Marc Stevens makes an ass of himself on tape

[LPC]

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".

You really don't know what lawyers do for a living, do you?

You assume that all judges are arrogant, and you think that lawyers consider judges to be "god." This is typical of the extremism and hyperbole that characterizes tax deniers. Everything is either tyranny or freedom, corruption or virtue. Judges are either demons or gods.

A lawyer who thinks that judges are arrogant, corrupt idiots isn't going to do his client any good. And a lawyer who thinks that judges are infallible gods isn't going to do much good either. A good lawyer is able to remember that judges (and juries) are humans like the rest of us and is able to present his arguments and evidence so as to appeal to their reason and their sensibilities.

And part of persuasion is developing the confidence and respect of judges and juries. They're not going to respect someone who doesn't respect them, and they're not going to respect an obsequious toady, either.

It's called "realism," and it's something that you and Marc Stevens obviously don't understand.

[Pottapaug1938]

Of course GaSE thinks that all judges are corrupt and arrogant. They have little patience for idiots who bring sh*t before them and insist that it's Shinola, or for the (ahahaha) legal "scholars" who invent the theories that drive these idiots before them.

[wserra]

Once the thread ceased to concern Stevens and devolved into a GaSE-inspired rant about judges, I split it here. Feel free to post here about Stevens, or - if you must - feed the troll there.

[wserra]

Stevens is very pleased with himself over this recording.

He's obviously never heard of "business records", or read FRE 803(6).

[notorial dissent]

And this is a surprise? NOT!!!!!

[LPC]

I finally listened to the whole recording and it was embarrassing for Stevens, because he obviously didn't understand the rules of the Tax Court, the rules of evidence, the Internal Revenue Code, or logic or common sense.

So I went to his web site and tried to post a comment, and found that nothing I entered was accepted.

[wserra]

So I went to his web site and tried to post a comment, and found that nothing I entered was accepted.

To paraphrase our friend and colleague notorial dissent, there's a shock.

It never ceases to amuse me how, according to these guys, Quatloos is basically the devil's handmaiden; but we allow anyone who wishes to post here, while they limit access to sycophants. Say what else you will about suijurisclub, but they don't do that.

[.]

we allow anyone who wishes to post here

And, to put a finer point on it, as long as they remain even remotely on-topic their posts, in all of their glorious gibberish remain in the thread to which they were originally posted as the poster, no matter how misguided or demented, intended.

With only the possible reasonable redaction of spam or contaminated (by virus, etc.) links.

What more could anyone ask?

[Cathulhu]

we allow anyone who wishes to post here

And, to put a finer point on it, as long as they remain even remotely on-topic their posts, in all of their glorious gibberish remain in the thread to which they were originally posted as the poster, no matter how misguided or demented, intended.

With only the possible reasonable redaction of spam or contaminated (by virus, etc.) links.

What more could anyone ask?

Free beer?

[notorial dissent]

I finally listened to the whole recording and it was embarrassing for Stevens, because he obviously didn't understand the rules of the Tax Court, the rules of evidence, the Internal Revenue Code, or logic or common sense.

As near as I can determine Stevens stock in trade is selling the gullible a line of legalistic nonsense that sounds, well legal, when he in fact hasn't a clue, as LPC has pointed out. I would like to say that as far as I can determine zero success with his nonsense, except I think he got his start fighting traffic tickets and the like and that occasionally he'll run in to a judge or DA who doesn't feel like dealing with the nonsense and dismisses, and he counts these as wins for his sure fire system, and now he seems to have graduated from beating traffic tickets to taking on the IRS. I will say, that I haven't seen anything presented that even remotely has any basis in reality. I can't see this ending well for any of his suckers er/clients, but then what do I know?

[Arthur Rubin]

I finally listened to the whole recording and it was embarrassing for Stevens, because he obviously didn't understand the rules of the Tax Court, the rules of evidence, the Internal Revenue Code, or logic or common sense.

... or facts. I have, myself, and on behalf of my clients, 1099s which did not reflect actual payments. Whether payment was actually made would be a fact. Whether an item of income is taxable is a matter of law, depending on facts.

But I'm not a lawyer. Hopefully, Stevens, if he is a lawyer, will cease to be one in the near future.

[LPC]

Hopefully, Stevens, if he is a lawyer, will cease to be one in the near future.

He's not a lawyer. Never has been, never will be.

[Nikki]

But, he did sleep in a cardboard box outside a Holiday Inn last night.

[LPC]

Whether payment was actually made would be a fact. Whether an item of income is taxable is a matter of law, depending on facts.

Right.

And Stevens has the law backwards, because he keeps asking if there is any proof that the income his client received is taxable. But section 61 states that *all* income is included in gross income (and therefore taxable) unless if falls within an exception.

So Stevens is asking the IRS to prove a negative. He wants the IRS to produce proof that there is no evidence anywhere, and no section of the IRC, that exempts his client's income from taxation. But both legally and as practical matter, all the IRS has to do is produce the 1099s and the burden is on the taxpayer to prove that there is an exception, and not the IRS to prove that there is not.

I'm also not sure whether the taxpayer can even challenge the substitute for return, because at one point the lawyer refers to a notice of levy, which (along with the references to the "administrative record") makes me think that this is an appeal from an adverse decision in a collection due process hearing, in which case the taxpayer can't challenge the assessment unless he never received a notice of deficiency (which is possible, but unusual).

[Paul]

the lawyer refers to a notice of levy, which (along with the references to the "administrative record") makes me think that this is an appeal from an adverse decision in a collection due process hearing,

That was my take on it as well.

[wserra]

Stevens is really, really pleased with himself over this silly recording. He's made short excerpts into a youtube video.

It's pretty pathetic. These guys have so few things they can even try to characterize as victories that they blow up embarrassing nonsense into a 21st century Trafalgar - all the while hiding the identity of the party, so that the suckers never learn how badly s/he got sliced and diced.

And Stevens doesn't realize that he's a whole lot closer to Nelson Muntz than to Lord Nelson.

[Geoff J]

You guys can register on his board, and show if you can progress past the yapping poodle stage here in your little fishbowl.
http://www.marcstevens.net/board/

once registered, you can start your own thread regarding specific articles here
http://www.marcstevens.net/board/viewfo ... 6653cc3817

I too had trouble posting comments on his blog page.

Evidently marc invited one of your resident lapdogs to debate, and he was too scared to take him on.

As it stands right now, you guys are talking loud and saying nothing

[wserra]

Stevens has invited us to post on his blog. I took him up on it:

So why don't you begin by identifying some of those courtroom "victories". "Identify" means title of action, court, and docket number. Something more significant (and more verifiable) than traffic tickets would be a good place to start.

We'll see what happens.

He also claims that, several years ago, he invited Dan to go on his radio show, and Dan declined. I would too - not that I don't trust him, of course, but on his show Stevens controls the mikes, the recording and just about everything else. That's a sucker's bet. A neutral site would make things more interesting. But guys like Stevens don't like neutral, and a neutral radio site would admittedly be difficult to arrange.

How about debating on a bulletin board, Marc?

[wserra]

You guys can register on his board

Well no, you can't. I just tried twice. The registration process insists on a captcha, and there isn't one displayed. Hence no registration.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Wes, you know as well as anyone around here that bombast is Stevens' stock in trade; facts don't really matter as long as you have control of the time and the audience is with you - and his audience isn't exactly in tune with rational, self-actualized thinking.

Stevens thinks he's the next [insert name of successful media hack]. He plays to his audience but it's just not catching on.

I'm reminded of a fortune cookie I heard about that read something like: "You appeal to a very small, select group of people."