One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[Gregg]

Thank you. Answer the question I posted or start another thread.

You're welcome.

I didn't know you asked me a question.

I didn't know you made the rules here, either.

Oh wait, you don't. So piss off.

[Duke2Earl]

One more thing... if somehow we don't want to play their game by their rules, we are afraid. Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules? What... are you afraid? Or has it to do with when you do, you get your butt handed to you in tiny pieces? We're not afraid to play your game by your rules, we already know how that one ends. It ends with misery, poverty, futility, and defeat. It ends ultimately ends with insanity. Remember, the very definition of insanity is repeating the same experiment and expecting different results. Which is exactly what happens to you in the real courts over and over and over again.

[The Observer]

Why do the wackos all have to ask vague questions?

Because vagueness allows their theories to escape the hard cold logical response that preciseness demands. Why else do so many of the TP theories rely on tortured interpretations of what "includes" means? Only vagueness allows for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

[bmielke]

Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

It says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; — to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; — to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; — to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; — to controversies between two or more states; — between a state and citizens of another state; — between citizens of different states; — between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

You should have used the bolded section it is a more acurate quote from the text.

[bmielke]

OK, I'll bite:

Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

Yes, that is the first part of III.2

Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?

Yes it would.

[bmielke]

Ok Marc I answered your two questions where are you going with this?

Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.

[The Observer]

Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.

I think Steven's choice of an avatar says a great deal about his lack of maturity and lack of confidence in his position regarding income tax and the courts.

[webhick]

Ok Marc I answered your two questions where are you going with this?

Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.

I think man-crushes are cute.

[LPC]

You all know where this is going, right?

Not exactly. My guess is that he's eventually going to go down some rabbit hole of nonsense about the meaning of "United States" or the "standing" of the United States to bring a "case."

I have to say that it's a bad sign when someone starts that vague and unfocused in his argument.

Why not just answer the question?

Someone else already did. I figured you only needed one answer.

You like to attack me, why not examine the basis of what I presented?

My comments above are directed at your arguments, not you personally.

I'd be glad to be wrong, and not see you start in on some nonsense about how the "United States" does not have "standing" to bring a "case."

[LPC]

OK, I'll bite:

Does the US constitution say the following at Article III sec 2?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law, and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

Yes, that is the first part of III.2

Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?

Are you talking about the "State of Wyoming" or just "Wyoming"?

That's the question that Edwards asked of the IRS agent.

[Prof]

Mr. Stevens, as previously requested, could you please provide an accurate case number for the Florida bankruptcy matter you cited above? As Wes noted, the case number provided is not accurate.

[LPC]

Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules?

We have rules?

[Imalawman]

Does it apply the to federal courts, including the one in Wyoming?

Are you talking about the "State of Wyoming" or just "Wyoming"?

That's the question that Edwards asked of the IRS agent.

Back in my gubmint days. I was sorely tempted once, when I received a "refuse for cause", red stamped, response to one of my filings to send it back with more red stamps with "notice of dishonor, refusal rejected by a vessel in commerce under UCC etc..." on the front. But after consideration (which was short) I realized that the person in question could easily out-crazy me and I shouldn't get into that battle.

(yes, I also knew that responding such would also be wrong because it's not the law)

[Imalawman]

Tell you what, brainboy, if you're so brave why don't you play by our rules?

We have rules?

Hell yes! LPC is hereby fined 100Q for not knowing the rules.

The Rules of Quatloos.

1st RULE: You do not talk about Quatloos.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about Quatloos.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop", goes limp, or taps out the topic is over.
4th RULE: Only two morons to a topic.
5th RULE: One topic at a time.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes, no pants, no problem.
7th RULE: Topics will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first time at Quatloos, you HAVE to post.

[LPC]

Oh no! Honest investigation, better run!

So far, I haven't seen any honesty, or any investigation.

Just examining the issues there Wesley, stop with the hysterics.

I haven't yet seen any issues presented, either. So far, all we have is a question about the text of the constitution and a question about geography. (Or was it about geography?)

I am only asking questions, what are you really afraid of, admitting a federal judge was wrong?

That's a kind of "strawman" argument, because no one here is afraid of judges being wrong.

[wserra]

Also am I the only one that finds the Stevens' Wserra Avatar a bit disturbing. Ok I have an AK47 wielding cat, but to have a non-celebrity that is not yourself strikes me as a bit creepy.

I think man-crushes are cute.

Thanks for your concern, bmielke, but I could care less. For better or worse, that's what I look like. (It's the picture from our web site.)

[Brandybuck]

Thank you. Answer the question I posted or start another thread.

Someone with barely nine posts under their name is in no position to be ordering folks around.

[Pottapaug1938]

I am only asking questions, what are you really afraid of, admitting a federal judge was wrong?

That's a kind of "strawman" argument, because no one here is afraid of judges being wrong.

To add to the above: judges are found wrong all the time. It's called an appellate reversal, sometimes of a decision of a trial judge and sometimes of a decision of a lower appellate court. The thing is, marc, every time this happens there is a published opinion setting forth, in specific and well-cited detail, why the previous judge(s) were wrong. All we've seen from you and your ilk are whines like "the courts are corrupt...the judges are scared of the IRS and of losing their income" and the like.

You want us to respect you, and accept your arguments as valid? OK, then -- start coming up with either the text of the law which buttresses your position, IN CONTEXT; or better still, an appellate decision which upholds the central thesis of your position. Don't forget a full and accurate cite (as in Flintstone v. Rubble, 202 Bedrock 134 [934 B.C.]).

[Quixote]

A new article posted by Stevens at http://marcstevens.net/articles/437-bew ... ption.html gives a hint as to what he may be crawling toward. In that article he states that federal courts have jurisdiction only in cases involving injury to the complaining party. It is not entirely clear how he arrived at that conclusion. One of his sources of authority is the Constitution of the State of Arizona, which he inexplicably refers to as "the PR". Another is WARTH v. SELDIN, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), a case that concerned standing, not jurisdiction, although it does contain a passage, which taken out of context, seems to limit federal jurisdiction to tort cases.

[marc stevens]

It's obvious you guys are incapable of a discussion without insults. And judging from this


it is obvious why you guys are that way. Lot's of internet bravery here, it's easy hiding behind your computer and making personal attacks. People with even half a brain can see through your silly rants and name calling. If any of you grow a spine call into the show and demonstrate where I an idiot and have lied.

The only proof of anyone lying is about Wesley, lying that I limit access to my forum. But I don't see you attacking a proven liar. Why not attack Wesley for lying about me?

Keep that in mind, this is the liar here, not me. Oh, that's right, most of you guys have lied that I have never helped anyone in court, so that would be why you would not condemn Wesley for lying about me.

And for those who didn't get it, that's all of you, the use of the avatar was a joke regarding how you guys hide behind a computer persona. No surprise you guys didn't get it.

And asking to start another thread is just basic internet etiquette, to stick to the point of the thread. But like everything else, you use it as an basis for a personal attack.

So I won't waste my time on this forum, but you are free to call into the show and show where I am a liar and blathering idiot. I'm live every Sat. 4-7pm est, 1-4 pst, the call in is (218) 632-9399.

Mod edited - picture deleted. Why? It was annoying.