One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[JamesVincent]

These written instruments apply as a matter of law. In other words, the law applies because the law says so. Dan Evans fails to understand that is a common logical fallacy, circular logic.

Funny, the courts commonly refer to this as precedent, not circular logic.

[rogfulton]

Funny, the courts commonly refer to this as precedent, not circular logic.

As do most persons in the real world.

[notorial dissent]

Well, there you have the problem and the answer, Marc Stevens is not even remotely in the real world. He lives in a fantasy world of his own making that has no connection to this one.

[LPC]

These written instruments apply as a matter of law. In other words, the law applies because the law says so. Dan Evans fails to understand that is a common logical fallacy, circular logic.

Funny, the courts commonly refer to this as precedent, not circular logic.

I'm don't think that what he's talking about there is about judicial precedent, but rather about how you prove that a law applies, and in most cases you know that the law applies because the law itself says so.

The fact that a law applies because the law itself says so is not "circular" because the law did not create itself. It was enacted by the legislature, by enacting a law that specifies to what it applies, the legislature is simply specifying how it has chosen to exercise it's legislative power. (E.g., it has declared that this law should apply to this thing, but not that thing.)

The legislature has the power to enact legislation because the constitution says so, and the constitution can say so because it was ratified by the people, and the people have the power to govern themselves.

[notorial dissent]

You're being too complicated, too thorough, and much too logical here.

Stevens wants you to "prove" to his satisfaction, that the law, any law in particular applies to him, or his victim client, at this immediate point, and this particular instance, not that the law applies in general or at all. Therefore, you have a situation that will never happen since you will NEVER EVER prove it to his satisfaction, thus his ongoing plaint, and his victims clients continual losses in court.

[.]

I think Dan is exactly right.

And being thorough and logical, complicated or not -- and what Dan said is not complicated -- is exactly what this site is about and precisely why the totally ridiculous Stevens and his misguided marks are completely wrong and will never win in any court. Unless a traffic cop fails to appear to testify.

The only thing I would change is the it's/its typo.

[notorial dissent]

I quite agree with what Dan is saying and it does explain and spell out why Marc is so very very wrong. On the other hand it has nothing to do with Marc Stevens™ logic.

[Gregg]

I think Dan is exactly right.

And being thorough and logical, complicated or not -- and what Dan said is not complicated -- is exactly what this site is about and precisely why the totally ridiculous Stevens and his misguided marks are completely wrong and will never win in any court. Unless a traffic cop fails to appear to testify.

The only thing I would change is the it's/its typo.

Pretty much my thinking, although, since you bring it up, and strictly picking nits, I don't exactly agree with

The legislature has the power to enact legislation because the constitution says so, and the constitution can say so because it was ratified by the people, and the people have the power to govern themselves.

I would say, regarding the US Constitution that the States ratified it. But I make no claim to be even a shadow of the legal scholar he is.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I think Dan is exactly right.
...
I would say, regarding the US Constitution that the States ratified it. But I make no claim to be even a shadow of the legal scholar he is.

A minor point I'll add - it really was the "people" that decided on how they would be governed. The elected delegates of the State conventions eventually voted in sufficient numbers and in enough States to ratify it - but the debate was contentious and the process took many months.

Not even a whiney legal-wanabe like Stevens can change history.

[wserra]

Dan, you're in trouble now. You claimed that Stevens had no personal victories, but failed to report that he got a parking ticket dismissed when the cop didn't show.

Shame, shame.

[JamesVincent]

agree with Jack Worthington on September 10th, 2014 at 10:58 pm and know of only one greater deceiver than Dan Evans, this deceiver wants us to walk into the light should we find ourselves in a special predicament, his name is Lucifer. Dan Evans is most likely a close study of him. Look up what lucifer means.

Anyway, Dan Evans exists only because we give him the attention as we are now. I found out that if one ignores him, he will go away. He is not an attorney/lawyer, just a schmuck who will say its blue when you say red, just to argue.

comment from Wes' link.

Better watch out, you're one step below the boss, he doesn't like competition.

[LPC]

Dan, you're in trouble now. You claimed that Stevens had no personal victories, but failed to report that he got a parking ticket dismissed when the cop didn't show.

Shame, shame.

I'm quite sure that, in the history of legal research, the failure to discover the disposition of a traffic ticket in Tempe, Arizona, has never before been described as a failure to do "simple research."

Meanwhile, from Stevens's own account of the "Success Story":

As I’ve mentioned before, seventy-five percent of the time my motion to dismiss for a lack of a cause of action is filed, the cops don’t show up.

But if you don't file his motion to dismiss, the cops don't show up only 74% of the time.

My favorite quotes:

I would have been more aggressive, but he was using a walker.

And:

I can only speculate at this point though.

And:

But, to anyone who has been in traffic court can attest that’s already self-evident truth.

Yep, that's a success story alright. A blend of "only speculate" and "self-evident truth."

[The Observer]

Better watch out, you're one step below the boss, he doesn't like competition.

You missed the best quote from the responses:

Dan Evans is just an elitist criminal operating under the cover/cloak of “lawyer.” Commie/socialists operate under the cloak of “Populist” or “Progressive” or “liberal” or Democrat or Republican...

According to my calculations, they are saying that there is a 20% chance of Dan masquerading as a Republican. If nothing else gets Dan's blood to boil, it would have to be this.

[wserra]

Yep, that's a success story alright. A blend of "only speculate" and "self-evident truth."

And "parking ticket". Don't forget the grave legal issue before the court.

[Arthur Rubin]

As I’ve mentioned before, seventy-five percent of the time my motion to dismiss for a lack of a cause of action is filed, the cops don’t show up.

But if you don't file his motion to dismiss, the cops don't show up only 80% of the time.

Fixed it for you.

[wserra]

I'd watch out, Dan. Stevens is obsessed with you.

[JamesVincent]

Yay, I finally made it into some whackjob's diatribe against a fellow Quatloosian.

And as far as precedent, it’s also precedent that non-whites were property. So much for precedent (opinion) regarding the validity of an argument. There the precedent is the constitution was to protect slavery. Read the opinion, I’m not making it up, it’s the Dredd Scott opinion all supporters of the constitution should be proud of.

Of course it didn't help that he didn't even know how to spell Dred Scott or that he used an already overturned precedent to try to prove that precedent is not proof of the law. Or maybe he was thinking about Judge Dredd?

[grixit]

Judge Dredd Scott will lay down some separate and unequal justice!

[wserra]

Stevens' bullshit once again bites the dust; Stevens acolyte goes to jail. Read all about it.

[wserra]

Judge Dredd Scott will lay down some separate and unequal justice!

Just noticed that. I realize that it doesn't fit the thread as well, but you're thinking of Judge Plessy. Or Judge Ferguson.