One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[Imalawman]

The only proof of anyone lying is about Wesley, lying that I limit access to my forum. But I don't see you attacking a proven liar. Why not attack Wesley for lying about me?

Which he thought because the captcha wasn't coming up for him when trying to register for your forum (which in effect blocked him from registering for the forum). Which it doesn't for me either in IE8 on Win7 or WinXP (Firefox is fine though). He later said that he mistaken.

That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him wrong. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie says a lot about you.

Over the last month, that exchange has crossed my mind on several seemingly random occasions. I finally focused on why, and the reason hit me.

It's characteristic of fringe players unable to support their arguments on the merits to latch onto an opponent's mistake as supposed evidence of the correctness of their own position. Never mind that the opponent's mistake has nothing to do with those merits, because by the time the fringe player gets to this point s/he has already failed to prove them.

....

Draw your own conclusions.

You're obviously a liar.

[The Observer]

You're obviously a liar.

Not to mention that he turns TPs into bars of soap.

[wserra]

You're obviously a liar.

But a good one. Many years ago, after watching me get an acquittal I shouldn't have gotten, a lawyer friend told me, "You've got the sincerity act down". I opened my mouth to thank him, then said, "Wait a second".

Not to mention that he turns TPs into bars of soap.

Prove it.

[LPC]

It's characteristic of fringe players unable to support their arguments on the merits to latch onto an opponent's mistake as supposed evidence of the correctness of their own position.

That mindset also explains the excessive variety of arguments that tax deniers will throw out without really sticking to one position.

We've seen it time and time again. Someone shows up touting Theory A, is shown evidence refuting Theory A, and immediately brings up Theory B, then C, then D, etc. They never really defend any one position, but jump from argument to argument hoping to find one that won't be shot down immediately.

That behavior is consistent with the unspoken belief that, if they can be right about *anything*, then they will be right about *everything*.

[LPC]

It's characteristic of fringe players unable to support their arguments on the merits to latch onto an opponent's mistake as supposed evidence of the correctness of their own position.

Another example is "duey" from the "I do win 10 mil" thread.

He:

1. Reads an explanation of why people are required to pay taxes;

2. Reads an offer of a prize to anyone who can prove that people are NOT required to pay taxes;

3. States that there is a flaw/weakness/omission in the explanation of why people ARE required to pay taxes; and

4. Claims the prize, as though a flaw in a positive argument is proof of a negative argument.

(It's a logical fallacy. Even if A implies B, not A does not imply not B.)

[Nikki]

You're obviously a liar.

But a good one. Many years ago, after watching me get an acquittal I shouldn't have gotten, a lawyer friend told me, "You've got the sincerity act down". I opened my mouth to thank him, then said, "Wait a second".

Not to mention that he turns TPs into bars of soap.

Prove it.

Would posting a copy of the cancelled IRS check made out to you for "washroom supplies" constitute adequate proof? If so, wait a couple of days for me to photosh<<<<<<< retrieve the image.

[wserra]

Stevens' latest masterstroke: send an "affidavit of fear" along with your tax return. Tell them that you're only filing "to avoid going to jail, not because I believe there’s a legitimate obligation". That, you see, will render your filings inadmissible as "given under threat, duress and coercion".

[Judge Roy Bean]

It might be better if in front of each of the affirmations the following text were inserted:

"Marc Stevens tells me I am supposed to tell you ..."

[Nikki]

Stevens' latest masterstroke: send an "affidavit of fear" along with your tax return. Tell them that you're only filing "to avoid going to jail, not because I believe there’s a legitimate obligation". That, you see, will render your filings inadmissible as "given under threat, duress and coercion".

NAFF (Not Appropriate For Family) But just what has he been masterfully stroking -- his Liberty Tool?

[notorial dissent]

I think a resounding SO WHAT is more in order than anything else, I mean like that silliness is going to strike terror in the hearts of seasoned key punch operators who never read that stuff anyway?????? Even for old Marc that is pretty limp.

[wserra]

Every now and then, someone posts such convincing gibberish that one can't help but wonder whether the poster is actually making fun of the board. "Jon" posted this comment under the "Affidavit of Fear" Stevens blog entry:

This is a great idea, but the IRS only cares about contractual obligations not statements of fear. Here's the way out . . Reverse you Birth Certificate Trust and don't be that name anymore. The IRS loses Jurisdiction. THere are 2 government forms you can file with Washington and ex=patriate. You will no longer be under the "United States" Jurisdiction. Which is a corporate term only. THus, Admiralty Equity courts and Statutes will no longer apply to you. You can also file a legal claim of all the rights you want respected. This is the path to peace and abundance, which we all deserve.

The "peace and abundance" that only comes from 41 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.

Is that you, Famspear?

[Famspear]

Every now and then, someone posts such convincing gibberish that one can't help but wonder whether the poster is actually making fun of the board. "Jon" posted this comment under the "Affidavit of Fear" Stevens blog entry:

This is a great idea, but the IRS only cares about contractual obligations not statements of fear. Here's the way out . . Reverse you Birth Certificate Trust and don't be that name anymore. The IRS loses Jurisdiction. THere are 2 government forms you can file with Washington and ex=patriate. You will no longer be under the "United States" Jurisdiction. Which is a corporate term only. THus, Admiralty Equity courts and Statutes will no longer apply to you. You can also file a legal claim of all the rights you want respected. This is the path to peace and abundance, which we all deserve.

The "peace and abundance" that only comes from 41 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.

Is that you, Famspear?

You mean, did I plant that gibberish? No, I can't take credit for that.

In reading Marc's musings, at the page linked earlier in this thread, I was struck by his theme: the fear of the Internal Revenue Service that many people have.

[wserra]

Stevens is now inviting troofers to his radio show:

May 7, 2011 [Saturday]: NSP radio broadcast. This week we welcome Dr. Judy Wood [DrJudyWood.com]; former professor of mechanical engineering offering her expert analysis on the destruction of the World Trade Center twin-towers. Unlike your typical statist, Dr. Wood has a large body of evidence to support her claims of what actually happened to the towers.

For those of you who don't recognize the name, she explains how the WTC was actually destroyed by a cloaked Death Star.

The pool of marks willing to pay Stevens for fantasy law must be drying up.

[wserra]

I split the multiple posts dealing with generalized fear of the IRS and simplification of the IRC (and not specifically with Stevens) to a new thread here, in the Tax Policy forum.

[notorial dissent]

The pool of marks willing to pay Stevens for fantasy law must be drying up.

So he's just going for out and out fantasy at this point. I do think her fantasy is at least more entertaining than the others I've heard. And she is supposedly a Dr of Engineering, remind me not to visit any of her buildings, or is it maybe porta sheds she designs?

[wserra]

Stevens' latest blog entry extols the virtues of the barter system. Whenever I hear/read some wacko doing this, it reminds me of the old Firesign Theater riff on the "Chemical-Corn Exchange Bank" - "You bring in a bushel of corn, they give you a beaker of chemicals".

Anyway, what seems to interest Stevens the most - other than "undermining the credit system of the Federal Reserve, made 'legal tender' by their co-conspirators, the criminal cartel called the United States government" - is his conclusion that "no taxes will be paid on any trades". Well no, Marc, I don't think that's the law. And Stevens' ultimate goal is to trade up to a house, because "when a house is ultimately traded, then no property taxes will be paid". Well, no, Marc, I don't think that's the law either. Property taxes are paid on assessed value, not what you paid for the property - otherwise, if you inherit property, you don't pay taxes on it. And, of course, if you bartered for it, you didn't get it for nothing anyway.

For a legal eagle, this guy really doesn't know much about the law.

Stevens may be too small potatoes for LE to worry about. Still, if anything does catch their attention, it's the claim that you can pay some guru to wave his magic wand and thereafter be tax-free.

[LPC]

Stevens' latest blog entry extols the virtues of the barter system.

You say he shows he doesn't know much about the law, and I say he also shows no consciousness. Take the first two paragraphs of his blog entry:

I heard about the one red paperclip a few years ago and loved the concept of using barter to trade up. Kyle MacDonald started trading up with one red paperclip and in 14 trades, reached his goal, a house. That's pretty cool and motivating.

When you see threats like this from people like Anne Tompkins, people who create no value and have no voluntary support, I'm even more motivated to also do it:

Stevens doesn't like people who "create no value," but he thinks it's "pretty cool" that someone can start with a paperclip and trade up to owning a house in 14 trades, completely oblivious to the fact that those 14 trades created no value, and at least some of them must have been very uneven or one-sided (unless the house at the end was completely underwater).

That's the true essence of Marc Stevens: No rational thought and no ethics. He's disdainful of "corrupt bankers," but that's probably a by-product of the envy he feels.

[Thule]

Stevens doesn't like people who "create no value," but he thinks it's "pretty cool" that someone can start with a paperclip and trade up to owning a house in 14 trades, completely oblivious to the fact that those 14 trades created no value, and at least some of them must have been very uneven or one-sided (unless the house at the end was completely underwater).

The Red Paper Clip was a blog started by a Canadian blogger, and got a lot of attention from all kinds of people. One thing Stevens seems to forget is that MacDonald traveled all over the US and Canada to do his swaps, meaning that he must have spent quite a lot on travel.

And since his plan got a lot of attention at the time, several companies offered rather good trades so they could get in on the publicity.

Especially the last trades are fun. Actor Corbin Bernsen offered a role in his film in exchange for a KISS-themed snow globe. MacDonald then traded the role for the house.

It was a fun thing to do, but now it has been done. I really can't see anyone replicating this, least of all Stevens.

[notorial dissent]

But that is just Marc Stevens all over the place, a liar, a fraud, and very definitely a cheat, and so very not original at all, others have done it so very much better. He lies to himself and the gullible, everything he has come up with is a fraud, and his every action is a cheat against someone. Ethics, he don’t need to stinkin’ ethics, probably wouldn’t know one if it came up and bit him in the ass. I don’t know if his ignorance is selective, intentional, or actual, the end result being the same when he ends up selling it, someone else’s ill fortune.

[grixit]

And Red Paperclip Man does have to pay property tax on his house.