One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[wserra]

BTW, Jay, I'm sure you'll be interested to learn (courtesy of Stevens) that you're "under investigation for fraud". 'Course, when you click the link - expecting some sort of proof - you get only "404 Page Not Found! Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here".

I'm shocked. Shocked.

[Imalawman]

That link appears to be a circular link back to a radio show archive. So, even if it were active, it would only be a link of the person making the same claim earlier.

[grixit]

BTW, Jay, I'm sure you'll be interested to learn (courtesy of Stevens) that you're "under investigation for fraud". 'Course, when you click the link - expecting some sort of proof - you get only "404 Page Not Found! Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here".

I'm shocked. Shocked.

It's a good thing that our Llama-in-Chief has such a thick skin, because that sounds like slander to me.

[Arthur Rubin]

BTW, Jay, I'm sure you'll be interested to learn (courtesy of Stevens) that you're "under investigation for fraud". 'Course, when you click the link - expecting some sort of proof - you get only "404 Page Not Found! Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here".

I'm shocked. Shocked.

It's a good thing that our Llama-in-Chief has such a thick skin, because that sounds like slander to me.

I am not a lawyer, but isn't one the requirements for slander is that someone believe the statement (except for "libel per se", of course.)

[LPC]

I am not a lawyer, but isn't one the requirements for slander is that someone believe the statement (except for "libel per se", of course.)

Sort of. My recollection is that the difference between "libel" and "libel per se" is in the question of what damages needed to be proven. With run-of-the-mill libel, you had to show some level of economic or other "special" damages before you could ask for "general damages" for mere embarrassment (or the like). Proving "special damages" would probably mean that you would need to show that someone read (or heard, because sometimes libel can be spoken) the libelous statement and acted on it to the detriment of the object of the libel. And I suppose that means that the person either believed the libel or believed that someone else believed the libel. But if the libel was "per se," then damages were presumed without any special evidence and general damages could be awarded.

[wserra]

Bringing the Marc Stevens chronicle up to date: as we've seen repeatedly, Stevens' MO is an update of the Citizen Kane "Kane Wins / Fraud at the Polls" schtick. He crows about dismissals of traffic tickets; however, when it's possible to investigate them at all, it turns out that the cop didn't show. Stevens then claims that the cop obviously didn't show because s/he was afraid of what the Stevens incantations would do. And when a court actually considers his nonsense head-on, Stevens loses. Every time. That, of course, is simply proof of how corrupt and unjust the courts are. Heads he wins, tails you lose.

We've already discussed a few cases in which not only Stevens' BS but Stevens himself (directly advising litigants) lost. This one is the most complete, with a USDJ calling Stevens' stuff "sophistry" and the Circuit affirming and sanctioning his "client" $6K for a frivolous appeal. Now there are a couple more.

In another proceeding to enforce an IRS summons - anyone think it's a coincidence that Stevens' acolytes are in frequent trouble with the IRS? - some guy named Robert Barnett asserts in a motion to dismiss the latest Stevens canard, that there is no "evidence of jurisdiction". 13-cv-2329, TNWD. In a short order, the Court last week shoots him down in what amounts to a polite "Of course there's jurisdiction". Watch for Stevens to blurt out a moronic "But that's just his opinion".

Remember the Fitzpatrick case, which I discussed in my post of October 8, 2012, above? As I posted elsewhere, the DJ there squarely rejected "evidence of jurisdiction", no obligation to pay taxes, an individual is not a "person", etc. Convicted, sentenced to 3.5 years. But Fitzie is not one to cease beating a dead horse. He raises the "no evidence of jurisdiction" in a motion to set aside the verdict. The Court's response:

As the Court explained to the defendant during the motions in limine hearing, the indictment in this case established the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction over the defendant existed once he appeared in court to answer to the indictment. In all respects, this motion is merely a reiteration of the defendant's persistent theme that the United States has no right to assess taxes against him, nor any right to prosecute him if he wilfully evades paying the taxes that he owes. These arguments — this defense — were put before a jury of the defendant’s fellow citizens and rejected. The motion is DENIED.

Fitzpatrick's opening brief is due in the Ninth Circuit on August 23.

MORE WINS!

[wserra]

A Stevens disciple, one Scott Banfield, has raised the usual Stevens BS (no standing, no evidence of jurisdiction, etc.) in the favorite Stevens venue - traffic court. This is where Stevens wins all the time right? Well, not here. Banfield loses in the trial court (Allen, IN, Superior Court) and appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeal.

Ah, so now we have a real court. One which will understand the profound nature of Stevens' arguments. One which will forever lay down the law (ahem) to those ignoramuses on traffic court benches. Right?

Nope. On appeal, the Court considered three issues: whether the trial court erred in shutting down Banfield's Stevens-esque "Do you have any facts that the laws apply to me?" dumbass cross examination, whether the trial court had jurisdiction, and whether the State of Indiana had standing. Scorecard: Indiana 3, Stevens 0.

It's worth reproducing the attempt at cross:

Q [by Banfield]: Mr. Rowlader, do you consider yourself to be an expert in the interpretation and application of the constitution and statutes of the State of Indiana?
MR. CRELL: Objection, he’s not -- the trooper isn’t in a position to give testimony as to the law.
DEFENDANT: I’m trying to establish credibility, competency of the witness.
THE COURT: Well, exactly how is his expertise in the constitution and statutes, other than the speeding statute, relevant to this charge of speeding?
DEFENDANT: Well, I assumed that the alleged speeding violation is a statutory violation, so I’m looking for knowledge of statutes.
THE COURT: I’ll show the objection is sustained.
Q: Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable in the interpretation and application of the Constitution and the statutes of the State of Indiana, Mr. Rowlader?
A: What do you mean by interpretation?
Q: Do you consider yourself –
MR. CRELL: Judge, I’m going to object again. This whole line of questioning is irrelevant. The officer can testify to the facts. It’s the Court’s determination to interpret the law and how that applies to the facts. The trooper isn’t here to tell us what the law is.
THE COURT: I’ll show that objection is sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, are you here today to provide testimony to the fact that I have violated the statute?
A: I’m here [in] reference [to] a subpoena I got from Allen County Court on a ticket I wrote you for speeding of seventy five (75) in a sixty (60).
Q: I’d like to re-state the question and I’d prefer to get a yes or no answer. Have you come here today to provide testimony that I violated a statute?
A: Yes.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, factually what is a statute?
A: Indiana Code 9-21-5-2.
Q: I’m asking factually, not the number of the statute.
MR. CRELL: Objection. Relevancy.
DEFENDANT: I’m trying to establish factually whether a statute has been violated or not.
THE COURT: That’s my job, Mr. Banfield. I’ll show the objection is sustained. Do you have any other questions of the trooper?
DEFENDANT: I do, but –
THE COURT: Proceed.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, is the statute in question today applicable to me?
MR. CRELL: Objection. Same grounds as my prior objection.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, for you to serve a complaint and summons and for this court to have jurisdiction, does the alleged violation have to have occurred within –
MR. CRELL: Objection. –
Q: -- the State of Indiana.
MR. CRELL: -- Same grounds as before. He’s asking the trooper how this Court gains jurisdiction is what I believe he’s asking.
DEFENDANT: I’m trying to see if I can factually establish the jurisdiction of the Court, or lack thereof.
THE COURT: I’ll show the objection is sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, do you have any facts or evidence to present today to show that this court has jurisdiction over me as a person?
MR. CRELL: Objection.
THE COURT: I’ll show the objection is sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, do you have any factual evidence to demonstrate the existence of a plaintiff known as State of Indiana in this case?
MR. CRELL: Objection.
THE COURT: I’ll show the objection is sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, can you provide any testimony today to support my having done any harm or damage to anyone on November 21st?
MR. CRELL: Objection. That’s not an element of the infraction that’s been charged.
THE COURT: How is that relevant to the issue of speeding, Mr. Banfield?
DEFENDANT: I’m trying to establish whether there is a valid cause of action being pursued in the Court.
THE COURT: The allegation is speeding. I’ll show the objection is sustained.
Q: Mr. Rowlader, do you have any factual evidence to present today which can demonstrate that a guilty verdict by this Court will increase driver safety?
MR. CRELL: Objection. Relevancy.
THE COURT: I’ll show the objection is sustained.
DEFENDANT: That concludes my questions at this time.
THE COURT: Any re-direct from the State.
MR. CRELL: Nothing, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you, Trooper. You may step down. Mr. Banfield, did you wish to testify on your own behalf?
DEFENDANT: I don’t wish to provide any testimony today.

Pathetic.

But the fact that this happens every time is irrelevant to the numbnuts who think Stevens is God.

[AndyK]

On appeal, the Court considered three issues: whether the trial court erred in shutting down Banfield's Stevens-esque "Do you have any facts that the laws apply to me?" dumbass cross examination, whether the trial court had jurisdiction, and whether the State of Indiana had standing. Scorecard: Indiana 3, Stevens 0.

Correction: "On appeal, the Court wasted time, resources, and paper on a total dumbass."

"Somber reasoning" (which was documented in the Court's decision) was not necessary. Albeit TOTALLY outside the realm of jurisprudence, this appeal could (and should) have been much more quickly resolved via the application of The Honorable JRB's cattle prods.

[The Observer]

Correction: "On appeal, the Court wasted time, resources, and paper on a total dumbass."

Correction of the correction: "On appeal, a total dumbass wasted the time, resources, and paper of the Court."

[Pottapaug1938]

I can hear it now:

"This just proves that the court was corrupt. If they weren't afraid of Banfield, then why didn't they allow his questions to be answered?"

[grixit]

Pity there's no frivpen at this level. If there were, it shouild be like a swear jar. Everytime the defendent goes off topic, they have to put a dollar in. The money would be used to buy takeout for the clerks who have to write up these cases.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Somewhere in that exchange should have been a warning that the dumbass was testing the patience of the court. Then about two more dumbass questions should have resulted in a civil contempt finding.

Truthfully, I understand the rationale and believe in the unassailable right to self-representation, but when dumbasses persist in dumbassness there comes a time to penalize obdurate adherence to mythology.

'Round here (as a prior poster noted), there is a deliberate-dumbass penalty that involves the cattle prod; it's incredibly efficient.

[notorial dissent]

I have to admit that I agree with Grixit on this. I think the judge in this was overly patient when it came right down to it. Maybe ti was a slow day. The difference being that in my experience in local courts, as a viewer thank you, has been that those judges have considerably less patience for that sort of thing than they do other matters. I've seen that particular type of behavior attempted a few times, and it got shut down almost immediately with an admonishment that further such would get them a contempt as well.

[LPC]

It's rare to see a transcript in a traffic ticket case (or an appeal, for that matter).

The appellate court squarely addresses the "standing" issue in a footnote on jurisdiction:

Banfield actually argues “standing” on appeal. See Appellant’s Br. p. 5-6. But the issue of standing—which focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power and ensures that litigation is actively and vigorously contested—see Scott v. Randle, 736 N.E.2d 308, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)—does not apply to infraction cases where the State is the plaintiff and represented by the prosecuting attorney. See Ind. Code § 33-39-1-5 (“[T]he prosecuting attorneys, within their respective jurisdictions, shall: (1) conduct all prosecutions for felonies, misdemeanors, or infractions . . . .”) (formatting altered)).

Aside from the intrusion of the parenthetical, you can't get much clearer than that.

And it's what all of us have been saying for years, and what Stevens refuses to believe.

[wserra]

And it happens again.

On August 19, 2011, at Richmond International Airport, Stevens acolyte Jameson Weatherford was stopped by TSA after attempting to board a flight with a concealed knife in his carry-on baggage. He was issued a civil summons and released. He was required to respond to the civil complaint; instead, he submitted a motion to the ALJ (a civil complaint by the TSA results in administrative, not judicial, proceedings) to dismiss on jurisdiction and standing, Stevens' pet nonsense. In response, the ALJ informed Weatherford that, if he did not answer the complaint, he would be deemed to have admitted it. The ALJ further sent him a sample answer and a copy of the applicable regs, since Weatherford was unrepresented. The TSA moved to deem the complaint admitted, since Weatherford still had not answered it. The ALJ (a patient guy) once again warned Weatherford that he needed to answer, and gave him more time. Instead of answering, Weatherford again insisted on Stevens BS, including this time how the TSA had not answered Stevens' list of "gotcha" questions (by this time, Stevens' name was appearing in papers as Weatherford's "advisor"). By now out of patience, the ALJ found that Weatherford had admitted the TSA's allegations by failing to answer them, and imposed a $1500 fine.

Weatherford filed an administrative appeal. Denied. A you can see, Stevens' name is on the service list (as "representative for Respondent").

Weatherford appeals to the Fourth Circuit, filing the same motions (standing, jurisdiction) there. Motions and review of the administrative decision all denied. The Court did not even require the govt to respond.

One more time: why does anyone listen to this guy, let alone pay him?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
One more time: why does anyone listen to this guy, let alone pay him?

Because there are always ready and willing dupes to play in or bet on a game their ego simply can't resist; or their economic situation is so dire that any delay is a blessing.

But swagger only goes so far and the rotary fecal distributor will always leave Steven's acolytes in worse shape than they would have faced.

[LPC]

On August 19, 2011, at Richmond International Airport, Stevens acolyte Jameson Weatherford was stopped by TSA after attempting to board a flight with a concealed knife in his carry-on baggage.

When I read "concealed knife," I thought it was just a pocket knife (or something) he left in his bag by accident. (I've done it.) But it was much worse than that.

According to the opinion of the Deputy Administrator, the TSA found a kubaton in his carry-on luggage, and the knife was concealed inside the kubaton. "The kubaton was designed so that the existence of the knife was not apparent upon initial examination."

The kubaton itself is prohibited from carry-on luggage by the TSA. Weatherford might not have known that, but did he really think it was okay to carry a kubaton with a hidden knife inside onto a plane?

So I can understand the $1,500 fine.

[Dezcad]

Here's a decision by the DMV in the State of New Hampshire where Stevens' arguments not only lost but he was eventually excluded from participating in the administrative hearing.

After approximately 45 minutes of continually overruling the same or similar objections and having warned Mr. Stevens that the continuation of his behavior toward the authority of the hearings examiner would result in his WEBEX connection being terminated, the hearings examiner did terminate the WEBEX connection.

The full video of the hearing is here. The hearing examiner is quite patient and there is no way that this would have gone on so long before a judge.

Needless to say, Marc's arguments were not successful.

[LPC]

Here's a decision by the DMV in the State of New Hampshire where Stevens' arguments not only lost but he was eventually excluded from participating in the administrative hearing.

Stevens's arguments don't even work in traffic court?

How much lower can he go?

[JamesVincent]

Here's a decision by the DMV in the State of New Hampshire where Stevens' arguments not only lost but he was eventually excluded from participating in the administrative hearing.

Stevens's arguments don't even work in traffic court?

How much lower can he go?

Small claims?