One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[marc stevens]

Let's take this one step at a time and prove where I am an idiot and presented "sophistry". Since you guys like personal attacks and refuse to come on my radio show, let's do this here. Let's see if you can post without a personal attack. So far about every post about me has an insult of some kind.

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..."

Just yes or no. We're trying to pin down the point where what I presented in the IRS proceeding is sophistry. Let's see exactly where I go off the deep end and become a "blathering idiot".

[Famspear]

Welcome to Quatloos, Marc.

Are you the guy who asked a government attorney if she had a "witness" with first hand knowledge that your client was a "taxpayer"?

[Joey Smith]

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

[wserra]

You all know where this is going, right?

Any of the regulars here, non-lawyers included, could show how Stevens is full of it in a paragraph or two. Lawyers could cite the law, chapter and verse. It won't matter. In time-honored TP/sovrun manner, Stevens will claim that this only proves his thesis, in that it shows how corrupt the courts/legislatures are. Every one, if necessary. That's what he did in the one case he has admitted to in which a court actually considered his nonsense.

I didn't post on his forum to try to show Stevens anything. Whether because he is a simple snake-oil huckster or because he is lost at sea is unimportant; he's a lost cause. I posted there for two reasons: to try to warn off anyone who was still susceptible to reason, and to get from him an example of a court opinion which dealt with his stuff. I was successful in the latter; I have no way to know about the former.

So, anyone who wishes, go ahead. You won't get anywhere with Stevens, but there may be lurkers.

[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.

[jg]

You all know where this is going, right?

Any of the regulars here, non-lawyers included, could show how Stevens is full of it in a paragraph or two. Lawyers could cite the law, chapter and verse. It won't matter. In time-honored TP/sovrun manner, Stevens will claim that this only proves his thesis, in that it shows how corrupt the courts/legislatures are. Every one, if necessary. That's what he did in the one case he has admitted to in which a court actually considered his nonsense.
...

Except from the case 2:05-cv-00141-WFD Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 page 8 of 13 (linked above) transcript of oral ruling page 6 :

Finally, Mr. Edwards' final motion asks that the Court strike the United States' response. The only justification cited by Mr. Edwards is that, quote, there seems to be two separate parties/plaintiffs. One is the United States of America, and the other is the United States. According to Mr. Edwards, he cannot appropriately assert a defense until there's a clarification as to who the petitioner is.

The Court will not engage in acts of sophistry. To raise such a matter in a court of the United States is impertinent and, frankly, shows a contemptuous disregard for the existence of our country. The United States' petition to enforce the Internal Revenue Service summons is granted. Respondent's four motions are hereby denied.

There is a documented reference and example of sophistry. To what extent that particular example was Mr. Edwards' production or was helped by Mr. Stevens is not clear from the court record.

Some have characterized the arguments used by Mr. Edwards in that case as idiotic. Idiocy may be in the eye of the beholder. Again, to what extent that was Mr. Edwards' production or was helped by Mr. Stevens is not clear from the court record.

The one case Mr. Stevens has held out as an example of his help, or work product, may be enough to fulfill the request that Mr. Stevens asked to be shown "where I am an idiot and presented "sophistry". As to proving idiocy, that may not be possible due to the varied connotations of the term; so, it would seem better for Mr. Stevens to address his request for proof to the honorable William F. Downes.

[Gregg]

Welcome to Quatloos!

See, even I can be polite. Often I'm not, but there you are.

I'm not a lawyer, I used to be an accountant long ago, for the last 15 years I've been building cars and my doctorate is in International Business.

I don't know much about your theories, and what I surmise of it, you think the ones we choose to administer government among us are unqualified to administer government because they work for the government. (if this is off base, get better spokesmen, the one you have is quite an idiot if you ask me)

Anyhow, if that's your argument, it's what we call a circular argument. We can have chaos, or we can let some people have a bit of authority over us, I'll take the latter (and the points). And as I have pointed out a lot recently, you and 310 million others give or take a few have consented to this, either directly by becoming a citizen when you were not born one, or indirectly by not going to whatever bastion of freedom you choose (North Korea, Somalia, Cuba have been mentioned) if you were born here and became one without your consent. You can quit if you want, which is a better deal than we gave South Carolina and as crazy as THOSE people are to this day, we still like them much better than we like most people who resign from the country.

And with that, I surrender my sovereignty on the issue to the judgment of Wes who is more involved and informed than I on the issue, and has shown to me over the years that he's a pretty smart guy about the whole law thing...

[marc stevens]

You all know where this is going, right?

Oh no! Honest investigation, better run! Just examining the issues there Wesley, stop with the hysterics. I am only asking questions, what are you really afraid of, admitting a federal judge was wrong? Calm down Wesley.

Any of the regulars here, non-lawyers included, could show how Stevens is full of it in a paragraph or two. Lawyers could cite the law, chapter and verse. It won't matter. In time-honored TP/sovrun manner, Stevens will claim that this only proves his thesis, in that it shows how corrupt the courts/legislatures are. Every one, if necessary. That's what he did in the one case he has admitted to in which a court actually considered his nonsense.

Then present a lucid paragraph free from personal attacks. Again, you assume I am not seeking the truth and would continue doing things I knew were wrong. You just can't stop attacking my integrity. And looking at your picture and the "law" you practice, you are hardly one to attack me personally. How would you like me to rant about you personally? There's plenty of material:

[irrelevant photos deleted by LPC]

But I'm not like you and the posters here, I don't need to make personal attacks, I stick to the issues and I don't hide. I've invited you guys on my live radio broadcast and you Wesley, only made silly excuses.

I didn't post on his forum to try to show Stevens anything. Whether because he is a simple snake-oil huckster or because he is lost at sea is unimportant; he's a lost cause. I posted there for two reasons: to try to warn off anyone who was still susceptible to reason, and to get from him an example of a court opinion which dealt with his stuff. I was successful in the latter; I have no way to know about the former.

Snake-oil? Yet you refuse to call into my show. Again, given your profession and "law" you practice, you hardly someone to personally attack me. I don't back down from your attacks and that only means I'm a huckster or lost at sea?

I am posting here to show you and the rest who attacked me don't know what you're talking about when it comes to me. I ask a question and you run. You see me backing away making excuse after excuse? What are you afraid of Wesley? Can't address a simple question? Why not look at is an opportunity to show where I am wrong?

So, anyone who wishes, go ahead. You won't get anywhere with Stevens, but there may be lurkers.

No, you won't because you are all talk and you are afraid. Can't answer a simple question. Just personal attacks. Oh here's a case # from the Miami bankruptcy court, the "nightmare case" 07-22912 BKC-RBR, I helped a Dr. get the complaint against him kicked out. Spin that.

[More irrelevant and redundant photos deleted by LPC]

[Famspear]

Marc, are you the guy who asked a government attorney if she had a "witness" with first hand knowledge that your client was a "taxpayer"?

[marc stevens]

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?

[marc stevens]

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

[marc stevens]

You all know where this is going, right?

Any of the regulars here, non-lawyers included, could show how Stevens is full of it in a paragraph or two. Lawyers could cite the law, chapter and verse. It won't matter. In time-honored TP/sovrun manner, Stevens will claim that this only proves his thesis, in that it shows how corrupt the courts/legislatures are. Every one, if necessary. That's what he did in the one case he has admitted to in which a court actually considered his nonsense.
...

Except from the case 2:05-cv-00141-WFD Document 16 Filed 08/26/05 page 8 of 13 (linked above) transcript of oral ruling page 6 :

Finally, Mr. Edwards' final motion asks that the Court strike the United States' response. The only justification cited by Mr. Edwards is that, quote, there seems to be two separate parties/plaintiffs. One is the United States of America, and the other is the United States. According to Mr. Edwards, he cannot appropriately assert a defense until there's a clarification as to who the petitioner is.

The Court will not engage in acts of sophistry. To raise such a matter in a court of the United States is impertinent and, frankly, shows a contemptuous disregard for the existence of our country. The United States' petition to enforce the Internal Revenue Service summons is granted. Respondent's four motions are hereby denied.

There is a documented reference and example of sophistry. To what extent that particular example was Mr. Edwards' production or was helped by Mr. Stevens is not clear from the court record.

Some have characterized the arguments used by Mr. Edwards in that case as idiotic. Idiocy may be in the eye of the beholder. Again, to what extent that was Mr. Edwards' production or was helped by Mr. Stevens is not clear from the court record.

The one case Mr. Stevens has held out as an example of his help, or work product, may be enough to fulfill the request that Mr. Stevens asked to be shown "where I am an idiot and presented "sophistry". As to proving idiocy, that may not be possible due to the varied connotations of the term; so, it would seem better for Mr. Stevens to address his request for proof to the honorable William F. Downes.

Answer the question.

[marc stevens]

Welcome to Quatloos!

See, even I can be polite. Often I'm not, but there you are.

I'm not a lawyer, I used to be an accountant long ago, for the last 15 years I've been building cars and my doctorate is in International Business.

I don't know much about your theories, and what I surmise of it, you think the ones we choose to administer government among us are unqualified to administer government because they work for the government. (if this is off base, get better spokesmen, the one you have is quite an idiot if you ask me)

Anyhow, if that's your argument, it's what we call a circular argument. We can have chaos, or we can let some people have a bit of authority over us, I'll take the latter (and the points). And as I have pointed out a lot recently, you and 310 million others give or take a few have consented to this, either directly by becoming a citizen when you were not born one, or indirectly by not going to whatever bastion of freedom you choose (North Korea, Somalia, Cuba have been mentioned) if you were born here and became one without your consent. You can quit if you want, which is a better deal than we gave South Carolina and as crazy as THOSE people are to this day, we still like them much better than we like most people who resign from the country.

And with that, I surrender my sovereignty on the issue to the judgment of Wes who is more involved and informed than I on the issue, and has shown to me over the years that he's a pretty smart guy about the whole law thing...

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

[Pottapaug1938]

Welcome to Quatloos, marc.

I think that no one, including myself, will "answer [my] question is that you write your questions so open-endedly that they are subject to distortion or interpretation. For example, you ask if Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution applies to the courts in Wyoming. Why are you asking that? What reason do you have for thinking that it might not?

In short: ask your questions, and add your reasoning behind the questions, and you may get some better answers than you're getting.

[Prof]

Mr. Stevens:

Case # 07-22912 is not a case number which PACER recognizes in either of the three Florida federal districts. It is not a case number which PACER recognizes in the 11th Circuit. While the case number appears a dozen times in other Circuits, none of the cases involve a judge with the initials RBR.

Could you please repost the case name and number. If you give the name of the Debtor, then PACER will allow a party name search.

[wserra]

Oh here's a case # from the Miami bankruptcy court, the "nightmare case" 07-22912 BKC-RBR, I helped a Dr. get the complaint against him kicked out. Spin that.

0 Total Case matches for selection 07-22912 for FLORIDA
Search Complete
Tue Feb 22 09:43:49 2011
No Matches Found

ETA: I see Prof got to this first. Sorry.

[Prof]

Wes:

Of course, as part of the giant "spidery" conspiracy of the courts, as agents of the US Government and the IRS, this case and all records were probably destroyed [For the obtuse, this is SARCASM.].

[Famspear]

Marc, I'll be happy to answer your question -- if you answer my question first.

[Quixote]

Mr. Stevens, if you have an argument, make it. Dragging this out for weeks by asking if the sun rises in the east and water is wet just makes you look like a troll.

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

We're waiting for you to explain that basis. So far, all you've done is ask irrelevant questions.

[Duke2Earl]

Why do the wackos all have to ask vague questions? I can only surmise that they think by doing that they can somehow trip someone in a word game. Or perhaps they have some fantasy that they are Socrates reborn. Why is it physically impossible to simply state whatever it is they want to say. Have any of them ever seen a simple legal memo, like they teach the youngest beginners in legal matters? Many of you know the format... facts (in detail) followed by a synopsis of the applicable law... followed by a discussion applying the law to the facts and finally a conclusion. And about that conclusion, if you reach a conclusion that is patently ridiculous, something in the analysis is clearly wrong. But no, they all NEED to ask vague, easily misunderstood questions that beg a vague answer that somehow proves something that everyone with a brain knows is wrong.

Anyway, I don't play 20 questions with morons. Nor do I debate things that don't deserve the time and effort to debate. I will not debate whether the sun rises in the East. I will not debate whether courts have power to decide cases. I will not dignify insanity with careful consideration no matter how much the lunatics think I ought to spend my time in their asylum.

But I will pull up an easy chair and pour myself a drink and enjoy the show if others want to participate.