One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[wserra]

Hey! I couldn't find it either! You bastard!

What CKB said. Sorry, webhick.

[Imalawman]

I have bets on Armando Montelongo.

My name is Armando Montelongo.

You sued my father.

Prepare to die.

Nice.

[Dezcad]

Okay, but who is Armando?

This is Armando - http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

He was mentioned in this thread about Stevens - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6768&start=60#p114294

[Judge Roy Bean]

Okay, but who is Armando?

This is Armando - http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

He was mentioned in this thread about Stevens - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6768&start=60#p114294

I love these myths. Oddly they don't get more original as time goes on; you'd think they would at least try to be more creative but I guess there's not too many ways to tell the same basic lie.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Okay, but who is Armando?

This is Armando - http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

He was mentioned in this thread about Stevens - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6768&start=60#p114294

Dismissed for "Parallel Overtime"? Someone in the Illuminati had the parking official in two places at the same time? Glitch in the matrix?

[Pottapaug1938]

Okay, but who is Armando?

This is Armando - http://www.rgvnostate.com/RgvNoState/Mc ... icket.html

He was mentioned in this thread about Stevens - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6768&start=60#p114294

Dismissed for "Parallel Overtime"? Someone in the Illuminati had the parking official in two places at the same time? Glitch in the matrix?

If this isn't a prime case of "I can dismiss this small ticket, and get this nutcase out of my hair; or I can find him responsible for the ticket, and have the people above me in the judicial food chain p*ssed off at me for making them take up their valuable time dealing with this wacko. I also have better things to do with my time. I'm brooming this one, kiddies", I don't know what is.

[Lambkin]

OK but there is another explanation for the same facts, namely that the ticket was dismissed because the officer could not remember the details, and the rest of the story is yet another kook's fantasy.

[Demosthenes]

Who is Armando?

Armando Lopez.

[Pottapaug1938]

OK but there is another explanation for the same facts, namely that the ticket was dismissed because the officer could not remember the details, and the rest of the story is yet another kook's fantasy.

I would imagine that the average parking enforcement officer is unlikely to remember very many of the situations in which he or she writes a citation; and if an inability to remember specific detaila about specific cars were a prerequisite to upholding the ticket, many more of them would be challenged. I still say that this falls under the "let's get this wacko out of our hair, and hope that he stays far away" heading.

[Quixote]

Armando appears to have turned a $4.00 fine for an expired meter into a potential $500.00 fine for a misdemeanor before getting it dismissed. (The fine might actually be less than $500 if Texas law restricts fines for parking tickets.)

Sec. 102-243. - Penalties for violations of article.

(a)
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person violating any provision of this article shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as prescribed by section 1-14.

(b)
Any person violating any provision of this article, as applicable, may voluntarily deposit the notice of violation of the ticket provided in this article along with the following fine, depending on the type of the violation:

(1)
Parked overtime:

If paid before 6:30 p.m. the next day $4.00

After 6:30 p.m. the next day 7.00

(2)
Parked in no parking zone 15.00

(3)
Parked out of lines 15.00

(4)
Parked in loading zone 15.00

(5)
Blocking crosswalk 15.00

(6)
Blocking alley 15.00

(7)
Parked within 20 fee of intersection 15.00

(8)
Parked over 18 inches from curb 15.00

(9)
Blocking driveway 15.00

(10)
Parked within 15 feet of fire hydrant 15.00

(11)
Blocking sidewalk 15.00

(12)
Double parking 15.00

Such deposit as provided in this subsection shall thereby exempt such person from the penalty provided for such violation in this section, and under such circumstances the penalty for such violation shall be a fine as provided in this subsection. Any person who voluntarily deposits such amount in U.S. currency, as provided in this section, shall be deemed to have entered a plea of guilty to such violation and tendered payment of the fine provided in this section.

(c)
If the $4.00 fine for overtime parking is not deposited as set forth in subsection (b) of this section in the traf-o-teria box later than 6:30 p.m. on the date following such violation, the fine will be $7.00 payable at the traffic safety department within the city, provided it is paid within ten days of the date of issuance of the overtime parking citation. Thereafter, the accused will be subject to a fine upon conviction in accordance with the provisions of section 1-14 of this Code. If any of the other fines as provided for in subsection (b) of this section are not deposited within ten days of the date of issuance of the notice of violation, thereafter the accused will be subject to a fine upon conviction of not to exceed the amount as set out in section 1-14.

(d)
Revenues from fines paid for violations of any provision of this article within the Heart of the City shall be deposited into the Downtown Services Parking Fund established by the city for the exclusive purpose of alleviating the parking needs of the Heart of the City.

(Code 1966, § 29-112; Ord. No. 1992-97, § I, 12-28-92; Ord. No. 1998-64, § 2, 7-13-98; Ord. No. 2001-78, § 3, 12-10-01; Ord. No. 2002-51, § 1, 8-26-02; Ord. No. 2005-95, § 2, 11-14-05; Ord. No. 2006-04, § 1, 1-16-06; Ord. No. 2008-30, § 3, 4-28-08)

Sec. 1-14. - General penalty for violations of Code; continuing violations.

(a)
Whenever in this Code, or in any ordinance of the city, an act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such Code or ordinance the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful, the violation shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $500.00, and it is further provided that anywhere in this Code or any ordinance wherein a fine of more or less than $500.00 is provided for violation thereof, notwithstanding such designation, the maximum fine shall be $500.00 for any violation unless State law specifically provides for a required fine less than $500.00 in which case the State law fine shall be observed. Each day any violation of this code or any violation of any ordinance shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.

(b)
Whenever in this Code, or any ordinance of the city, an act is prohibited, or the doing of a specific act is required, and in the event of the committing of an act which is prohibited or the failure to correspond to an act which is required, such act or omission constitutes an offense and unlawful conduct and is hereby declared to be against the peace and dignity of the state and the city. All such violations of this Code are punishable by a fine as provided for in this section and shall be under the jurisdiction of the municipal court in and for the city.

(Code 1966, § 1-5; Ord. No. 2005-92, § 1, 11-14-05)

[wserra]

I refuse to read any more Stevens crap.

Is he really claiming victory over the criminal state by virtue of beating a parking ticket? What's next - tearing the tag off a mattress?

[The Operative]

Armando appears to have turned a $4.00 fine for an expired meter into a potential $500.00 fine for a misdemeanor before getting it dismissed.

This dimwit did all of that over a $4.00 fine!!?? The time it took me to write this post is worth more than $4.00 to me. I would pay that small of a fine even if I believed I didn't deserve the ticket.

[Quixote]

Armando appears to have turned a $4.00 fine for an expired meter into a potential $500.00 fine for a misdemeanor before getting it dismissed.

This dimwit did all of that over a $4.00 fine!!?? The time it took me to write this post is worth more than $4.00 to me. I would pay that small of a fine even if I believed I didn't deserve the ticket.

And the City of McAllen appears to have a convenient drop box for easy payment. He wouldn't even have had to deal with any evil city employee.

If the $4.00 fine for overtime parking is not deposited as set forth in subsection (b) of this section in the traf-o-teria box later than 6:30 p.m. on the date following such violation, the fine will be $7.00 payable at the traffic safety department within the city, provided it is paid within ten days of the date of issuance of the overtime parking citation.

[bmielke]

Armando appears to have turned a $4.00 fine for an expired meter into a potential $500.00 fine for a misdemeanor before getting it dismissed.

This dimwit did all of that over a $4.00 fine!!?? The time it took me to write this post is worth more than $4.00 to me. I would pay that small of a fine even if I believed I didn't deserve the ticket.

I might go this far if I was unemployed, bored, and thought that the ticket was bogus...Like if the lime expired 30 seconds before the ticket was written and I was walking up to the meter.

[ArthurWankspittle]

OK but there is another explanation for the same facts, namely that the ticket was dismissed because the officer could not remember the details, and the rest of the story is yet another kook's fantasy.

I'll give you a serious possible scenario that combines both main views and a bit of the sovrun story: It was said that the prosecutor talked to the parking official. Let's say that's true. But the conversation went like:
"How long is this going to take? My wife is due any minute/grandma is seriously ill/any other domestic emergency."
"Could be ages, he's some sort of nutter who's going to tie us up in court all afternoon arguing over a $4 parking ticket. And I've got a golf game at 4:00."
"I can't even remember writing the ticket."
"Oh right. I'll tell the court you can't be sure about the ticket and they'll drop the case. You get off to your domestic emergency. Suits everyone. Thanks."

[The Operative]

Armando appears to have turned a $4.00 fine for an expired meter into a potential $500.00 fine for a misdemeanor before getting it dismissed.

This dimwit did all of that over a $4.00 fine!!?? The time it took me to write this post is worth more than $4.00 to me. I would pay that small of a fine even if I believed I didn't deserve the ticket.

I might go this far if I was unemployed, bored, and thought that the ticket was bogus...Like if the lime expired 30 seconds before the ticket was written and I was walking up to the meter.

Not even if I was unemployed. My time would be better used and worth more to me in actively looking for a job.

[LPC]

One of his [Stevens's] sources of authority is the Constitution of the State of Arizona, which he inexplicably refers to as "the PR".

I've been doing some searching on Steven's website, and sometimes "PR" seems to refer to the Arizona constitution, but sometimes it seems to refer to the federal constitution, and sometimes it seems to refer to the constitution of a different state. (And sometimes it clearly refers to "public relations.")

I suspect that "the PR" is an abbreviation for something like "prime reference" or "principal resource" or perhaps "principal rights" (for example, Stevens once wrote that "What is important is the PR that governments are established to protect rights, that is the foundation of the courts jurisdiction whether civil or criminal."), but I can't find anything on his website that clearly links the abbreviation "PR" to any combination of those words.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Well....
Having returned from a break in deepest Cornwall with no internet access, I was mildly thrilled to discover a thread on here where the OP was Marc Stevens no less.
Five pages of legal arguments flying back and forth I envisaged, and an opportunity to observe Stevens up against law professionals rather than the obedient lap dogs he appears to attract.
But, what a disappointment.
Stevens' pathetic MO of asking a vague question with a yes/no answer, to be followed by a sequence of more vague questions, the intention of which is to eventually draw the opponent into a kind of "Gotcha!" situation is proof enough (to me) that the man is a buffoon. If he genuinely believes that such a method would prove to be successful in court by applying these same tactics to a judge, he is surely an idiot.
How revealing that when no one was willing to play his silly game and provide the answers that he wanted to hear in the way he wished to hear them, he threw his toys out of his pram and stormed off.
What a lightweight.

[wserra]

I was mildly thrilled to discover a thread on here where the OP was Marc Stevens no less.

Stevens also posts to the "Marc Stevens Makes an Ass of Himself" thread. Start here for his "contributions". He does exactly what you describe there as well. We like it when scammers visit us.

That thread also contains analyses of cases Stevens claims as wins, in which his "clients" actually get creamed.

[wserra]

The only proof of anyone lying is about Wesley, lying that I limit access to my forum. But I don't see you attacking a proven liar. Why not attack Wesley for lying about me?

Which he thought because the captcha wasn't coming up for him when trying to register for your forum (which in effect blocked him from registering for the forum). Which it doesn't for me either in IE8 on Win7 or WinXP (Firefox is fine though). He later said that he mistaken.

That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him wrong. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a mistake and a lie says a lot about you.

Over the last month, that exchange has crossed my mind on several seemingly random occasions. I finally focused on why, and the reason hit me.

It's characteristic of fringe players unable to support their arguments on the merits to latch onto an opponent's mistake as supposed evidence of the correctness of their own position. Never mind that the opponent's mistake has nothing to do with those merits, because by the time the fringe player gets to this point s/he has already failed to prove them.

Holocaust deniers like to attempt to prove that the Holocaust didn't really occur (or, in the case of the more sophisticated deniers, that the Nazis "only" killed one million Jews) by playing off errors in survivors' testimony. Probably the best known of these is the claim that the Nazis made soap from murdered Jews. Many survivors testified that they saw this happen, and it was widely accepted as fact in the years following WWII. It is now pretty clearly established that it is not. From this error, deniers attempt to question the entirety of the Holocaust, a clear logical non-sequitur.

Similarly, creationists like to point to (among other errors) Hesperopithecus, or "Nebraska Man". For those who want the full story, see here. In short, a century ago a farmer in Nebraska found a tooth in a field, and sent it to a well-known paleontologist, the president of the Museum of Natural History. He classified it as a primate tooth, and wrote that it came from a previously-undiscovered species. Popular magazines of the day employed artists to "recreate" (from a tooth) what the primate looked like. Wrong. It turned out to be the tooth of an early pig, and the paper was retracted ten years after it was published. That doesn't stop creationists from claiming that this admitted error proves them right.

In both cases, people unable to prove their own conjectures resort to saying, "See, you're wrong!" - and in contexts that do nothing to prove their stuff. Moreover, responsible science and responsible history have admitted their error in those missteps, which errors do nothing to prove the wacko conjectures in the first place. We asked Stevens for proof that one single court has ruled in his favor. He gives two examples. We point out that his guy lost in both. Stevens then yells at me.

Draw your own conclusions.