Marc Stevens and "Insufficient Evidence"

[pigpot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrnXFZY ... e=youtu.be

Not spamming. Bexar County Court decision. Fact.

[Burnaby49]

I listened to the entire eight minute video. One takeaway. Marc Stevens comes across as a total moron. If skeptics don't want to take my word for it feel free to spend eight excruciating minutes listening to him yourselves.

In a nutshell Marc claims that "Ginger" got off on a minor traffic offense by telling the judge there was insufficient evidence that the court had any jurisdiction over him. We scoffers laugh at Marc when he says things like this but he has proof this time! A copy of a court document saying that the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence. However it does not say it was dismissed because the prosecutor provided insufficient evidence that the court had had jurisdiction over Ginger, just that there was insufficient evidence. Period. Marc breezes past this minor issue with the magnanimous comment there were alternative interpretations of why there was insufficient evidence "Maybe there was insufficient evidence that there was an obstruction in the roadway. That's plausible but that's not probable." Why isn't it probable? Because Ginger's entire defense was that there was insufficient evidence and he got off on that basis. Proof positive of lack of jurisdiction! Documentary proof!

But I'm still left with that nagging point that the judgment does not say that there was insufficient evidence that the court had jurisdiction over Ginger. Marc arrives at that conclusion by inference, reading between the lines, making vague assumptions. However Marc somehow neglected to note the most obvious reason that trivial traffic ticket issues are dismissed for insufficient evidence. The ticketing cop doesn't show up in court to give evidence. Marc was entirely silent about the officer's attendance although it would have been a real triumph for him to have been able to say that the officer was there but saw the case dismissed notwithstanding his evidence. So why didn't Marc say that?

But Marc is a fair man who wants to air both sides of the controversy. So he has an invitation for those who think his evasions and assumptions are less than compelling. He has a weekly four hour radio show that he'd be happy to use to debate you in real time on the issue of why the two words "insufficient evidence" really mean "insufficient evidence because of lack of jurisdiction".

Piggy, I took the liberty of changing the discussion title to include Stevens' name in it.

[Jeffrey]

I would argue that Marc is smart enough to know that this does not prove his theories and is being deliberately deceptive.

[Burnaby49]

I would argue that Marc is smart enough to know that this does not prove his theories and is being deliberately deceptive.

I was suggesting that while still standing by my statement that he is an idiot. Anyone wishing to argue my conclusion regarding Marc's intelligence level must first listen the video.

It's clear that the reason that the court used Insufficient Evidence as the reason for the dismissal was because there was insufficient evidence presented to the court to prove that Ginger had committed the offense, not that the prosecution had not proven to the court that it had jurisdiction over Ginger. Why? A number of reasons. Firstly lack of jurisdiction is a standard reason for dismissal in it's own right, it doesn't need to be buried under an insufficient evidence heading. Had lack of jurisdiction been the reason for dismissal that's what the document would have recorded. Happens all the time in Canada but not for Marc's bullshit reasons. A good example is the Federal court of Canada. It has jurisdiction over non-criminal and non-tax federal laws. The Tax Court of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction for hearing appeals from income tax assessments. Yet taxpayers are constantly trying to bypass Tax Court by taking their tax arguments directly to the Federal Court. All Crown counsel does is tell the court that it lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter because the issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court. The Federal Court agrees and dismisses. But it doesn't give some vague "insufficient evidence" reason for dismissal, it states lack of jurisdiction.

This leads to the second reason. It is Marc's ridiculous argument that the prosecution, in pursuing a case in front of a court, has to prove to the satisfaction of the court that it has jurisdiction over the individual being tried. Not the lack of jurisdiction I mentioned where the charge is outside of the court's legal authority, like the Federal Court of Canada not having jurisdiction in income tax matters, but the more fundamental matter of it not having any jurisdiction over Ginger because the law he is accused of breaking doesn't exist. If the court agreed with Ginger, as Marc says that it did, it would, with that one decision, have put itself out of business. Has anyone heard anything about a court voluntarily shutting itself down because it decided that laws don't exist?

[Jeffrey]

I agree that his argument is stupid, but I don't think he really believes what he's saying. He's just trying to mislead his audience and people like pigpot (successfully in pigpot's case).

[pigpot]

But Marc is a fair man who wants to air both sides of the controversy. So he has an invitation for those who think his evasions and assumptions are less than compelling. He has a weekly four hour radio show that he'd be happy to use to debate you in real time on the issue of why the two words "insufficient evidence" really mean "insufficient evidence because of lack of jurisdiction".

Piggy, I took the liberty of changing the discussion title to include Stevens' name in it.

So get on the call. Why shy away from Marc's invitation? Step up to the plate. Shit or get off the potty.

[Burnaby49]

Why don't I spend four endless hours squabbling with Marc? I prefer not to argue with morons.

"Show me the law" has a fatal lure for fools. They believe that there are no laws that actually have any legal basis so they can do what they want. However there is one small problem they haven't worked past. The police and courts hold a different opinion on the issue and they're the ones who have the power to arrest you and toss your ass in jail regardless of your beliefs in the legitimacy of the law.

I said in the Michael Millar discussion that Michael holds a real, sincere belief that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has no authority over him. Yet he showed up every day for his trial because he knew that if he didn't the court would issue a bench warrant and he'd find his ass in jail.

And, to get specific, what examples does Stevens have that his theory actually works? Apart from minor traffic tickets where the cops don't show up? I'd give him more credibility if he showed some verifiable examples of, say, murder, DUI's, or income tax evasion. Cases on issues that are significant enough that the prosecution witnesses bother to show up.

[notorial dissent]

IAMNAL but my impression is that when a court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, the word "evidence" does not EVER enter in to it. They come right out and say dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. They do it all the time. Usually with sovicts and other nuts trying to prosecute a case in the wrong or with no jurisdiction, but they come right out and say it. So when a court comes out and says "lack of evidence" I am inclined to believe they mean exactly that. Most likely the officer didn't show up if it was a traffic case. Now how Stevens construes it, is another matter of irreality entirely.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Surely "insufficient evidence" relates to the charge. There was insufficient evidence to prove what he was charged with.

[wserra]

Surely "insufficient evidence" relates to the charge. There was insufficient evidence to prove what he was charged with.

That tends to happen when the cop doesn't show.

Thread moved to be in same forum as other Stevens threads.

[Jeffrey]

Surely "insufficient evidence" relates to the charge. There was insufficient evidence to prove what he was charged with.

Are we 100% sure about that guys? You don't wanna give Marc the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that this small traffic court in Texas has just rendered the constitution of Texas and the United States null and void, dissolved the state of Texas and abolished the rule of law? That thanks to this Bexar county judge, anyone is free to rape, murder or steal without fear of prosecution from the government?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Steven simply conflates evidence and jurisdiction for his own aggrandizement among the ignorant.

[The Observer]

If Marc lived 150 years ago, he would be selling patent medicine in a traveling show.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm not going to accept Marc's invitation for the same reason that I decline similar invitations from flat or hollow earthers, birfers, troofers and the like.

[GaryBale]

And, to get specific, what examples does Stevens have that his theory actually works? Apart from minor traffic tickets where the cops don't show up? I'd give him more credibility if he showed some verifiable examples of, say, murder, DUI's, or income tax evasion. Cases on issues that are significant enough that the prosecution witnesses bother to show up.

A motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence isn't a theory. He's making a declaration that the claimant hasn't provided evidence to support all elements of the claim, and in particular the claim that the defendant is bound by a particular collection of legislation. There are only three possibilities;

1. No evidence is necessary
2. Evidence is provided
3. Evidence is not provided

Marc Stevens appears to dismiss 1 as an option, so I'm not convinced that he's being dishonest. I also think it's possible some Judges may be confused by the paperwork, consider fighting him/supporter a waste of resources, or might actually concur but take a pragmatic approach to dealing with the matter.

I think the solution would be to publish an academic demonstration that 1 is not only valid, but the default position.

[wserra]

He's making a declaration that the claimant hasn't provided evidence to support all elements of the claim, and in particular the claim that the defendant is bound by a particular collection of legislation. There are only three possibilities;

1. No evidence is necessary
2. Evidence is provided
3. Evidence is not provided

...
I think the solution would be to publish an academic demonstration that 1 is not only valid, but the default position.

I'll respond, but only as to questions that are specific enough to be meaningful, unlike those Stevens poses. So: evidence as to what?

[GaryBale]

I'll respond, but only as to questions that are specific enough to be meaningful, unlike those Stevens poses. So: evidence as to what?

Having not seen any of these Motion to Dismiss templates I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I've seen some of the videos and I gather he specifically notes a lack of evidence that a particular set of legislation applies to the defendant. In most cases the wording would be along the lines of "no evidence has been provided that the Utah State Constitution applies to Fred Bloggs". It may not be limited, or there may be other details in the motion, but I'm not sure that's relevant if this is the key point of contention. He's not referring to a single or collection of Acts either, he's refuting the claim that a state constitution (or equivalent) is applicable in principle, and appears to be expecting the claimant to produce evidence of a contract. Hence the request for a thorough and academic explanation of why such matters are axiomatic.

[notorial dissent]

Which is Stevens' stock in trade and is the veriest of bull droppings. It is not up to the state to prove to Stevens' satisfaction, or anyone else for that matter, that they have jurisdiction or that a law applies, it is up to the defendant to prove that it doesn't, at which Stevens and his suckers regularly FAIL. If the case was dismissed for lack of evidence it was because either a witness didn't show up, or the state failed to provide sufficient proof of their claim, if it had been a jurisdictional issue the court would have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[wserra]

I gather he specifically notes a lack of evidence that a particular set of legislation applies to the defendant.

You won't find an argument from me there. All sorts of laws don't apply to individuals all the time. The Montreal Convention only applies to people on international flights. Most provisions of the Jones Act only apply to merchant seamen. And on and on.

He's not referring to a single or collection of Acts either, he's refuting the claim that a state constitution (or equivalent) is applicable in principle, and appears to be expecting the claimant to produce evidence of a contract.

Oh. Well, that's complete bullshit. You use the word "refute" in an interesting way: Stevens says it doesn't apply, so it doesn't. Q.E.D.

Laws are not contracts. There is no requirement of a meeting of the minds for a law to apply. Whenever Stevens tries that nonsense, he loses. Frequently with real adverse consequences to his "client". For example, take Mark Edwards. The whole sad story is laid out here, complete with links to documents that prove the entire thing. Stevens sat next to Edwards, who not only lost, but was sanctioned $6K for "sophistry" that was "patently frivolous". Not my words, those of the trial and appellate courts.

You want a "thorough and academic explanation"? I could surely do that, but I'll go you one better. Read what happened in the real world, and what will happen again every single time it comes up.

[GaryBale]

He's not referring to a single or collection of Acts either, he's refuting the claim that a state constitution (or equivalent) is applicable in principle, and appears to be expecting the claimant to produce evidence of a contract.

Oh. Well, that's complete bullshit. You use the word "refute" in an interesting way: Stevens says it doesn't apply, so it doesn't. Q.E.D.

I'm not sure that's what he is doing, or even possible in the motion or otherwise. Most of the time he's talking about a ticket of some form, and perhaps a statement from a cop. This ticket will state that the defendant violated some traffic code within some set of legislation. I believe the motion is in effect a statement that no evidence has been provided to support the claim that particular set of legislation applies to the defendant. I don't think it states the legislation doesn't apply, or provides evidence it does not.

... For example, take Mark Edwards. The whole sad story is laid out here, ...

I went through the documents and typed out some of the text in response, but the site asked me to login again and I somehow lost it all. Anyway, it's a very old case (2005) and of four motions filed only the first was even close in meaning to the spiel on his radio show, although the wording isn't particularly clear. Assuming the essence of this earlier version of the Marc Stevens is in effect the same as today's motion, the Judge's response suggests he didn't quite understand, and the citations from the Powell IRS case didn't address the issue.

The references from the Powell case refer to a "taxpayer" facing a heavy burden of proof if they wish to oppose an IRS application for enforcement of a summons, while the IRS are only required to produce an affidavit from an IRS agent. Marc Stevens would be objecting to the IRS claim that the defendant is a "taxpayer", but in the Powell case this has already been established. Perhaps is seems odd to question that, but if we imagine the IRS brought a case against me (I've never worked in the US) the case should never reach a point where I could be classed as a "taxpayer".

I got the impression the judges involved had no real interest in the case and merely skimmed through the paperwork having seen many similar motions in the past. Need something current that actually addresses the motion he's filing, with reasoning not just one man's conclusion that he can simply dismiss.