Home

Articles

Old Blog

Excerpts

Civil
Disobedience Spotlight

Forum

Old Forum

Media

Audio

NSP
Commercial Free!

Interviews/Other

Call of
Shame

Video

Store

Links

Contact

Email List

Chat

Newsflash

Upcoming
Events

I'm now accepting Bitcoins
for some purchases, check the store for details. Also,
feel FREE to aid fellow "domestic
terrorists" with your contribution to the Adventures
in Legal Land Wiki knowledge-base.

June 11, 2011
[Saturday]: NSP radio broadcast.
We'll be joined again by Dr. Judy Wood,
author of Where Did the Towers Go?  We're taking calls, so listen
LIVE from 4-7pm est and call in at (218) 632-9399 with your
questions or comments about 911 and the evidence.

October 21-23,
2011 [Friday to Sunday]: I will be speaking at Libertopia 2011 in sunny San
Diego, California.  We're also going to be having the
1st annual, all voluntaryist BLUES JAM, including a head cutting duel
between Greg Diaz on
tenor sax, and Chris Case on guitar.  I'll also be doing a strength
& conditioning workshop.

Home \ Articles \ Beware of Quatloos Propaganda & Deception

Beware
of Quatloos Propaganda & Deception

Written by Marc Stevens Monday, 21 February 2011 09:19

User Rating: / 5

PoorBest

After I made another
public offer for members of quatloos to come on my radio show and forum, one
member who falsely accused me of limiting dissent, "wserra", actually joined and
started posting.  He was also honest enough to admit he had falsely accused
me.  Seems he did no investigation at all before posting on quatloos; there
was a software problem and instead he basically accused me of somehow being able
to know when a quatloos member was trying to register and I purposely blocked
them.

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 jurisdiction of
federal courts, per the constitution, is: "The judicial power
shall extend to all cases..."  It does not say to
all complaints and with good reason.  Governments
have one legitimate function, per the PR, "to
protect and maintain individual rights."  The  US supreme court
has held: "Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only
adjudicate justiciable controversies."  United
States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949].  To
have a justiciable case or controversy according to the US supreme court, not
me:

"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.

Comments

+2 #
RE: Beware of Quatloos Propaganda &
Deception — Dionysus 2011-02-21 17:51

Quatloos is a prime example
of:

To get away with crimes, pretend to be a crime
fighter.

Total wastes of skin.
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+3 #
RE: Beware of Quatloos Propaganda &
Deception — andy jackson 2011-02-22 03:30

The guys at quatloosers fly the
pirate flag on the page, that should show what law they are opperating under.
They are obviously all IRS agents or homeland security guys as they never debate
points and authorities only opinions of which theirs are always
unsubstantiated
.
Go Marc
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+1 #
RE: RE: Beware of Quatloos Propaganda &
Deception — marcstevens 2011-02-22 09:33

Wesley "wserra" is a personal injury
attorney
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+2 #
RE: Beware of Quatloos Propaganda &
Deception — Nomos 2011-02-22 10:48

It's even more telling coming from
an "insider."

"Like other aspects of personal autonomy, it is too easily
smothered by government officials eager to tell us what's best for us. . . . It
must be viewed with no less suspicion because the government officials in
question happen to wear robes." Oki America, Inc. v. Microtech International,
Inc.(9th Cir. 1989) 872 F.2d 312
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+1 #
Prophet Geeves — Jeff Evans 2011-02-22
23:08

Life and Freedom in America is an
uphill battle against the avalanche of violence and coercion thrown at us by
Government. Like Rome we now have Gladiator tournaments to entertain us and our
children.
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

+1 #
RE: Beware of Quatloos Propaganda &
Deception — Keith 2011-02-23 17:10

Quoting
marcstevens:

Wesley "wserra" is a personal injury
attorney

Knowing that lil tid bit,only makes quatloos argument
totally and utterly frivoulous! frivoulous! frivoulous!
Reply
| Reply
with quote | Quote

Refresh
comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

Add comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

Website

Title

Notify me of
follow-up comments

Refresh

Send

Cancel

JComments

Search

Login

Username

Password

Remember Me

Forgot your
password?

Forgot your
username?

Create an
account

Most Viewed Articles

Standing
Cross-reference

Still
Love Governments?

Attorneys
and Bureaucrats - Always Non-responsive

We
Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence

Bureaucrats
Never Have a Case

Most Viewed Videos

Marc on
The Hidden Truth - Nov 12, 2004

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: Standing - Nov 26, 2007

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: Impeaching a Witness - Dec 6, 2007

Kop
shooting an Iraq War veteran - Jan 9, 2006

The Drug War
Is A Scam - Feb 5, 2007

Beating
Civil Traffic Tickets: "Fair Trial" Impossible - Feb 5, 2008

Win
Every Political Argument - Jan 7, 2008

Liberty
Forum - "Delusions" - Mar 7, 2009

Torture OK
in Utah for Signature - Dec 4, 2007

Thought on
Terrorism - Nov 1, 2007

Most Viewed Shows

NSP -
Feb 13, 2010

NSP -
May 15, 2010 - Co-host: Kurt Tischer & Guest: Larken Rose

NSP -
May 27, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Steve

NSP -
Oct 10, 2009 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Larken Rose

NSP -
Oct 31, 2009 - Guest: Jackie

NSP -
Sept 12, 2009 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Pete Hendrickson

NSP -
May 1, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Sovereign Curtis

NSP -
Feb 6, 2010 - Co-host: JT & Guest: Alex Knight III

NSP -
Dec 12, 2009 - Co-host: JT

NSP -
Jan 9, 2010 - Co-host: JT

Most Viewed Interviews

No
Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Annual
NSP Radio Archive Downloads

Marc
on Mysteries of the Mind - Feb 12, 2004

Marc
on The Bill Meyer Show - Mar 19, 2007

Marc
on The National Intel Report - Nov 8, 2004

Marc
on Wing TV - Jul 14, 2005

Marc
on the National Intel Report - Oct 6, 2004

Marc
on The Jayne Carroll Show - Oct 17, 2005

Marc
on The Jeff Farias Show - Sept 20, 2007

Marc
on Free Talk Live - Jul 9, 2005

Most Viewed Call of Shame

Kimberly
Clark from the IRS - Dec 15, 2010

Rolando
Garza from Hidalgo County Appraisal District - Mar 4, 2011

Daniel
from the California Franchise Tax Board - Jun 9, 2010

Attorney
from the DSHS - Sept 22, 2010

Jon
Doe from the IRS - Aug 26, 2010

Tsion
from the Maryland DOR - Aug 13, 2010

Desiree
from the California Franchise Tax Board

Carol
from the California Franchise Tax Board - Nov 16, 2006

RSS

Syndicate this page

World's Shortest Political Quiz

Should a service or product be provided at
the barrel of a gun?

Yes

No

The No State Project - Podcast

Full
Feed

Your Cart

Your cart is empty