Look Who it Was Random video

David Williams' Dishonest Responses - Adam Kokesh Update

2,757 views · Published 20 September 2016 · 12:39 · Indexed 19 October 2026

Channel: Marc Stevens · 2016 · Nonprofits & Activism

Watch on YouTube

Previous video about Williams' attack against Adam http://marcstevens.net/articles/facts-attack-adam-kokesh.html

We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and  hearing against Adam filed by David Williams in Prescott, Arizona.  The hearing officer, Larry Jacobs, another county employee, denied the motion without explanation.  So we filed a motion to reconsider and a request for subpoenas against the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors.  David Williams filed responses objecting to both.  

I discuss the arguments/false claims David raised at length in the video below.  Suffice to say that he objects to the subpoenas claiming the Board of Supervisors had no involvement in the investigation against Adam.  This is not true as I spoke with Board Chairman Jack Smith and told him David had no proof his claim the constitution applied to Adam and created obligations on Adam.  Smith told me he would intervene and speak with Williams.  The fact he, nor any of the Supervisors acted on the information does not mean they were not involved.  They stood by and let the abuse happen.

What Williams is arguing is that the fact they acted in bad faith excuses them from testifying at a hearing where Adam's defense is bad faith.  Wow, that is just more evidence of Williams' bad faith.

Williams just doesn't want to have to see Jack Smith and the other Supervisors fail to prove their laws apply to Adam at the hearing.

Williams also objects to the rehearing by falsely claiming the evidence was provided to me during the 26 April 2016 phone call.  This is false because legal citations and presuming your opinion is true are not evidence.

He also claims jurisdiction will be established at the hearing, that any dismissal prior to the hearing is premature.  Wow, the ol' "jurisdiction is a trial issue" lie we've heard so many times before.

We already know this is a blatant lie as jurisdiction, when asserted, must be proven.  One example is ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644, the NSA attorneys challenged jurisdiction and the matter never went to trial.  If Adam was to sue Williams and his accomplices they would file a motion to dismiss challenging jurisdiction and would not claim Adam could prove it at trial. 

It's well-established this is a lie, but that doesn't stop these criminals.

More from this channel