Marc Stevens makes an ass of himself on tape

[Quixote]

For those involved in the Stevens threads, here's the latest item in the "articles" section of his Web site, dated yesterday (21 Feb):

Beware of Quatloos Propaganda and Deception

(If this has already been linked to, I apologize--I haven't seen it here, yet.)

The article gives us at least a hint as to Stevens's real jurisdictional question. He apparently wants to know if federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce an IRS summons. They do, under IRC §7402(b).

[Gregg]

Federal Courts can pretty much hear whatever cases they damn well choose. Some they have to hear, but as far as discretion to hear a case over not hearing it, well, a Federal Judge has only a few people who can disagree with him, and on most issues at law I'd venture that the people who can pretty much agree with him almost all the time. They might disagree on a lot, but they have a lot more in common too.

Not an answer to the question.

Okay then. The answer is yes, the court can hear a case where no person has been injured and no illegal activity is involved. As proof I offer to you US v. Richard Nixon. No one was saying Nixon had broken the law (it turns out he did, but that was not germane to the case) and no one was injured. The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote ordered Nixon to turn over the the DC Circuit Court tapes of conversations he had. The only legal basis for the suit was that in another, at that time unrelated, case one person testified he said "XXX" to the President, and another person testified differently. At nearly the same time it became public in also unrelated congressional testimony that there was an automatic system in the White House that taped most conversations. The contents of those tapes was, according to the original ruling, the "best evidence" of what was in actuality said in the conversation in question. Nixon opposed releasing the tapes because they would hurt him politically and in theory they may have incriminated him (but as a sitting President he could not be indicted and before he escaped that protection he had the power to pardon himself, it would have destroyed him but it's a valid argument.) He had no standing in the case that brought it all up, he had not at the time been accused of any crime or of causing any injury to anyone, he merely had in in possession information that the US Attorney in the first case wanted.
So now, Sparky, tell me, was the US Supreme Court wrong, not in their decision, but in taking the case at all? Or is it possible, just in theory, that you don't know what the hell you're talking about?

(I am not a lawyer, if I've said something terribly wrong here I trust one of the lawyers who read it will correct me)

[Joey Smith]

Marc Stevens' argument is based largely on the false premise that the only things the courts can do is to "redress injury", which conclusion he reaches by taking an isolated statement by the U.S. Supreme Court completely out-of-context, and while ignoring that the very same U.S. Supreme Court has routinely upheld all sorts of IRS actions, based on the Article II powers given to Congress to tax.

No serious legal scholar agrees with this position, which position is as wrong as it can be. But this doesn't keep Stevens from then attempting to build a gigantic house of cards based on this wrong conclusion.

[wserra]

He [Marc Stevens] finally identified a federal docket - an action to enforce an IRS summons - in which he coached a litigant. The following is my post on it from this morning - likely my last on that board, since (1) I now longer have the time, and (2) anyone who doesn't get it after this is a lost cause.

A user named "indio" on Stevens' board posted the following in response. Every now and then, something parodies itself so well that no further comment is called for.

I just read the appeal from the tax summons case. Contrary to wserra the appeal was not lost on the merits. It was lost because his arguments where "wholly without merit"

"indio" then goes on to offer his "interpretation" of that pretty clear phrase. Conclusion: it doesn't really mean "wholly without merit".

[ASITStands]

He [Marc Stevens] finally identified a federal docket - an action to enforce an IRS summons - in which he coached a litigant. The following is my post on it from this morning - likely my last on that board, since (1) I now longer have the time, and (2) anyone who doesn't get it after this is a lost cause.

A user named "indio" on Stevens' board posted the following in response. Every now and then, something parodies itself so well that no further comment is called for.

I just read the appeal from the tax summons case. Contrary to wserra the appeal was not lost on the merits. It was lost because his arguments where "wholly without merit"

"indio" then goes on to offer his "interpretation" of that pretty clear phrase. Conclusion: it doesn't really mean "wholly without merit".

Almost makes an observer want to ask, "Are you stupid or just ignorant?" (almost)

[LPC]

Contrary to wserra the appeal was not lost on the merits. It was lost because his arguments where [sic] "wholly without merit"

Snide remarks fail me.

[Red Cedar PM]

He [Marc Stevens] finally identified a federal docket - an action to enforce an IRS summons - in which he coached a litigant. The following is my post on it from this morning - likely my last on that board, since (1) I now longer have the time, and (2) anyone who doesn't get it after this is a lost cause.

A user named "indio" on Stevens' board posted the following in response. Every now and then, something parodies itself so well that no further comment is called for.

I just read the appeal from the tax summons case. Contrary to wserra the appeal was not lost on the merits. It was lost because his arguments where "wholly without merit"

"indio" then goes on to offer his "interpretation" of that pretty clear phrase. Conclusion: it doesn't really mean "wholly without merit".

Wow. Really? My faith in humanity just ratcheted down a few notches.

[webhick]

You can't lose on merit if there wasn't any to begin with.

[LPC]

The trial court granted the petition to enforce the summons, and rejected all of the Edwards/Stevens arguments. In the oral decision, the trial judge called them "sophistry". Edwards appealed to the Tenth Circuit. He did even worse there. Not only did the Circuit affirm the trial court's decision to enforce the summons, it called the Edwards/Stevens arguments "patently frivolous", and sanctioned Edwards $6000 for making them.

I just found that there was an appeal to the Supreme Court. Cert. denied, No. 06-917, 127 S.Ct. 1380 (2007).