Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington

[Unarmed Gunman]

Why would the claims be unverifiable? He posts scans of court documents, and recordings of conversations with lawyers and agents.

I've looked over what he has and seen nothing credible. If you think something in particular is credible please link to it.

That's an appeal. The case was already lost.

I linked to the original case AND the appeal - he worked on both. Go back and reread them.

Also, did you read it? Do you actually think that he lost the appeal on merit?

Well considering the judge said the case is "wholly without merit", then yes I would say he lost on merit. Unless you're going to make the argument that "wholly without merit" does not mean the same thing as losing on merit.

If your definition of verified is government documentation, then you're right, it's probably undocumented except a high frequency of cases he works on being dismissed.

I just want to see the documentation where he had something dismissed because of his methods/tactics/arguments/sophistry or whatever you want to call it.

Here is a suggestion. Stop posting. Just stop. You probably won't because Dunning-Kruger, but if you had any sense, any credibility, any character, you'd just stop.

Again with the personal attacks...

As I have said, I referred a guy here to him, who had a criminal offense and Stevens helped him out. That's infinitely more credibility for Stevens than anything you're going to claim (unsupported) or cherry pick (ham-fistedly).

If you say so. Still waiting on that proof...

 

[Moxie]

Here is a suggestion. Stop posting. Just stop. You probably won't because Dunning-Kruger, but if you had any sense, any credibility, any character, you'd just stop.

Since you are once again trying to diagnose the mental makeup of others based on forum posts, a suggestion for you would be to examine your own. :frenchman:


A look at Aspergers and control issues | Autism Support Network


Aspergers and conflict management | Postcards from the edge of the Spectrum

"Autistic people are more likely to struggle with disagreement over facts...

With Autistic people, I think there is probably a fine line between being faithful to the truth and trying to impose one’s will on someone else."

 

[guerilla]

I've looked over what he has and seen nothing credible. If you think something in particular is credible please link to it.

His entire method is credible. You know, the method you did all that deep research into.

Well considering the judge said the case is "wholly without merit", then yes I would say he lost on merit.

So whatever any judge says is fact?

I just want to see the documentation where he had something dismissed because of his methods/tactics/arguments/sophistry or whatever you want to call it.

What is "it"? You did a lot of deep research, right? Can you even explain what it is he does?

Can you back up the claim he's a fraud?

Sure you want to see documentation. You've been linked to it. Look at it. Do more deep research.

If you say so. Still waiting on that proof...

Keep waiting. Eventually all of that deep research will find its way to you, I am sure of it.

It's one thing to post ideas that aren't well thought out, or aren't consistent. Everyone makes those mistakes. But pretending you know something you don't know, and carrying on the lie of it is despicable.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

His entire method is credible. You know, the method you did all that deep research into.


So whatever any judge says is fact?


What is "it"? You did a lot of deep research, right? Can you even explain what it is he does?

Can you back up the claim he's a fraud?

Sure you want to see documentation. You've been linked to it. Look at it. Do more deep research.


Keep waiting. Eventually all of that deep research will find its way to you, I am sure of it.

It's one thing to post ideas that aren't well thought out, or aren't consistent. Everyone makes those mistakes. But pretending you know something you don't know, and carrying on the lie of it is despicable.

And with that, I'm out.

 

[kingofsp]

The way I see it, the whole reason you can get these victimless cases thrown out is because the court has to maintain an image of legitimacy. Once you peel that away by asking simple questions, they just want to get rid of you. No two judges are exactly alike, but they all have the same incentives, more or less. So some will find a technicality to dismiss it on to get you out of their hair (and to stop you from putting any more ideas into the minds of the rest of the people in the courtroom). Some will convict you anyway to save face, but if you have done an adequate job of getting them to admit they have no evidence of jurisdiction (or at least that they were unresponsive) then there is a good chance you can get it thrown out on appeal. And yes, in a small number of cases, some judge flipped out (as people tend to do when backed into a corner) and held someone in contempt of court. No surprise there.

I don't imagine there is ever going to be a public record that states someone got out of paying some bullshit ticket or some bullshit tax evasion case because "we couldn't prove we had jurisdiction." Imagine what would happen then. People like you who can't quite be convinced would probably become convinced (or at least more optimistic) and it would spread around like crazy. That's why in a lot of the cases posted in the link I referenced, people get a dismissal with no explanation and when they ask for one in writing, they get ignored.

This isn't some radical shit where you're arguing that you are not your name or because your name is in capital letters on the citation then it's not really you or whatever reaching arguments people come up with to get out of shit. This is just playing by their rules and asking questions. It's a matter of facts vs opinions. Opinions don't prove anything. To say the vehicle code applies because the vehicle code says so is circular logic. It does not prove with any sort of empirical proof that the code applies to me. At least none that I can think of. But it's not my job to figure out what proves that it applies, because I'm not the one making the claim. They are.

 

[jryan21]

The way I see it, the whole reason you can get these victimless cases thrown out is because the court has to maintain an image of legitimacy. Once you peel that away by asking simple questions, they just want to get rid of you. No two judges are exactly alike, but they all have the same incentives, more or less. So some will find a technicality to dismiss it on to get you out of their hair (and to stop you from putting any more ideas into the minds of the rest of the people in the courtroom). Some will convict you anyway to save face, but if you have done an adequate job of getting them to admit they have no evidence of jurisdiction (or at least that they were unresponsive) then there is a good chance you can get it thrown out on appeal. And yes, in a small number of cases, some judge flipped out (as people tend to do when backed into a corner) and held someone in contempt of court. No surprise there.

I don't imagine there is ever going to be a public record that states someone got out of paying some bullshit ticket or some bullshit tax evasion case because "we couldn't prove we had jurisdiction." Imagine what would happen then. People like you who can't quite be convinced would probably become convinced (or at least more optimistic) and it would spread around like crazy. That's why in a lot of the cases posted in the link I referenced, people get a dismissal with no explanation and when they ask for one in writing, they get ignored.

This isn't some radical shit where you're arguing that you are not your name or because your name is in capital letters on the citation then it's not really you or whatever reaching arguments people come up with to get out of shit. This is just playing by their rules and asking questions. It's a matter of facts vs opinions. Opinions don't prove anything. To say the vehicle code applies because the vehicle code says so is circular logic. It does not prove with any sort of empirical proof that the code applies to me. At least none that I can think of. But it's not my job to figure out what proves that it applies, because I'm not the one making the claim. They are.

A good way to find out is to go sit in municipal court one day and see what happens. For things like parking tickets, or running a red light, some judges will dismiss it if they do anything other than go up there and plead out. One time I saw a guy who had a file full of pics he took of a stop sign that had vines all over it. The judge didn't even look at it and dismissed it.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

The way I see it, the whole reason you can get these victimless cases thrown out is because the court has to maintain an image of legitimacy. Once you peel that away by asking simple questions, they just want to get rid of you. No two judges are exactly alike, but they all have the same incentives, more or less. So some will find a technicality to dismiss it on to get you out of their hair (and to stop you from putting any more ideas into the minds of the rest of the people in the courtroom). Some will convict you anyway to save face, but if you have done an adequate job of getting them to admit they have no evidence of jurisdiction (or at least that they were unresponsive) then there is a good chance you can get it thrown out on appeal. And yes, in a small number of cases, some judge flipped out (as people tend to do when backed into a corner) and held someone in contempt of court. No surprise there.

I don't imagine there is ever going to be a public record that states someone got out of paying some bullshit ticket or some bullshit tax evasion case because "we couldn't prove we had jurisdiction." Imagine what would happen then. People like you who can't quite be convinced would probably become convinced (or at least more optimistic) and it would spread around like crazy. That's why in a lot of the cases posted in the link I referenced, people get a dismissal with no explanation and when they ask for one in writing, they get ignored.

This isn't some radical shit where you're arguing that you are not your name or because your name is in capital letters on the citation then it's not really you or whatever reaching arguments people come up with to get out of shit. This is just playing by their rules and asking questions. It's a matter of facts vs opinions. Opinions don't prove anything. To say the vehicle code applies because the vehicle code says so is circular logic. It does not prove with any sort of empirical proof that the code applies to me. At least none that I can think of. But it's not my job to figure out what proves that it applies, because I'm not the one making the claim. They are.

The problem is shit gets thrown out of court all the time, sometimes without explanation. This is no different, you just found a guy that was smart enough to monetize it.

 

[kingofsp]

The problem is shit gets thrown out of court all the time, sometimes without explanation. This is no different, you just found a guy that was smart enough to monetize it.

It's a pretty cool way to make a living, if you ask me, making IRS agents and prosecutors feel stupid all day. Or making them furious, at the very least.

And Marc is a pretty nice guy. He even helped me with a parking ticket via Skype once, free of charge.

But anyway, yeah, things get dismissed for a variety of reasons all the time. But making legal arguments is a vastly complex and mind-numbing exercise as far as I'm concerned. More people need to just challenge the entire premise. Put them on the spot and try to force them to acknowledge the absurdity and the violence inherent in their whole operation. For me, after all I've learned on the topic, I can't imagine myself ever taking any sort of citation/victimless charge laying down again.

In the words of Henry David Thoreau:

“It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worthless in that case.”

 

[guerilla]

A good way to find out is to go sit in municipal court one day and see what happens. For things like parking tickets, or running a red light, some judges will dismiss it if they do anything other than go up there and plead out. One time I saw a guy who had a file full of pics he took of a stop sign that had vines all over it. The judge didn't even look at it and dismissed it.

Takes about 2 hours to understand what Marc is talking about, probably some more time to feel comfortable doing any of it.

Traffic court is not a real court. It's a farce. The trick is to call them on the farce without being nailed with contempt. Marc's got a good approach for this.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

...making IRS agents and prosecutors feel stupid all day. Or making them furious, at the very least.

I'm still waiting on examples of this. Like I said the only source (from something other than unverifiable stories on his blog) shows him getting crushed in court. I want to believe, I really do - but the evidence just isn't there.

 

[kingofsp]

I'm still waiting on examples of this. Like I said the only source (from something other than unverifiable stories on his blog) shows him getting crushed in court. I want to believe, I really do - but the evidence just isn't there.

You should listen to his podcast. Or check out the "Call of Shame" section on the site.

When it comes to IRS cases, he's not trying to make headlines (although that would be nice), he's trying to get them to stop coming after his client. So what he'll do is record a conversation with them where he asks what evidence they're relying on to prove that the tax code is applicable to his client. That way if it does progress, he has them on tape saying things like "well, it just does" when it comes to what evidence they have that the code applies.

Just like the courts will use whatever dumb things people say (attempting to defend themselves) against them, you can do the same to them. Get them (tax agent, prosecutor, etc) on record saying they don't have any evidence that the code is applicable. Kind of hard for a judge to ignore that.

 

[guerilla]

You should listen to his podcast. Or check out the "Call of Shame" section on the site.

That would require actually doing some research, some thinking, following up on stuff and making an investment in ideas.

Don't you have anything which is easy and always works, is documented by the government and can be digested in 30 seconds?

 

[kingofsp]

Don't you have anything which is easy and always works, is documented by the government and can be digested in 30 seconds?

I wish!

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

You should listen to his podcast. Or check out the "Call of Shame" section on the site.

When it comes to IRS cases, he's not trying to make headlines (although that would be nice), he's trying to get them to stop coming after his client. So what he'll do is record a conversation with them where he asks what evidence they're relying on to prove that the tax code is applicable to his client. That way if it does progress, he has them on tape saying things like "well, it just does" when it comes to what evidence they have that the code applies.

Just like the courts will use whatever dumb things people say (attempting to defend themselves) against them, you can do the same to them. Get them (tax agent, prosecutor, etc) on record saying they don't have any evidence that the code is applicable. Kind of hard for a judge to ignore that.

Yeah I've listened to his podcasts and watched him on Youtube - I actually started out with the assumption he was legit and hoping he could help out a buddy of mine that's getting royally fucked by the system right now.

My "problem" is I have a skeptical mind so I instinctively look for holes in things that sound too good to be true and I have a finely tuned bullshit detector. All of his claims sound great on surface, until you dig deeper into the specifics of each claim and find out that none of them are what he portrays them to be.

To prove it, you or guerilla (or him if he would like) can post specifics from cases where he has prevailed and I will debunk them. I'm issuing an open challenge to anyone that can prove any of his claims actually work in a real court of law. Consider it the Wickedfire version of James Randi.

 

[jryan21]

There's some guys on Randi's forums right now that would probably propose a similar challenge. They seem to lump this guy in with the FOTL guys. Someone may be able to go over there and clean up.

 

[guerilla]

They seem to lump this guy in with the FOTL guys. Someone may be able to go over there and clean up.

Everything Marc says or has done, is online, available for free. The only exception is some of the material in his book, of which maybe 10% (which is non-critical) isn't online.

People who don't do their diligence (or lie about it), and don't understand socratic reasoning/logic, and who don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, are probably lost causes anyways.

Let them keep paying their tickets.