Adventures Success Stories?

[Marc Stevens]

wserra Wrote:

Quote:Questioning of witnesses is still a due process requirement.

Please note that I didn't say "questioning of witnesses". I said "Confrontation Clause". The Clause is broader than just questioning witnesses. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988). And by its own simple terms, it only applies to criminal cases: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... be confronted with the witnesses against him". Still, I agree that being able to examine the witnesses against you is part of due process in an adversary proceeding.

Unfortunately, you also stray from the point. Nothing in due process requires that your adversary call witnesses when alternative admissible proof is available. Nothing in due process requires the govt in a Tax Court matter to call witnesses that your "client" is a "taxpayer", or that he has "taxable income". If you disagree with that, as I have been asking for some time now, please cite something other than you.

No I made the point you seem to be unable to get anything I say or write correct. I never said/wrote the govt is required to call witnesses. I said the IRS's case is based on legal opinions made by an agent. I challenge those opinons. You seem to think financial records can be used to prove legal opinions and let a witness off the hook.

wserra Wrote:Well, whaddaya know - a cite! Unfortunately, it's irrelevant. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) concerns an aerospace engineer whose security clearance was revoked (and who thus lost his job) as a part of the Cold War anti-communist witch hunts. The "evidence" based on which that supposedly happened was never disclosed to him in any form. As the Supreme Court put it,

Greene Wrote:The Government presented no witnesses. It was obvious, however, from the questions posed to petitioner and to his witnesses, that the Board relied on confidential reports which were never made available to petitioner. These reports apparently were compilations of statements taken from various persons contacted by an investigatory agency. Petitioner had no opportunity to confront and question persons whose statements reflected adversely on him or to confront the government investigators who took their statements. Moreover, it seemed evident that the Board itself had never questioned the investigators and had never seen those persons whose statements were the subject of their reports.

So: what evidence does the govt seek to use against Mr. Beep that they refuse to disclose? What evidence will the judge see that he has not? Beep knows who it is who paid him. He wants to call them as witnesses, he can surely do so. But there is no requirement that the govt do so - much less call witnesses that he is a "taxpayer" - and you still, after much sturm und drang, have failed to support your claim that it must.

You'll always find a spin and make silly personal attacks. As if that is the 1st court cite I've every used, no wonder you are so afraid to come on the show, how pathetic. Just ignore everything the court wrote about confrontation of witnesses. They don't have to support their legal opinions, but the court may not accept the opinions of a lawyer who is not a party of witness. The docs are not evidence someone is a taxpayer, at best it is used to help support the legal opinions one is a taxpayer. It the application of the law, a critical element of the opinion that is being challenged. You believe that is irrefutable and some kind of sacred cow.

wserra Wrote:

Stevens Wrote:And that's some legal opinion you threw out up there, you assume, just like the IRS, the "law" is applicable to my client for him to then not comply with.

Is that written in English?

Are you now feigning literacy?

wserra Wrote:

Quote:You don't even have a name and you're certain he's a taxpayer

A "taxpayer", by definition, is someone subject to tax. From the fact that he filed in Tax Court, seeking not to pay tax that has been assessed against him, he is by definition a "taxpayer".

That's only your opinion. Filing in the tax court to stop thieves from stealing your money makes one a taxpayer? Wow

wserra Wrote:

Quote:has taxable income and required to file a return.

Please point out where I "assume" that. Perhaps he earned below the threshold and owes no tax (and is therefore likely not required to file). That's the point of the Tax Court proceeding, isn't it?

You assume he is a taxpayer, read your posts.

You seem to have a real personal issue with me. You are like a real lawyer, never addressing the issues and you distract by misquoting me. You also never admit when you've made a false statement, such as when you accuse me of not permitting dissent on my website. Thank goodness people can see through your BS. It's no surprise you are afraid to come on my show.