Adventures Success Stories?

[Marc Stevens]

Micah68 Wrote: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).

How about responding to my earlier posts when I responded to your insults about us being armchair voyeurs?

Since you're back, how about an honest look at the merits of the argument without regard to how the courts decided with Edwards? Look at the case and controversy clause and for now, ignore how the courts ruled. Make a decision on the merits based on what you read in the constitution, then let's compare that to what the courts said. Can you do that?

Oh, I get it, traffic courts are not "real" courts. Yeah, those aren't real lawyers, wearing real robes, commanding real cops, issuing real warrants, it's not real contempt, those aren't real fines, they're not real trials etc. You're finally starting to come around and see traffic courts as the joke they are? Good for you, that's how most of us get here, we see the traffic courts as not real courts and then it's easier to accept that none of the courts are real, just a bunch of criminal phonies. We notice the part about judges being independent, impartial decision makers is a cruel joke.