Adventures Success Stories?
Current time: 03-25-2017, 10:31 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: wserra
Last Post: pigpot
Replies: 212
Views: 103249

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Adventures Success Stories?
02-17-2011, 08:41 PM
Post: #46
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:I never said/wrote the govt is required to call witnesses.

Nonsense.

When backed into a corner, you want to have things both ways. If you didn't know beforehand that the law doesn't require a witness with personal knowledge of your "client", you found out after I cited to the Jones case, above. On the other hand, you want to crow about your "owning an IRS lawyer" who "cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn't know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client's a taxpayer". Why does that matter if the government isn't required to call such a witness in the first place? How is it a victory to "force" someone to admit that she doesn't have something she doesn't need? That "victory" and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.

Backed into a corner? Do you have any ability to remember context? Wow, in a civil action, the burden is a preponderance of evidence, the law does not require a party to support their claims, the court can just strike or dismiss arbitrary claims. Crow? I'm a patient man, but you're gonna have to learn to post without personal attacks. Why is this so personal to you? Why can't you make ONE post without a personal attack?

If you believe people can make legal opinions/accusations and not have to verify them, then we disagree.

Quote:I said the IRS's case is based on legal opinions made by an agent.

wserra Wrote:At least equally ridiculous. Nobody cares about an agent's legal opinons. Judges have legal opinions, the only ones that matter. As you now appear to agree, the IRS makes its case against Mr. Beep, with no witnesses who have personal knowledge of him necessary. The judge then decides whether he owes tax. Exactly where do those "opinions made by an agent" fit into the picture?

Why? The IRS agents I have spoken to, including Ms. Clark admit the assessment is done by an IRS agent and the IRS is making the legal determination the client is a taxpayer. Nobody cares? Are you serious? Holy crap you're trolling hard, the whole presumption of correctness is based on the agent's determinations, ever seen an affidavit of good faith in a petition to compel summons proceeding? I spoke with Jason Olde of the CID in St.Paul, he is only one of many that affirmed the IRS revenue officers are determining whether someone is a taxpayer or not.

Quote:I challenge those opinons.

wserra Wrote:Well, you can't, since you aren't a lawyer and therefore won't be able to represent Mr. Beep before a judge. In any event, an agent's opinions make no difference whatsoever.

Well, I can and do all the time, it's not always about being in court. If you think the agent's opinion makes no difference, then you are contradicting what the IRS has told me for years. And I have represented people before judges in court. Once again you make claims with no personal knowledge. Last time was a couple of years ago in the St. Paul district court where a federal judge agreed about standing, even for the IRS, but lied and stated it was not timely raised.

Quote:You seem to think financial records can be used to prove legal opinions and let a witness off the hook.

wserra Wrote:Nope. I (and U.S. Courts of Appeals) seem to think that (1) witnesses with personal knowledge aren't necessary, (2) financial records are admissible and sufficient to prove the govt's case, and (3) the only legal opinions that matter are those of judges. That doesn't appear to be what you say.

The records are not evidence someone is a taxpayer. We even have companies give statements and affidavits they are not qualified to make determinations of federal tax law and are not acting as witnesses against the employee. There was a federal judge in Wyoming who declared an IRS agent incompetent to give legal opinions. When the client asked for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken from the record, the judge became enraged. He knew that included the assessment and affidavit of good faith.

Quote: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.

wserra Wrote:We've been through this "taxpayer" stuff once before. One more time: the definition of "taxpayer" is any person subject to any internal revenue tax. 26 USC 7701(14). That is anyone born in the U.S., naturalized as a U.S. citizen, resident in the U.S., or who has income from a U.S. source. People have tried claiming that they are not "taxpayers" as a defense to govt claims that they owed taxes. They all lost. Want to look some up? Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986); Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5317, 2000 TNT 186-76, No. Y-97-3026 (DMD 2000); Modzelewski v. United States,
152 F.3d 919 (Table), 1998 WL 315597 (2nd Cir. 1998); Griffin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 108 F.3d 1369 (Table), 1997 WL 138294 (2nd Cir. 1997); Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-259. I'm sure there are more.

Yeah, and you still don't get it. We don't claim we're not taxpayers within meaning of statute. We claim there are no competent witnesses and evidence to prove it. Stop using court citations to settle issues of fact.

Also, stop your silly personal attacks, keep that crap for the quatloos site.

I will be able to take calls again March 5, you and your fellow quatloos statists should call into the show. In particular, you and the other guys who cannot post anything about me without referring to me as an idiot, moron or wacko.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2011, 02:08 AM
Post: #47
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
NonEntity Wrote:
holipsism Wrote:...feel is LEGITIMATE."

Sounds like a T.S.A. "agent!"

- NonE

Bonus question:

Given that the definition of "agent" is
Quote:agent

noun
1 a person who acts on behalf of another, in particular:.
a person who manages business, financial, or contractual matters for an actor, performer, writer, etc..
a person or company that provides a particular service , typically one that involves organizing transactions between two other parties:
a travel agent
...

Can a person be a legitimate agent if the party they are representing is fictional??? LOL

HELLO! Not Worthy ;D
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2011, 08:37 AM
Post: #48
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Marc Stevens Wrote:Also, stop your silly personal attacks, keep that crap for the quatloos site

You do like to divert things to non-issues. I'll address this one once, then you do what you want.

I have never called you a name. I have characterized your arguments as "nonsense" or "ridiculous". By definition, that's not ad hominem. Moreover, you have on several occasions characterized things I've said as "BS" or "crap" - see the sentence above. The only difference is that your language is more vulgar than mine. And you could review the thread to see the names posters have called me, including you. In your case, "professional troll" comes to mind.

Perhaps you could now focus on issues.

A continuing problem: you make claims you want to make, and don't respond to the questions that show those claims wrong. For example:

Quote:
wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:I never said/wrote the govt is required to call witnesses.

Nonsense.

When backed into a corner, you want to have things both ways. If you didn't know beforehand that the law doesn't require a witness with personal knowledge of your "client", you found out after I cited to the Jones case, above. On the other hand, you want to crow about your "owning an IRS lawyer" who "cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn't know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client's a taxpayer". Why does that matter if the government isn't required to call such a witness in the first place? How is it a victory to "force" someone to admit that she doesn't have something she doesn't need? That "victory" and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.

Backed into a corner? Do you have any ability to remember context? Wow, in a civil action, the burden is a preponderance of evidence, the law does not require a party to support their claims, the court can just strike or dismiss arbitrary claims. Crow? I'm a patient man, but you're gonna have to learn to post without personal attacks. Why is this so personal to you? Why can't you make ONE post without a personal attack?

Please note my questions: "Why does that matter if the government isn't required to call such a witness in the first place? How is it a victory to "force" someone to admit that she doesn't have something she doesn't need?". Please note the absence of answers.

Quote:The IRS agents I have spoken to, including Ms. Clark admit the assessment is done by an IRS agent and the IRS is making the legal determination the client is a taxpayer. Nobody cares?

Right. Nobody cares. The person who matters is the judge. The judge will make his/her own decision based on the facts, which can be proven from records.

Quote:Are you serious? Holy crap you're trolling hard

Please watch the ad hominem. Keep that stuff for . . . oh, yeah, we're there.

Quote:I spoke with Jason Olde of the CID in St.Paul, he is only one of many that affirmed the IRS revenue officers are determining whether someone is a taxpayer or not.

Once again, instead of citing law that any "determinations" of agents matter, citing "I spoke with". Assume someone charged with shoplifting. S/He confers with the prosecutor, following which s/he prepares a blog entry bragging about how there is no proof that s/he was a "shopper" since it wasn't caught on the store's videotape. Someone tries to explain that (1) the word "shopper" is pretty meaningless in this context, (2) there is no requirement of a videotape, (3) the prosecutor's opinion is meaningless anyway, and (4) every time someone has tried to use this argument in court it has resulted in a loss. All you get back is, "But the prosecutor and security guy determined that I was a shopper with no evidence".

Since you keep denying what you said, I'll use your own words: please provide proof that anyone has ever won with the claim that "IRS revenue officers are determining whether someone is a taxpayer or not", or that "records are not evidence someone is a taxpayer", or that "the IRS is making the legal determination the client is a taxpayer". Those are all direct quotes. If you can't show that your own arguments have ever won, I can't imagine why anyone listens to you.

Quote:Last time was a couple of years ago in the St. Paul district court where a federal judge agreed about standing, even for the IRS, but lied and stated it was not timely raised.

Docket number and title, please.

Quote:There was a federal judge in Wyoming who declared an IRS agent incompetent to give legal opinions. When the client asked for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken from the record, the judge became enraged. He knew that included the assessment and affidavit of good faith.

Docket number and title, please.
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2011, 06:06 PM
Post: #49
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:Also, stop your silly personal attacks, keep that crap for the quatloos site

You do like to divert things to non-issues. I'll address this one once, then you do what you want.

I have never called you a name. I have characterized your arguments as "nonsense" or "ridiculous". By definition, that's not ad hominem. Moreover, you have on several occasions characterized things I've said as "BS" or "crap" - see the sentence above. The only difference is that your language is more vulgar than mine. And you could review the thread to see the names posters have called me, including you. In your case, "professional troll" comes to mind.

Really? Remember the Nelson reference? Also: "Clark is remarkably patient in dealing with a moron..." I guess "moron" is not calling me a name nor is it ad hominem. Also, you guys on quatloos can barely get one post without personal attacks against those who don't believe the way you do; do idiot, moron, wacko, nitwit sound familiar? You attacked people who visit my site as sycophants because there is a legitimate software problem.

wserra Wrote:Perhaps you could now focus on issues.

I do, read the posts again. Better still, come on the radio show.

wserra Wrote:A continuing problem: you make claims you want to make, and don't respond to the questions that show those claims wrong. For example:

wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:I never said/wrote the govt is required to call witnesses.

Nonsense.

When backed into a corner, you want to have things both ways. If you didn't know beforehand that the law doesn't require a witness with personal knowledge of your "client", you found out after I cited to the Jones case, above. On the other hand, you want to crow about your "owning an IRS lawyer" who "cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn't know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client's a taxpayer". Why does that matter if the government isn't required to call such a witness in the first place? How is it a victory to "force" someone to admit that she doesn't have something she doesn't need? That "victory" and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.

Backed into a corner? Do you have any ability to remember context? Wow, in a civil action, the burden is a preponderance of evidence, the law does not require a party to support their claims, the court can just strike or dismiss arbitrary claims. Crow? I'm a patient man, but you're gonna have to learn to post without personal attacks. Why is this so personal to you? Why can't you make ONE post without a personal attack?

wserra Wrote:Please note my questions: "Why does that matter if the government isn't required to call such a witness in the first place? How is it a victory to "force" someone to admit that she doesn't have something she doesn't need?". Please note the absence of answers.

This is why you get accused of trolling. I'll do it again. I've done it on the radio dozens of times if you took the time to investigate before attacking me and the premise.

Filing in the tax court is to determine if the CIR's assessment is correct. This is not actually done by the CIR, but by a revenue officer; here, he/she is unnamed according to the attorney representing the CIR. I focus on how/why the agent determined my client is taxpayer with taxable income. That requires the agent to interpret and apply the federal constitution and law. It is not possible to determine someone is a taxpayer with taxable income without interpreting and applying the constitution and law.

You seem to think the assessment under review doesn't and shouldn't be involved; you want to cut out the entire involvement of the IRS while calling me a moron. Again, that's the same as excluding the cop who wrote a traffic ticket. It's a review of an accusation/assessment that has already been made.

wserra Wrote:
Quote:The IRS agents I have spoken to, including Ms. Clark admit the assessment is done by an IRS agent and the IRS is making the legal determination the client is a taxpayer. Nobody cares?

Right. Nobody cares. The person who matters is the judge. The judge will make his/her own decision based on the facts, which can be proven from records.

I agree, you and the courts don't care, you excuse the IRS from having to verify and support their assessment. You think everything the IRS did prior to court is irrelevant. Wow, ok. The records hardly provide facts to prove someone is a taxpayer, especially when the records are provided under threat, duress and coercion. The judge is to determine if the CIR has made a valid determination NOT make one up on his own while excluding everything the IRS did.

wserra Wrote:
Quote:Are you serious? Holy crap you're trolling hard

Please watch the ad hominem. Keep that stuff for . . . oh, yeah, we're there.

Please, coming from the guy who falsely accused me of limiting dissent and calling me a moron. You falsely accused me of being afraid of a neutral forum and you made up stories about me controlling the recordings of my LIVE radio show. LOL Please explain how I can control the recording of a live show.

wserra Wrote:
Quote:I spoke with Jason Olde of the CID in St.Paul, he is only one of many that affirmed the IRS revenue officers are determining whether someone is a taxpayer or not.

Once again, instead of citing law that any "determinations" of agents matter, citing "I spoke with". Assume someone charged with shoplifting. S/He confers with the prosecutor, following which s/he prepares a blog entry bragging about how there is no proof that s/he was a "shopper" since it wasn't caught on the store's videotape. Someone tries to explain that (1) the word "shopper" is pretty meaningless in this context, (2) there is no requirement of a videotape, (3) the prosecutor's opinion is meaningless anyway, and (4) every time someone has tried to use this argument in court it has resulted in a loss. All you get back is, "But the prosecutor and security guy determined that I was a shopper with no evidence".

But the word "taxpayer" is NOT meaningless, it requires the application of the constitution and law; apples and oranges. Even tax agents will tell you they would not assess someone without evidence they were taxpayers. And yes, as far as I'm aware, the old: "I'm not a witch" argument was never successful either. That's hardly proof all those poor victims were witches.

I don't know the statute off the top of my head, but there is a statute regarding a substitute for return and a notice of deficiency. There is also a statute about the presumption of correctness when the IRS agents makes an assessment. But I guess the presumption of correctness doesn't matter even though it requires action/determinations by the IRS, determinations you claim don't matter. I'll tell you this, your bank certainly cares about the agent's determinations, even if you don't. You seem to live in a world where if congress or a judge did not write it, then it doesn't exist.

We can document California trial judges refusing to take mandatory judicial notice of the exceptions to the anti-injunctive tax act; does that mean the exceptions don't exist or the issue is frivolous or lacks merit?

wserra Wrote:Since you keep denying what you said, I'll use your own words: please provide proof that anyone has ever won with the claim that "IRS revenue officers are determining whether someone is a taxpayer or not", or that "records are not evidence someone is a taxpayer", or that "the IRS is making the legal determination the client is a taxpayer". Those are all direct quotes. If you can't show that your own arguments have ever won, I can't imagine why anyone listens to you.

Clarifying your misstatements is not denying what I have said/written. Just because something is rejected by a lawyer doesn't mean it is not valid. I tell people there is very little chance of success, virtually zero, in getting a favorable decision in tax proceedings. LIsten to my archives to confirm. The success has been in keeping the problems from going to court and being dropped administratively.

People listen to me because I look at things empirically, make logical sense and have been successful in limiting the damage politicians are doing to them (I have always referred to it as damage control). They also see the results have been replicated many times over, even in Canada, England, Australia and New Zealand. I also have no allegiance to the very people who are attacking them.

People listen to me freely, unlike the government you seem to love so much. With me there is no coercion or fraud, unlike your government, people value my services enough to voluntarily pay me. Let's see:

Marc Stevens voluntary support = thousands
US government voluntary support = 0

Call me an idiot, nitwit and moron, but I don't have to threaten and imprison people to get them to pay me for my services. You not only overlook this inconvenient truth, but you guys at quatloos take pleasure when hearing someone has been imprisoned for not signing a piece of paper. Prison for not signing a piece of a paper: And the land of the freeeee....

wserra Wrote:
Quote:Last time was a couple of years ago in the St. Paul district court where a federal judge agreed about standing, even for the IRS, but lied and stated it was not timely raised.

Docket number and title, please.

No, that man asked me not to post anything specific in the media. Contrary to what quatloos members have stated, I spoke on air many times how the guy was crucified by the court and who was supposed to be his own attorney. he was directly threatened by a federal judge to get a lawyer or go to jail. Nice.

wserra Wrote:
Quote:There was a federal judge in Wyoming who declared an IRS agent incompetent to give legal opinions. When the client asked for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken from the record, the judge became enraged. He knew that included the assessment and affidavit of good faith.

Docket number and title, please.

No. 05-CV-141-D. Judge threatened to deport the man I was helping. Funny thing is, he grew up and lived in Wyoming. Judges and tax agents themselves have admitted many times that tax agents are not qualified to give legal opinions. You claim no one cares.

But we do, we take false accusations seriously, especially when it's an agent looking to steal our property. You give agents, whose very jobs include making legal determinations that affect people's lives, a free pass. I challenge those legal determinations and for that you call me a moron and the rest of your quatloos members refer to me as a nitwit, idiot etc.

Maybe you don't like it because people are hearing directly from the agents threatening to take their property they don't know what they're talking about. Not only that, the COURTS don't care about the agent's assessments either. When enough people hear the truth, i.e., the IRS doesn't know what they're talking about and even the courts don't give them credibility, there will be more non-violent non-cooperation and the system will finally grind to a halt.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 01:24 AM
Post: #50
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
I don't think there's need for something else to be said here...

One can be sure about one thing, that he can not be sure about anything.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 06:09 AM
Post: #51
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Marc Stevens Wrote:No. 05-CV-141-D.

That is indeed an interesting docket.

The case is a action to enforce an IRS summons. As a matter of background, the IRS itself does not have subpoena power; it must get an order from a USDC if a taxpayer does not voluntarily comply with a summons for records. Stevens, as is noted on certain of the case documents, did appear in court. However, he was not allowed to represent the taxpayer (one Marc Edwards) or to speak on the record, since he is not a lawyer. One of the documents describes his presence as "to aid in notetaking".

Following the service of the IRS petition to enforce the summons, Edwards filed a few documents which he denominated "motions to strike". In them, he advanced the arguments Stevens makes on this site. For example, in this one he asserts that the govt lacks a "case or controversy" and "standing". (Note the links to the docs; this board does not make them stand out to any great degree from other text.) In this one, he argues that the IRS agent lacks "personal knowledge". Those, of course, are positions discussed in this thread.

The trial court granted the petition to enforce the summons, and rejected all of the Edwards/Stevens arguments. In the oral decision, the trial judge called them "sophistry". Edwards appealed to the Tenth Circuit. He did even worse there. Not only did the Circuit affirm the trial court's decision to enforce the summons, it called the Edwards/Stevens arguments "patently frivolous", and sanctioned Edwards $6000 for making them.

Finally, a month after the mandate from the 10th Circuit, Edwards showed up with the materials the IRS wanted and turned them over. The minute sheet is here. Stevens wasn't present.

To sum up: for the several days I've been posting here, I've been asking for any evidence of Stevens' stuff ever winning. The only case produced with sufficient specificity to show that a court actually considered Stevens' arguments turns out to be a debacle. Not only did Stevens' "client" waste the time and money of litigation, not only did he lose on every point, but he was sanctioned an additional $6000 for his trouble. Nice job.

Zyrq Wrote:I don't think there's need for something else to be said here...

I think I agree with that.
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 06:55 AM
Post: #52
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Several hundred IRS abuse reports from people whose lives where ruined by IRS abuses.
IRS Abuse Reports
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 08:39 AM
Post: #53
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:No. 05-CV-141-D.

That is indeed an interesting docket.

The case is a action to enforce an IRS summons. As a matter of background, the IRS itself does not have subpoena power; it must get an order from a USDC if a taxpayer does not voluntarily comply with a summons for records. Stevens, as is noted on certain of the case documents, did appear in court. However, he was not allowed to represent the taxpayer (one Marc Edwards) or to speak on the record, since he is not a lawyer. One of the documents describes his presence as "to aid in notetaking".

Following the service of the IRS petition to enforce the summons, Edwards filed a few documents which he denominated "motions to strike". In them, he advanced the arguments Stevens makes on this site. For example, in this one he asserts that the govt lacks a "case or controversy" and "standing". (Note the links to the docs; this board does not make them stand out to any great degree from other text.) In this one, he argues that the IRS agent lacks "personal knowledge". Those, of course, are positions discussed in this thread.

The trial court granted the petition to enforce the summons, and rejected all of the Edwards/Stevens arguments. In the oral decision, the trial judge called them "sophistry". Edwards appealed to the Tenth Circuit. He did even worse there. Not only did the Circuit affirm the trial court's decision to enforce the summons, it called the Edwards/Stevens arguments "patently frivolous", and sanctioned Edwards $6000 for making them.

Finally, a month after the mandate from the 10th Circuit, Edwards showed up with the materials the IRS wanted and turned them over. The minute sheet is here. Stevens wasn't present.

To sum up: for the several days I've been posting here, I've been asking for any evidence of Stevens' stuff ever winning. The only case produced with sufficient specificity to show that a court actually considered Stevens' arguments turns out to be a debacle. Not only did Stevens' "client" waste the time and money of litigation, not only did he lose on every point, but he was sanctioned an additional $6000 for his trouble. Nice job.

Marc Stevens Wrote:And yes, as far as I'm aware, the old: "I'm not a witch" argument was never successful either. That's hardly proof all those poor victims were witches.

If someone steals from you, is it evidence that you owed them any money in the first place? Nowhere in the oral finding, or sanction was there any statement of fact (beyond he didn't do what we told him to, after we have authorized ourselves {give ourselves permission} to tell him to.) which would establish a justiciable controversy. It's all law this, law that, court opinion epsilon, and peanut butter jelly time.

(and in the oral decision, My goodness, what vitriol.)

Another ridiculous tidbit. The agent was had personal knowledge of all the elements and allegation in the summons merely because he issued it.

My pgp key ID:
0x3E4258F8382DE6D0
available at subkeys.pgp.net (and others)
key fingerprint:
2F0C 4109 C8C3 B8BE E0B9 84DF 3E42 58F8 382D E6D0
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 09:47 AM
Post: #54
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
wserra Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:No. 05-CV-141-D.

That is indeed an interesting docket.

The case is a action to enforce an IRS summons. As a matter of background, the IRS itself does not have subpoena power; it must get an order from a USDC if a taxpayer does not voluntarily comply with a summons for records. Stevens, as is noted on certain of the case documents, did appear in court. However, he was not allowed to represent the taxpayer (one Marc Edwards) or to speak on the record, since he is not a lawyer. One of the documents describes his presence as "to aid in notetaking".

Following the service of the IRS petition to enforce the summons, Edwards filed a few documents which he denominated "motions to strike". In them, he advanced the arguments Stevens makes on this site. For example, in this one he asserts that the govt lacks a "case or controversy" and "standing". (Note the links to the docs; this board does not make them stand out to any great degree from other text.) In this one, he argues that the IRS agent lacks "personal knowledge". Those, of course, are positions discussed in this thread.

The trial court granted the petition to enforce the summons, and rejected all of the Edwards/Stevens arguments. In the oral decision, the trial judge called them "sophistry". Edwards appealed to the Tenth Circuit. He did even worse there. Not only did the Circuit affirm the trial court's decision to enforce the summons, it called the Edwards/Stevens arguments "patently frivolous", and sanctioned Edwards $6000 for making them.

Finally, a month after the mandate from the 10th Circuit, Edwards showed up with the materials the IRS wanted and turned them over. The minute sheet is here. Stevens wasn't present.

To sum up: for the several days I've been posting here, I've been asking for any evidence of Stevens' stuff ever winning. The only case produced with sufficient specificity to show that a court actually considered Stevens' arguments turns out to be a debacle. Not only did Stevens' "client" waste the time and money of litigation, not only did he lose on every point, but he was sanctioned an additional $6000 for his trouble. Nice job.

Not surprised you only consider the few sentences published by the lawyers in robes, and neglect everything else. You think it's proper for a judge to not strike the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent? The whole thing should have been thrown out when the agent was declared incompetent by the trial judge. The trial judge and appeal judges conveniently ignore the whole decision was based on the testimony of a witness the trial judge ruled was "incompetent".

If you want to use a decision based entirely on an agent legally declared incompetent the the judge, go ahead. But I'm a moron?

Please explain why the judges' decisions have any merit when based on an agent declared incompetent?

And I have been providing proof, you like to mislead people don't you? <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.marcstevens.net/board/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2639&p=15933#p15933" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2639&p=15933#p15933</a><!-- l -->

wserra Wrote:
Zyrq Wrote:I don't think there's need for something else to be said here...

wserra Wrote:I think I agree with that.

Of course not, your reality is dictated by judges who base their decisions on agents they declared incompetent. That is some standard of proof you hold there. But we're the idiots, morons, nitwits etc., who don't critically analyze anything. LOL

I'm sure you will find a way to explain why the judges were correct, you'll say the agent is irrelevant and what not. LOL Maybe you will tell us the judge never declared Gilbert incompetent, who knows? The fact is, and I was there, the trial judge declared the witness incompetent.

Maybe you actually think the decision, based on an incompetent IRS agent, really is valid. But then let's look at your recent quatloos post:

"Personal observations about Stevens: He surprised me a couple of times. I expected that once he saw the type of posts I made I would be gone, and that didn't happen. I didn't expect him to engage me the way he did. Most of all, though, he supplied me with a docket in which his "client" was blown out of the water. Why would he do that? Is he so deeply into the cream cheese that he doesn't understand what happened?" (my bold)

You failed to mention the IRS agent was declared incompetent, nice omission, an inconvenient truth when your purpose is not an honest investigation. Did you leave this fact out on purpose?

You also failed to mention the trial judge flew into a rage when, after he declared the IRS agent incompetent, he was asked the strike the testimony and supporting affidavit. You failed to mention the judge threatened a man from Wyoming with deportation. Is the only thing that is important to you the written opinion, not what happened at the hearing?

I did that because unlike you, I did not [purposely?] omit the fact the IRS agent was declared incompetent. After falsely accusing me of not permitting dissent you will still question my motives? I am after the truth, justice, you care only about what lawyers write in their opinions. I'm in the cream cheese? Why? Because I watched a lawyer come unglued for no other reason than he was asked to strike the testimony of a witness (under oath on the witness stand) the judge himself declared incompetent?

I'm sure you won't post on quatloos the witness was declared incompetent by the trial judge. Let's not question the validity of a lawyer's written opinion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 10:33 AM
Post: #55
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
It would probably be really tacky and in poor taste and not very polite and stuff if I were to point out to the owner of this forum that it is counter productive to feed trolls... wouldn't it? :-\

Yeah. I think so.

Therefore I won't say any of those things. :biggrinblue:

- NonE

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Post: #56
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Marc Stevens Wrote:But the word "taxpayer" is NOT meaningless, it requires the application of the constitution and law; apples and oranges. Even tax agents will tell you they would not assess someone without evidence they were taxpayers. And yes, as far as I'm aware, the old: "I'm not a witch" argument was never successful either. That's hardly proof all those poor victims were witches.
"Taxpayers"... "witches"... "Judges"... "Assessors"... Accusers... the latter with all their Sacred ("Higher") Scripts (Law Of The Land/Commandments) to back Them up --"Interpretation" and "Context" full speed ahead (legal tinder merely awaiting the flint strike). [of course today We're more civil; We merely threaten to fire at/incinerate them only if they refuse servitude or the [strike]cage[/strike] "incarceration". [see Waco Texas, option]

"But the word [strike]"taxpayer"[/strike] "witch" is NOT [strike]meaningless[/strike] unclean, it requires the application of the [strike]constitution[/strike] Holy Scripture and [strike]law[/strike] The Law; [strike]apples and oranges[/strike] figs and leaves. Even [strike]tax agents[/strike] temple guards will tell you they would not [strike]assess[/strike] burn someone without evidence they were [strike]taxpayers[/strike] witches."

[option #2, just change "taxpayer" to "slave" & [strike]fig[/strike] leave the rest in tact, circa pre-1865 "law"/revelation/Scripture of The Land]

lawyers, priests, temple guards, one and the same.

[move]All in all it's just a, 'nuther brick in The Wall... Brickwall[/move]

[Image: tankids.jpg]
[Image: 2537_finalreport_waco-tragedy-3_04700300.jpg]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 11:47 AM
Post: #57
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Marc Stevens Wrote:You think it's proper for a judge to not strike the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent? The whole thing should have been thrown out when the agent was declared incompetent by the trial judge. The trial judge and appeal judges conveniently ignore the whole decision was based on the testimony of a witness the trial judge ruled was "incompetent".
That's not what the judge said.

From the transcript that was attached to the judge's order, starting at page 4, line 13:
Judge William F. Downes Wrote:Third, Mr. Edwards moves to strike the declarations of IRS Agent Bruce Gilbert in support of the petition because Agent Gilbert is allegedly not qualified to be a witness against Mr. Edwards, citing to Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Rule 602 states that a witness may only testify about matters within his personal knowledge. Mr. Edwards claims that because Agent Gilbert could not answer meaningless questions posed by Mr. Edwards during the earlier meetings that he had with Mr. Gilbert, that he is not qualified as a witness.

For example, Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Gilbert whether he could, quote, prove that I am in the State of Wyoming with me sitting right here, close quote, referring to the document entitled "Evidence" filed by Mr. Edwards on August 15. Agent Gilbert could not fashion an answer to the question. Despite Mr. Edwards' efforts, he cannot show that Agent Gilbert lacks personal knowledge of the averments he made in his declaration.

Agent Gilbert's declaration states that he is conducting an investigation of income tax liability; that he served a summons on the respondent and that the respondent appeared but did not produce the documents. Clearly the agent has personal knowledge of the averments contained in his declaration. He is a qualified witness, and his declaration should not be stricken.

When (and where) did the judge say that the witness was "incompetent"?

It seems to be more likely that the judge said that the questions were incompetent.
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 12:10 PM
Post: #58
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
So the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever that the man was in Wyoming is not a problem for you? Do you not allow that the law demands that jurisdiction is part of what's needed for a case to proceed? How about taking the president of Mexico to I.R.S. court for failure to pay "his" U.S. income tax? Does that work for you, too?

Is your definition of "applicable" law just those things which will make the outcome what you want it to be, that you can kinda pick and choose which factors apply and which you will throw out as "meaningless?"

The man had NO EVIDENCE that the accused "taxpayer" was within Wyoming. And part of the law requires jurisdiction. Kaput. Case closed. Done. Over. Next...

- NonE (hypocritically tossing large bag of bagels to the troll, with knife, tub of cream cheese and a deli wrapper filled with lox)

Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:You think it's proper for a judge to not strike the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent? The whole thing should have been thrown out when the agent was declared incompetent by the trial judge. The trial judge and appeal judges conveniently ignore the whole decision was based on the testimony of a witness the trial judge ruled was "incompetent".
That's not what the judge said.

From the transcript that was attached to the judge's order, starting at page 4, line 13:
Judge William F. Downes Wrote:Third, Mr. Edwards moves to strike the declarations of IRS Agent Bruce Gilbert in support of the petition because Agent Gilbert is allegedly not qualified to be a witness against Mr. Edwards, citing to Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Rule 602 states that a witness may only testify about matters within his personal knowledge. Mr. Edwards claims that because Agent Gilbert could not answer meaningless questions posed by Mr. Edwards during the earlier meetings that he had with Mr. Gilbert, that he is not qualified as a witness.

For example, Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Gilbert whether he could, quote, prove that I am in the State of Wyoming with me sitting right here, close quote, referring to the document entitled "Evidence" filed by Mr. Edwards on August 15. Agent Gilbert could not fashion an answer to the question. Despite Mr. Edwards' efforts, he cannot show that Agent Gilbert lacks personal knowledge of the averments he made in his declaration.

Agent Gilbert's declaration states that he is conducting an investigation of income tax liability; that he served a summons on the respondent and that the respondent appeared but did not produce the documents. Clearly the agent has personal knowledge of the averments contained in his declaration. He is a qualified witness, and his declaration should not be stricken.

When (and where) did the judge say that the witness was "incompetent"?

It seems to be more likely that the judge said that the questions were incompetent.

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 01:46 PM
Post: #59
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Micah68 Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:You think it's proper for a judge to not strike the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent? The whole thing should have been thrown out when the agent was declared incompetent by the trial judge. The trial judge and appeal judges conveniently ignore the whole decision was based on the testimony of a witness the trial judge ruled was "incompetent".
That's not what the judge said.

Really? Were you there? I was, that's what he said, below is what he wrote and doesn't reflect everything that was said in court. The judge doesn't write about his flying into a rage either, guess that didn't happen. LOL

Micah68 Wrote:From the transcript that was attached to the judge's order, starting at page 4, line 13:
Judge William F. Downes Wrote:Third, Mr. Edwards moves to strike the declarations of IRS Agent Bruce Gilbert in support of the petition because Agent Gilbert is allegedly not qualified to be a witness against Mr. Edwards, citing to Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Rule 602 states that a witness may only testify about matters within his personal knowledge. Mr. Edwards claims that because Agent Gilbert could not answer meaningless questions posed by Mr. Edwards during the earlier meetings that he had with Mr. Gilbert, that he is not qualified as a witness.

For example, Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Gilbert whether he could, quote, prove that I am in the State of Wyoming with me sitting right here, close quote, referring to the document entitled "Evidence" filed by Mr. Edwards on August 15. Agent Gilbert could not fashion an answer to the question. Despite Mr. Edwards' efforts, he cannot show that Agent Gilbert lacks personal knowledge of the averments he made in his declaration.

Agent Gilbert's declaration states that he is conducting an investigation of income tax liability; that he served a summons on the respondent and that the respondent appeared but did not produce the documents. Clearly the agent has personal knowledge of the averments contained in his declaration. He is a qualified witness, and his declaration should not be stricken.

When (and where) did the judge say that the witness was "incompetent"?

It seems to be more likely that the judge said that the questions were incompetent.

Nice try, the judge reluctantly let the agent on the stand, he was sworn in and asked questions. The judge refused questioning and said the witness was incompetent to give legal opinions, he, the judge, was the only one competent to give legal opinions in his court. Mr. Edwards moved for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken. Judge rages and denies.

As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state? Wow. LOL
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-19-2011, 04:38 PM
Post: #60
Re: Adventures Success Stories?
Marc Stevens Wrote:Nice try, the judge reluctantly let the agent on the stand, he was sworn in and asked questions. The judge refused questioning and said the witness was incompetent to give legal opinions, he, the judge, was the only one competent to give legal opinions in his court. Mr. Edwards moved for the agent's legal opinions to be stricken. Judge rages and denies.
Now it's starting to make sense.

As the judge said in his oral opinion, he didn't need to take testimony from agent Gilbert, but he did anyway.

As the judge said in his oral opinion, Gilbert was perfectly competent to testify to the only FACTUAL issues that were relevant to the petition to enforce the summons, namely what Gilbert was investigating and why he wanted the papers requested by the summons.

But Edwards (the taxpayer) then proceeded to ask him some of the idiotic and irrelevant questions we've seen here in this forum, probably something about how Gilbert determined that Edwards was a "taxpayer," and the judge refused to allow Gilbert to answer the questions because the questions called for legal conclusions and Gilbert wasn't competent to give legal conclusions.

Edwards raised objections and persisted in the idiocy, and the judge got (understandably) angry.

Bottom line: So what?

All you and Edwards succeeded in doing was annoying a judge. The summons was enforced, Edwards eventually produced the required papers, and the IRS is slowly working towards its determination of a deficiency or assessment of taxes.

Which means that, as far as the summons is concerned, Edwards (and you) lost.

Marc Stevens Wrote:As NonE already pointed out, you see no significance the agent admitted he could not prove Mr. Edwards was within the state? Wow. LOL
The agent would also have difficulty proving that Edwards was a human being, that the earth is round, or that the sky is up.

You really should look up the meaning of the word "sophistry." Judge Downes thought that it applied, and I think you're going to be hearing that word many more times in your life, so you might as well get to know the meaning of it.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)