Re: One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)
Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:37 pm
Cool. But who's worried?
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".wserra wrote: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.
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?pigpot wrote:"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g :shrug: You tell me "Wes".
Piggy, you were asked a straight forward, simple question. Why do you not answer it?wserra wrote: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?pigpot wrote:"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".
Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.notorial dissent wrote:Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.
Reality's a bummer ain't it????!!!!!The Observer wrote:Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.notorial dissent wrote:Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.
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.notorial dissent wrote:Reality's a bummer ain't it????!!!!!The Observer wrote:Well, with those kinds of rules, I guess pigpot will never get to post.notorial dissent wrote:Hint, if you leave out your usual gutter and scatological language, personal attacks, deflections, general garbage, and answer the question, you'll get posted.
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.pigpot wrote:For anyone who considers a dismissal as relevant as a win
Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.pigpot wrote: ... 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.
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.Judge Roy Bean wrote:Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.
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?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.
Not at all. I never mentionedwserra wrote: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.Judge Roy Bean wrote:Nonsense. You're conflating a dismissal with a not-guilty verdict.
Since he can't do that, however, he must not need to. QED.
that's what you brought into the post ""Wes". I was concerned only with this matter..."legal proposition"
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."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."
Why not jump on Marc's radio show "Wes"?wserra wrote: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?pigpot wrote:"Wes" are you lying, Marc says you are doing so? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrn2T6wZ27g You tell me "Wes".