Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

WorBlux · 03-07-2011, 07:23 PM

RealSkinny Wrote:Not only did the defendant lose, but they were out an additional $6,000. Why did Marc post this as a "Success"?

I believe the original context was that Marc claimed he had a judge yelling at him for moving to strike all of the witnesses legal opinons after the judge declared him incompetent to give legal opinions.

Wserra asked for a docket number, and Marc gave it.

RealSkinny · 05-15-2011, 06:30 AM

First off, I want to make a full apology for my long absence before finally responding to this topic. Sometimes life gets in the way of the things we'd rather be doing.

Second, I want to make a half apology to Marc, and I'll explain why it's only half.

I come to this board to discuss legal topics as a hobby. For me, this is entertainment. It's a leisure activity, and once I sign off and step away from the keyboard, it doesn't continue to impact my day to day life. Often times I forget that, even though this is just a hobby for me, this is Marc's career. This is how he makes a living. While I can step away from the computer and go about my life, Marc can't. If someone comes to this board and discredits him, he has to deal with that quickly, or otherwise face the remarks dipping into his livelihood. When I realize this, I regret the way I jumped into this thread and made my inquiries about the effectiveness of Marc's legal advice. I was over zealous, especially considering there may be a career at stake here, and so for this, I do feel like apologizing.

However, I said I only want to make a half apology, and here's why. Even though I was over zealous, Marc is making a career of the legal advice he provides via his radio program, his book, and the motion templates he sells. Marc is selling a product. He's selling a service, and when a person sells a service, don't the customers have a right to know what it is they are paying for? Although I jumped into this topic a bit abruptly, I still think all of us are owed a bit of disclosure.

Going over the discussions I've had with Marc and his customers, I've noticed I've had a lot of moments of admitted confusion and misunderstanding. At first I thought it was just because I was unfamiliar with the topics on this board, but now I think the blame for the confusion rests solely with Marc. Let me pose this question: What does Marc's legal advice do for you?

Marc claims it's not about winning. None of it. Not the book, the radio program, or the motion templates. Once you're in the courtroom, you've lost. Marc is not selling "winning" advice. Marc is selling "damage control". Can any single person on this board explain what "damage control" even means? Does it mean my case will get dismissed? Does it mean my fine will be reduced? I have no idea, and I'm betting no one else does either.

This topic, despite it's maliciousness, has brought forth a valid question that deserves an answer. If I pay for Marc's legal advice, what is it I'm getting? Even by Marc's own admission, he does not give "winning" advice. So that leaves me to wonder... What service does Marc provide in exchange for my money? Damage control? I don't know what that is. I'm just going to pose it as a straight forward question, because I think we all deserve a little disclosure.

If I pay for Marc's services, what benefit do I receive?

I also feel obliged to finish what I started. I questioned the usefulness of Marc's advice because it appeared, at least to me, that some of the challenges to Marc's legal conclusions made earlier in this thread showed real validity. I was told that I was out of my element and I should familiarize myself with what was going on before I responded. So I did. Here's what I've found:

There was some evidence to support both sides. There's some evidence to support the position that Marc's advice doesn't actually help you win in the courtroom, and may actually cause you to incur greater fines or punishment than you would have without it. There's also some evidence to support the claim that Marc's advice can help you get your cases dismissed. Unfortunately, I've found the evidence against Marc is fairly strong, while the evidence supporting Marc is mostly Anecdotal. I think this will be easiest to show if we compare.

First we have two cases that weigh against Marc. In this thread, on page 4 http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.p...0&start=45, someone already posted a link to court documents featuring a case that Marc himself cited. Those documents feature an actual court opinion that goes over many of Marc's biggest arguments and dismisses them one by one. The court opinion refers to the arguments as "frivolous" and "sophistry". There was also a claim that the argument resulted in Marc's client receiving an additional $6,000 fine.

The reason this evidence is so strong is because it's an actual court opinion, written by a Judge who heard Marc's arguments. If you want to know what's going to happen to you when you use Marc's advice in the courtroom, you can't get a better prediction than this. Does it matter if the Judge is wrong? Does it matter if the Judge is being contradictory or hypocritical? No, it doesn't. I've asked many times before if the point of Marc's advice is to reveal the hypocrisy of the courts. He said no. The point is damage control. Unless having your case called sophistry and receiving a $6,000 fine is damage control, this is a strong piece of evidence that Marc's advice does not work in practice

Here we have another court opinion. http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2723 In this case, the court once again considers one of Marc's legal theories and rules against it. This one features the corpus delicti argument. Does that mean it will never work? I can't tell you for sure, but here's one time where we have definitive proof that it did not work.

So do we have any proof that Marc's advice has had at least some degree of success? The kind we might refer to as damage control? Sort of. I hate to be rude about this, but the evidence supporting Marc is pretty thin, and I'll explain why. Here are two links he provided to show his advice does work.

Here, http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=2716, we have a dismissal that was supposedly the result of Marc's advice. I say supposedly because we don't have an actual opinion. We have a document showing a dismissal, and we have a story from the defendant who claims the judge dismissed the case because the police officer did not show up, even though the defendant saw the police officer in the court house that same day. The implication here is that the court was afraid to address Marc's arguments head on. There's a few problems, though. Having a ticket dismissed because the officer doesn't show, which had the effect of unnecessarily delaying the trial, doesn't really support Marc's arguments. Anyone would have had their ticket dismissed in the same circumstances, with or without Marc's help. In order to believe Marc's advice had a hand in winning this one, we first need to believe the defendant's story about seeing the police officer in the courtroom. We have to believe the defendant was not lying, and we also have to believe that he couldn't have been mistaken about what the officer looked like. Presumably, he had not seen the police officer since he received his ticket, which was almost two months prior.

Even once we believe the defendant, we have to accept there is no other explanation except that the court was afraid of addressing Marc's argument and decided to give a dismissal instead. This already seems implausible considering we already have two examples of the court addressing Marc's arguments directly and still finding them invalid. If they weren't afraid before, why should we believe they're afraid now?

In order to accept this evidence, we need to believe the defendant's anecdote, and even then the victory is only implied. This is not nearly as strong as a court opinion that could have stated they were dismissing the case because there was no corpus delicti, or no standing.

Here's another one. http://www.marcstevens.net/board/viewtop...f=4&t=2639. In this one, we have a screen shot of the daily court docket showing a dismissal. Unfortunately, the evidence is once again anecdotal. The docket doesn't say why the case was dismissed. The poster claims it was because the officer was questioned and could not answer how many elements are in a valid cause of action. He also claims this was attempted by the following 12 people, and all of them had their cases dismissed. However, the screenshot only shows two dismissals, and one occurred before the Poster's case. The poster also reveals that it wasn't his case, it was his buddy's case, and he wasn't actually there, but we can trust the information because he's been friends with the guy for four years and he's not one to lie or distort.

So there you have it. Two court opinions against Marc, two second hand anecdotal stories in support of Marc. I don't want to tell anyone how they should weigh the evidence, but I am personally not feeling too confident about what Marc's advice can do for me in front of the judge. Marc! Is there any way you can provide something a little more concrete to show this stuff actually works? Maybe a court opinion or something comparable? I hate to be an ass about the whole thing, but I think it's time to step up and put a stop to the whole debate once and for all. It can't be that hard, right? You must have lots of stuff lying around from all the clients you helped. I think it's only fair to provide some testimonials before people cough up dough for your help.

05-16-2011, 07:55 AM

RealSkinny Wrote:Does it matter if the Judge is wrong? Does it matter if the Judge is being contradictory or hypocritical? No, it doesn't.

Wow. :eekeek:

NonEntity · 05-16-2011, 08:07 AM

RealSkinny Wrote:I think it's only fair to provide some testimonials before people cough up dough for your help.

In other words, you think that people are not capable of making reasoned decisions for themselves as to where to spend their own money, where to take a chance on new ideas. You're a petty tyrant. (Besides just generally being a twit! LOL

) How can you speak of "it's [sic] only fair" when your own sense of fairness is such that you will not accept that others make their own choices for themselves?

- NonE

eye2i2hear · 05-16-2011, 10:36 AM

RealSkinny Wrote:Although I jumped into this topic a bit abruptly, I still think all of us are owed a bit of disclosure.

Along this line of thinking, might I ask you: have you read Marc's book, Adventures In Legal Land?
continuing...

Quote:...now I think the blame for the confusion rests solely with Marc. Let me pose this question: What does Marc's legal advice do for you?

I'd assume you're asking this in the general sense? Which from my perspective, may reveal part of your reasoning conclusion/confusion? For just one aspect, how does one conclude the likes of "do for you?" (as a specified/consistent/etc results) when one is dealing with the patently delusional?!? (if you don't agree that it's patent, then we've got another realm/level to explore/expose).
Is asking such, possibly evidence of one still too absorbed in delusion? I'm jus'askin'.

Quote:Marc claims it's not about winning. None of it. Not the book, the radio program, or the motion templates. Once you're in the courtroom, you've lost. Marc is not selling "winning" advice. Marc is selling "damage control". Can any single person on this board explain what "damage control" even means? Does it mean my case will get dismissed? Does it mean my fine will be reduced?

First, I find it interesting, if not revealing, that you put the word "winning" in quotes the second instance, but not the first. As Mr. Voltaire is attributed with saying, "If you wish to discourse (communicate) with me, first define your terms."
As is the case with most instances of discourse, and how much moreso when dealing with what is for most (in these circles) a lifetime of delusional/illusional cultural influence (indoctriNation), word meanings are precarious. Top it off with asking, how rational is it to expect consistency --as some universal/general "you" --from those steeped in, and content with delusion (aka The State)?
Thus, with this word 'winning', I'll offer that there are two distinct -to almost opposite- usages. Briefly [sic], you've got The Legal seeking perspective, and you've got the factual seeking objective. The Legal side skirts the popular side; the popular side skirts the delusional Majority. 'Winning' for Most then is getting a "Court" 'record' of some form e.g. "Opinion", "ruling", "decree", etc. Those seeking the more factual 'side' tend to measure differently; thus 'winning' equates more with --ney, IS damage control --which works out to be things like confrontation, resisting, unveiling, revealing, making as obvious as possible, witnessing, exposing, and the likes, regarding the delusion/the illusions. Thus it is winning in the long term/long run; it is winning in regards to the hope of an eventual more peaceful, as a more voluntary future --and that more, as much, being relative to others as it is one's immediate gratification, etc.

Quote: I have no idea, and I'm betting no one else does either.

I wish you'd specified the wager, :tongue2: as I for one, have a clear idea of what it 'means'. "Means" of course, getting us back to Mr. Voltaire and his point?!

One who is seeking to be left alone --as one wishing to deal with others, and be dealt with by others, on a voluntary basis, accepts that any of those who don't live by that logically consistent reasoning, by default or inherentcy is 'the loser' --ie the opposite of 'winning' (ie losing voluntary association/mutual benefit). Marc has on occasion conveyed this as the productive versus the parasitical. If there are parasites, one is perpetually losing inherently; it's only a matter of determining the degree --and thus seeking damage control in the worse case scenarios (e.g. "Court").
The crucial premise and foundation is thus the goal [sic] line of voluntary association. Damage control means any and all instances whereby a reducing of the hiding of the coercion ('payments'), being either monetary in form, or being mindsets perpetuating such, occurs. Part of the illusion fueling the perpetuated delusion is to require "legal precedent" (much less consistent/majority "cases") in order, and only, to have a 'winning' product.
All this being: my meaning.

Quote:If I pay for Marc's legal advice, what is it I'm getting? Even by Marc's own admission, he does not give "winning" advice. So that leaves me to wonder... What service does Marc provide in exchange for my money? Damage control? I don't know what that is. I'm just going to pose it as a straight forward question, because I think we all deserve a little disclosure.

Who is this "we all" of which you (presume?) to speak?! I note this for a potential specific purpose; here's to hoping it resonates with 'you'.

Quote:If I pay for Marc's services, what benefit do I receive?

I take no issue with your questions, per se. I would counter that until you clarify --and specify your (personal/individual) objectives, you'll only find the same (subjective) questions circling about your self. Are you interested in things 'Official'? And "on the record"? Or are you interested more in a natural state? And things from a logical, rational, reasoned (empirical) state?
Folks caught up in some degree of (maintaining) Legality necessity will inherently remained perplexed, regarding Marc's approach --that is my two cents worth for you.

And sure, it's arguable that We all would like to have The Official Records ('Win' form). But that's delusional --because It's delusional as The State of mind being con-fusion.

Quote:I hate to be an ass about the whole thing...

I, candidly, can express that I can only hope this is sincere. Butt I can at least express my appreciation of the expression of the sentiment.

Quote:...but I think it's time to step up and put a stop to the whole debate once and for all. It can't be that hard, right? You must have lots of stuff lying around from all the clients you helped. I think it's only fair to provide some testimonials before people cough up dough for your help.

pfft. Back to Legal land yet again. Is there even a 'debate'?! Facts are a slippery enough thing; notions, how much moreso?! Brickwall

***Marc Stevens*** · 05-17-2011, 04:29 PM

RealSkinny Wrote:First off, I want to make a full apology for my long absence before finally responding to this topic. Sometimes life gets in the way of the things we'd rather be doing.

Second, I want to make a half apology to Marc, and I'll explain why it's only half.

I come to this board to discuss legal topics as a hobby. For me, this is entertainment. It's a leisure activity, and once I sign off and step away from the keyboard, it doesn't continue to impact my day to day life. Often times I forget that, even though this is just a hobby for me, this is Marc's career. This is how he makes a living. While I can step away from the computer and go about my life, Marc can't. If someone comes to this board and discredits him, he has to deal with that quickly, or otherwise face the remarks dipping into his livelihood. When I realize this, I regret the way I jumped into this thread and made my inquiries about the effectiveness of Marc's legal advice. I was over zealous, especially considering there may be a career at stake here, and so for this, I do feel like apologizing.

There is more than enough material on this website for people interested in the truth and what I do and have said to come to a rational decision on their own. I do a weekly radio show where I encourage dissent and open, honest investigation; even if I had the money, I would not screen calls to the show as that only restricts the dialogue and insulates the host from issues they prefer to avoid. I'm also happy to go on other radio shows and take questions and have never asked for the questions in advance. Most of the radio shows I've done have been mainstream, so I've had my share of attacks, both personal and issue based.

RealSkinny Wrote:However, I said I only want to make a half apology, and here's why. Even though I was over zealous, Marc is making a career of the legal advice he provides via his radio program, his book, and the motion templates he sells. Marc is selling a product. He's selling a service, and when a person sells a service, don't the customers have a right to know what it is they are paying for? Although I jumped into this topic a bit abruptly, I still think all of us are owed a bit of disclosure.

The material is here on the site and again, I do a 3 hour weekly talk show, there are now hundreds of hours of archived shows where I discuss this disclosure you're looking for. There have been dozens of callers relating their experiences, good and bad, in court. It's not like we screen or otherwise hide the train wrecks. In fact, I usually spend much more time discussing the train wrecks such as the last show about the contraband turkeys. Skinny, why do you think I spend so much time talking about train wrecks? I did most of the hearing on the contraband turkey hearing, if there was no real track record of getting tickets/assessments thrown out, why would I publicly discuss the times it doesn't work out?

RealSkinny Wrote:Going over the discussions I've had with Marc and his customers, I've noticed I've had a lot of moments of admitted confusion and misunderstanding. At first I thought it was just because I was unfamiliar with the topics on this board, but now I think the blame for the confusion rests solely with Marc. Let me pose this question: What does Marc's legal advice do for you?

If you're confused it may be because you have not read the book and listened to the show. What I do for people, though I very rarely give what is called legal advice off the air, is teach them about the system and demystify it for them. I show people what is really going on and how a few questions can gut the appearance of legitimacy. People have reported that even though the ticket was not kicked out, they were empowered to stand up for themselves. I teach people how to more effectively resolve problems and let them know there are situations where, unless you are John Grinder, Richard Bandler or Derren Brown, you probably won't be able to resolve it.

RealSkinny Wrote:Marc claims it's not about winning. None of it. Not the book, the radio program, or the motion templates. Once you're in the courtroom, you've lost. Marc is not selling "winning" advice. Marc is selling "damage control". Can any single person on this board explain what "damage control" even means? Does it mean my case will get dismissed? Does it mean my fine will be reduced? I have no idea, and I'm betting no one else does either.

Here is a clear demonstration you do not listen to the radio show. I have explained this hundreds of times. Your ignorance does not extend to those who have read the book and listen to the show.

RealSkinny Wrote:This topic, despite it's maliciousness, has brought forth a valid question that deserves an answer. If I pay for Marc's legal advice, what is it I'm getting? Even by Marc's own admission, he does not give "winning" advice. So that leaves me to wonder... What service does Marc provide in exchange for my money? Damage control? I don't know what that is. I'm just going to pose it as a straight forward question, because I think we all deserve a little disclosure.

If I pay for Marc's services, what benefit do I receive?

I wrote above. People get information and confidence to defend themselves and know right from the beginning there is no guarantee of success or replicating the success of others. Some people also pay me to do the paperwork and phone calls for tax problems. Sometimes people just can't be bothered doing it themselves or want me on the line because of my experience

RealSkinny Wrote:I also feel obliged to finish what I started. I questioned the usefulness of Marc's advice because it appeared, at least to me, that some of the challenges to Marc's legal conclusions made earlier in this thread showed real validity. I was told that I was out of my element and I should familiarize myself with what was going on before I responded. So I did. Here's what I've found:

There was some evidence to support both sides. There's some evidence to support the position that Marc's advice doesn't actually help you win in the courtroom, and may actually cause you to incur greater fines or punishment than you would have without it. There's also some evidence to support the claim that Marc's advice can help you get your cases dismissed. Unfortunately, I've found the evidence against Marc is fairly strong, while the evidence supporting Marc is mostly Anecdotal. I think this will be easiest to show if we compare.

First we have two cases that weigh against Marc. In this thread, on page 4 http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.p...0&start=45, someone already posted a link to court documents featuring a case that Marc himself cited. Those documents feature an actual court opinion that goes over many of Marc's biggest arguments and dismisses them one by one. The court opinion refers to the arguments as "frivolous" and "sophistry". There was also a claim that the argument resulted in Marc's client receiving an additional $6,000 fine.

The reason this evidence is so strong is because it's an actual court opinion, written by a Judge who heard Marc's arguments. If you want to know what's going to happen to you when you use Marc's advice in the courtroom, you can't get a better prediction than this. Does it matter if the Judge is wrong? Does it matter if the Judge is being contradictory or hypocritical? No, it doesn't. I've asked many times before if the point of Marc's advice is to reveal the hypocrisy of the courts. He said no. The point is damage control. Unless having your case called sophistry and receiving a $6,000 fine is damage control, this is a strong piece of evidence that Marc's advice does not work in practice

Wow, it's amazing how you admit how subjective it can be and then seek scientific proof. If it doesn't matter, then why bother doing anything? In such a situation, nothing is effective. You also fail to recognize the IRS has never tried to actually collect the $6,000, he's been left alone for years now, which was the objective from the start. Again, if what I teach was not effective, why would I make it publicly available when things did not go well?

I am the 1st to admit what I do is not always effective, there are lots of variables at play. You seem to live in a static world and forget this is highly subjective with lots of variables. Take a few minutes and think about the variables at play when someone goes into court. Some people get pretty shaken up when a judge starts screaming about contempt and they freeze; does that mean that what I've taught them has no merit?

RealSkinny Wrote:Here we have another court opinion. http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2723 In this case, the court once again considers one of Marc's legal theories and rules against it. This one features the corpus delicti argument. Does that mean it will never work? I can't tell you for sure, but here's one time where we have definitive proof that it did not work.

It's not my legal theory. Whether a judge is consistent with the law or not is not a statement about the law. There are many times where judges are wrong and are overturned.

RealSkinny Wrote:So do we have any proof that Marc's advice has had at least some degree of success? The kind we might refer to as damage control? Sort of. I hate to be rude about this, but the evidence supporting Marc is pretty thin, and I'll explain why. Here are two links he provided to show his advice does work.

Here, http://marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=2716, we have a dismissal that was supposedly the result of Marc's advice. I say supposedly because we don't have an actual opinion. We have a document showing a dismissal, and we have a story from the defendant who claims the judge dismissed the case because the police officer did not show up, even though the defendant saw the police officer in the court house that same day. The implication here is that the court was afraid to address Marc's arguments head on. There's a few problems, though. Having a ticket dismissed because the officer doesn't show, which had the effect of unnecessarily delaying the trial, doesn't really support Marc's arguments. Anyone would have had their ticket dismissed in the same circumstances, with or without Marc's help. In order to believe Marc's advice had a hand in winning this one, we first need to believe the defendant's story about seeing the police officer in the courtroom. We have to believe the defendant was not lying, and we also have to believe that he couldn't have been mistaken about what the officer looked like. Presumably, he had not seen the police officer since he received his ticket, which was almost two months prior.

Even once we believe the defendant, we have to accept there is no other explanation except that the court was afraid of addressing Marc's argument and decided to give a dismissal instead. This already seems implausible considering we already have two examples of the court addressing Marc's arguments directly and still finding them invalid. If they weren't afraid before, why should we believe they're afraid now?

In order to accept this evidence, we need to believe the defendant's anecdote, and even then the victory is only implied. This is not nearly as strong as a court opinion that could have stated they were dismissing the case because there was no corpus delicti, or no standing.

Here's another one. http://www.marcstevens.net/board/viewtop...f=4&t=2639. In this one, we have a screen shot of the daily court docket showing a dismissal. Unfortunately, the evidence is once again anecdotal. The docket doesn't say why the case was dismissed. The poster claims it was because the officer was questioned and could not answer how many elements are in a valid cause of action. He also claims this was attempted by the following 12 people, and all of them had their cases dismissed. However, the screenshot only shows two dismissals, and one occurred before the Poster's case. The poster also reveals that it wasn't his case, it was his buddy's case, and he wasn't actually there, but we can trust the information because he's been friends with the guy for four years and he's not one to lie or distort.

So there you have it. Two court opinions against Marc, two second hand anecdotal stories in support of Marc. I don't want to tell anyone how they should weigh the evidence, but I am personally not feeling too confident about what Marc's advice can do for me in front of the judge. Marc! Is there any way you can provide something a little more concrete to show this stuff actually works? Maybe a court opinion or something comparable? I hate to be an ass about the whole thing, but I think it's time to step up and put a stop to the whole debate once and for all. It can't be that hard, right? You must have lots of stuff lying around from all the clients you helped. I think it's only fair to provide some testimonials before people cough up dough for your help.

You forget all the phone calls people have made to the show reporting what happened with them. I have tons of emails, but those are not proof. Anyone who listens to the show will know even though I ask people to post details of what happened in court here on the forum, they almost never do.

I will keep looking for files with court orders.

But you can't see the merit in asking a judge in a traffic court who he represents, or asking if a civil traffic proceeding is in the nature of a contract dispute or tort?

Let's do this, you purposely get a parking ticket and I'll help you defend against it. We'll even take up a fund to pay if it's not kicked out. But, I'd like to have a media rep there so we can get a report on your performance, just so you'll have an idea of the variables I mentioned above.

NonEntity · 05-17-2011, 04:51 PM

Whutz wrong, Marc? Can't find the Anti-Troll Button?

- NonE

P.S. If you keep feeding them they just grow fatter! :rolleyes2:

***Marc Stevens*** · 05-17-2011, 05:07 PM

NonEntity Wrote:Whutz wrong, Marc? Can't find the Anti-Troll Button?

- NonE

P.S. If you keep feeding them they just grow fatter! :rolleyes2:

I don't think he's trolling. I issued a challenge though, let's see if skinny wants to put the material to the test where is counts.

zonsb · 05-17-2011, 06:13 PM

Marc can correct me if I'm wrong. Marc's products and services are offered on a voluntary basis and aside from the knowledge a customer gains from them they can be used to defend against initiatory force, threat of force and fraud -- especially fraud -- of the State's "justice" (injustice) system. His products perform as advertised and he has many satisfied customers.

Also, asking the judge who he or she represents is priceless -- like so many other nuggets Marc freely gives.

I detect skinny's insincerity as he attempts to set the standard of performance for what another person creates and other people consume. I wonder if he works in public relations.

06-23-2011, 09:34 PM

In response to RealSkinny:

I have used Marc's templates and had a phone consult. The result were as follows:
Phoenix Court: 3 cases, won 2 lost 1 (is currently under appeal)
Scottsdale Court: 3 cases, 2 thrown out, 1 lost (is currently under appeal)

I expect to win both cases on appeal (now that I know what to say and how to say it).

Marc's information gave me the confidence to go into court, with all parties stacked against me, and cross-examine, make motions, make legal arguments, etc.

You learn about:
motion to dismiss for lack of standing/corpus delecti (it works)
motion to vacate the plea (when the judge illegally enters a plea on your behalf)
interlocutory appeal (when the judge is forcing you to go to trial)
cross-examination questions and technique (this really rattles the cops and prosecutors if you practice because most prosecutors at the traffic court level are novices in regards court tactics and have never come up against anyone with a brain)

As well, reading the other posts on this forum helps me to learn more. Marc also started me on the road of discovery that I could defend my rights successfully, and now I read information on court strategy all over the internet.

I did tell Marc that I would post the entire story once I finish the appeals. But trust me, for those reading right now, Marc's stuff works.

Chris in Scottsdale (will give my last name later, once my cases are completed)

RealSkinny · (This post was last modified: 09-21-2011 04:44 AM by RealSkinny.)

(05-17-2011 04:29 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote: If you're confused it may be because you have not read the book and listened to the show. What I do for people, though I very rarely give what is called legal advice off the air, is teach them about the system and demystify it for them. I show people what is really going on and how a few questions can gut the appearance of legitimacy. People have reported that even though the ticket was not kicked out, they were empowered to stand up for themselves. I teach people how to more effectively resolve problems and let them know there are situations where, unless you are John Grinder, Richard Bandler or Derren Brown, you probably won't be able to resolve it.

I think it's admirable to assist people in understanding the proceedings and help them stand up for themselves, but let me ask you, would your view of the service you perform change at all if you discovered that your own interpretation of legal doctrines like standing and corpus delicti turned out to be completely incorrect?

To a large extent, demystifying the system and standing up for yourself have little to do with the legal defenses actually being raised. I could do the same thing without arguing standing or corpus delicti simply by claiming the officer is lying. I'm sure you do help people feel more confident about speaking to the court, but I think you might be overlooking the fact that the reason people are choosing you over other legal advisers is because they believe there is merit in what you're telling them to say.

I have seen other groups putting forth some fairly ridiculous claims, like the idea that the court has no authority to do anything if you don't stand in the courtroom, or if you don't respond when your name is called. Someone might make a youtube video that claims you can get any ticket thrown out by showing up to court without pants on, and people might follow this advice and feel empowered to stand up for themselves, and a few of them might even have their tickets kicked, but when they realize there's no merit in the claim, they probably won't feel too thrilled about the manner in which they were "empowered".

The advice you're giving to people might not be as far removed from these examples as you may think. It's possible the arguments you're having people make sound completely ridiculous to people with more in depth knowledge about these subjects. Even beyond that, people are actually paying you for this assistance, if not directly for personal legal advice, then by supporting you through your book and radio program.

If your advice turns out to be based on fallacy, do you think people will still be pleased? Do you think they will continue to feel empowered? Do you think they will continue to feel the system has been demystified?

I ask because I think it's pretty clear that you're offering more than just empowerment in the courtroom. A part of what you're selling is the validity of your interpretation. If you take that away, you suddenly lose the empowering effect, and the law is mystified once again.

(06-23-2011 09:34 PM)ChrisAZ Wrote: Marc's information gave me the confidence to go into court, with all parties stacked against me, and cross-examine, make motions, make legal arguments, etc.

That's great, but just out of curiosity, how would you feel if all of Marc's advice was completely incorrect? Just as a complete hypothetical, if Marc said on his radio show that he was completely wrong about the standing issue and the corpus delicti issue and every other method he encourages, would you still feel pleased about the whole thing? Or would you feel a bit like you had been used?

(05-17-2011 06:13 PM)zonsb Wrote: I detect skinny's insincerity as he attempts to set the standard of performance for what another person creates and other people consume. I wonder if he works in public relations.

Surely there's nothing wrong with asking for a little disclosure before paying for a service. I can't see the harm in allowing that to be an acceptable standard.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble. I'm not agent of the state or anyone else for that matter. I'm just a student.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 09-21-2011 08:15 AM by zonsb.)

(09-21-2011 04:34 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(05-17-2011 06:13 PM)zonsb Wrote: I detect skinny's insincerity as he attempts to set the standard of performance for what another person creates and other people consume. I wonder if he works in public relations.

Surely there's nothing wrong with asking for a little disclosure before paying for a service. I can't see the harm in allowing that to be an acceptable standard.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble. I'm not agent of the state or anyone else for that matter. I'm just a student.

You're one in a hundred. Thus, you're the rare exception. You've been here for about a year. Despite your plea that you want to be convinced, you're still hanging around making that plea. It's not that you're banging your head against the wall truly trying to be convinced. I mean, how disingenuous is that when a sincere person would have moved on long ago and gotten on with their life.

You create a false frame of me then you deride your strawman. You didn't burst my bubble. That you have so much hate in you is your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

I never said you were agent for the state. Why do you bring that up? Are you just a student; a regular guy; have a wife and children and take your son to his little league ball games? That's in reference to this commentary. "It occurs to me that a conman/fraudster will nonchalantly profess to be just a guy with a wife and kids that goes to his son’s little league ball games. He has a false appearance to keep up." in the comment section.

Anyone can read through this thread and see all respondents for their true colors. I thought this dialog on the Traffic Study article in the comment section was especially revealing.

RealSkinny · 09-22-2011, 01:29 AM

(09-21-2011 05:41 AM)zonsb Wrote: You're one in a hundred. Thus, you're the rare exception. You've been here for about a year. Despite your plea that you want to be convinced, you're still hanging around making that plea. It's not that you're banging your head against the wall truly trying to be convinced. I mean, how disingenuous is that when a sincere person would have moved on long ago and gotten on with their life.

Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for years until Einstein's death. I don't know that I've ever asked to be convinced of something. Rather, I have asked for evidence and proof, much like anyone else in a debate. I disagree with Marc's interpretations of law and we have been discussing it for a while now. I'm not sure there's anything disingenuous about having an open discussion.

Though I will admit things have been more contentious lately because I'm starting to lose faith in Marc's sincerity. Although I was always in disagreement with Marc's position, it was only after some of the accusations made in this thread by outside individuals that I began to doubt Marc's interest in helping people and started to suspect he had a greater interest in taking advantage of people.

I no longer hold this suspicion, but I still maintain that view was fair based on what was presented. Examples were given that showed Marc had attempted these techniques with regularity for years and had his rear thoroughly handed to him in the courtroom. With such strong examples of the ineffectiveness of the techniques and few examples of real success, I think it's only right to doubt the sincerity of a person who continues to sell questionable legal tips.

I no longer hold this view (at least not very strongly). I think his goals are admirable, but I still think his methods are wrong.

(09-21-2011 05:41 AM)zonsb Wrote: That you have so much hate in you is your problem -- not mine. Deal with it.

Is that a demand? Should I consider myself threatened if I do not obey your order? Wink

(09-21-2011 05:41 AM)zonsb Wrote: I never said you were agent for the state. Why do you bring that up? Are you just a student; a regular guy; have a wife and children and take your son to his little league ball games? That's in reference to this commentary. "It occurs to me that a conman/fraudster will nonchalantly profess to be just a guy with a wife and kids that goes to his son’s little league ball games. He has a false appearance to keep up." in the comment section.

I do not have a wife or a child, and I think it's a bit egotistical to quote yourself.

I was just trying to dispel some of the speculation because you seemed a bit paranoid about my origins and intentions. I thought it would be a relief for you to know I'm not some kind of conman/fraudster sent by the state to destroy the commodity that is Marc Stevens. I'm just a guy who likes talking law and visits this board as a hobby when I have a little free time. I understand that although this is merely a hobby for me, it's Marc's livelihood, so I try not to get too serious when I'm here, although that changes if I smell a scam. This is one of the reasons I have refrained from calling into the radio show. What would happen if I called into the show and completely defeated Marc's arguments? He'd lose his loyal fan base and the successful career he's built, and then where would we be? I'd have to make Realskinny.net, start feeding you guys motion templates, and defend against my own objectors. I prefer to remain one of Marc's objectors, at least for the time being.

Believe it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

zonsb · (This post was last modified: 09-22-2011 04:38 AM by zonsb.)

(09-22-2011 01:29 AM)RealSkinny Wrote:
(09-21-2011 05:41 AM)zonsb Wrote: That you have so much hate in you is your problem -- not mine. Deal with it.

Is that a demand? Should I consider myself threatened if I do not obey your order?

You intentionally omitted the next two sentence that said: "Or don't. It makes no difference to me. " Deal with it or don't it makes no difference to me. Thus, obviously I make no demand of you. That you have such hate and deceit is your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

Quote:What would happen if I called into the show and completely defeated Marc's arguments? He'd lose his loyal fan base and the successful career he's built, and then where would we be?

I'm calling total BS on that, and your faux empathy too. If you have the facts and truth on your side out with it -- call into the show. If Marc is a fraudster prove it. Don't intentionally let people be harmed if you sincerely believe you can save them from injury. Especially since all it would take is for you to pick up the phone and call into the show.

Please, please, please call into the show. Marc, please encourage RealSkinny to call into the show. I know you've done it before and now he's making excuses for claiming you're a fraud and making a lame excuse for why he won't even try to prove it on your show.

"Where would we be". He is slick in his presupposition that presupposes his alleged refutations are valid.

***Marc Stevens*** · 09-22-2011, 07:44 AM

(09-22-2011 01:29 AM)RealSkinny Wrote: I was just trying to dispel some of the speculation because you seemed a bit paranoid about my origins and intentions. I thought it would be a relief for you to know I'm not some kind of conman/fraudster sent by the state to destroy the commodity that is Marc Stevens. I'm just a guy who likes talking law and visits this board as a hobby when I have a little free time. I understand that although this is merely a hobby for me, it's Marc's livelihood, so I try not to get too serious when I'm here, although that changes if I smell a scam. This is one of the reasons I have refrained from calling into the radio show. What would happen if I called into the show and completely defeated Marc's arguments? He'd lose his loyal fan base and the successful career he's built, and then where would we be? I'd have to make Realskinny.net, start feeding you guys motion templates, and defend against my own objectors. I prefer to remain one of Marc's objectors, at least for the time being.

Believe it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

If the PR is governments are established to protect rights, then how am I wrong that courts are limited to only cases (injuria et damnum)? Do lawyers disagree? Yes, where have I ever denied that? I even cite cases that conflict.

Have I had trainwrecks and had "my ass handed to me"? Sure, does that mean what I presented had no merit? I determine the merit of an issue independent of what a lawyer thinks of it.

If you think I'm a scammer, that's ok. I've invited you and every other critic, most much harsher than you, to come on the radio show and none of you has called in. What presumptions can we draw from that?

So, whether you guys think I'm a scammer or not, I really don't care, the facts speak for themselves: I am very open and invite dissent, criticism and investigation. I'm live every Saturday; do you have any evidence at all showing me refusing to answer questions, dodging issues?

I don't do this because I need to have everyone like me or I need glory and praise. If that were the case, I'd of dropped this years ago. So you don't think I have a valuable service to offer you? OK, that's part of business, I don't expect to convince everyone. Believe it or not, I'm not 16.