Categorized | Call of Shame, Video

CoS – Sept 19, 2014 – IRS Agent Can’t Explain Why Constitution Applies: “I don’t know”

Posted on September 19th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

This is another great example of why sticking to just the facts is so effective at showing the IRS and other “government” types cannot support their arguments.  That is why they have to use violence to get compliance, people won’t cooperate with con men.

The agent claims yes, he can confirm there is evidence proving the constitution and code apply to Chris and there is jurisdiction to require a “return” be filed.  When I ask him for the specific facts the constitution apply, the agents says:

Wage income reported to the IRS.

I ask him to clarify, if the evidence the constitution applies to Chris is financial information provided under threat, duress and coercion.  He doesn’t answer, and I ask how forcing people to give the IRS information proves the constitution applies.   The agent disagrees claiming no one is forcing anyone to give the IRS information.  I point out that 26 USC 7203 does prove the information is coerced, you give the information or you go to jail.

The coercion, while important, does not have to be part of the discussion to prove there is no evidence proving the constitution applies, so I drop that from my questioning.  I ask him directly how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris.

The agent avoids the question claiming he does not want to “misguide” me.  So I repeat my question:

How is the financial information considered facts proving that the constitution applies to Chris?

The agent then claims that if the information is given it is “assumed”.  I restate what we’ve already said, that he confirmed there were facts, he said the facts were the financial information, and I again ask him to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris.

He avoids the question and I ask him again to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris.  He avoids again, I recap what he’s already said and ask once more to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris and at 6:50 the agent gives an honest answer:

I don’t know.

What’s funny is the agent, clearly out of his element, now wants to get a supervisor to clarify the question for me, so I can understand.  I do understand the question, I’m not the one who claimed a financial statement, given under threat of jail, proved the constitution applied to Chris.  I refrain from such groundless arguments.

He tries to get the pressure off by making excuses, that he is not there is prove the constitution applies.  I respond by stating that he probably spoke to soon and if he’s not qualified to confirm there is evidence the constitution applies, he should not be accusing Chris of being a “taxpayer”.  The IRS agent then makes the common plea of not being a lawyer, as if that excuses him from accusing Chris of being a “taxpayer” with the IRS’s jurisdiction.

Before he puts me on hold, he refers to Chris as a “taxpayer” again, and I call him on it since we have his admission “I don’t know” that he can’t begin to prove the constitution applies to Chris.  Instead of addressing his false allegations, he just ignores me and puts us on hold.  This call is evidence the agent committed a felony by making false statements, see 18 USC 1001.

I did cut the five minutes were were on hold, I also cut the first 30 minutes or so when we were initially on hold and the verification process as that contained personal information.

When they come back I state that since by his own admission he can’t prove any jurisdiction over Chris, that it would be prudent to stay proceedings and put a hold on the account so it doesn’t escalate.  The agent agrees and puts a hold on the account, so he did the right thing and the computer won’t escalate the attack.

This call is instructive because all I did was ask questions, getting more and more specific and asking the agent to clarify his statements.  It’s a simple to follow and replicate method; just asking questions.  I got disagreement when I added in the information being under threat, duress and coercion.  I know I don’t need to bring that up to establish the agent doesn’t have any facts proving the constitution applies, but it does help when in person and they can’t just hang up.

Discrediting the argument is accomplished by just taking the agent’s statement the facts proving the constitution applies to Chris are the financial statements given to the IRS.  It seems crazy to me that an unsigned written instrument from 1787 could possibly apply to me today because some men in DC coerced someone to give the IRS financial information.  That is truly irrational.

But it’s just that easy to tear apart the argument the constitution and code apply to us.  This is what I did, and I’m paraphrasing:

M: Can you confirm there’s evidence proving the constitution and code apply?

IRS: Yes.

M: What are the specific facts relied on proving the constitution and code apply and there is jurisdiction?

IRS: Financial information provided to the IRS.

M: How does the financial information prove the constitution applies?

IRS: I don’t know.

We can also ask why the info proves the constitution applies.  Why and how questions are part of the trivium; after we get some information from the agent regarding their argument, then we ask how and why their argument is correct.  If they had facts and a logical argument, then they’d just present them.  “I don’t know” just doesn’t do anything to inspire any confidence with me.

But, if you think that forcing people to give financial information to the IRS proves the constitution applies, please call into the No State Project with your evidence and your logic.  Do what no IRS agent, IRS lawyer, bureaucrat and “government” apologist has been able to do in all these years.

              

64 Comments For This Post

  1. desertspeaks Says:

    why does the IRS bother hiring completely unqualified living breathing brainless morons when their computer could just generate the bill..
    further, why don’t you request validation via title 15 for the alleged debt since under title 27, very few if any people have “income from tobacco, alcohol or firearms” ??

  2. Dan Gould Says:

    @desertspeaks, that sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo.

  3. Kurt Says:

    “Sir, how does being assigned a social security number, which everyone agrees to accept under threat, duress, and coercion, prove that the US code and Constitution applies to my client?”

  4. desertspeaks Says:

    Dan Gould, do you have any facts to prove your position??

  5. Dale Eastman Says:

    Quote: “if you think that forcing people to give financial information to the IRS proves the constitution applies, please call into the No State Project with your evidence and your logic.”

    Yoo-hoo… Dan Evans, Here’s your chance to be a super lawyer…

  6. Brian Says:

    “wage income” = incoming transfers from employment. Did you get paid in “bank money” or “state money”? Getting “paid” in bank money is a taxable event. Bank money is “money” issued by a bank (federal reserve is a bank). State money is money issued by the state (coins, United States Notes).

    This is easily found in VEAZIE BANK v. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869)
    The last few paragraphs before the “Affirmatively” decision spell it out.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=75&invol=533

    Unless you demand payment in state money that is authorized by the Constitution you are engaging in a taxable activity. AKA not using the “money” Congress has specifically authorized by the power given to it in the Coined money and borrowed money clauses of the Constitution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYxcthuRWY

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Brian, I disagree, check the logic again. Legal tender or “authorized by the Constitution” is still under threat, duress and coercion.

  8. Dan Gould Says:

    desertspeaks, In the realm of legalsleeze, your statement may be correct but until you or anyone else can show how factually constitutions, laws, and codes apply to me or anyone else then it is just legal mumbo jumbo.

  9. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    @Brian:

    26USC7701(14) Taxpayer
    The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

    As Marc has often asked, ‘What evidence do you rely upon to prove” [anybody] “is a taxpayer?”

    With that said, here’s the long way to the same answer:
    http://synapticsparks.info/

  10. desertspeaks Says:

    @ dan gould, asking questions is always helpful, no??
    if i ask them “irs” to validate the debt AS REQUIRED BY LAW title 15 “fyi they cannot validate the debt” then what must they do?? = GO AWAY!
    Did you knowingly and willingly sign a contract ENSLAVING you to the government? “think clearfiled doctrine” was there full disclosure in the event you did sign a contract! Was there a meeting of the minds to any alleged contract?
    There can be no debt JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SO! Challenge the validity of the debt! This is in line with “it doesn’t apply to me”.. but you don’t have to start out with the big gun ie prove it applies to me.. especially when making them validate something that can’t be validated will sink their little boat!
    Now stop arguing the point!

  11. Dan Gould Says:

    @desertspeaks, I agree with Marc when he says he has not seen any evidence that they are contracting with you. For me I would not waste my time with arguing about a contract.

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    I’m not saying there is a contract, sigh.. there IS NO CONTRACT!
    Make them PROVE the debt!!!
    Is it really that difficult to underbloodystand??

  13. Dan Gould Says:

    @desertspeaks, If you ask them “what are you accusing me of?” They will tell you you violated the law, statute, and/or code. I think it to be more effective to ask for the factual evidence that the law, statute, and/or code is applicable rather than asking for evidence of any debt.

  14. Wise One Says:

    Marc, love these COS’s. I’ve got an idea: you could call one of those “tax help” firms that we see advertised all over the place, you know the ones that claim to be able to settle “tax debt” for pennies on the dollar (sure, I’m always happy to increase your work load :)). I can imagine the conversation going something like this, Marc: “So you try to reduce the amount your clients pay to the IRS?” Tax Help Firm: “Yes.” M: “What if you could reduce that amount to zero, would you do that?” THF “Well, uh, yes of course.” M: “What if you could prove that there is no factual basis for the IRS’ claims?” THF “What are you talking about?” and then go into your questions. That would be fun to listen to!

  15. desertspeaks Says:

    Dan you still don’t get it and that’s just sad! enjoy your bliss

  16. bill c Says:

    First….there is no jurisdiction… Even if there was….the fifth applied to that…under threat or duress…. Not legal in any court….equal descovery…..the IRS must show the law …..they don’t have one…not even one….dental of due process….. Can get a judge removed from the bench on the spot…..no standing…………well you get the point….the list is long…..

  17. Al: Beyer Says:

    Who says the tax laws have to be in title 26? Check out title 4 sect. 105 thru 110. Hopefully, one would see that the tax laws only apply to persons. Do you know what a person is? Most people do not. If any would like the connection, please let me know. If you call yourself a person, then the tax laws have jurisdiction. Now one can see how Hosea 4:6 applies.

  18. Andy Says:

    Al wrote: “If you call yourself a person, then the tax laws have jurisdiction.”

    @Al Beyer,

    Judge/psychopath asks the defendant/victim: Are you a person?

    Defendant/victim replies: Yes.

    Judge/psychopath says: This court has jurisdiction because you said you’re a person.

    In the dozens of Calls of Shame, Same Ol’ Lie World Tour and numerous call-ins to the No State Project radio broadcast, not ever, not even once has any prosecutor, judge or tax agent used what you allege as proof/evidence of jurisdiction –that the constitution and code apply because you said you’re a person.

    As Marc has said probably a hundred or more times, and to which government officials/criminals agree, their argument is that the constitution and laws apply and have jurisdiction because a man or woman’s geographic location is within the state/city/town. They have no evidence/facts to support their argument.

    Al, yes or no, do you have empirical evidence/facts to support your argument? If ‘yes’, show the evidence/facts.

  19. Andy Says:

    Al wrote: “If you call yourself a person, then the tax laws have jurisdiction.”

    Oh really!? So tax laws, which are words on paper — paper and ink are inanimate objects — have jurisdiction!? No piece of paper with words on it has ever interacted with me; Most certainly, no document has ever initiated force/violence against me.

  20. NonEntity Says:

    Al wrote: “If you call yourself a person, then the tax laws have jurisdiction.”
    ——
    What if the call myself a neutered three legged redwood tree?

  21. Incubus Says:

    You baboons are still flinging poo at each other when I’ve already given you the secret. UCC 2268-86824-63 ( UCC CAN’T TOUCH ME). The other day I chanted this three times in a row, right to the cop who pulled me over, and a force field literally formed around my body that he could not penetrate. Not only were his bullets and taser deflected but anytime he came within six inches of me he was repelled backwards.

    Stop arguing and start living with the freedom and protection you’ve always dreamed of. UCC CAN’T TOUCH ME!

  22. Boxer Says:

    “What if the call myself a neutered three legged redwood tree?”

    I KNEW IT!!

  23. desertspeaks Says:

    Incubus chanting private federal corporate municipal codes which are limited to territory owned by or ceded to the corporation called the UNITED STATES!

    Brilliant! end sarc.

  24. Incubus Says:

    Don’t knock it ’til you try it. Just the other day I was in court and the judge began throwing a hissy fit. He ordered the bailiff to handcuff me, so I chanted UCC CAN’T TOUCH ME! He stopped dead in his tracks, frozen, couldn’t move a muscle. All you saw were his eyes shifting wearily and a whimper came out in place of where his lips begged to tremble. He was petrified. The judge bolted from his chair and dashed towards his chambers, but I chanted it again before he made it to the door. His body went limp like a rag doll, he lost all motor control and I began puppeteering him with my words. I had him dancing like a marionette and made him dismiss everyone’s case on the docket that day.

  25. 11:11 Says:

    Funny when I google “UCC 2268-86824-63” it only returns a handful of results all leading back to marcstevens.net and comments made by Incubus:

    https://www.google.com/#q=UCC+2268-86824-63&start=0

  26. Pete Says:

    I say “UCC Open Sesame” when I lock my keys in my car. Try it…you’ll be amazed!

  27. NonEntity Says:

    It worked when I locked my keys in my motorcycle. I’m sold!

  28. desertspeaks Says:

    show us the dismissal incubus.. or it didn’t happen!

  29. Incubus Says:

    Wait…you actually took the time to google that? I can’t tell if you and desertspeaks are borderline retarded or suffer from Aspergers. Either way neither of you seem to understand sarcasm nor how it works.

    Maybe it’s a generational thing. You kids these days lack a sense of humor.

  30. desertspeaks Says:

    So we’re retarded because you can’t prove squat.. nice try cornflake aka incubus

  31. 11:11 Says:

    Hardy har har, I suppose the joke is on me. However, this is a site for serious people with serious issues.

  32. desertspeaks Says:

    Incubus tries to wiggle out of looking foolish by claiming he was “only joking” but we know he’s just another internet troll who has NOTHING of substance to add to any conversation!

  33. Andy Says:

    desertspeaks, you’re the fool.

    I’ll prove it by making it so you can’t respond to me. UCC CAN’T TOUCH ME!
    http://marcstevens.net/video/cos20140919.html#comment-48850

  34. desertspeaks Says:

    well andy, you got me, no way to reply to that idiocy

  35. Pete Says:

    UCC GO AWAY NonEntity!
    UCC GO AWAY NonEntity!

  36. Incubus Says:

    Consider the fact you truly believed I was trying to convince people that I rendered bullets harmless by chanting a made up UCC code, and then ask yourself who’s truly the foolish one. I was making light of the morons who stumble onto this site making stupid claims. It’s called sarcasm.

    11:11 is just gullible, and man enough to admit he fell for it. You are just straight retarded. But you’re new here so I’ll give you a second chance. Read through my previous posts on this board throughout the years and see if you still believe I was being sincere.

  37. desertspeaks Says:

    well now incubus pretends he made it all up, how convenient.. still you look no less foolish, be gone troll

  38. Incubus Says:

    Incubus did make it all up. That’s the point. But I think I know what’s happened here. You really believed me. Based on one of your previous posts you clearly buy into that UCC/US is a corporation mumbo jumbo. I was making fun of dipshits like yourself. Now you’re pissed because you invested genuine belief/interest in my joke.

    I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to hurt you.

  39. desertspeaks Says:

    its all mumbojumbo, and now you’re in cleanup mode attempting to salvage your tattered name.. nice try but you can’t put it on me.. you sound exactly like government dinks when they’re caught and have no where to go.. put it on the other guy!
    Nice try incubus.. won’t work though!

  40. Incubus Says:

    Ah. I see what you’re doing. You’re trying to troll your way out of my joke you fell for. I commend your effort. And your commitment. Bravo, young man.

  41. desertspeaks Says:

    No, if you’ll recollect and as I pointed out earlier, it is you who are the troll. “scroll back, you’ll see it”
    What is your objective? who knows, whether to interrupt the conversation out of stupidity or just following paid orders??
    In any event, everything you have to say henceforth is suspect at best..

  42. Incubus Says:

    Classic troll move. Put the onus on someone else. You’re dedicated but you’re sloppy.

  43. desertspeaks Says:

    good lord you’re parroting my posts back to me now.. pathetic

  44. Incubus Says:

    I’m sorry for making fun of your condition.

  45. desertspeaks Says:

    You fancy yourself a comedian?? don’t quit your day job!

  46. Andy Says:

    It’s clear to any half RATIONAL person that Incubus was being sarcastic. I mean, common, he said/wrote: “UCCC YOU CAN”T TOUCH MEE!” and played the judge like a marionette “made him dismiss everyone’s case on the docket that day.” And you believed Incubus!? You can’t be serious!? You’re either a troll (shill?) or less than half rational*.

    *Is halfwit synonymous to half rational?

  47. desertspeaks Says:

    how cute, incubus has two accounts!

  48. desertspeaks Says:

    It must be my fault, I came to this site expecting adults and forthright conversations. Instead I find inane posts, vacuous insults and vaudevillian rejects

  49. Andy Says:

    Incubus wrote: “Don’t knock it ’til you try it. Just the other day I was in court and the judge began throwing a hissy fit. He ordered the bailiff to handcuff me, so I chanted UCC CAN’T TOUCH ME! He stopped dead in his tracks, frozen, couldn’t move a muscle. All you saw were his eyes shifting wearily and a whimper came out in place of where his lips begged to tremble. He was petrified. The judge bolted from his chair and dashed towards his chambers, but I chanted it again before he made it to the door. His body went limp like a rag doll, he lost all motor control and I began puppeteering him with my words. I had him dancing like a marionette and made him dismiss everyone’s case on the docket that day.” — http://marcstevens.net/video/cos20140919.html#comment-48850

    That’s hilarious. I hope some halfwit doesn’t and take it serious… Oops, too late.

  50. desertspeaks Says:

    You win, the site is yours.. I was unaware that I’d be conversing with juvenile mentalities whose only purpose is to dissuade truth seekers.. I certainly hope you enjoy your ignorance!

  51. Andy Says:

    Pete said: I say “UCC Open Sesame” when I lock my keys in my car. Try it…you’ll be amazed!

    NonEntity said: It worked when I locked my keys in my motorcycle. I’m sold!

    Damn UCC chanters are obsoleting locksmiths.

  52. Pete Says:

    This is starting to sUCCk!

  53. Incubus Says:

    It’s just that I think you’re a super cool dude and I thought maybe if I could make you laugh you’d like me and think I was cool too. Guess it didn’t work.

    I’m so ashamed of myself. You stay, I’ll leave.

  54. Randy Says:

    Notice he says they received information in the form the institution provided. We all need to go to the source and make our claims there,
    not the third party (IRS). Employers, not IRS.

    http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/053_itax.pdf

    Sec. 22(a)

    🙂

  55. Cool E. Beans Says:

    Title 26, Chapter 24, Section 3401, (a), (d) and (c) in that order.
    (a) defines “WAGES” (which are taxable) as payable by an “EMPLOYER” to an “EMPLOYEE”
    (d) defines “EMPLOYER” as one who pays “WAGES” to an “EMPLOYEE” and
    (c) defines an “EMPLOYEE”: “For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” [A “United States Corporation”, defined in Sec, 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act as, “a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a)a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States…” IRS Pub. 15A states that such officers are only to be considered “employees” if they are paid as a consequence of their positions.]

    i.e. If you are paid by the government, your earnings are taxable as all government money is in the form of appropriations and are borrowed from the Federal Reserve and the “tax” is a kick-back to cover the interest payment on the national debt owed by the government to the Fed.

    I have two letters from the IRS (well, way more than two) one of which provides a refund for federal withholding for 2009 and the second provides a refund of federal, social security and medicare withholding plus an additional $56 (which I presume is interest) for 2012 but then applies that refund to two other years that I supposedly owe (one is 2009) creating a zero balance. As I worked for a private corporation, none of my earnings were “WAGES” and I am awaiting the full refund of something close to $10,000.00 for four years of labor.

  56. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Cool, you can also expect the IRS to attack you to get the “refund” back. They have a whole unit dedicated to attacking such returns.

  57. andy Says:

    Marc, when you say, ” stop paying taxes to the bastards.” how do you propose that we do that? They steal it before I even see my paycheck, are you saying we should all quit our jobs or what?

    Thanks,
    Andy

  58. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ andy, be a contractor, don’t have a regular job where there is withholding and reporting. Don’t have a professional license as that is a source of reporting. Do what you can to eliminate withholding and reporting. I realize not everyone will be able to do that, but it’s worth looking into.

  59. i.n.rem Says:

    uh-oh
    may take 6 years, but if you received funds back via Claim
    they want you in an extra special way
    I would assume that you applied for such refund through the filing of a 1040–
    🙁

  60. i.n.rem Says:

    Dale Eastman Says:
    September 20th, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Quote: “if you think that forcing people to give financial information to the IRS proves the constitution applies, please call into the No State Project with your evidence and your logic.”

    Yoo-hoo… Dan Evans, Here’s your chance to be a super lawyer…
    —————————————————————————

    who is this Dale Eastman guy ..??
    a friend of Dan Evans ..??
    boot him out …!!!!

  61. Disabled Justice Says:

    Marc IRS

    Hello Sir Stevens,

    it is me disabled justice here and I need some assistance with basic questions.

    I have many opened processes I am involved with per the multiple situation in courts and switching jurisdiction on them all…. from the inferior courts to the court of record Superior courts.
    What I am asking for assistance with is the following:

    I now have to deal with the IRS breathing down my back and making threats of through a professed audit by taking my home for a 2012 filings they state I owe….
    They have been caught lying on documents and as usual threats now……an amount that is not true….

    They make statements that are untrue such as,

    “On date we discussed the findings in the enclosed report and you indicated agreement.”

    I have never talked to anyone from their office

    they site a form 4549 (Income tax examination changes) in an amount they say i owe……

    I have done many things to secure my rights…… and the only things they can try is to lien my property which is what they are threatening…

    I have conversed with you in the past …
    Can I receive some assistance from you now?

    phone is best; I will accommodate whatever you are willing to assist.

    what is the process if I only answer them (while staying in honor) with what the truth is needing more time or I believe that someone has stolen my identity…?

    Peacefully,
    D J

  62. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ dj I am available for phone consults, set it up under the store link.

  63. Dale Eastman Says:

    Quote: “Dale Eastman Says:
    September 20th, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Quote: “if you think that forcing people to give financial information to the IRS proves the constitution applies, please call into the No State Project with your evidence and your logic.”

    Yoo-hoo… Dan Evans, Here’s your chance to be a super lawyer…
    —————————————————————————

    who is this Dale Eastman guy ..??
    a friend of Dan Evans ..??
    boot him out …!!!!”

    I’m just one of many that have had direct dialog with that putz, thereby fulfilling the first hand personal knowledge of the fact that he is a putz.

    Who is i.n.rem? I haven’t seen him on the forum. Maybe he’s a friend of Dan Evans ..??

  64. desertspeaks Says:

    Ok, here is a great video on the religion of statism.. spread it far and wide!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0#t=132

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. IRS Agent: “I don’t know” – Can’t Explain Why Constitution Applies | RevolutionRadio.org Says:

    […] Marc Stevens MarcStevens.net September 19th, […]

  2. NSP - Nov 1, 2014 - [DRAFT VERSION] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Using the ‘Marcratic method‘ of asking questions of evidence to keep the burden-of-proof on the one making the claim(s). […]

  3. NSP - Jan 3, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] agents to admit that they don’t know and that they have zero evidence to support their […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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, 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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