Adventures Success Stories?

[indio]

Micah68 Wrote:

indio Wrote:I just read the appeal from the tax summons case. Contrary to wserra the appeal was not lost on the merits. It was lost because his arguments where "wholly without merit"

So he didn't lose on the merits, but because his appeal had no merit?

That's what lawyers call a "distinction without a difference."

indio Wrote:That is lawyer speak for not having submitted sworn facts.

Kewl. So whenever a court says something we don't like, we can just pretend that the court MEANT something different from what it really said, and then we can just ignore what the court said? And we can just blame it on "lawyer speak"?

Call me naive, but I think that the court meant what it said. I think that Edwards argued that the United States had no standing to enforce the summons to compel him to produce tax information. The trial court said that the argument was "patently frivolous" and the appeals court said that the argument was "wholly without merit." I think that they both meant what they said.

You can believe what you want, but so far Marc Stevens's argument about "standing" is at least 0-for-1 in a real court (not traffic court).

"without merit" is a term of art meaning there aren't competent facts. i.e. no affidavit or failing to produce witnesses etc...

The cites are from Judicial and Statutory Words and Phrases

[image=width(100),height(100)]https://docs.google.com/document/pubimage?id=1_C1uvMQ54-00vDL6taUHsuFN9Z-PoJtAQ81a_NUPMUI&image_id=1toJQNgOBMd5st0bHBh9WZ22_Gyn8_tI[/image]

Notice that it says the right of recovery depends on evidence?

You have to understand they play the "just the facts" game too. The government uses the demurrer more than any other party.

Even if he would have testified at the show cause himself and simply swore he didn't do business in the US . That act would give the claim some merit.

Merits means substance means facts & evidence means witnesses. They are all the same thing in legelese.

In regards to frivolous...

Quote:To Justify a decision that a pleading is frivolous, it must not only be without adequate reason, but so clearly and plainly without foundation that the defect appears upon mere inspection. If any argument is required to show that the pleading is bad, it is not frivolous. Cook v. Warren, 88 N. Y. 37. That only may be regarded as frivolous which Is made to appear so incontrovertlbly by a bare statement of It and without argument Youngs T. Kent, 46 N. Y. 672, 674.

Not having facts to support a pleading or motion is a defect. How can the rule on facts and law when there are no cognizable facts in support of a motion to consider.
They use the same trick. The right to remain silent is the worst legal advice in the history of man.