One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[The Observer]

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

How much lower can he go?

When his arguments start failing in Denny's.

[grixit]

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?

Little league. Just note that you cannot actually estoppel a gang of angry parents from beating you with aluminum bats.

[notorial dissent]

How much lower can he go?

There's always Animal Control, or maybe Rubbish Abatement, oh wait, we're talking about Stevens, so he really would be in trouble there.

[rogfulton]

Judge Judy?

[notorial dissent]

She'd carve him up in to little bloody gobbits whimpering on the floor, but it would be a hoot and a half to watch her do it though. She doesn't suffer fools and frauds well.

[Arthur Rubin]

Judge Judy?

I have a technical question about Judge Judy. I've heard

• That's it's a settlement; both parties agreeing to abide by the Judge's decision and waiving the right to go to court.
• That's it's voluntary binding arbitration, without the right to appeal.
• That it's a real court, the parties agreeing to be heard by a retired judge (while paying the judge's expenses, in theory).

Any takers?

[rogfulton]

Judge Judy?

I have a technical question about Judge Judy. I've heard

• That's it's a settlement; both parties agreeing to abide by the Judge's decision and waiving the right to go to court.
• That's it's voluntary binding arbitration, without the right to appeal.
• That it's a real court, the parties agreeing to be heard by a retired judge (while paying the judge's expenses, in theory).

Any takers?

I've heard that about all the 'judge' shows but I am not sure the hosts are all former judges. It's possible it is a simple arbitration and the person behind the bench may or may not have a law degree.

I don't care enough about the genre to research the various personalities.

An additional item for the list, I have heard that any payments to the 'winner' come out of the shows' budgets.

[Dezcad]

Judge Judy?

I have a technical question about Judge Judy. I've heard

• That's it's a settlement; both parties agreeing to abide by the Judge's decision and waiving the right to go to court.
• That's it's voluntary binding arbitration, without the right to appeal.
• That it's a real court, the parties agreeing to be heard by a retired judge (while paying the judge's expenses, in theory).

Any takers?

The Judge Judy show is an Arbitration-based reality court show.

From Wikipedia:

Arbitration-based reality court show

This court show type is a subgenre known as reality court show. For its broader, collective genres, see reality legal programming and reality television.

Far more realistic than its dramatized predecessors, arbitration-based reality versions do not use actors, scripts, or recreations. Rather, they feature litigants who have legitimately been served and filed lawsuits, presenting their cases to an adjudicator. Behavior and commentary from all participants involved is self-directed as opposed to script-directed. As such, these types of court shows fall into a subcategory of reality television. It is for these reasons that many of these particular programs make clear claims to authenticity, as text and voiceovers remind viewers that the cases, litigants, and outcomes are "real."[7]

Despite possessing certain real-life elements, however, arbitration-based reality court shows are less credible than "unaffected" reality court programs, which draw on footage from actual courtrooms holding legal proceedings to capture the legal system as naturally as possible (e.g., Parole, On Trial). The "judges" in arbitration-based court programs are not actual judges, but rather arbitrators or adjudicators. For one to be considered an acting judge, he/she must be operating within a court of law and thus bound by the rules and regulations of the legal system. The setting in these types of court shows is not a legitimate court of law, but rather a studio set designed to look like a courtroom. In this respect, arbitrators are not legally restricted to mandatory courtroom/legal policies, procedures, and codes of conduct; rather, they can preside in ways intended for entertainment. Moreover, they have the power to act by their own standards and enforce their own rules and regulations. This power is reinforced through agreements signed by the parties prior to the case proceedings. Once waivers have been signed, arbitrators gain jurisdiction over the litigants, and thus these litigants are bound by the rules and regulations set by the arbitrator.[22][23]

One study noted, "In exchange for streamlining the process (and likely sacrificing some legal rights), litigants surrender their fates to the media apparatus and experience a justice system ruled by the conventions of television drama and personality of the presiding television judge."[7]

Arbitration-based reality shows guarantee monetary relief if the judgement is won. The show pays the judgment from a fund reserved for each case. In actual small claims courts, however, winning the judgement is frequently only the first step as judgments do not ensure the victor the money he/she is owed. Getting the defendant to pay his or her judgment can be taxing and courts typically do not get involved, which means it is left up to the victors to collect.

[wserra]

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.

Like Babe Ruth 80 years before, JRB called the shot.

We've gone through how both state and federal judges have called Stevens' arguments "sophistry" and found them frivolous. We've gone through how people who used them are sanctioned. We've gone through how people have gone to jail and been fined despite invoking the Stevens magic words. We've gone through how people routinely hang up on him and, despite his ranting, there is nothing he can do. We've gone through how not a single court has ever found his crap valid. Still, no court that we have found ever actually locked someone up, not for the underlying offense, but for spouting Stevens.

Until now.

Stevens acolyte "Christopher Patrick" (last name "Grubb" - see here and here for verification) posts the story on Stevens' board, helpfully including a very low audio of the proceeding which he had surreptitiously recorded. I copied it to make sure it stays available; it's 27M because the guy made it into a video file rather than a simple audio.

Making a long story short, Grubb was arrested last July for no license, registration or insurance. He appeared on August 20 before Irmo, SC, judge Rebecca Adams. In response to Judge Adams' simple questions about whether he understood the charges, Grubb insisted on the Stevens litany of 20 questions - can he get a fair trial before a judge with a conflict of interest, is there standing with no injury, is there jurisdiction, is there any evidence that the law applies to him, and so forth. Judge Adams gets increasingly exasperated, finally warning Grubb that, if he continues, "I will hold you in contempt, and you'll see if I have jurisdiction over you or not". Well, he does, and she does too. Five days in jail (at 8:20 - you can hear the cuffs). And, of course, he still has to face the charges.

Right on, Judge Adams. Your monogrammed cattle prod is on its way.

Oh, yeah - nice work, Marc.

[JamesVincent]

One of the comments after that story I found amusing...

Of course, they can always throw you curve balls, and usually do...

Of course the curve ball is the judge being annoyed to the point of locking you up for annoying them. So, of course, that means you were right, just out of practice. Winning!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Huzzah to Judge Adams!

Let's hope the judiciary grapevine catches on and Stevens' sycophants are quickly recognized for the idiots they are and dealt with similarly.

[Pottapaug1938]

Huzzah to Judge Adams!

Let's hope the judiciary grapevine catches on and Stevens' sycophants are quickly recognized for the idiots they are and dealt with similarly.

Amen! I don't mind, so much, if there is a group of idiots out there who are convinced that the courts are afraid of what they have to say, and don't let it come out in court because they know that (reverent nod of head) The Truth will bring their illegal system to a crashing ruin. However, I do take exception when these idiots waste tax dollars in the course of their advocacy.

[wserra]

MICHAEL GEORGE FITZPATRICK 14214-023 51-White-M 01-29-2016 FLORENCE ADMAX USP

Damn. Fitzpatrick is in Florence AdMax? For those who don't know, it's the highest security facility in the country. And on a relatively short sentence, at that. He's been a bad boy while locked up. Think he tried to file liens on judges or AUSAs?

Oh, and nice work, Marc. You have a "client" who hit the big time.

[Burzmali]

MICHAEL GEORGE FITZPATRICK 14214-023 51-White-M 01-29-2016 FLORENCE ADMAX USP

Damn. Fitzpatrick is in Florence AdMax? For those who don't know, it's the highest security facility in the country. And on a relatively short sentence, at that. He's been a bad boy while locked up. Think he tried to file liens on judges or AUSAs?

Oh, and nice work, Marc. You have a "client" who hit the big time.

I don't know how to check, but any chance that Fitzy holds the distinction of being the inmate holding the shortest sentence that spent time in Florence AdMax?

[wserra]

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.

Weatherford moves for rehearing en banc. Filed last Friday:

The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc.

Another Stevens victory!

[LPC]

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.

I just looked at the 4th Circuit opinion for the first time, and found this part interesting:

First, Weatherford’s claims that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) refused to consider his challenges to TSA’s authority and denied him his choice of representation are contradicted by the record. The ALJ clearly considered and rejected Weatherford’s contention that TSA lacked standing to impose civil penalties, ...

It is typical of tax protesters, sovereign citizens, and other similar delusions (I'm not even sure how to classify Marc Stevens, who may be sui generis in his own delusions) that they can't distinguish between a court not considering an argument, and a court considering an argument and rejecting it.

Because if you could make that distinction, then you would realize that you were wrong and you had lost.

[wserra]

It is typical of tax protesters, sovereign citizens, and other similar delusions (I'm not even sure how to classify Marc Stevens, who may be sui generis in his own delusions) that they can't distinguish between a court not considering an argument, and a court considering an argument and rejecting it.

Because if you could make that distinction, then you would realize that you were wrong and you had lost.

Indeed.

Weatherford's account of his latest loss on Stevens' board:

Ok, so I got a response from the 4th circuit court of injustice and appeals to deaf ears, and out of 10 judges, none would even hear about several judicial errors of the first magnitude, prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of evidence, no witness on the record to cross examine, and a few other things I'm sure...

Exactly as Dan explained it. It's not that they wouldn't hear it, moron. That heard it, and said you (and Stevens) were wrong.

So that leaves me with two options,

I somehow doubt it.

1. A writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS (Not going to happen) or

Wow! Got one thing right.

2. Submit a writ of prohibition

Ooh. Apparently you realize how few certs the Supreme Court grants. How many prohibitions do you think they grant? Hint: prohibitions make certs look ordinary.

Which raises two questions I put you, you more scholarly and informed persons

Wait a second. Where's he posting this?

1. Who do I submit the writ to? I think it's the SCOTUS, but I'm not certain

Yep, it's SCOTUS.

2. What are the criteria for in forma pauperis? I believe its an "undue hardship" standard, but if anyone has any research data on that, that would be great.

Whatever the other criteria, Weatherford should take a look at sub. 8 of Rule 39, the Supreme Court Rule dealing with forma pauperis:

If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Good luck with that.

[The Observer]

Because if you could make that distinction, then you would realize that you were wrong and you had lost.

Oooh! OOoh! Let me try!

An argument not considered by a court is one that is so wrong that it is not even wrong?

[AndyK]

As a judge once told a now-banished Quatloosian: "Too much paper between the covers."

[wserra]

Every now and then, even the biggest paytriot jerkoffs slip up and tell the truth. One just hopes that it takes them long enough to realize that they've jumped the shark that others can notice and publicize the slip.

Over at Marc Stevens' board, the usual suspects are participating in yet another discussion of the type of which they never tire - the "legality" of the traffic laws. (Wait a second: a law that isn't "legal"? I understand "unconstitutional", but what is an illegal law? But I digress.) The Great Man himself jumps in:

If one doesn't have a license, then you'll need to have a car and insurance in someone else's name. Do not bring attention to yourself when traveling, never go over the speed limit, if there is a cop car in the area, make the next turn and stay away if possible. Make sure all lights work also, don't give them a reason to pull you over.

Huh? Stay under the radar, so to speak? Try not to get noticed? What happened to all the internet Rambo stuff about paying Stevens and beating tickets? About tying them in knots demanding proof that the laws (and ordinances, and cases, and the Constitution itself, by billy damn) apply to you? What about those motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction? What about the govt not having standing? No injured party? The cop has no personal knowledge that you violated the law? Y'know, all that stuff that you've been preaching to get the schmucks to pay you? Y'mean it's really all bullshit, and what you actually need to do is blend in with the crowd?

But why do you need to do that? It couldn't be, could it, because driving without a license is, well, illegal?