One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[wserra]

Cool. But who's worried?

[notorial dissent]

Marvelous Marc.

[pigpot]

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.

"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".

[wserra]

"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g :shrug: You tell me "Wes".

What in your above quote is a lie? Since - unlike Stevens - I fully document everything, with unredacted sources, that should be easy to answer. So where's the lie?

[notorial dissent]

"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".

What in your above quote is a lie? Since - unlike Stevens - I fully document everything, with unredacted sources, that should be easy to answer. So where's the lie?

Piggy, you were asked a straight forward, simple question. Why do you not answer it?

[AndyK]

Piggy

The host of a radio show has a kill button to disconect the caller. Also, there's a delay between the conversation and the broadcast.

In effect, Wes would be as moderated as you are and would be cut off as soon as he says anything the host doesn't like.

Then, the host could continue with whatever he wants.

QED

[Jeffrey]

Lying about what exactly? Marc saying the Witts didn't lose in court?

[notorial dissent]

Yes, Piggy, once again, just exactly WHAT is WES lying about? You are great at making claims, but piss poor at the follow through. It's a perfectly simple straight forward question, why don't you reply?

Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted. Otherwise, stay in your corner if you have nothing dispositive to add to the discussion.

[AndyK]

Unfortunately, many of PP's replies are URLs to videos or texts of questionable validity/authority accompanied by PP's comment along the lines of "Just look at this and see how it proves my point."

He has flat-out NEVER posted a properly-attributed statement excised from the original document which does not require intensive reading or watching on our part.

With respect to his (and similar others) approach, I never follow their off-site links. If they can't state a verifiable something then I'm not going to do their research for them.

[notorial dissent]

Wise choice, which is also one of the reasons I haven't approved any of his posts, no actual response, no get cleared.

[The Observer]

Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.

Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.

[notorial dissent]

Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.

Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.

Reality's a bummer ain't it????!!!!!

[pigpot]

Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.

Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.

Reality's a bummer ain't it????!!!!!

Answer this could any of you? For anyone who considers a dismissal as relevant as a win (due to the trial not proceeding for whatever reason) can you show that it isn't as good as one (as a win in court) for that reason alone. Leaving all else aside for now. The trial is over for that person. End of. Simple. Court case gone regardless. I might not have made this case here before so it would be interesting to see whether you lot agree or not.

[wserra]

For anyone who considers a dismissal as relevant as a win

Relevant for what purpose? To show that the defendant walked out? Sure, it's relevant to that. To show that Stevens' mumbo-jumbo works? No, it's not relevant to that, unless you show that the case was dismissed due to the mumbo-jumbo. Not only can't you do that, but I can do the opposite: I can show (and have in fact shown) that every time a court has addressed Stevens' BS, he has lost. Every time.

Have you read Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? Remember the part where Hank Morgan, knowing that a solar eclipse was about to occur, pretends to be a great wizard who could blot out the sun? That's what Stevens does. He claims to have the keys to the kingdom. When the door actually opens, Stevens claims credit, and the rubes believe him. Forget the fact that the door only opens occasionally, when it does there is no proof that Stevens had anything to do with it, and when it is slammed in his face it somehow doesn't count.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... The trial is over for that person. End of. Simple. Court case gone regardless. I might not have made this case here before so it would be interesting to see whether you lot agree or not.

Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.

[wserra]

Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.

Worse than that. Even a not-guilty verdict doesn't establish the reason for that verdict. If you wish to prove a legal proposition, you cite law supporting it, not dismissals (or even verdicts). If Stevens wishes to prove that the prosecution needs evidence of jurisdiction beyond that the charged crime occurred in a particular place, he needs to cite law that says so. If he wishes to prove that the govt has no standing to enforce laws, he must cite law that says so.

Since he can't do that, however, he must not need to. QED.

[LaVidaRoja]

AND, IIRC, a dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE means that the case can be re-filed.

[Dr. Caligari]

For anyone who considers a dismissal as relevant as a win (due to the trial not proceeding for whatever reason) can you show that it isn't as good as one (as a win in court) for that reason alone.

Impossible to answer as phrased. Dismissed when-- before jeopardy attached or after? Due to failure of the prosecution's proof or for a different reason? Dismissed with or without prejudice?

The best I can say to your question is "sometimes."

[pigpot]

Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.

Worse than that. Even a not-guilty verdict doesn't establish the reason for that verdict. If you wish to prove a legal proposition, you cite law supporting it, not dismissals (or even verdicts). If Stevens wishes to prove that the prosecution needs evidence of jurisdiction beyond that the charged crime occurred in a particular place, he needs to cite law that says so. If he wishes to prove that the govt has no standing to enforce laws, he must cite law that says so.

Since he can't do that, however, he must not need to. QED.

Not at all. I never mentioned

"legal proposition"

that's what you brought into the post ""Wes". I was concerned only with this matter...

"For anyone who considers a dismissal as relevant as a win (due to the trial not proceeding for whatever reason) can you show that it isn't as good as one (as a win in court) for that reason alone. Leaving all else aside for now."

That's what I was asking. Not your question. My question. Answer it or don't. Either way is fine "Wesley". I'd just like anyone's thoughts on the matter at hand. Not what you want the question to be though.

[pigpot]

"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".

What in your above quote is a lie? Since - unlike Stevens - I fully document everything, with unredacted sources, that should be easy to answer. So where's the lie?

Why not jump on Marc's radio show "Wes"?