Adventures Success Stories?

[indio]

wserra Wrote:Greetings, all. I am here because of the following invitation: "There's nothing stopping anyone from quatloos from registering on the forum and posting comments". You should be aware, though, that apparently the captcha on the registration form doesn't work with IE8. I and others who tried it never saw the captcha and were thus unable to register. I finally registered through Firefox.

I'm curious about something. This forum is called "Adventures Success Stories". Perusing it, I see that people claim various wins using the methods that the owner of this board sells. I have a couple of observations and a couple of questions.

First of all, the vast majority of the "wins" I see here are traffic cases, with a couple of credit card matters thrown in. The courts reach dispositions in those kinds of low-profile matters that frequently have nothing to do with the merits. Cops don't show up - I see a few of those here. Somebody has a sympathetic story and catches the judge on a good day. The judge is in a hurry - yes, I have seen that. A prosecutor doesn't have time to respond to a formal discovery request. A low balance credit-card matter is simply not worth that much time; sometimes even a simple VOD request will make a bank in such a case go away. These types of cases only prove the adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. How to be squeaky isn't a secret. For example, with reference to credit card debt collection, this site has a good, concise explanation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the federal statute that governs what third-party debt collectors can do and what a debtor's rights are.

But I see claims on this site that are simply fanciful. For example, consider the idea that a state criminal proceeding (traffic or otherwise) can be dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction - see Stevens' post here. Given every state's plenary police power, it has subject matter jurisdiction over any crime which occurs in the state. Since federal courts have limited jurisdiction, the situation is somewhat different; still, SMJ dismissals are quite rare. I would be very interested in anyone here who could document a dismissal based on lack of SMJ - but would bet there are none. BTW, "document" means case title, court, docket number, and something from the docket (such as an order) that makes the basis for dismissal clear.

I see just as egregious legal misconceptions in the matter that attracted Quatloos' attention to this board - the "Owning an IRS Lawyer" blog entry and audio tape. Whether or not one is a "taxpayer" - any person subject to any internal revenue tax (26 USC 7701(14)) - is a matter for the court, not for testimony. It is not only unnecessary but improper to call a witness with "personal, first hand knowledge my client's a taxpayer", because that conclusion isn't a matter for witnesses. Similarly, whether one has income subect to tax, while surely a matter for proof, isn't usually a matter for testimony. Income is almost always established by business records of the payor, under FRE 803(6). Stevens' take on this conversation is wrong in every particular, and the IRS lawyer was being remarkably patient. Anyone who disagrees, please cite authority.

I do have a question about the case, though. The government obviously knows who Mr. "Beep" is. It's only the rest of us who don't. Why not? I don't mean date of birth, SS number, or any other identifying information - just the docket number of the case would suffice. I suggest why we don't - because, in the likely event that this blows up and Mr. "Beep" gets sliced and diced, it would be somewhat embarrassing to this web site and its owner. Hence the cone of silence.

So - I'm quite interested in verifiable successes folks here have enjoyed based on the theories Stevens advocates. In other words, I don't mean cops or other witnesses who don't show, debt collectors who decide it's not worth the hassle - all of that stuff can be obtained without Stevens. I don't mean unexplained one-word "dismissed" entries in dockets, because that doesn't explain why. I mean dismissals based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or on rulings that the government must produce witnesses, or criminal cases dismissed for lack of "standing", and which say so.

Your move.

I'll take on some particular points!
Let's start of with the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in regards to Crime. Crime is a tort/trespass against the public.
Regardless of what you say , the gov't needs witnesses. As you should know, statements by attorneys orally or in brief are not facts. Can there be a case without facts? Of course not.
Without facts there is no subject to have jurisdiction over. Failure to state a cause of action is lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


In regard to the taxpayer is for the court i would agree but your leaving out a key issue. Someone had to make the legal determination he was a taxpayer point blank. That determination has to be based on facts i.e. taxable events. Someone has to witness or rely on a witness to the event. You outted who that is . The "payor" is the witness. They where there to figure out discovery and witnesses. Asking who the snitch was that reported him as a taxpayer is right on target.

Piece of paper don't have rials. People have trials and every piece of paper needs a sworn authentication or it is hearsay. That involves people. The payor reporting his income as taxable and by operation of logic a taxpayer he is in effect his accuser.