Frivolous Arguments etc.....

[LUKE2447]

Reading the PDF file on& the frivolous arguments makes me sick....& How do we as individuals understand what is and what is not going to work or is right even when we do study.& I think some of the arguments are correct yet judged against them etc... I know it's about jurisdiction per all the discussions but sheeesh it almost seems hopeless sometimes!& What went wrong with some of the arguments presented by these people and lost etc..

[rushpat]

Watching the James Hardin video over at :http://www.kel.cc/downloads/TaxStuff/

After the judge looked over his paperwork and denounced it all as frivolous, he asked the judge if it would please the court to specify in what area it was frivolous so that this section could be corrected. The judge apparently was caught off guard and had to just reschedule when he couldn't think of anything.

[wirlwind]

I agree with Luke.& I have heard of lawless societies, and I'm beginning to feel that that is what we live in.& Laws and constitutional rights are violated in courtrooms every day in this country, by the attorneys and judges that are supposed to uphold them.& They are violated by policeman, and I feel that we as average ordinary human beings don't have a lot of control.& We live in a military state, and are controlled by fear and oppression.& There are people starting to wake up, but I someitmes fear that it may be too little too late.& I have made up my mind that for me I will not go quietly.& My husband and I have already talked about the fact that we will probably end up in a courtroom, and we may go to jail for the stance that we have taken.& But I will go kicking and screaming, and only death will quiet my voice!& (I've always been told that I have a big mouth.)& I think God gave me a big mouth, and made me outspoken for a reason.& This may be it.&


I feel like I am watching the facade of justice in this county on a movie screen- because it doesn't exist, - it isn't real.& All these little dramas that are played out in the courtrooms everyday, and who is it for?&


Sorry.& I guess I'm trying to say that it makes me sick too Luke.& I think that the judges think they own the courtrooms, and they make the rules up as they go.& Unless you can back them into corner like Rushpat was talking about, they can pretty much do what they want.& Since I have been studying this stuff for about 41/2 years now, I've seen things come and go.& There were things that worked for awhile, and then they didn't.& But I know that my arguments to the IRS and State taxes will be considered frivolous.& BB keeps changing their strategies, and we have to keep changing ours.&


I've said enough.


Donna

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

[wirlwind]

Randy,


You just might be right.& That's why the rules keep changing.& I posted a letter in another thread yesterday from Bill Benson showing that the IRS had never been legislated into existence.& If they don't exist-I guess there are no laws that control them.& That letter is on this thread http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...showtopic=4483& .


We can't teach them they law, because they will just disort it anyway.& so how do we respond back to them?& Just quit responding and cut to the chase ansd let them take us to court.& How will we create that reasonable doubt?& I know what your saying, but I don't know how we get to that point.


Donna

[Ice]

In regards to those "frivolous arguments"...


Has anyone considered the fact that those particular cases were lost due to the fact that the proper documents were not filed into the record?... maybe "Judicial Notice" was not taken advantage of?... maybe... maybe those folks just didn't know how to "make the RECORD" or have the judge TAKE NOTICE OF THE LAW?


And that's part of what we discuss here...


Every one of us needs to learn our way around the court room -- specially "How to make the Record".


&

Yes, indeed. "Procedure" trumps "law" almost every time.& The only really valid reason for "hiring a lawyer" is because he knows the proper procedures and we don't.& They're killing us not on our "ignorance of the law" but on ignorance of the rules.


Randy

there is a way to have a lawyer actually work for you as opposed to being an agent of the court.& victoria joy touched on this subject when i was at her seminar.& it is in the way one files documents, etc., and one must "instruct" the lawyer to do things on one's behalf in a particular way.& it can be done as it is how she was eventually released from jail herself.& also, she has now formed a way to use the "confidential commercial information" aspect to get the gov't agencies involved & doing what "we" have "hired" them to do and has apparantly achieved some success.


so, randy, going back to "proof" - this is what she is working on, and also what jerseee puts forth here, and Ice as well.& show us your "proof of claim" and we'll pony up.


however, one must be careful about being something the court wishes to label - to be a defendant implies there is something to defend against.& however, if there is no proof of claim, there can be no cause, and therefore no "defendant."


jon

Use of "defendant" was meant only to suggest the mindset taken in these matters.& The "law" may not be--indeed, is not--on "their" side, but the sad truth is they are in the position to impose upon us any interpretation they see fit.& The more we try to tell them what the law "means," the more determined they will be to punish us under their ever-changing applications.


The success to be found in winning any "debate" is to offer as little possible. Let your opponent chatter away. The more he talks, the more opportunities for catching him in contradictions.


We all know how often BB/courts contradict themselves in these matters, right?


Well, it's time to focus only on those endless contradictions, the sole purpose being to destroy any credibility they may have to be taken seriously.


Try just this little bit, from my own situation I'm working on:<FONT face=Tahoma>


01. Fact: This is an unsigned letter. Mr. Parizek’s "signature" is merely part of the printed letter.


02. Fact: The last line of Mr. Parizek’s instructs me to "…contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter." Since "Tax Technician" is the only name given, I am in complete compliance with Mr. Parizek’s directions.


03. Fact: I am likewise unsure as to whether my reply should be addressed to the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of the Treasury. The name of "Tax Technician" was placed under "Department of the Treasury," but no address for the Department of Treasury was given. By default, therefore, I had no choice but to respond to the Internal Revenue Service. Please see that Mr./Ms./Miss Tax Technician receives this.


Me again: Already Parizek looks foolish as hell, right? Of course he does (IF he exists!)


Here's some more:


He stated, clearly in his letter, that "we" (the IRS, I guess), had received "nothing" from me. Really? <FONT face=Tahoma>


Offer of proof:


See "Exhibit E": Copies of all correspondence between us and IRS as follows:

1. 
   <LI>"Notice: CP-515" for alleged tax period 12-31-2000. This "Notice" is dated 06-17-2002. This is the first contact we received from the IRS.</LI>
   <LI>Our response to the "Notice," dated 06-17-2002.</LI>
   <LI>Copies of certified mailing proving receipt by IRS.</LI>
   <LI>Reply from Norvine Webster, Dept. Manager, IRS, Atlanta, GA, dated Aug. 02, 2002.</LI>
   <LI>Reply from Nancy J. Aiello, Operations Mgr., IRS, Philadelphia, PA, dated Sep. 30, 2002.</LI>
   <LI>Letter from Christopher J. Diegidio, Customer Service Representative, Philadelphia, PA, dated October 10, 2002.</LI>
   <LI>Our reply to Mr. Diegidio, dated October 26, 2002.</LI>
   <LI>Copies of certified mailing, proving receipt by IRS.</LI>
   <LI>Reply from Alex Jay Berman, Customer Service Representative, IRS, Philadelphia, PA, dated December 19, 2002.</LI>
   <LI>Letter from Dennis Parizek, Operations Manager, IRS, Ogden, UT, dated Mar 15 2004 [sic]. Note: We received this particular letter the same date that is stamped on the letter!</LI>
   <LI>Our reply to Mr. Parizek, dated, March 16, 2004.</LI>
   <LI>Copy of certificate of mailing to Mr. Parizek.</LI>

Me again: Who would dare "argue" that he's, well, lying?

1. <FONT face=Tahoma>
   <LI>Fact:</LI>

Someone at the IRS has labeled us "frivilous non-filers."


Offer of proof:


Internal Revenue Manual
<H3><FONT size=2>5.18.1.3.7 (01-01-2004)
Clerical Screening of incoming Correspondence&</FONT>&</H3>


If correspondence indicates that the taxpayer is a frivolous filer, see 5.18.1.8.151.


Then Route to FRP, 1973 N. Rulon White Road, Ogden, Utah 84201, ATTN: Mail Stop 4450


10. Fact:


Mr. Pazerik is attempting to assign penalties for non-filing while simultaneously considering us a "frivilous filer."<FONT face=Tahoma>


11. Fact:


Mr. Pazerik has violated the clear rules of the Internal Revenue Manual in soliciting a return from us, making it abundantly clear he’s abusing his power and perpetuating a fraud.


Offer of proof:&
<H2><FONT size=2>Part 4. Examining Process</FONT></H2>
<H2><FONT size=2>Chapter 12. Nonfiled Returns</FONT></H2>
<H2><FONT size=2>Section 1. Nonfiled Returns</FONT></H2>
<H3><FONT size=2>4.12.1.4.1 (05-03-1999)
Indications of Fraud </FONT></H3>

1. 
   <LI>If there is an indication that the taxpayer’s failure to file the required return or returns was willful, or if there was any other indication of fraud. </LI>
   1. 
      <LI>See the "Fraud IRM" for procedures. </LI>
      <LI>Do not solicit delinquent returns, payment of tax or any agreement from the taxpayer.</LI>

And on and on. (And I haven't spent but a few hours putting this together.)&


I have NOT "proven" I am NOT a "taxpayer."
I have NOT "proven" I do NOT "owe the tax."
I have NOT "proven" anything!


I have no "burden of proof" in this matter!& The IRS does, right?


Why should I waste my time, trying to "educate" them in matters of law, regarding which their minds are set in concrete?


My ONLY responsibility as a potential "defendant," is to stand on my Constitutional rights, period.& And the only "defense" I need is to destroy the "credibility" of my accusers.


The "system" is NOT going to change it's collective mind about all this.& It does still, however, hold sacred the basic tenant of "burden of proof."&We keep making the mistake of trying to "prove" that they are "wrong."& Why not let THEM "prove" for us that nothing they say can be believed in the first place?


Just something to consider, that's all.


Randy


&</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>

Arguments are frivolous because their either untrue, incomplete or too far fetched.

Example: The argument that the income tax is unconstitutional or citizens are not liable is false because all branches of government agree that it's constitutional and the law does specifically implicate citizens.

The 861 argument fails because it's missing critical components that makes it vulnerable to certain counter arguments.

Arguments about these United states and those United states and other united states is plain silly.

Every argument I've reviewed falls into one of these groups.

However, our government is no better.

According to the Cato Institute, each year millions of citizens receive bogus tax advice form the IRS and tax professionals. Even more troubling, people who file and pay their taxes under the guise of paying their fair share are still not safe and often victimzed by the IRS.


With the citizenry held responsible with self assesing our tax liability and complying to that assesment it is easy to see why we're in the mess we're in.