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 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.
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.