One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[notorial dissent]

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11885450/Fitzpatrick%20Petition.pdf Comes up as file not found for me.

[LPC]

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11885450/Fitzpatrick%20Petition.pdf Comes up as file not found for me.

Hmm. Works fine for me.

But I've eliminated the space in the name, in case that was causing problems, so it's now https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/118 ... tition.pdf

And for some reason, it has to be https and not http.

[LPC]

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.

How do you know Banfield is a disciple of Stevens? (Other than the similarity of their arguments.)

The reason I ask is that I want to add Banfield to Stevens's "dossier," and I want to be able to document the connection. I don't see any reference to Stevens in the Indiana opinion, and I don't see any reference to Banfield on Stevens's website, so I don't yet see the connection.

[JamesVincent]

I think that must be a record. 28 witnesses called, 28 objections, 28 overruled. Talking about batting .000, he couldn't even swing the bat.

[notorial dissent]

As usual arguing the wrong case, but then that is just par for the course. I'm surprised there really wasn't anything about jurisdiction brought up, I always thought that was one of his pet complaints.

[The Observer]

I think that must be a record. 28 witnesses called, 28 objections, 28 overruled. Talking about batting .000, he couldn't even swing the bat.

Even worse, if this was baseball, he would only be given 27 strikeouts before the game was over. So he got an bonus at bat and still lost the game.

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like a pretty typical Marc Stevens™ all out effort to me, and his record is still unbroken, the "client" lost on all fronts.

[wserra]

How do you know Banfield is a disciple of Stevens? (Other than the similarity of their arguments.)

http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4782.html

[Dezcad]

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.

From the Order dismissing the Writ:

Mr. Stevens doesn’t even attempt that showing, and in all likelihood can’t make it. To the contrary, he displays the characteristics of an “intruder[] or uninvited meddler[]” with only a “generalized interest in constitutional governance” as he understands it.

I also like the "as he understands it" qualifier.

[Famspear]

A clueless pretender named Marc
Practiced “law” (although just for a lark).
All he does is to dabble;
And spout silly babble --
Completely at sea, in the dark.

No, his knowledge of law is quite nil --
He’s an amateur -- run of the mill.
He’s confused about “standing”;
Law’s just too demanding!
For his “clients”: a hard, bitter pill!

[.]

TP limerickry at its finest.

[Judge Roy Bean]

TP limerickry at its finest.

Please ... don't feed the trollimerick.

[Famspear]

TP limerickry at its finest.

Please ... don't feed the trollimerick.

buuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrp....


'scuse me....

[wserra]

Remember Marc L. Edwards of Wyoming? He's the guy with whom Stevens actually appeared in court (as an "aid to notetaking"), whose arguments the DJ called "sophistry" and the Tenth Circuit "patently frivolous", and whom the Circuit sanctioned $6000 for a frivolous appeal. Pretty thoroughly sliced and diced, right? Well, yesterday Stevens attempted to defend what happened to Edwards:

while Edwards lost the appeal, he's never paid a dime. He still never filed and they never collected.

Let's take a look.

It appears that a little more than that has happened. For example, there's this:

Filing Number:
U314227

IRS Serial Number:
593192109

Filing Type:
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

Action Type:
FEDERAL TAX LIEN

Filing Office:
CAMPBELL COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE
500 SOUTH GILLETTE AVENUE
GILLETTE, WY 82716

Filing County:
CAMPBELL

Filing Date:
11/02/2009

Debtor Information

Debtor:
EDWARDS, MARC L
[Address redacted]

Debtor Type:
INDIVIDUAL

Debtor Amount:
$138,565.00

Creditor:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Hmm. A $138K FTL. But, hey, Edwards "never paid a dime". Why, he'll be fine, so long as he never owns property. Or has a bank account. Or takes a job for other than cash. Or tries to leave anything to his kids (I'm sure they'll be grateful). Or opens a business in his name. Or needs to take out a loan. No problem.

And then there's this:

Filing Number: 201456998850
Filing Date: 06/13/2014
Expiration Date: 06/13/2024
Filing Type: ORIGINAL
Filing Office: SECRETARY OF STATE/UCC DIVISION
200 W 24TH ST
CHEYENNE, WY 82001
Debtor Information
Debtor(s): MARC L EDWARDS (AS GRANTOR)
[Redact Edwards' home address]
D&B DUNS Number: 04-137-1498
MARC LYNN EDWARDS
HATHAWAY BUILDING
CHEYENNE, WY 82002

Secured Party or Creditor Information
Secured Party(s):
ME INTERNATIONAL TRUST
[Redact Edwards' home address]

So he files a UCC-1 on himself in favor of a grantor trust that he set up in his living room. I'm sure that'll work.

Was that your idea too, Marc?

[LPC]

From two years ago:

Fitzpatrick has now filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (he is pro se). It squarely raises - insofar as it's possible to squarely raise gibberish - Stevens pet BS about no jurisdiction, no testimony that the code applies to Fitzie, no testimony that he has an obligation to pay taxes, etc. So we're about to see another DC (and perhaps later another CA) squarely toss Stevens in the trash.

I checked, and the actual results were rather mild (and so disappointing).

The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, stating that it had personal and subject matter jurisdiction for reasons explained in an earlier order, most of the other arguments about the conduct of the trial were not proper subjects for a Rule 29 motion, and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Fitzpatrick appealed, but voluntarily withdrew the appeal.

So it ended with something of a whimper and not a bang.

(The case is now reported at http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens)

[wserra]

Dan - Stevens has given you a position of honor.

[Burnaby49]

Again: “if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply” is an argument, a mere conclusory statement. As with any argument or opinion, it must be based on facts. While Dan would no doubt insist that is true with my arguments/opinions, this opinion is different. According to Dan Evans, this opinion does not require any facts to prove it’s true. Here we tend to see the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences, such as the sound of handcuffs being slammed on your wrists is all the evidence you need to prove the laws apply. Dan and his associates like this logical fallacy, they use it all the time in an attempt to prove the argument the laws apply.

I stand to be corrected but doesn't the above comment prove that Dan is right? The "fact" that you have the handcuffs on and are tossed in jail is pretty solid proof that the law applies.

And if;

"“if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply” is an argument, a mere conclusory statement."

is indeed nothing but an argument then it has to be inferred that no laws apply to anyone because they are all just contestable arguments. Anarchist heaven but overflowing jails say otherwise.

[wserra]

Burnaby - you aren't actually trying to use logic to analyze what Stevens says, are you?

For the lawyers here - and anyone else familiar with jurisdiction and standing - it is worth watching the 14.5 minutes of Stevens blather just to hear him go on for several minutes about how Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), supports him. Hint to Stevens, who obviously lacks a third-grade reading ability: the deficient factual allegations in Iqbal dealt with whether Iqbal's treatment was govt policy, not whether the District Court had jurisdiction and Iqbal had standing. Those were assumed - just as Courts have so assumed every time you or some acolyte raises the issue.

Might as well face it, Marc - when a court actually addresses your issues, you're 0 for everything.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby - you aren't actually trying to use logic to analyze what Stevens says, are you?

Sorry. It's the accountant in me. I just can't get past it.

[LPC]

Dan - Stevens has given you a position of honor.

Yeah, some "honor."

The most interesting quote:

Evans also cherry-picks by only using citations where my position was ignored and rejected.

Okay, so where are the citations to the cases where his position was not ignored and was accepted.

Yes?

Still waiting.

And still waiting.

Wait, here it is! Patti [Something] v. Cal. Franchise Tax Board. They wrote a letter that says that, "Based on the information you provided, we will take no further action at this time." And the information that was provided was....? A persuasive brief by Marc Stevens? A [false] statement that no income was received? A copy of the Sacramento telephone directory?

But you can take that letter to the bank. Just show it to any judge in any traffic court. They will not only void your traffic ticket, but will apologize to you for wasting your time.

No, I am "only using citations where my position was ignored and rejected" not because I am "cherry picking" but because those are the only citations there are.

May I also add that if I am "obsessed" with Marc Stevens, and "can’t stop writing about" him, it was only very small obsession, amounting to only a few hours over the last month. He will be *crushed* to know that I spent much more time on Pennsylvania Act 95 of 2014, which made a number of important changes to the Pennsylvania laws relating to durable powers of attorney, and about which I have written (in word volume) about 20 times more than I have written about him. And I will be speaking in two different CLE (continuing legal education) programs in the the next three weeks about Act 95, and as far as I can tell from my calendar, I won't be speaking about Marc Stevens at all.

There are other inaccuracies, but those are the ones worth addressing tonight.