One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[LPC]

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

I did find a link between James Back and Marc Stevens in a transcript of a "No State Project" chat.

No evidence of direct communications between Stevens and Back, because Stevens did not participate in that particular session, but it still demonstrates that Back was aware of Stevens and his BS theories.

[bmxninja357]

I get a good chuckle at the success stories on stevens site.

marcstevens.net/successes

I wonder if anyone there ever verifies them with paperwork?

Peace
ninj

[notorial dissent]

More importantly can Marc provide same, and the answer of course is NO. One of the victories he claims was for a client who got sent to jail. So big win. Marc's previous fails are chronicled in the thread in his name. He incidentally is a member here and doesn't like it here since he can't claim victory and go home, those nasty lawyers on site come back with the real results of his "wins" and he really really doesn't like that. He's another of the great gurus who can't stand not having the last word the way he does on his/their own site.

[nebuer]

I get a good chuckle at the success stories on stevens site.

marcstevens.net/successes

I wonder if anyone there ever verifies them with paperwork?

Peace
ninj

In fairness, his website does at actually look reasonably credible - at least from the design perspective. Its not that usual mish-mash of 90's retrograde web stylz.

[wserra]

In fairness, I don't care what his site looks like. I'd welcome the "usual mish-mash of 90's retrograde web stylz" so long as part of the mish-mash was proof that his methods work. It isn't, of course, because he writes nonsense.

[wserra]

Over on Stevens' site, poor poster "scar" writes about how he was "railroaded" by Judge Holguin in Pima County, AZ, traffic court - Stevens' back yard. He begins, "so my trial for my second ticket went horrible today. i'm not sure how to describe it without using expletives. the judge was your typical egotistical maniac and railroaded me at every attempt". Poor scar tried to argue that there was no evidence of jurisdiction, that the State had no standing, that the cop was incompetent to testify, that there was no injured party, and more - the entire Stevens litany. All to no avail.

So you picture the jack-booted egotistical maniac on his throne with the black candles burning on each side, no? Then you listen to the recording of the trial. Yes, it's 45 minutes, but worth it. This is the politest, most patient jack-booted thug I've ever run across - far, far more patient than I would have been. He has obviously dealt with sovrun numbnuts like scar before. He lets scar make his points - once - then explains why they're wrong and moves on. At the very end, I have a feeling he shows his displeasure in the fine - $1000. I don't know, obviously, but I'd bet that's in part a frivpen.

Proof that every time Stevens' nonsense is ruled on he loses will not stop the, well, numbnuts over there from continuing to kiss his ass.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... Yes, it's 45 minutes, but worth it. ...

The fact that this Judge devoted 45 minutes of the court's time on this drivel should alert the average taxpayer to the absolute waste of resources these bozos bring about.

The tax court has a legislated friv-pen, perhaps the states should consider similar approaches for the deliberately stupid.

[notorial dissent]

Over on Stevens' site, poor poster "scar" writes about how he was "railroaded" by Judge Holguin in Pima County, AZ, traffic court - Stevens' back yard. He begins, "so my trial for my second ticket went horrible today. i'm not sure how to describe it without using expletives. the judge was your typical egotistical maniac and railroaded me at every attempt". Poor scar tried to argue that there was no evidence of jurisdiction, that the State had no standing, that the cop was incompetent to testify, that there was no injured party, and more - the entire Stevens litany. All to no avail.

So you picture the jack-booted egotistical maniac on his throne with the black candles burning on each side, no? Then you listen to the recording of the trial. Yes, it's 45 minutes, but worth it. This is the politest, most patient jack-booted thug I've ever run across - far, far more patient than I would have been. He has obviously dealt with sovrun numbnuts like scar before. He lets scar make his points - once - then explains why they're wrong and moves on. At the very end, I have a feeling he shows his displeasure in the fine - $1000. I don't know, obviously, but I'd bet that's in part a frivpen.

Proof that every time Stevens' nonsense is ruled on he loses will not stop the, well, numbnuts over there from continuing to kiss his ass.

Well, learn something new every day, no not that Stevens is scum, that is already established fact, no that he lives in AZ, for some reason I have no real justification for I thought he was one of the New England nutters. Ah well. How back to our regularly scheduled cray cray.

So poor old "sacr" got "railroaded" did he, that must be StevensspeakPP for got shut down on his intended nonsense. Actually, I think the "egotistical maniac" was the one before the bar, not on the bench. Numbnutz didn't end up in jail for contempt so I suspect the judge was pretty even handed and fair, just not putting up with sovcit nonsense. And all this furor over a traffic ticket no less, wonder if he'll manage to parlay it in to serious jail time before he's done.

WES, as to the judge, he lives in the southern whack job and rwnj home and preserve, I'm sure he's seen jsut about all of it and isn't having any.

Yeah either numbnutz was going really fast in something big, or that fine had to do with mouthing off and general dumbness. Still, I say good on him.

[wserra]

Not that anyone should need further proof, of course, but we have it anyway: someone pays Stevens, he goes to court, they lose. Then Stevens brags about it.

United States v. James Witt, 15 cv 418 (CAED), is yet another proceeding to enforce an IRS summons. Witt and Stevens go in loaded for bear: they have called the revenue agent whose case it is, and gotten him to admit (see the affidavit attached to Witt's "motion to dismiss") that he has no evidence that the Constitution and USC apply to Witt. What more could anyone want, right?

So in the motion they trot out the Stevens wisdom - no proof of jurisdiction, no standing, law doesn't apply to Witt anyway. I'll bet you don't see what's coming, folks - they lose. M-J recommends enforcing the summons, pointing out the obvious - Witt is here, the law applies to him. The M-J observes in passing something that we say a lot - if the Constitution and laws don't apply to Witt, there is no reason not to unceremoniously toss him into the ocean. The DJ adopts the recommendation and directs Witt to comply with the summons, pointing out another obvious fact - the Witt/Stevens arguments are frivolous.

Witt appeals to the Ninth Circuit, filing this scholarly brief, which contains such pearls of wisdom as the trenchant observation that the M-J adopted the govt's position. Oh, the humanity! Meanwhile, Stevens hocks up this article and the accompanying youtube. Stevens attacks the AUSA who wrote the govt's appeal brief, by posting what appear to be photos of her and her infant child. He accompanies those photos with lots of pseudo-exasperated grunts, which may well express his thoughts better than he could with words. Stevens doesn't point out - and likely his acolytes are too dumb to realize - that the opinions she expresses in the briefs aren't hers, but are those of the M-J and DJ below.

So why doesn't Stevens post pictures of the judges with their children? Sorry, rhetorical.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... Witt and Stevens go in loaded for bear: they have called the revenue agent whose case it is, and gotten him to admit ... that he has no evidence that the Constitution and USC apply to Witt.

Loaded for bear with an empty squirt gun. He should also have asked the agent for "evidence" that the agent is not a shape-shifting lizard.

[Jeffrey]

Surely he can be charged with something over the pictures of the attorney.

[wserra]

Someone is getting a little rattled.

[NYGman]

Someone is getting a little rattled.

He really doesn't like you Wes, I think it quite funny that he feels he has to post links like that about you, obviously you are having an impact on him, or maybe he just needs someone to blame for his real failures.

[Arthur Rubin]

Someone is getting a little rattled.

Would it be appropriate to point out there is no evidence the dismissal order he posted was related to his argument, or, in fact, to a case where his argument was presented?

[Famspear]

Someone is getting a little rattled.

He really doesn't like you Wes, I think it quite funny that he feels he has to post links like that about you, obviously you are having an impact on him, or maybe he just needs someone to blame for his real failures.

Marc Stevens may be suffering from irreversible damage to his psyche. I believe it's what psychologists call decompensation.



Marc's obsessive ranting about Wes is evidence that being told the truth has made Marc very unhappy. His ranting reminds me of the same sort of thing that is still going on with "Harvester," who, the last time I looked a while back, was still ranting about me in some other internet forum, even though I've had no contact with him in years.

Harvester seems to "see" me everywhere. He suffers from paranoia.

Marc probably suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and definitely suffers from garden variety incompetence.

[wserra]

Someone is getting a little rattled.

Would it be appropriate to point out there is no evidence the dismissal order he posted was related to his argument, or, in fact, to a case where his argument was presented?

I did. Not that it matters over there.

[wserra]

Wow. I just noticed that Stevens, in the blog post, either deleted or never posted what led up to the order. When read together, there is only one possible interpretation.

First, judge asks dumbass ADA to respond to Stevens' motion:

Dumbass ADA responds like this:


And this order, highly predictably, results:


What I wrote characterizing this:

Judge directs ADA to respond to motion. Dumbass ADA "responds" by simply telling the judge that he should deny it. The judge, understandably pissed off, decides to teach dumbass ADA a lesson. He points out that the ADA's response contained no law, no facts, no argument, and grants the motion. It is and will be perfectly clear to everyone in the real world - in other words, not here - that the judge who wrote this order was not agreeing that he had no jurisdiction, or that the state had no standing, or anything of the kind. He was sending a message that he expected to be taken more seriously than this ADA took him.

Seems completely obvious. Except to Stevens.

[The Observer]

Stevens would probably at best interpret the events and the result as evidence that the DA's office knew they were going to lose and thus "chickened out" by filing a response they knew would result in the case being tossed rather than face being "owned" in court by Stevens.

Remember: being narcissistic means never having to say you are wrong.

[notorial dissent]

Also comes under the heading of being delusional, means you're delusional, which Stevens definitely is.

[Jeffrey]

Don't worry we're working on a little something to hit back at Stevens.

Little preview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjhKQ2mkq-Q