What qualifies as evidence?

[psholtz]

I've heard that the only source of reasonable, good faith beleif and admissible, non-presumptive evidence is enacted positive law and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

In other words, esp. in IRS tax cases, the rulings of federal courts below the Supreme Court may be applied only to the person who litigated the case and to no one else.

Is this true?

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I've heard that the only source of reasonable, good faith beleif and admissible, non-presumptive evidence is enacted positive law and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

In other words, esp. in IRS tax cases, the rulings of federal courts below the Supreme Court may be applied only to the person who litigated the case and to no one else.

Is this true?

I am pretty sure that last part is true for IRS cases, as I have heard that from several sources. In addition to Supreme court cases, Treasury decisions carry a little bit of weight, but not much and then you are left with statutes and regulations and we all know what those say... Varying opinions on positive case law and I believe that Title 26 is not. Of course books and pamphlets and forms and such are not legally binding, though the IRS acts like they are gospel sometimes.

[Notorial dissent]

It would depend on what you mean by evidence. Evidence is usually defined as something pertaining to a situation and must be material to what you are talking about.

With regard to tax cases, it would depend upon what the case itself was about. If it involves a dispute between the taxpayer and the govt then it generally would not apply to anyone else since each case is individual. If it has to do with interpretation of the law, and the IRS says one thing and the court says something else, then the court supercedes and the ruling applies to everyone.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I am pretty sure that last part is true for IRS cases, as I have heard that from several sources. In addition to Supreme court cases, Treasury decisions carry a little bit of weight, but not much and then you are left with statutes and regulations and we all know what those say... Varying opinions on positive case law and I believe that Title 26 is not. Of course books and pamphlets and forms and such are not legally binding, though the IRS acts like they are gospel sometimes.

Yes, perusing the IRM, there is this:

4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
Importance of Court Decisions

1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.

2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html

So in other words, even though decisions at various levels of the federal court system can be used (either by "taxpayers" or by the IRS) to support a position, the IRS is only bound by decisions made by the Supreme Court. The IRS is bound by the decisions of the lower courts only for that particular "taxpayer"..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I've heard that the only source of reasonable, good faith beleif and admissible, non-presumptive evidence is enacted positive law and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

In other words, esp. in IRS tax cases, the rulings of federal courts below the Supreme Court may be applied only to the person who litigated the case and to no one else.

Is this true?

Law and equity were blended in the US court system in 1938. This was technical but Zionist Louis Dembitz BRANDEIS summarized it most eloquently with his last paragraph of his opinion at the end of the case opinion.

Case citations, stare decisis are no longer to be relied upon. They do not hold the weight that they had held in court. Of course this ruling in context would only have applied to case law generated between Swift v. Tyson (1842) and Erie RR Company v. Thompkins (1938).

I suspect that whatever this doctrine of being able to ignore case law in decisions is a misconstructed model of the Erie Doctrine of 1938.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[palani]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I've heard that the only source of reasonable, good faith beleif and admissible, non-presumptive evidence is enacted positive law and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Lex non scripta is common law and evidence of this can be found in judicial decisions.
http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_021.htm

Kent: In 1840, the legislature of Connecticut declared that the reports of the judicial decisions of other states and countries should be judicially noticed as evidence of the common law in such state or country.

Kent:The reports of judicial decisions contain the most certain evidence, and the most authoritative and precise application of the rules of the common law. Adjudged cases become precedents for future cases resting upon analogous facts, and brought within the same reason; and the diligence of counsel, and the labor of judges, are constantly required, in the study of the reports, in order to understand accurately their import, and the principles they establish.

Editorial comment:
While the preceeding paragraph continues to be accurate professional counsel display diminishing levels of diligence and judges are known to labor only on the golf course.

[David Merrill]

Like I have said many times:

Kent:The reports of judicial decisions contain the most certain evidence, and the most authoritative and precise application of the rules of the common law. Adjudged cases become precedents for future cases resting upon analogous facts, and brought within the same reason; and the diligence of counsel, and the labor of judges, are constantly required, in the study of the reports, in order to understand accurately their import, and the principles they establish.

Erie v. Thompkins reset the common law in 1938, sadly after the Bankers' Holiday. When discussing this with a second-year law student she blurted, "Where did you hear about Erie?!"

That said a lot about how the Bar feels Erie v. Thompkins is their private intellectual property. This student was not experienced enough to simply dismiss me as nobody... That is the most effective way to keep somebody ignorant. Banished for weeks now myself, poor Judge Roy Bean has not figured this attorney-tactic out:

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

http://quatloos.com/qforum/viewforum.php?f=8

Is that a fact?


Yes. The sui forums draw victims to try and find help with whatever situation they're facing. What better way to advertise nonsense products to the desperate? It's a symbiotic relationship. The two couldn't survive on their own.

There's also a small sub-industry of people like Van Pelt who mooch off the site as a free advertising tool. He posts, reposts and reposts anything and everything whether it makes sense or not just to get people to click through to the sites he so desperately needs hits on to feed his ego (and his pocketbook).

I am beginning to doubt he is a real judge in real life. Maybe he is just getting very old...


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. You might peruse these rules too: "Rules of Evidence" - "Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule"...

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf

[masterduke]

Old judge Bean seems to have a bug up his wahzooo??? Yes there is allot of mytholgy that is passed around at this site. But there is some real information that could help some hapless victim of the the legal realm. That the bar is so intent on keeping their little racket all to themsleves is the reason that people are searching out other alternatives. We all cannot afford large hourly fee's with no garentees as to the outcome. What is the 'bar' so afraid off? What is the real reason they pursue people with their UPL crap??? From what I have seen most of the members are weasels(no disrespect to the animal species intended) So what gives??? Those squatlosers are a real bunch of money grubbing jerks. Its a gonna be a tight fit on their freight elevator ride to Hell, dontcha think?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by masterduke

Old judge Bean seems to have a bug up his wahzooo??? Yes there is allot of mytholgy that is passed around at this site. But there is some real information that could help some hapless victim of the the legal realm. That the bar is so intent on keeping their little racket all to themsleves is the reason that people are searching out other alternatives. We all cannot afford large hourly fee's with no garentees as to the outcome. What is the 'bar' so afraid off? What is the real reason they pursue people with their UPL crap??? From what I have seen most of the members are weasels(no disrespect to the animal species intended) So what gives??? Those squatlosers are a real bunch of money grubbing jerks. Its a gonna be a tight fit on their freight elevator ride to Hell, dontcha think?

I think confusion is quite frightening to them. They simply cannot comprehend that being the lesser of evils does not make them "good". So as I understand their mentality it is basically they are confused as to why people would be trying to find alternatives to attorney council. And of course any other alternative like myself is a huge threat to their pocketbook.

There was a phase here when the clerk of court in Denver (USDC) would engage new suitors in conversation trying to understand how it was that people kept paying me for cases that would most certainly be dismissed. Years later the same suitors are still using the case jackets evidence repository for Refusals for Cause. So they finally figured it out.

But at the time I recall hearing accounts of fearful desperation behind the inquiries. They just could not fathom how so many people could be so stupid - at least back then it did not occur to them why I was quoting the law:

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

It just seems to me there is no other explaining a grown man, allegedly a judge with a bench in public office having such an Internet obsession with me. He keeps trying to explain me away in hopes that he will better understand.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

He [David Merrill] posts, reposts and reposts anything and everything whether it makes sense or not just to get people to click through to the sites he so desperately needs hits on to feed his ego (and his pocketbook).

What he says about sounds like it makes sense but if you think about it, I seldom offer links to other sites. And when I do it is almost always CIA, Federal Reserve Board or Club de Paris - nothing that supports my notions of remedy or brings in business other than great source material. Almost all my links are to images I have archived out there somewhere.

Anyway, back to rules of evidence. I remember JAG with Harm's delightful use of "exceptions to the Hearsay Rule" to win a case. So I really got going with all the parallels between military justice and the court system in place for civilians.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf



Regards,

David Merrill.

[aksis]

What qualifies as evidence?

I think the simplest answer to this question is this:

Facts.

Much love,


Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

FACT. An action; a thing done. It is either simple or compound.

2. A fact is simple when it expresses a purely material act unconnected with any moral qualification; for example, to say Peter went into his house, is to express a simple fact. A compound fact contains the materiality of the act, and the qualification which that act has in its connexion with morals and, the law. To say, then, that Peter has stolen a horse, is to express a compound fact; for the fact of stealing, expresses at the same time, the material fact of taking the horse, and of taking him with the guilty intention of depriving the owner of his property and appropriating it to his own use; which is a violation of the law of property.

3. Fact is also put in opposition to law; in every case which has to be tried there are facts to be established, and the law which bears on those facts.

4. Facts are also to be considered as material or immaterial. Material facts are those which are essential to the right of action or defence, and therefore of the substance of the one or the other - these must always be proved; or immaterial, which are those not essential to the cause of action - these need not be proved. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3150-53.

5. Facts are generally determined by a jury,; but there are many facts, which, not being the principal matters in issue, may be decided by the court; such, for example, whether a subpoena has or has not been served; whether a party has or has not been summoned, &c. As to pleading material facts, see Gould. Pl. c. 3, s. 28. As to quality of facts proved, see 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3150. Vide Eng. Ecc. R. 401-2, and the article Circumstances.