Marc Stevens makes an ass of himself on tape

[reenie]

Just though some of you here would like to hear this recording.

This woman is lawyer, has a Juris Doctorate. How is she going to enter evidence without witnesses? Even if a piece of paper is entered on the affidavit of someone they can be called as a witness.

http://marcstevens.net/irs_dec_15A.mp3

Most ethical, decent people have to wonder has she honestly never thought about the simple questions Stevens is asking her, or, does she know what she's doing is a total fraud?


__________________

[bmielke]

Just though some of you hear would like to hear this recording.

This woman is lawyer has a Juris Doctorate... How is she going to enter evidence without witnesses? Even if a piece of paper is entered on the affidavit of someone they can be called as a witness.

http://marcstevens.net/irs_dec_15A.mp3

Most ethical decent people have to wonder has she honestly never thought about the simple questions Stevens is asking her? Or does she know what she's doing is a total fraud?


__________________

If someone wants to tell me whats going on I will be happy to talk about it, but I'm at work and can't very well listen to the audio.

Let me say this in my expierence, all 2 years of it, Debt Collectors and other High Volume Litigants tend to get things into small claims court that would not make it into a court of record, no idea if that's what going on here or not, second also in my expirence administrative proceedings tend to be much more lax, it's all fun and games until you appeal it to a court of record. Again without listening I am just taking two shots in the dark.

[Quixote]

I split this off from the Clarkson thread. I listened to only the first part of the conversation between Marc Stevens, representing Mr. [beep] in what appears to be a CDP case, and IRS attorney Kim Clark. If someone can come up with a more apropos thread title, feel free to change it.

In the part I listened to, Clark had informed Stevens that, assuming Mr. [beep] stipulated to the information in the IRS administrative file, she would be calling no witnesses. Although far from clear, it appears that Stevens believes that Mr. [beep]'s status as a "taxpayer" is a question of fact that could be resolved only by testimony.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Mr. "Beep" is letting blowhard Stevens dig the hole deeper for him.

[reenie]

Typical of Quatloos behavior ................

Stevens did not make an ass of himself on tape .........but Ms. Clark sure did.

Come on guys suck it up and admit it ...........she was back peddling all the way!

Kind of felt sorry for her at times............I am going to end this call seemed to be the only thing she could say. She would not talk about the fact would she?

[Paul]

Yes, Stevens did make an ass of himself. This is a preliminary conference for a CDP hearing, and as Ms. Clark points out, the whole issue is whether the IRS abused its discretion in making its determination. The determination is whether to proceed with collection. This is not a forum in which the taxpayer has a right to argue about the liability itself. The only issue is whether the IRS properly decided that they should proceed with collection.

Clark was exceptionally patient in dealing with a moron.

[wserra]

I listened to the first part of the recording as well. It is a pretrial conference between the parties to Mr. Beep's Tax Court trial. Such conferences are routine in federal courts, and I have done many such conferences in District Court cases (I have never practiced in Tax Court). The court typically directs the parties to come up with a joint pretrial order which sets forth the agreed facts, the facts in dispute, the legal issues each party anticipates, and each party's witnesses and exhibits (along with any objections the opposing party may have to such witnesses and exhibits).

Stevens insists on inquiring what witnesses the govt will call to prove that Mr. Beep is a "taxpayer". That, of course, is simply stupid. He might as well insist on knowing what witnesses the govt will call to testify to what the income tax is. He then demands to know what witnesses the govt will call to prove that Beep has "taxable income". Answer in either case: none. The trier of fact determines that Beep has income subject to tax, not witnesses.

Clark is remarkably patient in dealing with a moron, considerably more so than the law requires her to be. If the court hears this tape, it will conclude that Beep failed to comply with the order to cooperate in the preparation of the joint pretrial order, and act accordingly. Meanwhile, back at Q, "reenie" is giving us her learned opinion without even knowing what s/he's listening to.

[Nikki]

Typical of Quatloos behavior ................

Stevens did not make an ass of himself on tape .........but Ms. Clark sure did.

Come on guys suck it up and admit it ...........she was back peddling all the way!

Kind of felt sorry for her at times............I am going to end this call seemed to be the only thing she could say. She would not talk about the fact would she?

corrected her mistake

[wserra]

I listened to the first part of the recording as well. It is a pretrial conference between the parties to Mr. Beep's Tax Court trial. Such conferences are routine in federal courts, and I have done many such conferences in District Court cases (I have never practiced in Tax Court).

And 10:30 PM is late for me. Much better early in the morning.

Check out Tax Court Rule 91. It begins:

The parties are required to stipulate, to the fullest extent to which complete or qualified agreement can or fairly should be reached, all matters not privileged which are relevant to the pending case, regardless of whether such matters involve fact or opinion or the application of law to fact. Included in matters required to be stipulated are all facts, all documents and papers or contents or aspects thereof, and all evidence which fairly should not be in dispute.

That was (to the extent it's possible for someone who has never practiced in Tax Court to say) the conference in the tape. So Beep was supposed to be conferring with the govt attorney in a good faith effort to agree as to (among other things) the authenticity of documents, including those in the IRS admin file. The Rule goes on to state that even an objection as to admissibility is not grounds to refuse to stipulate to authenticity, and to prescribe various other requirements for the stip.

Rule 91(f) details the procedure in the event of noncompliance. In essence, the party seeking the stip to which the opponent will not agree moves to compel. In the event of a default, or lack of a satisfactory reason for the failure to agree, the court has the power to deem the facts (such as the IRS admin filed) stipulated.

So the govt's next step in the Beep Case is such a motion. If the Court listens to the tape - or not - it seems quite likely that the result will be the enforced stipulation of the admissibility of the IRS admin file. End of case. And that pretty much explains why the petitioner's name is beeped out. Obviously the govt knows who he is. It's so Stevens' acolytes and dupes don't find out how badly Beep is about to Weep.

Wonderful job, Stevens. Great analysis, reenie.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Mr. "Beep" is letting blowhard Stevens dig the hole deeper for him.

100% bias speculation.

Your opinion, and two Frn's will buy you a cup of Joe at your local McDonald's.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Mr. "Beep" is letting blowhard Stevens dig the hole deeper for him.

100% bias speculation.

Your opinion, and two Frn's will buy you a cup of Joe at your local McDonald's.

Your BS and Stevens' self-aggrandizing BS won't buy anything.

Care to point to an actual legal proceeding with publicly available records that shows Stevens to be anything more than a desperate media wannabe?

"Dogs chase cars . . . doesn't mean they know how to drive," comes to mind.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Care to point to an actual legal proceeding with publicly available records that shows Stevens to be anything more than a desperate media wannabe?

Marc Stevens is frequently referred to on Sovereign websites here in the UK where it is claimed he is constantly smacking down court cases and "owning" the judge.
I recall somebody once said he is a lawyer.
Is there any truth whatsoever to these stories?
Does he represent people in court?

[wserra]

Marc Stevens is frequently referred to on Sovereign websites here in the UK where it is claimed he is constantly smacking down court cases and "owning" the judge.

"It is claimed" as well that aliens who visit Earth have nothing better to do than tromp out circles in corn fields.

I recall somebody once said he is a lawyer.

There are many lawyers here. I'm one. Stevens isn't.

Is there any truth whatsoever to these stories?

Short answer: No. If anyone claims otherwise, do what JRB suggested: ask that person to cite a single verifiable instance. And don't let them tell you that "the court sealed the records" or "dismissals aren't recorded" or a hundred other excuses for the absence of proof, all of which are abject BS.

Does he represent people in court?

No. Only lawyers can represent in courts. There are some proceedings in which a layman with a power of attorney can speak for someone else, such as the IRS conference which is the subject of this thread. That wasn't in court - and all Stevens did there was subject Mr. Beep to sanctions.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Marc Stevens is frequently referred to on Sovereign websites here in the UK where it is claimed he is constantly smacking down court cases and "owning" the judge.

"It is claimed" as well that aliens who visit Earth have nothing better to do than tromp out circles in corn fields.

I recall somebody once said he is a lawyer.

There are many lawyers here. I'm one. Stevens isn't.

Is there any truth whatsoever to these stories?

Short answer: No. If anyone claims otherwise, do what JRB suggested: ask that person to cite a single verifiable instance. And don't let them tell you that "the court sealed the records" or "dismissals aren't recorded" or a hundred other excuses for the absence of proof, all of which are abject BS.

Does he represent people in court?

No. Only lawyers can represent in courts. There are some proceedings in which a layman with a power of attorney can speak for someone else, such as the IRS conference which is the subject of this thread. That wasn't in court - and all Stevens did there was subject Mr. Beep to sanctions.

Thanks for your reply, wserra.
I do understand that only lawyers can represent in court, but as often happens stories that circulate the web are sometimes very difficult to verify especially when you are in a different country. And as I said I have seen him described as a lawyer on FOTL sites.
What starts out as an outright fantasy gets repeated on so many websites until it becomes accepted as truth by the woos.
I always guessed Stevens was not a lawyer because of the BS he spouts.
Thankyou for confirming what I have always suspected.
You are correct about getting the answer "the court sealed the records". It's one they like to fall back on. The trouble is there isn't really any reply to it. No matter what you say to them they will just keep repeating that the court would never let the information be known to the general public.
Again, thanks.

[wserra]

You are correct about getting the answer "the court sealed the records". It's one they like to fall back on. The trouble is there isn't really any reply to it.

Actually, there is. It won't satisfy a wacko true believer - but nothing will, so it's not worth the effort with them. But for anyone retaining scraps of rationality, try the following.

Just because a case is dismissed hardly means that it disappears. Some of the most important Supreme Court precedents are dismissals. Even if a case is dismissed and sealed with no appellate opinion, that doesn't mean it never existed. It still has a name and docket number, from which much can on occasion be found - such as the basis for dismissal. If I had a dime for every time some wacko claimed a Magic Bullet Victory when the truth is that the cop didn't show, I would have retired years ago. And if some paytriot guru claims that s/he can't show you a single confirmable victory because they've all been sealed and have no record left at all - remind your listeners of all the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, also with no proof.

Of course, your listeners may have themselves been abducted by aliens, in which case you should probably just move on.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Just because a case is dismissed hardly means that it disappears. Some of the most important Supreme Court precedents are dismissals. Even if a case is dismissed and sealed with no appellate opinion, that doesn't mean it never existed. It still has a name and docket number, from which much can on occasion be found - such as the basis for dismissal.

Cheers for that.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

1) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to bow down to the arrogance of a man or a woman costumed up in a black rob.

2) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to acknowledge them, or their title, as his "god".

[rumpelstilzchen]

1) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to bow down to the arrogance of a man or a woman costumed up in a black rob.

2) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to acknowledge them, or their title, as his "god".

Well, considering that wserra has confirmed that Stevens is not a lawyer I doubt he comes into contact with them.

[webhick]

1) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to bow down to the arrogance of a man or a woman costumed up in a black rob.

I'm reminded of a toddler who emphatically argued that ham doesn't come from pigs because pork comes from pigs. He knows better because he eats both and they don't taste the same. I suppose we should praise that toddler for not bowing to the arrogance of everyone who tries to correct his error.

2) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to acknowledge them, or their title, as his "god".

Yeesh. I suppose he pisses in the pool at parties, too. Abiding by the rules or showing a little respect to the people who run the pool would mean that he's worshiping them like gods. I mean, who cares if he comes across like a petulant, entitled douchebag who never gets invited to another pool party ever again? He can at least walk away with the knowledge that the only person who makes and enforces the rules at pool parties is him. Then he can set up a little kiddie pool in his back yard and pee in it all he wants. Hey, maybe the neighbor's dog will come over and worship him as the Peeing Pool Party God and make an offering or two.

[Joey Smith]

1) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to bow down to the arrogance of a man or a woman costumed up in a black rob.

2) Unlike many of the attorneys in here, Stevens is unwilling to acknowledge them, or their title, as his "god".

3) Stevens is a blathering idiot who never actually helps the suckers who give him money, but instead leaves them in a worse situation than if they had never met Stevens.

4) Stevens is a liar who scrounges for business by telling people that he is successful in court when he is not.