal or legitimate status of: "Out of poverty sprout social ...


A court cannot withdraw its legitimate authority or status from itself, nor can it revoke its own legal or legitimate status.

You may once again be using secondary or tertiary definitions that are not applicable.

As the Declaration of Independence states, "....Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The way that governments demonstrate that they have the consent of the governed is by holding elections. Your vote is your consent. Therefore, the only way to delegitimize a government, to withdraw and revoke its legal status and authority, is to withhold that consent and not vote.

What cases of procedural fraud have the general public seen? Fraud that is case specific may be related to issues that the general public have no interest in, while anyone facing a statutory offence has an interest if the fraud is procedural and prosecution of the offence would be unjust.

Again, you are not referring to delegitimizing the government, just to delegitimizing a specific action by a specific judge in a specific court with regard to a specific case with regard to a specific minor infraction.

Just like the corrupt legal system within the current totally corrupt system of government itself, you too are not concerned with the facts and issues that warrant delegitimization of the government (for that, please see the Occupy Wall Street List of Grievances), but only with procedural matters within the corrupt government--the corrupt system of government that you support and do not wish to delegitimize because your protocol is irrelevant outside that corrupt system, and, indeed is only necessary in the first place due to the corruption of that system of government which I wish to delegitimize and you do not.

This topic, not that you care since you are only here to disrupt, is about delegitimizing government by withholding consent and not voting. It is not about your pathetic atttempt to get courts to legitimize your imaginary status as a free man or woman within an undemocratic system that represents the 1% and does not represent the interests of the 99%.

Since you have no interest in delegitimizing government, only in legitimizing yourself, and you have a very poor comprehension of the English language and of standard English usuage, you may be one of those foreign nationals you don't think are entitled to the same human rights as free US Americans. Poor English reading comprehension and use of foreign words are typical of foreign nationals. Passing yourself off as a US American is no more dishonest than fraudulently pretending you want to delegitimize government when you only want that government to legitimize you. Keep talking so we can find out what else you're lying about. Maybe you're not actually a free man or woman, but an intersex person who is neither a man nor a woman, and you're just pretending to be a man or a woman.

Anyway, your last post is correct, in that "Fraud that is case specific may be related to issues that the general public have no interest in..," and contradicts your previous statement that, "The delegitimization of government arises from the fraud comitted by the court being seen by the public...," as you are fully aware that your protocol is case specific and therefore something the general public would have little interest in and couldn't generalize from if it did, just as you can not generalize from your case specific protocol to the broader issue of delegitimizing government.

Another excellent reason for delegitimizing government is that the status you seek as a sovereign free man or woman is exactly the status that the 1% and their puppet legislators enjoy, a status which they do not and will not grant to the 99% they govern. For that very reason, no government which empowers people like them or you to rule over others deserves legitimacy.


Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT

"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012


  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service