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.