Stevens and Standing

[LPC]

I got curious about Marc Stevens's strange view of standing, and his belief that the IRS (and the federal government) somehow lacked standing in a federal tax case.

In the case Stevens has been ranting about, United States v. Marc Edwards, No. 2:05-cv-00141-WFD (D. Wyo.), aff'd, No. 05-8085 (10th Cir. 3/27/2006) ($6,000 in sanctions imposed for frivolous appea), cert. den., No. 06-917 (U.S.S.C. 2006), the United States had filed an action to enforce an administrative summons for tax records, as authorized by 20 U.S.C. §§ 7602 and 7604. The idea that the government might lack standing under §§ 7602 and 7604 is bizarre, given that (a) the government is trying to determine if taxes are owed, (b) if taxes are owed by not paid then the government has clearly suffered a loss of income, and (c) there is clearly a "case or controversy" is the government is seeking to obtain records to determine what taxes might be owed and the person in possession of the records refuses to provide them.

But I decided to see if I could find any cases that establish as a matter of law that a possible diminution of tax revenues is sufficient to give a government "standing" as a matter of constitutional law. And I thought it might be difficult to find legal support because things that are obvious are often difficult to prove.

But I did find a case.

In Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (1992), the Supreme Court held that an allegation that Wyoming was suffering a loss of tax revenues as a result of legislation enacted in Oklahoma gave Wyoming standing to pursue a claim against Oklahoma in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Citing the Wyoming decision, a district court has stated that the District of Columbia had standing to contest the constitutionality of a statute that denied it the power to impose taxes on the wages of nonresident workers. Banner v. United States, 303 F.Supp.2d 1, n. 6 (D.C. 2004).

In order to forestall any equivocating (i.e., BS), it should be pointed out that the court must presume for purposes of standing analysis that plaintiffs have the right they claim. See, Adams v. Clinton, 90 F.Supp.2d 35, 41 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 531 U.S. 941 (2000) (presuming that District of Columbia residents are entitled to representation in the House and concluding that denial of such a voice "plainly constitutes an `injury in fact'"); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ("standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal ... ").

In other words, a state (or any other government) has standing to pursue a tax claim even if no tax is actually due. The lack of a valid tax claim will (should) result in a decision on the merits for the (alleged) taxpayer, but the lack of merit for the claim does not deny the court the jurisdiction to decide the claim.

Now let's look to see what Marc Stevens has said:

The IRS filed a civil complaint asking a federal judge to enforce an IRS summons. The complaint was only a request for relief and did not allege any wrongdoing whatsoever. That should raise a red flag already.

This complaint is incoherent. If the IRS filed a claim for "relief," then the IRS alleged that there were grounds for relief, meaning that there was a cause of action and standing.

The claim that the IRS "did not allege any wrongdoing" mis-states the legal standard. The constitutional requirement of a "case" does not require that there be "wrongdoing," because it is possible for there to be an injury, and a claim for relief, even if there has been no "wrongdoing." See, for example, the substantial body of case law on "strict liability" claims that do no require any showing of any negligence or other wrongdoing, but only an injury caused by a "defect."

[wserra]

Virtually by definition, if there isn't standing, there isn't a case or controversy. E.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Some folks (like Stevens) have already thrown the dart (lack of govt power over them) and are now busily drawing the target around it. Those folks immediately go off the rails by confusing standing with the merits of the dispute, as opposed to the nature of the dispute. They do the same with jurisdiction. A litigant can be completely wrong and still have standing. A litigant can have no evidence at all and still have standing. A litigant can fail to state a claim and still have standing.

That's why FRCvP 12(b) states separate grounds for motions to dismiss based on (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction (which includes no standing and no case or controversy), (2) lack of personal jurisdiction, and (6) failure to state a claim. That's why FRCvP 56 provides for motions for summary judgment. They're different. Rules 12(b)(6) and 56 address failure of pleading or proof, and have nothing to do with standing.

But understanding the difference means that, instead of hitting the target, the dart hit the bartender. Can't have that.

[Demosthenes]

I am so totally going to steal that dart analogy.

[The Observer]

I am so totally going to steal that dart analogy.

And thus the book gets delayed again for another 6 months.

[wserra]

I am so totally going to steal that dart analogy.

Ha! Royalties!

Wait a second - royalties require an actual publication . . .

[LPC]

In looking to see if there were any questions about standing in tax cases, I found that the issue of standing frequently arises, but only with respect to parties other than the IRS (or the government).

An interesting case addressing the standing of a husband and wife to challenge a federal tax lien is Forman v. United States, No. 03-C-7394 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ill. 2/3/2005). The IRS had filed a notice of tax lien against property in the name of the wife, taking the position that the wife was holding the property as nominee for her husband, who owed taxes. The husband and wife both filed suit challenging the tax lien. The district court held that the wife did not have standing to claim a violation of due process rights under section 6330 because she was not the taxpayer, and that the husband had no standing to challenge the lien because he claimed not to have any interest in the property. They weren't totally out of court, because the wife was still free to challenge the lien on the grounds that she was the true owner of the property, but it's still an interesting result.

[wserra]

The district court held that the wife did not have standing to claim a violation of due process rights under section 6330 because she was not the taxpayer, and that the husband had no standing to challenge the lien because he claimed not to have any interest in the property.

A similar tension frequently arises for criminal defendants charged with possessory crimes who seek to challenge a search. If you're not the owner, you have no standing; if you are, you're guilty of the crime. Moreover, you must allege standing in order to make the suppression motion. The courts have ruled that that admission can't be used against you on the govt's case in chief - but it completely prevents you from denying possession/ownership later.

[jg]

I am so totally going to steal that dart analogy.

And thus the book gets delayed again for another 6 months.

Is it not: "And thus the alleged book gets delayed again for another 6 months."?

[Gregg]

I so want an autographed copy of that book!

It'll be like the 1933 Double Eagle!

[LPC]

I'm still trying to figure out if Stevens has any authority whatsoever for his belief that a government must prove "standing" to prosecute a crime, and I'm still coming up with nothing, but I may have discovered his fundamental misconception.

His magnum opus of standing, the "Standing Cross-Reference,", includes the following authority:

Attorneys will claim because I provide quotes and citations from civil cases, that standing and jurisdiction only applies to civil cases, not criminal cases. One attorney in Arizona, Paula Burgess, acting as a judge, told me with a straight face article II § 2 did not apply to criminal cases. In Ms. Burgess's opinion the criminal court system was either not created by the Arizona constitution or is not a part of the government. It's absurd to claim standing and jurisdiction requirements do not apply in criminal cases.

It's simple logic and common sense, juris doctorate not required:

(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(2) the courts being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(3) the courts' jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;

(4) Standing to invoke a court's jurisdiction requires the allegation a right is being violated.

Standing applies in criminal cases.

So, how do we know that standing applies in criminal cases? Well, it's just logical, that's all, and it would be absurd to think otherwise.

The historical fact that English and American governments have been prosecuting crimes for hundreds of years, if not thousands of years, without anyone ever raising the question of the "standing" of a government to prosecute a crime seems to have escaped Stevens's notice.

The above quote also calls into question Stevens's ability to restate the views of others, because I'm quite sure that neither Paula Burgess nor any other lawyer has ever claimed that jurisdiction is irrelevant to a criminal prosecution.

The "Standing Cross-Reference" includes quotations and citations to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of state court decisions on the issue of standing in civil cases, and the requirement of a "corpus delicti" in criminal cases.

Corpus delicti? Corpus delicti is a matter of proof, not standing. In a criminal conviction, the prosecution must prove that a crime has actually been committed. In a murder case, that means that there must be a dead body or other proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing has occurred. But, as Wes has already explained, standing is not a matter of proof but of allegations of legal rights, and a person can have standing and still lose on the merits of (a) whether the alleged rights actually exist and (b) if they exist, whether they were violated. An indictment for a crime can contain allegations sufficient to create "standing" in the prosecutor (assuming that standing is required) even though there is a lack of proof that any crime was actually committed (i.e, there is no "corpus delicti").

There is a thread on Stevens's website started by a "Montana Scott" in which MS raises the same questions I am raising:

I'm not really seeing a connection in all these cases of standing pertaining to criminal cases. Can someone explain?

I understand standing in civil cases, because of the Standing to sue doctrine. But, I see no connection to crimnal.

Am I to believe you can win a criminal case by using civil court decisions? >:(

Look up standing in Blacks law, no reference to crimnal.

I'm not seeing the connection here. IT jumps from "corpus delecti" to "standing" without showing the connection.

Stevens's response is incoherent:

I probably should be a bit clearer in that cross-reference. I have plenty of criminal citations in the cross-reference though. What is important is the PR that governments are established to protect rights, that is the foundation of the courts jurisdiction whether civil or criminal.

As noted above, the "criminal citations in the cross-reference" all seem to be cases addressing "corpus delicti."

MS gets frustrated by the stupidity and evasions and pretty much flames out by page 3, but Stevens comes back at page 7 with the following admission:

I think I need to restate this clearer. The basis and limitation of every court, according to the PR, is the protect individual rights. This is why the courts are limited to only cases.

A case, is the violation of a legal right/breach of a legal duty; loss, harm damage, and redressibility.

While "standing" is a word used primarily in civil proceedings, it refers to a plaintiff's "right" to invoke the jurisdiction of the court on their behalf. If they have a case (injuria et damnum) then they have met a minimum requirement for the court to act. There are other issues such as ripeness and mootness, but I just don't have the time right now, maybe on the show today we can get into that.

Corpus delecti is, in my opinion, is the same way as saying standing. What is important, and this very clear in the motion templates, there is no case. There is no case regardless of the allegation by the cop. Allegations do not equal a case regardless of who makes the allegation. Keep in mind the only differences between a civil proceeding and criminal is 1. the nature/scope of the injuria; 2. jail time as punishment.

(Emphasis added.)

So yep, that's it. Stevens doesn't understand the difference between standing and proving the elements of a criminal case.

[LPC]

Stevens on prosecutions for tax crimes:

Now we’ll look at a “tax” case; “willful failure” to file a “tax return.” I have read several of these so-called “indictments” and there is no standing, ever. Even if you’ve never read such “indictment”, common sense tells you there are no allegations of personal injury and the violation of a legal right. No, all they do is write the defendant “violated the law.”

However, just being accused of “violating a law” does not mean my failure to file a “tax return” violated someone’s legal rights and caused an injury. Statists would argue the so-called “United States” has a legal right to receive a “tax return” from me every year and the injury is the loss of “tax revenue.” There are several problems with such a argument though.

First, the allegations are not in the indictment and that’s fatal.

Stevens is presupposing that every criminal indictment must include a rationalization for why the crime defined by the statute should be a crime, but that's not required for indictments. It's only required that the nature of the crime and the relevant statute be identified.

By claiming that the indictment should allege how the "United States" was harmed by the alleged conduct, Stevens is assuming his conclusion, because he's assuming that the US needs to prove that the US has in fact been harmed instead of just alleging that the criminal statute was violated.

Second, it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, those allegations must be based on facts; those facts must establish where, when, why and how the legal right was allegedly acquired. And if facts are alleged, then they must be based on the testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge, Rule 602 Federal Rules of Evidence.

Of course it's sufficient to "just make allegations." That's what an indictment is, an allegation. Facts and proof of facts is for courtrooms (or pre-trial motions or hearings), not for indictments.

Stevens seems to believe that an indictment must summarize the government's case in chief, even incorporating the testimony of witnesses. But that's not the law, and it's not even rational.

No attempt is made to put such allegations in an “indictment” because it’s impossible to establish factually how an obligation to file a “tax return” was created.

Actually, it's very easy to establish how an obligation to file a "tax return" was created. It was established by Congress enacting a law that requires the filing of a tax return.

Stevens seems to foaming at the mouth at this point.

To prove an obligation or legal right was created, there must be a connection between the people asserting the right and the person who allegedly has this obligation.

This is not right. In fact, it's not even wrong. It's a rather incoherent hallucination.

Statists immediately point out the “constitution.” And that is the point where they lose; and lose big time.

No connection to the “constitution” can be made because the “constitution” is four pieces of paper no one bothered to sign. It binds no one and created nothing: same as any other pieces of paper from two hundred and thirty years ago. Unless you believe in magic, placing the words “constitution” on a piece of paper will not create an obligation on someone two hundred and thirty years later.

The “constitution” is a very effective anchor that usually pacifies those critical of statism. Most people will not challenge opinions the “constitution” is applicable or relevant; it’s one of the most sacred of cows. All “revenue agents” I have had experience with, like most people, assume the “constitution” applies to everyone. No thought is given to any facts to prove where, when, why and how the “constitution” applies to anyone.

This "argument" does not exist. It is just words on a page, so it creates nothing. Because the argument does not exist, there is nothing to refute.

It is very unsettling for a “revenue agent” to be challenged on the facts his opinion the “constitution” is applicable are based because he/she has not based it on any facts. Nobody enjoys having their map of reality ripped apart.

More telling is that no one likes to be confronted by an irrational lunatic, and I think that the revenue agents whom Stevens has "challenged" understood that very well.

A personal injury cannot be proven because it cannot be proven the “United States” had a right to the property in question or the “required” action. If you doubt this, then read cases such as Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). It’s tantamount to Al Capone filing a complaint against a shop owner for not paying his “protection” money. Think big Al would have standing?

The Perry decision was not a tax case, and the US was the defendant, not the plaintiff. Specifically, the holder of a bond sued the US because the terms of the bond stated that the interest and principal were "payable in United States gold coin of the present standard of value" but the US had gone off the gold standard before the bond matured. What this has to do with Stevens's notions of "standing" is anyone's guess.

[notorial dissent]

If Stevens is talking about II § 2 of AZ, I can see why she would have said that, particularly considering the way he is trying to construe things.

I see what he is going on about the “secure / protect rights” bit, but he is trying to take what is basically political rhetoric and spin it in to something it isn’t, and as you are saying, I think that is the beginning of the downfall of his fantasy.

He also then twists the usage of jurisdiction and standing to suit his own inverted definition to get where he wants to go, and to my way of thinking, confuses standing with jurisdiction altogether in criminal matters.

To my mind, the dichotomy between civil and criminal is that while civil is based on law, and one must have STANDING to make use of that law, the criminal is based on the law and the JURISDICTION that the law provides, and that is where he is either purposefully or just plain intellectually confused. The jurisdiction / authority provided by the statute automatically implies the standing that jurisdiction imparts to act. The state has STANDING to act because it has by statute the JURISDICTION to act.

More to the point, I don’t think Stevens really understands what a court is and what a court is actually for. He is still trying to turn “secure / protect rights” into something it isn’t, and it is getting him no where. He certainly doesn’t understand criminal procedure.

[wserra]

With all due respect (to my Quatloosian colleagues, not to Stevens): he isn't trying to "understand" anything. He's trying to be a macher to people who don't know better, and to scam them in the process.

You might as well analyze the wisdom of Cuthbert J. Twillie.

[notorial dissent]

Quite true, I think comprehend might be a better choice of words, but in the final analysis, he, like Pete, is trying to force the words to mean something they don't, and never did, and trying to come off as erudite and knowledgeable when in fact they are not, and they are both playing to the fact that their intended audience doesn't know any better, and really doesn't want to know any better.

[LPC]

With all due respect (to my Quatloosian colleagues, not to Stevens): he isn't trying to "understand" anything.

I agree that it's a mistake to attribute anything that Stevens writes to an intentional process.

Like lots of other tax deniers, Stevens is an anarchist, although he is more open and conscious of it. Still, his belief that governments are not legitimate (he uses the word "fictions") is so set in his mind that no other conclusion is possible. He is simply incapable of imagining any rational person reaching any other conclusion, and so everything he writes begins and ends with that conclusion, and all meanings of all words must be consistent with that conclusion. He's not "trying" to reach the conclusions he reaches; he just can't imagine any other result being possible. The meanings of "jurisdiction," "standing," and "corpus delicti" are not things he misunderstood or twisted, but are innocent bystanders getting hit by the semantic shrapnel of his idee fixe. They're just collateral damage.

Earlier in this thread you wrote that Stevens (among others) has thrown a dart and then drawn a target around the dart. Actually, I think that Stevens knows where the dart is supposed to be, and then draws the target around that spot, imagining that the dart is in the center. In his mind, he's not throwing any darts, because the dart is already there. And the dart must be in the middle of the target because he simply can't imagine any other spot for the dart, and can't remember any time when the dart wasn't in that spot.

[wserra]

Or he's simply scamming people.

You're a charitable guy, Dan.

[LPC]

I've added the "standing" argument to the Tax Protester FAQ, and Marc Stevens gets a big shout-out.

[notorial dissent]

I agree that it's a mistake to attribute anything that Stevens writes to an intentional process.
I will have to disagree with you here, I think it is obvious and demonstrably provable that EVERYTHING Stevens writes is an intentional process, just not one geared towards anything honest or productive, but towards selling his particular brand of snake oil.

Like lots of other tax deniers, Stevens is an anarchist, although he is more open and conscious of it. Still, his belief that governments are not legitimate (he uses the word "fictions") is so set in his mind that no other conclusion is possible. He is simply incapable of imagining any rational person reaching any other conclusion, and so everything he writes begins and ends with that conclusion, and all meanings of all words must be consistent with that conclusion. He's not "trying" to reach the conclusions he reaches; he just can't imagine any other result being possible. The meanings of "jurisdiction," "standing," and "corpus delicti" are not things he misunderstood or twisted, but are innocent bystanders getting hit by the semantic shrapnel of his idee fixe. They're just collateral damage.
Again, quite true. Otherwise, it all gets in the way of his particular theories.

Actually, I think that Stevens knows where the dart is supposed to be, and then draws the target around that spot, imagining that the dart is in the center. I will agree here as well, it makes your platform ever so much easier to maintain without all those pesky little facts getting in the way. And I think some of his arguments have been very carefully crafted to avoid getting too close to the actual reality, to again avoid spoiling the illusion and his payoff.

I will have to go with WES on this as well, I see no evidence to indicate that he is doing anything but scamming the willing.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Or he's simply scamming people.

Is it known if Stevens himself pays tax?
Does he practice what he preaches?

[wserra]

Is it known if Stevens himself pays tax?
Does he practice what he preaches?

Since the govt can't say (unless, of course, it sues or indicts Stevens), the only way to know is from Stevens himself. I don't know if he has answered that or not. If he says he does, I would tend to believe him, since his natural answer would be that he does not. If he says he does not, I would not believe him, since that's what his marks would want him to say.

Of course, he may not pay legitimately, due to insufficient income.