One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[LPC]

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?

And where's the "freedom" if you're living in fear?

There are many ways to interpret "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." One possible meaning is "pay the freaking money and stop worrying about it."

Seriously. They save themselves a few bucks to not pay for a driver's license and then live in fear of getting pulled over. Given a choice of indignities, and having to choose between getting a driver's license I don't think I really need and having to watch my step every time I'm driving a car for fear of being pulled over, you'd think that the driver's license is the more peaceful choice.

But I guess you're not really a freedom fighter unless you can inflict some pain on yourself.

[JamesVincent]

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

And it's getting to be now, according to a couple of LEOs I have talked to, that no matter what you're getting ticketed for it. You may have been able to talk yourself into a lower offense or a warning before but the new computer systems automatically spit out the ticket when your license is run. The only real option available to the officer anymore is whether or not he arrests you or gives you a summons to appear at the courthouse on your own recognizance. Maybe they're reacting to that change. And of course the newer cruisers have the computer setup that scans vehicle tag number and checks for the insurance coverage on that vehicle. Getting harder and harder to get away this kind of crap.

[LPC]

And of course the newer cruisers have the computer setup that scans vehicle tag number and checks for the insurance coverage on that vehicle.

I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I've heard of video/computer systems that automatically scan and look for license plates, then read the license number and run a search on it. All automatically, while the cruiser is moving, without the officers doing anything. And they scan moving cars, parked cars, everything in sight.

I don't know how widespread those systems might be, but it would make it impossible to drive an stolen, uninsured, or unregistered vehicle for any length of time.

[Burnaby49]

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?

And where's the "freedom" if you're living in fear?

There are many ways to interpret "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." One possible meaning is "pay the freaking money and stop worrying about it."

Seriously. They save themselves a few bucks to not pay for a driver's license and then live in fear of getting pulled over. Given a choice of indignities, and having to choose between getting a driver's license I don't think I really need and having to watch my step every time I'm driving a car for fear of being pulled over, you'd think that the driver's license is the more peaceful choice.

But I guess you're not really a freedom fighter unless you can inflict some pain on yourself.

I had exactly the same thought when I attended Chief Sino Rock's seminar in Vancouver. The few attendees were largely obsessed about the issue of holding drivers licenses. Fretting about all the tickets, court hearings, fines, lost cars. Some no longer drove, one had lost three cars to impounding. My thought was; even if they sincerely think they are right they know they will lose so why are they fighting such a hopeless and extremely inconvenient battle over a relatively trivial issue?

[JamesVincent]

And of course the newer cruisers have the computer setup that scans vehicle tag number and checks for the insurance coverage on that vehicle.

I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I've heard of video/computer systems that automatically scan and look for license plates, then read the license number and run a search on it. All automatically, while the cruiser is moving, without the officers doing anything. And they scan moving cars, parked cars, everything in sight.

I don't know how widespread those systems might be, but it would make it impossible to drive an stolen, uninsured, or unregistered vehicle for any length of time.

Exact same system. Maryland State Troopers and Anne Arundel County Police have been running them for a few years. Don't know how widespread it is now. AACP was also using night vision to check for seat belt violations at night time. Getting to be pretty hard to get away with squat anymore.

[JamesVincent]

I had exactly the same thought when I attended Chief Sino Rock's seminar in Vancouver. The few attendees were largely obsessed about the issue of holding drivers licenses. Fretting about all the tickets, court hearings, fines, lost cars. Some no longer drove, one had lost three cars to impounding. My thought was; even if they sincerely think they are right they know they will lose so why are they fighting such a hopeless and extremely inconvenient battle over a relatively trivial issue?

One of things I had thought while following the whole Sovrun movement is this: if you got pulled over in MD and didn't have your license on you, but actually had one, it's still a $25 fine. A license costs, what, $40 every 5 years? Getting pulled over without a license at all you're looking at anything from $100-$500 in fines, having an arrest record, a vehicle being impounded ($150 minimum last time I did one), lawyers fees to keep you out of jail, etc. And, like I said before, officers aren't allowed much discretion anymore when it comes to ticketing. Best you can hope for is to be ticketed, released on your own recog and walk away to pick your car up later. If that's the BEST you can hope for, $40 every few years doesn't seem like a lot to pay.

Insurance violations are even worse. In MD IIRC having a tagged vehicle uninsured ran $150 for the first month and $7 per DAY afterwards. Wouldn't take long to get into serious money playing that game. And, on top of that, if you do get pulled over and your car impounded they won't release your car without proof of insurance, unless you pay another tow truck to pick it up from the lot. When I was driving tow trucks it was $75 for hookup, $2 per mile afterwards. That was back in the mid '90s so I imagine it's gone up a little. So a simple traffic stop could easily run you up to $1k and send you to jail. Kinda makes that $40 every 5 years and $70 per month for insurance kinda trivial.

Edit: And if you think AAA or another tow club would help you out... wrong. AAA would not let us tow a vehicle that did not have valid plates or proof of insurance. We would have done it, for a fee, but AAA would not pay for it. Neither would Amoco, Allstate or any other roadside service club. And it is in their policies not to so there is no talking around it. If we got out to the vehicle and there was no valid tags on it we would call AAA, get re-imbursed for our time, but your car would still be sitting there. Actually had it happen before. Very unhappy person.

[.]

I don't know how widespread those systems might be, but it would make it impossible to drive an stolen, uninsured, or unregistered vehicle for any length of time.

As I read that, my memory was jogged about something I'd read recently. So, I looked for it.

Sure enough, 9 days ago the Boston PD suspended its use of scanners. They had "inadvertently" disclosed 68,000 plate numbers. So, the usual privacy scolds were up in arms.

Now, I support privacy as much as anyone, but there is a public interest in catching miscreants, especially felons.

Problem is, the argument that scanners will enable us to "find those crooks" or that scanners "would make it impossible to drive an stolen, uninsured, or unregistered vehicle for any length of time" doesn't seem to hold much, if any water, at least not in Boston.

As the article said:

One motorcycle that had been reported stolen triggered scanner alerts 59 times over six months, while another plate with lapsed insurance was scanned a total of 97 times in the same span.

10 to 15 times per month got no result. One might have thought that once was enough.

And:

Boston police chief technical officer John Daley indicated that each of these scans prompted an e-mail alert to the department’s Stolen Car Unit, but there is no indication that the motorcycle was ever apprehended or even stopped.

<snip>

It is unclear what Boston police have done with their mountain of scans, in part because police did not keep records of follow-ups on the data.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html

Well, OK, then. Close enough for government work, eh? Why should anyone expect anything else? After all, it's just the government and it's all for our own good.

These cameras/scanners are both on moving vehicles and in fixed locations. About 20% of police departments nationwide use them, probably soon to be a lot more. I can't wait.

The Boston results are enough to make you wonder why these scanners exist, since they don't seem to be doing much in the way of arrests or stolen property recovery. Never mind citations for driving without insurance or vehicle registration.

There's only one circumstance that I know of where scanners are effective and justifiable. Some cable channel has (or had, I haven't seen it recently) a show about Philadelphia parking meter cops who drive around in vehicles that can scan every parked car's plate.

They find the vehicles of those who can't be bothered to pay their previous (usually numerous) tickets and boot them. Immobilization almost always results in a lot of yelling and screaming. It's a bitch when you're a scofflaw and get caught.

That scanner program has a reason to exist, actually works and is totally justifiable.

[morrand]

My thought was; even if they sincerely think they are right they know they will lose so why are they fighting such a hopeless and extremely inconvenient battle over a relatively trivial issue?

Perhaps because it is such a nice, convenient battle to fight right up until they're caught. Takes next to no effort to not get a license. And in the meanwhile, it's an easy badge of honor. "Look! I am driving but I don't have a driver's license! I am a madcap rebel!" And that's phase 1.

And then the tickets come in. What an ego boost that must be, at first. The Man is so frightened that he's got to issue a ticket, got to put up a fight. You know you gotta be right when that starts happening. If it wasn't right, if it was just fantasy, then why would they bother? And that's phase 2.

So then you gotta keep fighting. No sense backing down now. So you do your net.research, and you learn the magic phrases that you need to bring to court, the phrases that are absolutely guaranteed to win the day. What a rush that must be. To go before the court, armed with absolute truth on your side, knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that, though mere mortals quake before the power of the bench, you are invincible! And that's phase 3.

And then it doesn't work. That's phase 4, the expensive phase. That's where the path forks. You wake up and realize you've not only been behaving badly, but are also out a lot of money and possibly your car as a result—admit you're wrong, in other words, and exit. Or, you can't admit it was wrong. It was undefeatable! I'd have won a fair fight! I was robbed! And then it's back to the well for the next idea, and back to phase 1 again.

That's my guess, anyway.

[JamesVincent]

Maryland approved and starting using them in 2010. I can find no actual results listed for how well they have done. There are several articles online talking about them but nothing very specific, pro or con.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-call ... r-privacy/

(CBS News) ROCKVILLE, Md. - On Maryland Highway 200, Officer Yancey Anthony patrols with two extra sets of eyes. Cameras, mounted on his cruiser's trunk, scan and photograph the license tags of passing cars -- sounding alarms when possible violators are spotted.

[bmxninja357]

its interesting how marc seems to be selling legal advice to his flock...

Consultations

Posted on June 01, 2006 by Marc Stevens

Phone consultations with Marc. $100 p/hr. Phone consultations involve a break down of your situation and examples of how to effectively get problems resolved i.e., what I have done in the past, why they were done and the results. We also discuss what to do if the problem isn’t initially resolved. On a limited […]

Motion to Strike/Dismiss Template

Posted on May 01, 2006 by Marc Stevens

There are two standard templates, state and federal. The state templates are written to include both civil and criminal elements. The grounds of the motions (demurrer in California, Kentucky) are no valid case/controversy, a lack of standing and no corpus delecti. The cross-reference is here. While the motion was written for Arizona, there are equivalents […]

Scripts for court/resolving disputes with tax agents

Posted on April 01, 2006 by Marc Stevens

Script of questions for court as discussed in book and on radio. There are 3 different scripts 1. criminal; 2. civil; and 3. tax. Each are sold separately and are $25 each. The criminal script does have some civil parts as it was written for a consolidated traffic proceeding. The tax script is geared towards […]

and like a champion he has a great refund policy!

Return Policy & Contact Information

Posted on December 05, 2005 by Marc Stevens

All sales are final. There are no refunds unless I cannot ship a product within a week of purchase

source: http://marcstevens.net/store

those gems all come from his store and despite the date of original posting all still seem valid. and since i have lately had to put up with some of his faithful flock of fundamentally flawed flim flamed fouls im wondering how he is getting away with this? books and videos and t-shirts i can concede are fair game for free speech; but selling legal advice on criminal and tax proceedings does cross some lines.

and while im here im wondering if anyone has compiled a list of his failings? it could come in handy.

peace,
ninj

[Jeffrey]

As far as I know we only have the recent IRS failure.

Marc is smart and focuses on traffic tickets and stuff that's easy to dismiss

[bmxninja357]

but that cant be. he gives quality advice to all. like this gem from his forum....

Marc Stevens Offline
Administrator

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.

hide and seek freedom with a little help from others.

all class there boys!

ninj

[Fmotlgroupie]

Marc Stevens Offline
Administrator

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

ninj

Also excellent advice for driving around with a kilo of coke and/or a dead hooker in the back seat. As you say Ninj, a pretty screwed up idea of fredom

[wserra]

its interesting how marc seems to be selling legal advice to his flock...

And has for years. And still has nothing to show for it. His MO: make himself a PITA in some low-priority proceeding, and maybe the cop won't show or the bank that issued the credit card will decide it's not worth it. Then he'll crow about "victory". As we've documented, whenever he takes on something more serious, his "client" gets his head handed to him.

Recent example: helping his buddy Armando Lopez welsh on a credit card debt. As his "proof" of success, Stevens posts this order - don't know why he posts a photo of a document rather than a scan, but it is Stevens. The order states quite clearly that the Court dismissed on its own motion for lack of prosecution - basically the bank said "Fuck it". That language in the order he posted doesn't stop Stevens from crowing about how he won based on "no evidence of jurisdiction and no valid contract". Does anyone else see that in the order?

and while im here im wondering if anyone has compiled a list of his failings? it could come in handy.

There are several examples in this thread and an earlier one.

[LPC]

and while im here im wondering if anyone has compiled a list of his failings? it could come in handy.

I just created a new "Tax Dossiers" page for Marc. See http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens.

All I have so far are the Edwards and Thornton cases, but will be looking for more.

[LPC]

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.

While looking for more cases involving Marc Stevens, I found a funny one.

It seems that Marc Stevens filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Michael Fitzpatrick. Marc Stevens v. Bonner County Seriff Daryl Wheeler, No. 2:13-cv-00053-LAB (U.S.D.C. Id. 1/28/13). Among the arguments in the petition:

1. No jurisdiction. Judge Bums repeatedly held the indictment itself was evidence the code applied to Michael and proved jurisdiction, see pretrial order 7 December 2012. [...] All Lori Hendrickson, the prosecutor, could provide were allegations the code was violated and to the code itself when asked for the facts the code applied.

Being subject to federal law is a major element of the alleged crime and may not be assumed. It was an irrefutable presumption leading to Michael's conviction. It is a denial of a fair trial and violated due process, see Ylandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441.

2. Larry Bums threatened Michael. Starting on Monday 7 January 2013 with the pretrial, judge Larry Bums started a week of constant threats against Michael if he challenged the facts the constitution and code applied to him. Michael was accused of violating a code and was not permitted to challenge the applicability. Burns stated on 9 January 2013, without the jury present, that he was going to permit this essential element of the code violations to be "presumed".

All elements of the code violations are to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Presuming an element is a denial of a fair trial and due process.

It is stressful enough to be put through a trial, but a second trial where the judge is continually threatening added a tremendous amount of duress making it almost unbearable for Michael. One cannot have a fair trial when under such duress.

3. Jury instructions assumed an element. Burns gave jury instructions the code was applicable and Michael was a taxpayer with a tax liability. There were no facts presented to prove this and Michael was threatened each time he tried to challenge this.

Those instructions to the jury was an assumption ofan element of the code violation. A code violation cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt without proving the code is applicable beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury instructions are not proving the element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Such also created an irrefutable presumption and all but guaranteed a conviction. Such presumptions violate due process, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441.

4. No presumption of innocence. From the start Bums insisted he had jurisdiction over Michael despite any facts from Lori Hendrickson. The applicability of the code is an element of the code violation. By assuming the code was applicable Bums could not presume innocence of the code violation.

Either the code is presumed not to apply (presumption of innocence) or Bums assumes it is despite any facts from the prosecution.

By not presuming Michael's innocence Burn's denied Michael a fair trial and violated due process.

[...]

7. Denial of effective cross. Michael was not permitted to challenge the allegations the code applied to him. Even when the IRS expert testified the liability was based on the code and the constitution, Michael was not pennitted to question him.

Burns, when stopping the cross at one point, stated the constitution was not relevant to the proceedings. The witness testified otherwise.

Michael was also denied the opportunity to cross the witnesses on the issue of willfulness. When asked about the coercive nature of taxation, the witnesses were not permitted to answer. Because taxes are coercive, paying is done under threat, duress and coercion, any payments Michael made were not because he believed I was required to pay, but to avoid going to jail.

A denial of effective cross-examination is a violation of due process.

Well, the petition was dismissed without prejudice because of ...

... wait for it ...

lack of standing.

[wserra]

Well, the petition was dismissed without prejudice because of ...

... wait for it ...

lack of standing.

Now, Dan, let's be fair. Judge Burns did take the time to call Stevens an “intruder or uninvited meddler”. That's gotta be worth something.

[notorial dissent]

The .pdf file comes back file not found when I try and load it.

[LPC]

The .pdf file comes back file not found when I try and load it.

Which PDF?

[LPC]

Well, the petition was dismissed without prejudice because of ...

... wait for it ...

lack of standing.

Now, Dan, let's be fair. Judge Burns did take the time to call Stevens an “intruder or uninvited meddler”. That's gotta be worth something.

But was Judge Burns aware of the irony of dismissing the petition of Mr. "Government Lacks Standing" because he himself lacks standing? That's what interests me.

Because if he wasn't aware of the irony, then we should make him aware.

I mean, Stevens himself will never see (or appreciate) the irony, but the judge might, and someone should (other than us, of course).