But that’s the way they do things over there. That says a lot about their credibility. They have their opinion first: Marc Stevens is an idiot. Then they spin the facts, if any, to conform to their opinion. We, the members of quatloos cannot register on the forum: Stevens, sitting at his computer, ever vigilant to not permit dissenting views, somehow knows our IP addresses and blocks us from posting. He must also have our phone numbers because we can’t even call his radio show.
In the forum, I recently posted a federal docket number for an IRS attack I helped a friend with. Because the trial judge rejected everything as did the appellate judges, “wserra” takes that as evidence what I put forth was incorrect. He predictably left out some pretty important facts. Again, the quatloos guys have to get the facts to fit their opinion. I will explain what happened briefly, then you can decide if the judges’ decision has any merit at all. This is not intended to change the opinion of the quatloos guys, only to demonstrate they have no credibility.
The IRS filed a civil complaint asking a federal judge to enforce an IRS summons. The complaint was only a request for relief and did not allege any wrongdoing whatsoever. That should raise a red flag already.
“The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered “some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action . . . .” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151 -154 (1970).” Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490 (emphasis mine).
But, despite the federal court’s being limited to only protect against injury, the IRS complaint presented no injury and no “illegal action” at all. Regardless of this basic law, the trial judge ruled against our motion to dismiss for failure to present a justiciable controversy. The appellate judges also rejected the supreme court’s argument (I didn’t write Warth v. Seldin) the federal courts “judicial power exists only…to protect against injury to the complaining party…”
No explanation whatsoever was given why the federal courts have jurisdiction outside of the limitations set forth above. That’s all quatloos members need to blast me as an idiot, moron and an ass. Quatloos, same as the courts, misdirect your attention by claiming the judges rejected my argument and that’s just not true. The trial and appellate judges rejected the supreme court’s opinions. What do you think? If the IRS filed a complaint alleging no injury, should the trial judge have rejected the complaint in accordance with Warth v. Seldin? If you think the judge should have ruled consistent with Warth, then you to can be the subject of a personal attack by quatloos.
What “wserra” also neglects to mention is when the IRS agent was on the stand, the trial judge declared the agent incompetent to give legal opinions. The judge flew into a rage when my friend asked the judge to strike the agent’s legal opinions and refused. That’s right, a judge took the testimony of a witness he declared incompetent. For those who may not know, the IRS is required to file an affidavit of good faith when they file a complaint to enforce a summons, if not, the courts may not enforce the summons, United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964).
Do you think decisions based on an incompetent witness have merit? Quatloos members do. Why focus only on the judges’ opinions and not what led to them? An honest investigation into the truth looks something like this:
1. The IRS files a complaint seeking relief only, no allegations of injury or illegal activity.
2. The constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to only cases.
3. The supreme court held: “The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party.”
4. Man moves for dismissal because the complaint alleges no injury or illegal activity.
5. Trial judge rejects motion, calling argument “sophistry”.
6. Trial judge declares IRS agent incompetent in court.
7. Man requests the judge to strike testimony of agent, an essential element of maintaining complaint.
8. Judge becomes enraged and denies request, letting testimony stand.
9. Judge rules against man.
10. Same issues raised on appeal, judges affirm and sanction man for $6000.
Did the quatloos guys ask why/how the court may hear a complaint alleging no injury? Did they ever examine the limitations of the courts and compare them with the complaint? No, of course not. Why? Because they rely on condemnation without investigation. Apparently the thought of a federal judge being wrong on the law and my being correct, is so incomprehensible to the guys at quatloos, no investigation is necessary.
Quatloos is about personal attacks and not truth and justice. That’s why I’m constantly accused of making this stuff up as if I wrote the constitution and opinions such as Warth v. Seldin. Quatloos will only address points 5, 9-10. Focusing on everything though, especially 1-4, 6-8, makes it more difficult for them to maintain any credibility when attacking me as a moron. The fact they only look at the judges’ opinion and nothing else, is evidence enough of their intent and it certainly isn’t about the truth.
If quatloos were truly interested in scams and had any credibility, then they would investigate how governments operate. If they did, they would see government is the biggest scam going. They force people to pay them under the guise of protection. If you disagree with the IRS and don’t pay, the only “remedy” is with men/women (judges) who are paid directly from the money forcibly taken.
And what credibility do judges have? How many voluntary supporters do they have? Zero, everyone is forced to pay them. Pretty easy to see why a judge would allow a complaint without allegations of injury despite the “law” requiring it: “The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party.” There’s a conflict of interest and I had a hearing officer (lawyer) with the Maryland comptrollers office admit it this year. Funny enough, he thought he could still be fair. He then took the testimony of a witness who admitted, under oath, she was not competent to do the assessments. Apparently we have differing ideas on what is fair.
And for those quatloos guys who think though there’s no bias because judges are paid from what the IRS takes, how would you feel about Larken Rose sitting as a judge in a tax dispute? Think about it for a minute and try to deny that deep seated emotional response; maybe the light will go on.
What is so bad about them, is quatloos seem to act without a sense of right and wrong, instead they use legal and illegal. And that has brought the world more misery than anything else I can think of. Right and wrong don’t enter into it, the decision of men/women no one voluntarily supports is what dictates right and wrong, truth and fiction.
Quatloos are the guys who stand around insisting the “emperor” has clothes. While those who see the irrefutable truth – governments have no voluntary support – are denounced as liars, idiots and morons. Yeah, facts really are stubborn things. Despite all the name calling, governments still have no voluntary support. Spin that. Telling me to move will not change the facts either.
If I presented my services to the market the way governments do, quatloos would denounce me as a criminal, at least until I labeled myself a government.