Categorized | Articles, Video

Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos, Part 1 – Yet Another Open Invite to Come on Show

Posted on September 6th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

dan-evansDan Evans seems obsessed with me.  He just can’t stop writing about me, he’s even added me to the his “Tax Protestor Dossier” referring to me as a “guru” and “big fish”.  Dan is not one to shy away from personal attacks, he can’t resist calling me a “run of the mill anarchist” as opposed to anarchist.

Let me address the “tax protestor” label.  I’m opposed to forcing people to give you money.  I think it’s wrong.  Dan doesn’t think it’s wrong for people called government.  For those called government, robbery (forcing people to give you money) is good, even moral.  The immoral ones are people like me who oppose it and don’t accept the double standard.   Obviously Dan Evans thinks a different moral code applies when people are called government.  Since I’m opposed to forcing people to give you money, according to Dan Evans, I am a “tax protestor”.  It’s easier, and more accurate to just say I am opposed to forcing people to give you money.  Dan doesn’t do it this way because then he could not convince people I’m the bad guy he claims I am.

I debunk part of Dan’s dossier on me in the below video.  What Dan Evans does, as typical of attorneys, is raise a strawman and cherry-pick.  He deliberately (dishonestly) gets my position wrong and then attempts to prove my position is false.  He will never address the lack of evidence unless to claim the constitution and laws are not a matter of evidence.  These written instruments apply as a matter of law.  In other words, the law applies because the law says so.  Dan Evans fails to understand that is a common logical fallacy, circular logic.

Again: “if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply” is an argument, a mere conclusory statement.  As with any argument or opinion, it must be based on facts.  While Dan would no doubt insist that is true with my arguments/opinions, this opinion is different.  According to Dan Evans, this opinion does not require any facts to prove it’s true.  Here we tend to see the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences, such as the sound of handcuffs being slammed on your wrists is all the evidence you need to prove the laws apply.  Dan and his associates like this logical fallacy, they use it all the time in an attempt to prove the argument the laws apply.

Evans also cherry-picks by only using citations where my position was ignored and rejected.  He never gives the back story and only takes was was reported.  Even when there’s video readily available, such as with Ian Freeman.  Dan Evans deliberately leaves out where King shouted, “I don’t need evidence, I have a statute!”  Dan also deliberately leaves out the prosecutor was unable to show any facts the statutes applied just because Ian is physically in New Hampshire.  Dan goes to a subjective opinion instead of to the objective record of the hearing.  If you think Dan’s accusations against me are true, ask yourself why he doesn’t use the objective record available?

Dan refuses to acknowledge where tickets and assessments have been kicked out.  Here is documentary proof of an attack by the California Franchise Tax Board being dropped; Dan has never commented on this as far as I know, why is that?

FTB-dropped

Because this evidence does not support his view of me and my work, so he just ignores it.  I’ll be doing another video debunking the rest of the garbage Dan has on that dossier.  It is my intent that those unfamiliar with my work will not just take Dan’s word for it, to do your own investigation and look at the facts before making a determination.

And those that think, like Dan, that I am a conman, that I’m dishonest or misguided, you are invited to come on a live broadcast and present your evidence.  If you think there are facts proving the constitution and laws apply to me because I am physically in Arizona (or where ever) please feel free to ambush me on a live broadcast and present them.  I’ll do another  live show if you can set that up.  We can also record.  It’s up to you.

And for Dan and his associates, you’re invited to come on the show as a panel against me.  Bring all your collective expertise and confront me with your evidence live on the air.  I don’t care if it’s 5-1 or 10-1.  We can do another live broadcast so I can’t “control the recording”.

 

 

 

              

21 Comments For This Post

  1. Mark Says:

    Good luck with that., Marc.

  2. Jack Worthington Says:

    Marc, excellent respons to Don Evens. Clearly, as with most attorneys, the question of factual evidence of the application of constitution and laws to “joe blow” and “Sally housewife” were not fully discussed or explained, else they would not raise their fallacious arguments. Your logic carries the debate. Don Evens is a criminal, a loser, and without respect. Don Evens denounces himself via is fallacious arguments. People should avoid Don Evens as he is a very cunning and evil man.

  3. Jack Worthington Says:

    My mistake, Dan Evens, not Don!

  4. indio007 Says:

    Even assuming the laws apply, Dan’s arguments still fail.
    This is because the courts of have held even a strict violation of a statute is only presumptive injurious.

    A case that comes to mind is one in which an unlicensed driver is in an accident that results in death.

    Proving they broke they committed the crime of unlicensed driving does not automagically prove they
    a. Are liable for the accident
    b. Committed manslaughter

    The point being even when the law applies it doesn’t automatically apply “as a matter of law”.

    Therefore even the circular logic is in error.

  5. mitch Says:

    hi its me again.the guy from show low az who has ben fighting the system here since 7 14 2013 over a d u I .I have to admit if you don’t follow the script thay are uste to it is ezey to get them tripping all over thmeselfs lol.iv got judges recusing them self’s I have bean in front of all of them now I think.iv got them not following their own procedures.thay are deff dumb and blind to eny constitutional arguments,and your constitutional rights.every time I go in and serve a motion to the court,as soon as thay see me thay all look like thay are going to puke lol.iv got all the court cd,s of the poceding.i haven’t lisend to them yet becous u have to downlode a program off of the computer to do so and every time I try nothing happens but my computer gets mest up.i haven’t come eny thing close to a win yet,but I am throwing wreches into the mechenery every chance I get lol.could use some help.thanks for reading.fight the good fight

  6. Spooner Says:

    way to go, Marc, mop the floor with that shit bag statist. I long for the day when individuals will evolve in their thinking that government is the end all be all of human existance. a day when we can finally ween ourselves off of the governments tit and finally be free

  7. Don Penners Says:

    Several years ago I found Dan Evans and read some of his thoughts. He’s a bona fide agent provacateur. Evans seems quite small in his understanding but big on sarcastic adjectives. Most attorneys I know have Evans’ small mindedness. Too bad for their customers. Evans enjoys listing sincere people who have challenged the government, but not known how to defend themselves. Yet, Evans seems unable to learn who beat the government.
    By exercising the principles explained by Marc, I’ve managed to have a red light camera ticket dismissed plus advising a foreign institution who then rejected the damnable FBAR and FATCA statutes. We know Evans won’t write about this.

  8. Al: Beyer Says:

    What Dan Evans has to say is always BullXXXX. I used to be at the head of list some years ago. He will not answer to reason or listen to anything one might have to say. If your content is in opposition to his, then your wrong no matter what. And he will not even support his own position. Don is correct, he is a bona fide agent provocateur. No one could be such an ass unless they were being paid. Even then, It’s hard to imagine. Perhaps he’s such an ass that he gets off by making and watching people get worked up. Kick his ass Marc.

  9. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Snicker….

    From: http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth1.htm#danevans

    OnryAnRkst: Can making [extortion] “legal” change the fact that it is WRONG?

    Dan Evans: Yes . . .in fact, when you come right down to it, almost everything that governments do would be crimes if committed by individuals.

    (Something tells me Dan doesn’t understand the implications of that assertion.)

  10. Jack Worthington Says:

    Yes, Habenae est Dminatus, Dan Evans is a criminal. I believe he knows and that means he is guilty of fraud as he has acted on his knowledge to loot those who are not able to mount cases that show his criminality.

    Fraud cannot be by accident or negligence. The following four elements are present in fraud, regardless of whether it is criminal or civil:

    1. A material false statement [Evidenced by an agent attempting to negate Lifetime Warranties by stating that the “market value” of a proposed substitution vehicle for one damaged in an accident is of equal value, when in fact the proposed substitution vehicle is known to be lacking such protections; the intent being to mitigate the loss and thus avoid compensation for the injured party and thus accruing benefit to the party responsible for paying the claim.].

    2. Knowledge of its falsity [Evidenced by a responsible party’s refusal to admit that damages were incurred for which he or his company are responsible for “making whole,” even when he is provided copies of receipts and other records that clearly show that such things as Lifetime Warrantied parts were purchased and installed on a vehicle for which there is a claim registered with that responsible party’s company and asserting the claim is only valued at say x, when indeed its true value might be substantially greater than x.].

    3. Reliance on the false statement by the victim [If one accepts the understated valuation of ons’s damaged property by an agent working for a company responsible for paying for that loss, relying on the integrity of the person and company he represents, then this requirement has been met.]; and

    4. Damages suffered [Certainly if such things as Lifetime Warranties are not replaced on any substitution vehicle and the owner not compensated based on factual values for such items, then damages are suffered. Consider the situation where any lifetime warranted part were to break on one’s vehicle, then that person could merely take the part to the place or business where it was purchased and that part would be replaced without additional charge(just the part, not the labor for removal and replacement). If a replacement vehicle lacked the warranted part, then the part would have to be purchased and there would be a net loss to the person who accepted the substitution vehicle without compensation for value equal to the missing lifetime warranted part. Any escape from full replacement or compensation for such Lifetime Warranties by a responsible party means that the party, whose vehicle was declared “totaled,” suffers damage].

    Also one must keep in mind that according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “assume” means to “pretend” and that the word “pretend” means to lie!

  11. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Yeah, I’ve had words with the tyrant’s collaborator before. That’s why I’m snickering. He has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.

    I’d call him a scum-bag, but that would be insulting to all the actual scum-bags of the world.

  12. Johnson Says:

    Well, Dan does have a couple of valid points. Marcs arguments dont seem to be working on the question of jurisdiction. “Semantics” of the question of presence in the State, and similar arguments.

    The one I thought was particularly interesting was the one where witnesses cannot be questioned on the issue of legal conclusions. It’s even in the court rules!

    Ooops.

    This one has to do with asking the cop questions like “Was I in the State when you gave me the ticket?” I suppose that there are legal questions, even if not codified, that this concept raises in other States as well.

    It looks like some judges are even saying that Marc’s stance on the question of standing is at issue. Is there an injury? A violation of legal right… etc.

  13. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Johnson, using that reasoning, one could also say that using the 4th amendment doesn’t work to exclude evidence because some judges reject it. The merit of an argument is not determined by how many lawyers agree with it. My position/argument is sound, there is no evidence proving the constitution and code apply because one is physically in Arizona. While it may be ignored, these same judges cannot provide the proof from the prosecutor. It’s not that the argument has no merit, it’s because the judge’s are assuming the prosecutor’s burden of proof. Dan’s arguments have no merit, they rely on logical fallacies and insults, not evidence and logic.

  14. Randall Says:

    Danny Boy and his cohorts, in my opinion, are the true nut jobs. I have debated these idiots on their battlefield (quatloos) before and if you cite a statute that supports your claim, you are attacked ad hominem.

  15. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Randall wrote: Danny Boy and his cohorts,

    Speaking of a cohort…

    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8283-post-57863.html#pid57863

  16. mitch Says:

    hi I’m back lol so I got a seat belt ticket and went to springerville to challeng jurisdiction and it went something like this . judge calls me up starts reading the ticket when she was done I sed I’m here to sake some questions adout the nature and couse of the charges such as show me the evidence of jurisdiction and I will plea guilty and pay the fine . she sad there is on evidence here to day . so I told her that I would be needing her to drop the case then . she sad that she was just there to get a plea . I sad well I’m innocent and so she started weighting not guilty on a form I told her that that is not what I sad I’m innocent and that’s it . I want u to wright innocent just like I sad . she sad I want to tell u that u are coming danger sly close to contempt of court . I sad that I did not want to do that but with on evidence of jurisdiction I would be needing he to drop the case , and that I would be taking that hole contempt warning as a threat . so she hands me a pace of paper and tells me to come back the 6th of next month . I sad so let me get this striate , with no evidence of jurisdiction u are going to push this case forward , I do not want to come back here and I will be needing to drop this case . she sad that she could not make that decision and I sad that lets get someone in here that could make that decision she sad that she couldn’t .so I told her that I was going to conceder the fact that she was willing to push this case forward with no evidence of jurisdiction dais in favor of the state . she sad u need to stop talking and get out . I sad ok and left lol so that’s how my Tuesday went lol

  17. 11:11 Says:

    @mitch: You might want to consider filing the Motion to Dismiss as well as the Brady Request. The NSP Skype Role Playing chat will be very helpful to you as well. Contact Marc at frankrizzo3 to be added to it. From what you wrote it seems that you put up a valiant effort at damage control but could use lots of prep for part two of your Adventure in Legal Land.

  18. mitch Says:

    I am trying taking a different tack on the hole thing . every one knows the game and the rules , I’m not there to answer questions , I’m there to make every one do there jobs . what I wrought was the readers digest version of what happened . there was a long back and forth about this not being the time to challenge jurisdiction and me telling her that is wrong jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in my option the earlier the better . as I was walking out there was another threat and every one was looking at there feet with eyes as big and round .

  19. Boxer Says:

    @mitch

    The only thing missing from your commentary was the crayon font and style. I can barely understand what it is you are attempting to convey to everyone on here.

  20. mitch Says:

    I’m sorry I’m not very good with words , spelling , the computer excreta . iv lessened to a lot of the tapes of people in court . every one knows what kind of fuckery they are going to pull so as soon as I here it I just tell them that is wrong i think u know it and that is evedince of bias in faver of the state ,be for thay can stop me . call out a thret as soon as they say it , stuff like that .

  21. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, don’t you know that it is not the job of the author to be rational and coherent? It’s the readers duty to actually ascertain the meaning in the blather (if any.) I’m crying. Am I wet, hungry, sick, tired, bored, etc. Your job to figure out,I ain’t responsible for shit. “I didn’t ask to be here!”

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Sept 6, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Debunking Dan Evans of Quatloos and his use of logical fallacies in attempt to dupe his audience into buying his fallacious and unsubstantiated claims. […]

  2. NSP - Jun 20, 2015 - Guests: Brian and Derrick J - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] flubs from critics of past and […]

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

    […] the 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

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : 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