Marc Stevens makes an ass of himself on tape

[jg]

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.

"The problem is that the code doesn't show up in IE for some odd reason. The only work around at this point is to register using Firefox, Opera or some other Mozilla-based browser."

Another browser did allow me to see the image.

[Famspear]

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

This is not a fishbowl. And we're not yapping poodles.

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

No, we're talking loud and we're saying plenty.

What really counts is: Winning.

In the case of the federal income tax, what really counts, in a controversy, is who wins in court -- and which arguments win in court. We explain who wins -- and why. We explain which arguments win -- and which lose -- and why.

[LPC]

So I'm again offering an open invite to the members of quatloos who made such personal attacks about me, to come on my radio show and produce evidence I'm a liar, I 've never been successful in court and I've never helped anyone be successful in court.

Anyone know how to prove a negative?

Anyone know how to prove that there there is no case in any court at any time anywhere in the United States in which someone who was successful was helped by Marc Stevens? "Helped by Marc Stevens" means that his name doesn't necessarily need to appear anywhere in the record.

Anyone know how to prove anything like that?

I don't.

The fact that Stevens would issue such a challenge shows once again what a fraud and an idiot he is.

[Arthur Rubin]

So I'm again offering an open invite to the members of quatloos who made such personal attacks about me, to come on my radio show and produce evidence I'm a liar, I 've never been successful in court and I've never helped anyone be successful in court.

Anyone know how to prove a negative?

Anyone know how to prove that there there is no case in any court at any time anywhere in the United States in which someone who was successful was helped by Marc Stevens? "Helped by Marc Stevens" means that his name doesn't necessarily need to appear anywhere in the record.

It seems likely someone has read Marc Stevens' gibberish, "seen the light" that it "is" gibberish, and gone on to do something constructive with his/her life. That would probably count as helping someone "be successful in court".

[bmielke]

Anyone know how to prove that there there is no case in any court at any time anywhere in the United States in which someone who was successful was helped by Marc Stevens? "Helped by Marc Stevens" means that his name doesn't necessarily need to appear anywhere in the record.

Anyone know how to prove anything like that?

You can't, there is no record of who helped you unless they are an attorney on the case, and local courts for the most part don't have online records. That's not even counting small claims, traffic, and other courts not of record.

[ASITStands]

So I'm again offering an open invite to the members of quatloos who made such personal attacks about me, to come on my radio show and produce evidence I'm a liar, I 've never been successful in court and I've never helped anyone be successful in court.

Anyone know how to prove a negative?

The only way to prove a negative is to disprove what's considered a positive.

In other words, the only way to counter the claims of Marc Stevens is to examine them. Ask for the names of litigants, the venues in which the cases were tired and case numbers.

I know. It's the same thing we've been asking from the beginning that's not forthcoming, and should they continue not to be forthcoming, then show that he's nothing more than a liar.

His arguments are faulty, and they can be readily disproven by case law, but the only way to put to silence his claims that he's helped many people is to examine specific claims.

Either he has or he hasn't. Either he's a liar or he's fearful of being exposed, but the only way to know is to get specifics about the cases and examine whether Stevens had any input.

I know. I'm just restating the obvious.

[Spideynw]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. After a while she finally admits that she might have one, but does not know where he/she is and that she has never actually spoken with this person. It seems reasonable to me that if she has a witness, the defendant should be able to examine this witness. Don't you?

[Spideynw]

So I'm again offering an open invite to the members of quatloos who made such personal attacks about me, to come on my radio show and produce evidence I'm a liar, I 've never been successful in court and I've never helped anyone be successful in court.

Anyone know how to prove a negative?

The only way to prove a negative is to disprove what's considered a positive.

In other words, the only way to counter the claims of Marc Stevens is to examine them. Ask for the names of litigants, the venues in which the cases were tired and case numbers.

I know. It's the same thing we've been asking from the beginning that's not forthcoming, and should they continue not to be forthcoming, then show that he's nothing more than a liar.

His arguments are faulty, and they can be readily disproven by case law, but the only way to put to silence his claims that he's helped many people is to examine specific claims.

Either he has or he hasn't. Either he's a liar or he's fearful of being exposed, but the only way to know is to get specifics about the cases and examine whether Stevens had any input.

I know. I'm just restating the obvious.

So why would someone make an accusation they probably cannot prove? Also, here is evidence that he has helped someone: http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

[LPC]

It seems reasonable to me that if she has a witness, the defendant should be able to examine this witness.

If the witness can provide competent and relevant testimony on a material fact that is in dispute, yes.

But what fact is in dispute?

Stevens isn't able to describe anything that his "client" is disputing, but is just trying to force the IRS to prove things that it doesn't need to prove. Whatever burden of proof that the IRS might have would be satisfied by producing whatever W-2s, Forms 1099, or other financial records in relied on in making the determination of deficiency. The burden then shifts to the taxpayer to produce evidence contradicting the IRS records.

If the IRS has a W-2 that says that the taxpayer received $X in compensation from Company Y, and if the taxpayer is willing to perjure himself and testify that he never received $X from Company Y, then the IRS might have to produce additional evidence to show that the taxpayer is lying. But until the taxpayer makes that makes that offer of proof, the IRS is not required to produce any witness to anything.

Which means that the ball is (and always has been) in Stevens's court. What is his client going to lie about, and when is he going to let the IRS know what the lie is going to be?

[LPC]

So why would someone make an accusation they probably cannot prove?

If you're Marc Stevens, you do it because you're an arrogant and dishonest idiot.

[Quixote]

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

No. Unless Stevens claims to be able to cloud men's minds, that is not evidence that he helped anyone. The case was dismissed because the meter cop had no recollection of the incident. Had the case been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or as the defendant called it "lack of standing" and were there the slightest evidence that Stevens advised the defendant, you might have an argument.

[webhick]

So why would someone make an accusation they probably cannot prove?

If you're Marc Stevens, you do it because you're an arrogant and dishonest idiot.

That and he probably watches too many police procedurals.

Detective: That's right, we have witnesses that place you at arcade with the underage hooker when you were supposed to be watching your neighbor's handicapped kid! What kind of person leaves a two-year old with pyromania home alone!?
Suspect: I was watching the kid, I swear. Look, we stayed in watching cartoons all morning and then I took him to my girlfriends house for lunch.
Detective: Was that before or after you bashed her head in with an ice cube tray?
Suspect: Before...oh shit.
Detective: I think we're done here.

[Famspear]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. After a while she finally admits that she might have one, but does not know where he/she is and that she has never actually spoken with this person. It seems reasonable to me that if she has a witness, the defendant should be able to examine this witness. Don't you?

OK, let's go through the drill.

The attorney (and I assume you mean the attorney for the government) probably doesn't need to find a "witness" with "first hand knowledge" that the client is a "tax-payer."

"Witnesses" testify to what are known as "questions of fact." Whether the client was born in the physical, geographical area of the United States, for example, might be a question of fact. And it might be an issue -- if the client wants to raise it as an issue in court. If the client wants to raise the issue, then the client might want to find a witness with personal knowledge as to where the client was born.

The legal effect of the client's citizenship status, however, is probably a question of law, not a question of fact. A question of law is not determined, strictly speaking, by finding a "witness." A question of law is determined in court, in a ruling by a judge.

If the client was born in the United States, then generally that client is a U.S. citizen. Now, if the client is a U.S. citizen, then that client is, by law, a "taxpayer" as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a). The term "taxpayer" here is simply a device to identify the "person subject to an internal revenue tax." It doesn't matter whether the client owes tax or does not owe tax for the tax year in question; the client is still a "taxpayer" under the law.

Now, if the client is not a U.S. citizen but is a U.S. resident, then the client is still a "taxpayer" as a matter of law. Whether the client physically lives in the geographical area of the United States is a question of fact -- so a "witness" with "personal knowledge" might be needed, but only if the client wants to raise that particular issue in a court of law. If the client isn't contesting that he or she is a U.S. resident, then the client is a "taxpayer" as a matter of law -- and nobody needs to come up with a "witness" with "personal knowledge".

[Famspear]

By the way, even if the client were not a U.S. citizen and not a U.S. resident, the client can still be a "taxpayer" -- meaning, a person subject to a U.S. internal revenue tax. See Internal Revenue Code section 2(d), section 871, and section 877.

If you think about it for a minute, you may see that it can be difficult to avoid being considered a "taxpayer" as defined in section 7701(a)(14).

As legal scholars here in this forum have noted in the past, tax protesters and other wackos tend to tie themselves up in knots with sophistries over words like "person" and "individual" and "taxpayer." Arguing that you're not a "person" or an "individual" or a "taxpayer" generally won't get you where you want to go.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. ...

Why is a witness required when the question is whether or not the "client" is a taxpayer? That is a matter of law.

Counsel for both parties have the opportunity to argue matters of law in filings and at hearings and don't call witnesses to do so.

[Gregg]

Kind of like what I saw someone post the other day "If you wake up in the morning, a prosecutor can make a conspiracy charge against you".

[Spideynw]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. After a while she finally admits that she might have one, but does not know where he/she is and that she has never actually spoken with this person. It seems reasonable to me that if she has a witness, the defendant should be able to examine this witness. Don't you?

OK, let's go through the drill.

The attorney (and I assume you mean the attorney for the government) probably doesn't need to find a "witness" with "first hand knowledge" that the client is a "tax-payer."

So why wouldn't she just say that she doesn't have one and be done with the question and move on?

[Spideynw]

So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. ...

Why is a witness required when the question is whether or not the "client" is a taxpayer? That is a matter of law.

I don't know. But if one is not required, then why wouldn't the attorney just say she doesn't have one and be done with the question instead of avoiding answering for 20 minutes? And then when she does answer, she makes vague references that there might be one. Why?

[Spideynw]

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

No. Unless Stevens claims to be able to cloud men's minds, that is not evidence that he helped anyone. The case was dismissed because the meter cop had no recollection of the incident.

Amazing how his recollection disappeared after he told the prosecutor the arguments he was going to make after which the prosecutor has a talk with the cop.

Had the case been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or as the defendant called it "lack of standing" and were there the slightest evidence that Stevens advised the defendant, you might have an argument.

As if the courts would do that. Because then their whole farce would be exposed. It would setup a precedent to dismiss every parking ticket in the country, and that would cost them too much money. Easier to just make the ticket go away.

[wserra]

"The problem is that the code doesn't show up in IE for some odd reason. The only work around at this point is to register using Firefox, Opera or some other Mozilla-based browser."

Another browser did allow me to see the image.

That does appear to be the problem. When I tried with Firefox, I had no problem. I have posted there a half-dozen times over a couple of days. If the idea of beating your head against a stone wall appeals to you, please join in.