One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[notorial dissent]

And when they're clueless enough to believe what Marvelous Mark is peddling to begin with, they really don't take much convincing to believe just about anything. His primary prey is the particularly clueless and gullible. Although he does seem to find less of them than some of his peers. Maybe he isn't as good salesman as he thinks he is, you suppose??

[wserra]

And when they're clueless enough to believe what Marvelous Mark is peddling to begin with, they really don't take much convincing to believe just about anything. His primary prey is the particularly clueless and gullible. Although he does seem to find less of them than some of his peers. Maybe he isn't as good salesman as he thinks he is, you suppose??

Dan and nd's point that Marc Stevens really has few "clueless and gullible": they may be right. But there is no one in the current TP firmament with the profile of a Schiff, or even of a Rosie or a Hendrickson. We're reduced to nattering nabobs like Bork, Lottahooey, Cryer and, yes, Stevens. My own very unscientific observations indicate that Stevens gets as much chatter as any of 'em. For example, a Sunday-morning hit on the SJ Forum shows a recent thread started by some clueless newbie facing a DUI being urged to consult Stevens. Lawdog is participating, but reason holds little sway over there.

So, in any event, about Marc Stevens: he has posted yet another in his series of recorded conversations with IRS personnel who refuse to start debating law with him. This time, the IRS employee actually hangs up on him. That, of course, is the perfectly appropriate reaction in the types of conversations he has - especially since he has no ability to represent anyone. But from that he concludes (and, of course, crows about having "proven") that the IRS doesn't follow the law.

Well, Marc, y'know the remedy the law itself provides for an agency that doesn't follow the law? Crow about it on the internet? Nope. Use it to fleece the clueless and gullible? Nope. Further bloat an already bloated ego? Nope. Take 'em to court.

'Course, Marc's already tried that. As we've seen here, whenever he has done that involving something more serious than a traffic ticket, his "client" gets sliced and diced. Remember the $6K in frivolous sanctions on top of the loss, Marc? If you've forgotten, we will keep the details safe here. Permanently.

BTW, if you google "Marc Stevens" IRS (there are other guys named Marc Stevens), Quatloos is now the number three hit, after only Stevens' own site.

[Demosthenes]

But there is no one in the current TP firmament with the profile of a Schiff, or even of a Rosie or a Hendrickson.

My private game of Whack-a-Mole is done.

[The Observer]

But there is no one in the current TP firmament with the profile of a Schiff, or even of a Rosie or a Hendrickson.

My private game of Whack-a-Mole is done.

I would have thought Peymon would still be worth considering.

[Famspear]

I would have thought Peymon would still be worth considering.

And how about Dave Champion? Now, there's an arrogant, know-nothing blowhard. The arrogant blowhards (such as Peter Hendrickson, Larken Rose, Marc Stevens, Dave Champion, etc.) are worthy of scorn.

Figures such as Irwin Schiff and Tommy Cryer just come across (to me, at least) not so much as arrogant blowhards, but rather as pathetic -- although they obviously have indirectly contributed to a lot of damage to people's lives (especially Schiff).

[wserra]

I know Q has a number of regulars who are high-level Wikipedia editors. I also know that it really isn't a priority of anyone here to expand on Q's Wiki stub. Still, Stevens' edit to it might be of interest:

Quatloos has been criticized for lumping in legitimate tax law researchers with tax scheme promoters. According to Marc Stevens, rather than just legitimately pointing out tax protest scams, Quatloos seems to be primarily a high profile website that acts as a deterrent to those seeking to discover the truth behind the United States tax laws.

Says the "researcher" whose delusions are stomped into dust every time they appear in court.

[LPC]

The entry has already been edited, and now reads:

Radio host Marc Stevens, who has been the subject of commentary at the Quatloos web site, has asserted that Quatloos acts as a deterrent to those seeking what Stevens contends is the truth behind the United States tax laws.[4]

Which still isn't right, in at least two ways.

I don't think Stevens can be a "radio host" if his "No State Project" audios aren't actually broadcast by any radio station.

And the linked article says nothing about Quatloos being "a deterrent to those seeking what Stevens contends is the truth behind the United States tax laws." It's just Stevens whining about how rude and unfair we are to him because we keep pointing out that his "standing" argument loses in court. You could infer from what Stevens write that Quatloos is a deterrent, but that's not a claim that Stevens himself makes in the article.

[wserra]

It's just Stevens whining about how rude and unfair we are to him because we keep pointing out that his "standing" argument loses in court.

It's equally Stevens whining about how rude and unfair judges are to him because they keep ruling against him (not to mention sanctioning his "clients").

[JamesVincent]

I posted a section in the talk page on the Q page. Famspear or Arthur would have to correct me but it seems to me under the rules of Wiki that the whole section is wrong. Not only does it depend on an opinion, its sole reference is to a blog. A blog is not allowed to be a reference unless it can be demonstrated to be from something else that is legitimate. Like if a newspaper has a separate blog. I dont think "We the People" qualifies.

[LPC]

I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I did include the "standing" argument in the FAQ, and Marc Stevens's loss in the Edwards case has a starring role.

[notorial dissent]

And, I am sure that, having pointed that loss out, its subsequent lack of success, and then having made a point of immortalizing it in you FAQ, has guaranteed your place as one of his all time favorite people.

[Famspear]

I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I did include the "standing" argument in the FAQ, and Marc Stevens's loss in the Edwards case has a starring role.

I suspect that "Marc Stevens" and Marc Edwards are one and the same person.

[wserra]

I don't think so. The case docs (as I discuss above) mention Stevens being present in court with Edwards.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
I don't think Stevens can be a "radio host" if his "No State Project" audios aren't actually broadcast by any radio station. ...

Another situation where technology has rendered a commonplace term moot.

Today, with very little effort, ANYONE can lay claim to being a "radio host."

[Famspear]

...
I don't think Stevens can be a "radio host" if his "No State Project" audios aren't actually broadcast by any radio station. ...

Another situation where technology has rendered a commonplace term moot.

Today, with very little effort, ANYONE can lay claim to being a "radio host."

Yes, presenting a program on the internet is not "radio," and it's not a "broadcast." These are technical terms that some people misuse today.

Even a television news program on CNN is "television", but it is not a television "broadcast."

Some of the rules defining exactly what is radio broadcasting are found at 47 CFR sections 73.14 and 73.201.

[Famspear]

However, see the Wikipedia article on "Talk radio." The article notes that:

Talk radio listening is now enjoyed not only on radios, but also smartphones with apps such as Stitcher and even time shifting services like http://DAR.fm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio

The expansions in the uses of terms such as "radio" and "broadcast" are examples of semantic shift, which is a never-ending characteristic of language. The change begins as an incorrect use of a term. As the incorrect use becomes more and more widespread, the "incorrectness" fades away, and the new "meaning" becomes accepted as "correct."

[paulogoulard]

Hmm... Interesting. I am the anonymous IP who made the edit that first introduced Marc Steven's name to the text (April 26 edit). The previous version (March 30, also by an anonymous IP - I wonder who) read " Quatloos has been repeatedly criticized for..." and later "Quatloos seems to be primarily a high profile website that acts as a deterrent to those seeking to discover the truth behind the United States tax laws.", and the footnoted "source" was a link to... Marc Stevens. You can go back and see what the text look like between March 30 and April 26.

I thought it was quite outrageous to take what someone said about the site and treat it as fact. However, I feared that if I removed the "criticism" outright Marc Stevens would just put it back, starting an edit war that I would not win, since I was not going to check the entry again soon, if ever. So I changed it to something like "Marc Stevens said..." and put a "citation needed" on the allegation of repeated criticism. My idea was to 1) make it clear that it was the attack of one person and 2) let people go to his name and decided for themselves if he is credible.

One "oblivy" edited the entry again the very next day: he removed the "repeatedly" but also my "citation needed". Famspear disputed the presence of the criticism on April 28 (on the talk page), but did not edit the entry at the time. "Oblivy" more or less supported my edit as being "factual" (since it merely reported that someone said something about Q) and recommended that positive things be added for balance. And nothing happened until August.

The naming of the guy was meant to be a temporary clarification that would lead to the criticism be exposed as quite biased, and eventually be removed. But going back, I think I should have just struck it, with an explanation in the talk page. Maybe I felt, like famspear, that I would be biased, although I am a very occasional contributor to the Quatloos forum. Oh, well.

[Famspear]

Hmm... Interesting. I am the anonymous IP who made the edit that first introduced Marc Steven's name to the text (April 26 edit). The previous version (March 30, also by an anonymous IP - I wonder who) read " Quatloos has been repeatedly criticized for..." and later "Quatloos seems to be primarily a high profile website that acts as a deterrent to those seeking to discover the truth behind the United States tax laws.", and the footnoted "source" was a link to... Marc Stevens. You can go back and see what the text look like between March 30 and April 26.

I thought it was quite outrageous to take what someone said about the site and treat it as fact. However, I feared that if I removed the "criticism" outright Marc Stevens would just put it back, starting an edit war that I would not win, since I was not going to check the entry again soon, if ever. So I changed it to something like "Marc Stevens said..." and put a "citation needed" on the allegation of repeated criticism. My idea was to 1) make it clear that it was the attack of one person and 2) let people go to his name and decided for themselves if he is credible.

One "oblivy" edited the entry again the very next day: he removed the "repeatedly" but also my "citation needed". Famspear disputed the presence of the criticism on April 28 (on the talk page), but did not edit the entry at the time. "Oblivy" more or less supported my edit as being "factual" (since it merely reported that someone said something about Q) and recommended that positive things be added for balance. And nothing happened until August.

The naming of the guy was meant to be a temporary clarification that would lead to the criticism be exposed as quite biased, and eventually be removed. But going back, I think I should have just struck it, with an explanation in the talk page. Maybe I felt, like famspear, that I would be biased, although I am a very occasional contributor to the Quatloos forum. Oh, well.

In August, another editor objected to the material, and I ended up removing it myself.

[wserra]

For anyone interested in Stevens, we're discussing a case (U.S. v. Fitzpatrick, 10-cr-89, Idaho) that will be worth following.

In Stevens' blog - see Quixote's link in the above thread - this case has received many, many comments, most praising Stevens for his grasp of the law (as if that had anything to do with a hung jury; more likely it aided the govt in obtaining the misdemeanor convictions). Fitzpatrick has now filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (he is pro se). It squarely raises - insofar as it's possible to squarely raise gibberish - Stevens pet BS about no jurisdiction, no testimony that the code applies to Fitzie, no testimony that he has an obligation to pay taxes, etc. So we're about to see another DC (and perhaps later another CA) squarely toss Stevens in the trash.

Except, of course, this won't end the Stevens rodomontade. Watch. Fitzie will have argued it wrong, or the judge(s) is (are) corrupt, or the dog ate the real papers, or the moon was in the wrong house. There will be something.

[wserra]

Stevens on us:

Quatloos is a website with a forum that has lawyers and government apologists; they have made many personal attacks against me. I’ve invited them on the show to present facts, they only make excuses and more personal attacks. They have no facts and they know it. They are good at ranting and calling names, but when is comes to providing evidence, they run away.

Their refusal to call the show and publicly address the facts is evidence of what they are.

A quick perusal of this thread and the earlier one in which Stevens participated will readily reveal who presents facts and who runs away.