Hi, Donna:


Think TWO words:& Reasonable Doubt.


What is still THE basis of our legal system, sucks as it does?


Proof beyond reasonable doubt.


Like you, I've seen the rules and applications "change" as more and more people challenge the system. We have become, in essence, our own worst enemies!& We "teach" them the weaknesses in "the system" that's out to screw us. How dumb is that?


Time to rethink our strategies.


It is NOT our place to try to "teach" "them" "the law." That's what makes them hate us so much. It's a direct challenge to their "profession."


BUT


Maybe it's time folks like you and me stop trying to "learn" "the law," stop looking for "strategies," and so forth.


We need to accept the position into which we've placed ourselves, that of a "defendant."& And for them to "win a conviction," they must what? PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, right?


As defendants, what's our ONLY goal?& To establish "reasonable doubt" as to their alleged proof. That's all.


This is so easy.


We get a letter from an agent. He/she starts it with "we." Automatically we can establish "hearsay." They refuse/fail to provide us with certified copies of the "hearsay" documents allegedly used as the basis of alleged assessments.


It's ALL hearsay piled upon hearsay.


I guess all I'm saying is this:


It's time we STOP trying to "prove" the correctness of "our" position and do the ONE thing that's easy as hell:


DESTROY THEIR CREDIBILITY!


Here's what's at the bottom of a booklet agents sent me recently:


"This document is for information only. Although it discusses the legal authority that allows the IRS to collect taxes, it is not a precise and technical analysis of the law."


Mmmm. Wonder why that is?


But see how "incredible" that sounds? They allege they have "legal authority," but refuse to provide "legal assitance" in these matters.


They have NO credibility. They offer no proof. Why should they? We give them all the ammo they need to shoot us down.


But is any judge--regardless of how corrupt--going to insist that PROOF OF REASONABLE DOUBT IS A "FRIVILOUS ARGUMENT"?


What do you think?


Randy