Categorized | Articles, Video

Debunking Dan Evans, Part 2 – Liar or Just Uniformed?

Posted on September 10th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

Is Dan Evans, Pennsylvania “super lawyer“, a liar, or is he just uniformed?

On his website, he wrote:

There are no known court proceedings involving Stevens personally.

dan-evansDan is either lying or just uninformed.  Either way we have more evidence of Dan Evans acting in bad faith.  Evans is writing these things about me publicly.  When acting in good faith, one does their due diligence, some actual research into the subject before making things public.  But Dan Evans is not acting in good faith, his interest in me and my work is to smear me, to make me look bad.

So let’s get into the proof of Dan’s dishonesty, and this is just part of a pattern of dishonesty Dan “super lawyer” Evans has established.  I’ll also address the inevitable logical fallacies the “super lawyer” and his associates will probably use to defend Evans.

Below is documentary proof of a court proceeding involving me personally, it’s from Tempe, Arizona and originally posted here in 2012.

summary1

Apparently you can be a “super lawyer” without doing simple research about someone you’re publicly trashing.  Obviously this is documentary evidence of something super Dan claims does not exist.  Dan is either a liar or he didn’t do a few minutes research before posting his writings about me publicly.  It’s bad faith either way.

Is this a big deal?  Yes; this is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a well-established pattern of dishonesty from Evans.  This doesn’t look like a harmless, “but I’m a super lawyer and super duper busy with important lawyer stuff” type of error.  It’s Dan’s style to avoid anything conflicting with his view of me and my work.  I know because he told me this on the phone.  He doesn’t agree with my premise so no investigation into the facts is necessary: “Marc are you familiar with the phrase reductio ad absurdum?”    If Dan is so busy with important lawyer work, then he should do the honest thing and not post until after he has done a proper investigation.

We all know Dan “super lawyer” Evans and his associates cannot admit making mistakes when it comes to me and those they publicly accuse, so they will bring out the fallacies.  They may claim the above “does not count” as it is a traffic court, which is not a “real court”.  They may claim this is not proof that my positions/tactics have any merit because the officer did not show, it proves nothing.  They may even claim it was a simple oversight and doesn’t mean any of my positions/tactics have any merit.  Dan may claim that this not his real work, that he doesn’t spend much time on it.

They are each wrong because they don’t address the actual issue: Dan the “super lawyer” posted a false statement about me publicly.  He did not do a simple search of my website to find the obvious.   And that is Dan’s MO: he’s not interested in the truth, only smearing me.

Another example of Dan’s dishonesty is where he recently defended his cherry-picking of court cases.  Dan claims he only writes about cases that were lost because there are no cases where I have helped people get complaints kicked out.  This is just another Evans lie.  If Evans is talking/writing, then you can bet he’s lying.  That’s why Dan will not confront me publicly, he is dishonest and relies on logical fallacies.

All one needs to do is go through the success stories thread and see plenty of complaints kicked out.  Dan is just another dishonest lawyer who has proven, that despite being a “super lawyer” and “Seriously Outstanding“, he’s not entitled to anything but disdain and contempt.

However, Dan and his associates still have an open invite to present their evidence against me publicly on my radio show or another live broadcast.

              

20 Comments For This Post

  1. Jack Worthington Says:

    Dan Evans is just an elitist criminal operating under the cover/cloak of “lawyer.” Commie/socialists operate under the cloak of “Populist” or “Progressive” or “liberal” or Democrat or Republican but they are still criminals as they are liars and use force to loot A to satisfy B. Deceivers must have a cover or umbrella to conceal their evils.

  2. Al: Beyer Says:

    I agree with Jack Worthington on September 10th, 2014 at 10:58 pm and know of only one greater deceiver than Dan Evans, this deceiver wants us to walk into the light should we find ourselves in a special predicament, his name is Lucifer. Dan Evans is most likely a close study of him. Look up what lucifer means.

    Anyway, Dan Evans exists only because we give him the attention as we are now. I found out that if one ignores him, he will go away. He is not an attorney/lawyer, just a schmuck who will say its blue when you say red, just to argue.

  3. Latimer the Cat Says:

    For the most part Jack – agreed. However not all socialist constructs historically have been for the essential benefit of the predatory parasite fake-race cult. Communism (Bolshevism) yes, *Internationalist* or Marxist Socialism yes, Parliamentary Democracy or Capitalism yes. *Nationalist* Socialism – No.

  4. Al: Beyer Says:

    Latimer, how can you say NO for the Nationalist Socialism? They’re not any different. There’s always someone at the top instigating/perpetuating for their own agenda.

  5. Jack Worthington Says:

    Al: Beyer, ya read my mind. National Socialism, like NAZI, is Fascism:

    any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism [from MS Word dictionary]. I don’t know how Latimer the Cat came to his conclusion as history tells me different.

  6. Wise One Says:

    Hey everyone, there’s some website, I’m not sure of the name but you probably have heard of it, where you can get people to pledge donation amounts on their credit cards to charities if a certain event takes place, and the cards are charged only if the event takes place. Bob Murphy of the Mises Institute did this to challenge court economist Paul Krugman to a debate; of course Krugman never accepted even though the money would have helped an acknowledged charity. Why don’t we do the same thing, i.e., have as many people as possible pledge their credit cards if Dan Evans agrees to debate Marc, or goes on his live radio show? Heck, we can even have Evans (er, excuse me, I meant Dan “Super Duper Lawyer” Evans) pick the charity. I’m sure that Dan, being the upstanding guy he is whose only motives are to help his fellow man, would gladly accept such a challenge.

  7. Andy Says:

    @Wise One, CrowdRise… https://www.crowdrise.com/

  8. steve womacks National Says:

    all lawyers are agents of the court, ie foreign agents for the crown.

    This is what an Attorney is. He/she is an Officer of the Court, who brings you to the Court and Leaves you there. Thus the Court immediately has Leave (Jurisdiction) over you. Attorneys are Bounty Hunters with a Suit and tie on… they have no intention of ever “defending” a real person, they bait and switch, completely misrepresent themselves to their “clients”.

    Remember Judges are lawyers too, it’s all a cleverly rigged racketeering syndicate.(violating the real 13th amendment btw that was erased from publications in 1800’s)

    Check out Judge Dale’s The Great American Adventure, search it and you will find it, he was a fed judge that go so sick of the pathological lying of the cabal aka gov’t he wrote an expose.

    may Peace in all of us bring an end to the cabal.

  9. Andy Says:

    Regarding crowd funding debates. I’m thinking of well known politicians and bureaucrats whose salaries are paid with money stolen/taxed from people. It’s a step or more up from being heard at a town council meeting.

    As if to say: We The People (meet them at their PR map of the world)… We The People have voted with our wallets $XX number of dollars to get you, Mr. Politician, to debate _________ (insert issue) with the money going to a charity of your choice… Some issues are, Anarchism vs Statism…. evidence of jurisdiction, double standards, no voluntary support, etc.

    The bigger the named criminal/politician/bureaucrat the better to gain viral coverage of the challenge to debate.

    It doesn’t bode well for them to refuse to debate and thus deny “their” constituents and charity of their choice (a charity that may have funded their campaigns).

    It may have a greater effect at a local level — town, city or county — to challenge the local “government” officials to debate an issue.

    What politician or bureaucrat would you like to debate what issue? Or, who — other than yourself — would you like to see debate who (
    politician or bureaucrat) on what issue?

    Interwebz rulez!

  10. desertspeaks Says:

    Dan’s equivocating comments are indicative of his propensity to lie, the bread and butter of a lawyer!
    Come on Marc, you can’t take anything a known pathological liar has to say about you seriously.

  11. Jack Worthington Says:

    Hey Wise One, you are on to something. These challenges to public officials are analogous to the “Ice Bucket” Challenges, i.e Truth Bucket Challenges.

  12. Thinking Cap Says:

    Marc Have you ever considered there might not even be an actual Dan Evans, he might just be a fictitious online persona? Seriously, how do we know he is who he says he is?

  13. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Thinking cap, he is listed as a super lawyer with an office in Penn. I’ve spoken with someone who answered his phone and identified himself as Dan Evans. So the presumption is there is a real, though quite dishonest, Dan “super lawyer” Evans.

  14. Latimer the Cat Says:

    Hey Al: Beyer

    Regarding your your question/assertion “…how can you say NO for the Nationalist Socialism? They’re not any different. There’s always someone at the top instigating/perpetuating for their own agenda.”

    Cui-bono exposes the difference. Even though the filter has been there for people to see the obvious difference (at least historically) it “mysteriously” never gets mentioned in our zionist/masonic (kabbalahistic) American establishment engineered culture and/or counter-culture. *The status-que only seeks to preserve the status-que*. In every political expression of government, with the exception of Nationalist Socialism, including the predatory ZOG government as it is currently in the crumbling USA, the beneficiaries are identified through the out-working of their Talmudic/kabbalahistic ideology. Historically, the construct of Nationalist Socialism benefited the people socially (in retaining their indigenous culture) and economically (freeing them from the yoke of usury-based Jew-controlled blood money) resulting in the greatest economic miracle in Western History within the Old World Order nationalist construct. Looking back at the *evidence* and beyond the well-funded flood of demonizing propaganda, I don’t see a problem with that.

    As for “…perpetuating for their own agenda” there is no neutrality as far as I can see it. Isn’t an “agenda” (social engineering) being for better or worse “perpetuated here? I believe so. The issue for debate by the people who will receive the consequences is how will it play-out? Who benefits from the destruction of government as a concept (in-and-of-itself) and the vacuum that it will leave – the evolving and still somewhat congealed race-based cultures (becoming more aware of the race aspect of their identities) or the conflation fake-race reification cult that seeks to steer, control and use them for their own continuing status-que benefit? Being relational creatures of the one and the many and tending to congeal towards commonality, historically, the hole in the vacuum has always been filled-in. Sadly usually for the worse.

  15. Incubus Says:

    Two minor quibbles, Latimer, with no il intent involved. You wrote “status que” where I assume you meant status quo. And ZOG government is redundant, as ZOG is short for Zionist Occupied Government.

    That’s all. Sorry to be THAT GUY.

  16. Latimer the Cat Says:

    Incubus,

    Thanks. Better to stand corrected than to stand in error.

  17. NonEntity Says:

    No il intent…??? :O

    – THAT GUY 😉 !!! (with no ill intent)

  18. Incubus Says:

    I’m starting a petition to have Survivor taken off the air.

    How’s that for ill intent, tough guy?

  19. Dale Eastman Says:

    Dan, you are a fucking liar. (Sorry ’bout the R rating Mr. Stevens.)

    I’ve had words with this cockroach and the others that infest Quatloos… Germany 1938, Dan and his pals would be arguing how shoving Jews and other undesirables into the ovens was “legal” because it was being done in accordance with the laws regarding the same.

    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.taxes/XwK3NQvPV60/QosfTd9kmL0J

    Of course, if you go to the Quatloos sewer site, they will gang up on you and post anything they can to distract, deflect, and disrupt dialog that is other than what “they” believe.

  20. Al: Beyer Says:

    Latimer the Cat Says:
    September 12th, 2014 at 3:16 am Regarding “…how can you say NO for the Nationalist Socialism? A people must all come together at the sometime and for the same reasons at the same time. Simple logic dictates that can never happen as we are all different. There always has to be someone that brings them together, and no matter who that may be and no matter how sincere the cause…have themselves in mind first.

    Thanks for your thoughts, I do enjoy the conversing.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Jul 25, 2015 - Co-hosts: Vin James and Matthew - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] poorly-founded criticisms of the folks over at Quatloos! [Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos!, Part 1, Part 2, and Part […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via youtube.com. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here