Marc Stevens makes an ass of himself on tape

[wserra]

Once the thread ceased concerning Stevens and became all Spidey, I split it here.

[wserra]

As some of you may have noticed, for the last several days I've been posting on Stevens' board. A trial scheduled for this past Tuesday settled the previous Friday, and therefore I had a little extra time in my schedule. The point was to try to show folks there that his nonsense has never won anything. He 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.

===========================================

No. 05-CV-141-D.

That is indeed an interesting docket.

The case is a action to enforce an IRS summons. As a matter of background, the IRS itself does not have subpoena power; it must get an order from a USDC if a taxpayer does not voluntarily comply with a summons for records. Stevens, as is noted on certain of the case documents, did appear in court. However, he was not allowed to represent the taxpayer (one Marc Edwards) or to speak on the record, since he is not a lawyer. One of the documents describes his presence as "to aid in notetaking".

Following the service of the IRS petition to enforce the summons, Edwards filed a few documents which he denominated "motions to strike". In them, he advanced the arguments Stevens makes on this site. For example, in this one he asserts that the govt lacks a "case or controversy" and "standing". (Note the links to the docs; this board does not make them stand out to any great degree from other text.) In this one, he argues that the IRS agent lacks "personal knowledge". Those, of course, are positions discussed in this thread.

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.

Finally, a month after the mandate from the 10th Circuit, Edwards showed up with the materials the IRS wanted and turned them over. The minute sheet is here. Stevens wasn't present.

To sum up: for the several days I've been posting here, I've been asking for any evidence of Stevens' stuff ever winning. The only case produced with sufficient specificity to show that a court actually considered Stevens' arguments turns out to be a debacle. Not only did Stevens' "client" waste the time and money of litigation, not only did he lose on every point, but he was sanctioned an additional $6000 for his trouble. Nice job.

I don't think there's need for something else to be said here...

I think I agree with that.

======================================

Personal observations about Stevens: He surprised me a couple of times. I expected that once he saw the type of posts I made I would be gone, and that didn't happen. I didn't expect him to engage me the way he did. Most of all, though, he supplied me with a docket in which his "client" was blown out of the water. Why would he do that? Is he so deeply into the cream cheese that he doesn't understand what happened?

[The Operative]

Is he so deeply into the cream cheese that he doesn't understand what happened?

I think so. I considered posting over there, but I have temporarily reduced my attempts at showing some people the inanity of their arguments. I have even cut back on countering some of the stupidity at Yahoo!Answers.

[Parvati]

As some of you may have noticed, for the last several days I've been posting on Stevens' board.

The thread went Godwin with the first reply on page 2. Good luck.

[LPC]

Is he [Marc Stevens] so deeply into the cream cheese that he doesn't understand what happened?

I think so.

I think so also.

I think we're talking ga-ga land.

[Quixote]

From Stevens' reply to Wes's last post, it's clear that he sees the loss as a win, because it illustrates the corruption of the courts.

As to Stevens's followers, it is enough to note that at least one of them considers it to be laudable that he does not what state he is in, that the world is round or that the sky is up.

[notorial dissent]

After having read the petition that Edwards filed, I had to wonder if we were even talking about the same case, since what he filed had very little to do with blocking a subpoena if anything at all, and didn’t make a whole lot of sense when it came right down to it. I can see why he lost at the appellate level, and I would say that sophistry was a good term to use in regard to what was going on here.

[Pottapaug1938]

From Stevens' reply to Wes's last post, it's clear that he sees the loss as a win, because it illustrates the corruption of the courts.

As to Stevens's followers, it is enough to note that at least one of them considers it to be laudable that he does not what state he is in, that the world is round or that the sky is up.

It's obvious that Stevens will continue to believe that the courts are all corrupt and rigged against him, unless 1) they take his idiocies seriously, 2) accept them as the gospel legal truth, and 3) say so in all future trials or appellate cases.

[notorial dissent]

Well, of course, otherwise, he'd just be another cheap huckster who didn't have a clue about what he was going on about. Which of course is exactly what he is. I hadn't realized just how pretentious and silly his stuff was until I started reading some of it here. The only wins I can possibly see him getting are where the judge is so tired of the nonsense that they just give up in disgust, and I really can't see that happening all too often, and it must no happen all that often or he would be able to document the dismissals, just like he documents his wins-NOT!!!!

[wserra]

here is evidence that he has helped someone: http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

Hardly a neutral site. From a recent Stevens email:

Remember, the McAllen, Texas workshop is next Sat. Feb. 26th. If you're planning on attending, you can register on my website for only $50 or contact Armando at http://rgvnostate.com

From the same email:

I doubt any of the quatloos guys will call in, they seem intent of just calling people who disagree with them wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons.

Does it appear to anyone that my posts on his site, all of which I posted before that email went out, involved calling Stevens & Co. "wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons"?

[notorial dissent]

I would have thought that was self evident to the point of not needing further enlargement, but NO, you made no such comments.

Would this come under the heading of a Freudian slip / admission?????

[marc stevens]

here is evidence that he has helped someone: http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

Hardly a neutral site. From a recent Stevens email:

Remember, the McAllen, Texas workshop is next Sat. Feb. 26th. If you're planning on attending, you can register on my website for only $50 or contact Armando at http://rgvnostate.com

The people I have helped are hardly neutral? Does that mean they are not credible? The people I help are not neutral, but judges who are paid by taxes are? Nice standard you got there.

james.sherman1@yahoo.comFrom the same email:

I doubt any of the quatloos guys will call in, they seem intent of just calling people who disagree with them wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons.

Does it appear to anyone that my posts on his site, all of which I posted before that email went out, involved calling Stevens & Co. "wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons"?

Apparently you guys "interpret" "any of the quatloos guys" pretty narrowly, I didn't know here on quatloos "any of the quatloos guys" was restricted to only Wesley and his posts on my forum.

[wserra]

The people I have helped are hardly neutral?

You missed the point. This guy is registering people for one of your for-profit seminars.

james.sherman1@yahoo.com

From the same email:

I doubt any of the quatloos guys will call in, they seem intent of just calling people who disagree with them wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons.

Does it appear to anyone that my posts on his site, all of which I posted before that email went out, involved calling Stevens & Co. "wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons"?

Apparently you guys "interpret" "any of the quatloos guys" pretty narrowly, I didn't know here on quatloos "any of the quatloos guys" was restricted to only Wesley and his posts on my forum.

Who is "james.sherman1@yahoo.com", and where did that come from?

And you missed the point again. As far as I know, the "quatloos guy" with whom you have had the most contact is I. On your forum, you and the other denizens called me names, not the other way around.

I note that you address the minutiae, rather than the 900-lb gorilla. The only time you have been able to show that a judge addressed your "arguments", your "client" not only lost, he got sliced and diced.

[Gregg]

That would be a strategic victory, Wes. He went to the Patrick Mooney School of Logic.

[marc stevens]

The people I have helped are hardly neutral?

You missed the point. This guy is registering people for one of your for-profit seminars.

So what, he was a client who replicated my success, is he not credible?

james.sherman1@yahoo.com From the same email:

I doubt any of the quatloos guys will call in, they seem intent of just calling people who disagree with them wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons.

Does it appear to anyone that my posts on his site, all of which I posted before that email went out, involved calling Stevens & Co. "wackos, idiots, nitwits and morons"?

Apparently you guys "interpret" "any of the quatloos guys" pretty narrowly, I didn't know here on quatloos "any of the quatloos guys" was restricted to only Wesley and his posts on my forum.

Who is "james.sherman1@yahoo.com", and where did that come from?[/quote]

I have no idea, that appeared when I hit the "quote" button. Is there some kind of accusation there also against me?

And you missed the point again. As far as I know, the "quatloos guy" with whom you have had the most contact is I. On your forum, you and the other denizens called me names, not the other way around.

No, you missed the point, again. You have a real tendency to exaggerate and make things up, such as me blocking quatloos guys from posting, being afraid of a neutral setting, controlling the recording of a live radio broadcast. Excuse me for saying you were trolling, but that's exactly what you guys do.

I note that you address the minutiae, rather than the 900-lb gorilla. The only time you have been able to show that a judge addressed your "arguments", your "client" not only lost, he got sliced and diced.

Really? Your focus is on what the judge was decided, not what led up to it. You want to rant here about me being a blathering idiot while absolutely refusing to look at the actual arguments and issues I raised with Edwards. Yeah, Edwards lost, but is there any merit to the decision? And why do you insist on putting argument and client in quotes? Are you upset I don't need a coercive monopoly in order to provide my services to people who are willing to pay?

Answer this Wesley, do federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a complaint that does not allege any injury and illegal activity? Yes or no?

[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.

[wserra]

Really? Your focus is on what the judge was decided, not what led up to it. You want to rant here about me being a blathering idiot while absolutely refusing to look at the actual arguments and issues I raised with Edwards.

I not only read your papers, I linked to them. If you wish to provide me with the transcript(s) of the argument(s) in court, I'll be glad to read and comment. Nothing else matters.

Yeah, Edwards lost, but is there any merit to the decision?

Yes. That's not just my opinion. The trial judge called your "arguments" "sophistry", and the Tenth Circuit called them "patently frivolous" and sanctioned your "client" for making them. That isn't just saying that your "arguments" are meritless. That's the court saying that they're stupid, and have already been decided over and over.

And why do you insist on putting argument and client in quotes?

"Argument" because the word without quotes dignifies nonsense; my nine-year-old, fourth-grade daughter knows better than to agree with your stuff. "Clients" because they're not clients, since you're not a lawyer.

Are you upset I don't need a coercive monopoly in order to provide my services to people who are willing to pay?

Am I upset you're not a lawyer? Hell, no. I'd be embarrassed if you were.

If you keep doing this, Marc, one day you're going to come across someone who really, really doesn't appreciate paying you just to lose and be ordered to pay thousands in sanctions. When that happens, you may find yourself having to move.

Answer this Wesley, do federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a complaint that does not allege any injury and illegal activity? Yes or no?

Sorry, you don't get to demand "yes or no" answers to vague questions. If you want to tell me the factual details of your hypothetical complaint, I'll be glad to discuss whether or not there is federal jurisdiction.

[marc stevens]

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.

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

Only in your weak little mind. Gregg did pretty well asking your blatantly loaded question.

Why don't you try re-asking it again -- and, this time, say what sort of complaint do you have in mind "that does not allege any injury and illegal activity?"

[Parvati]

For those involved in the Stevens threads, the latest item in the "articles" section of his Web site, dated yesterday (21 Feb) seems to make it fairly obvious where his questions are leading.

Beware of Quatloos Propaganda and Deception

(If this has already been linked to, I apologize--I haven't seen it here, yet. And I just looked again--was remembering the Docket Number post and confused it with the last one that was a dead end on Pacer.)