MarcStevens.net | Another great example showing tax agents have no factual support for their accusations. You will hear evasion after evasion from this IRS attorney and remember: this is an IRS attorney, not an IRS agent. This woman holds a doctorate degree, so it’s reasonable to presume she knows more about taxation than the average IRS agent, or she’s an expert on the interpretation and application of tax law than IRS agents.
This is a pretrial conference; the parties are to put everything on the table, the facts, witnesses and theory of their case for trial; to see if there are factual disputes or come to an agreement to avoid trial. Keep this in mind when listening to the recording when you hear the attorney refuse to discuss witnesses and facts.
The attorney openly admits to not relying on or planning on calling any witnesses “at trial”. This is just a distraction, not an answer to my question because I want to know if there are any witnesses with first-hand knowledge at all. When pressed, she claims there is a witness my client is a taxpayer, but, she cannot identify him/her and has had no contact with this unknown agent. She claims the unknown agent may not even work for the IRS anymore and may be across the country now. Therefore, she cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn’t know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client’s a taxpayer. This is significant because her entire case is based on an unidentified, possibly unqualified witness she has had no contact with. The attorney isn’t a witness or a party to the proceeding, so her opinion my client is a taxpayer has the same weight here as yours: absolutely none. Despite having no contact with her alleged witnesses, she’s so absolutely certain their accusations are true that any challenge is automatically deemed “frivolous”.
She also initially claims she would move to quash a subpoena issued to her unknown witnesses to testify. When I asked her on what grounds, she admitted she didn’t have grounds. It was tough not laughing at her (I can now though). She then stated she would have to first see the subpoena, then decide if she would fight against having her witness testify. Yes, I let her off the hook on this, but I had made my point.
Ask yourself this question when you hear that part of the recording: Why would she fight having her own witness put on the stand? She won’t call him and will fight if I call him as a witness. If it’s so obvious everyone’s a taxpayer, and the mere challenge itself is “frivolous”, then why fight against having the agent testify in court under oath?
Later in the recording I question the attorney on the evidence she claimed the IRS has. I ask if there’s a factual difference between income and taxable income and she agrees there’s a factual difference. I ask if she knows the differences and instead of answering, she threatens to end the call. Again, I didn’t ask her what those differences are, just if she knows. The attorney refuses to discuss the differences and makes the silly claim I’m making a “semantic” argument by asking her about the factual differences she admits exist.
This doctor of law refused to discuss the factual differences between income and taxable income, even though she admits there are differences. This is a pre-trial conference where we’re supposed to discuss the facts. Why would she refuse if she had facts proving my client’s a taxpayer with taxable income? If it’s so obvious as governments and their apologists insist, then why the institutional refusal to discuss the facts? This isn’t an isolated incident, I get this all the time from state and federal agents and their attorneys. At one point she tells me to “read the code” to find the facts she claims she relies on. Can you imagine being accused of murder, asking for the facts and being told to read the criminal code?
Are you convinced I’m making a frivolous argument by asking about the facts? Do you believe it’s a “semantic” argument? What about the irony there? The IRS’s entire case rests on words and I’m accused of “semantics”.
There’s no evidence anyone is a taxpayer and has taxable income. This is not the argument “one is not a taxpayer as defined by statute”. The first is a factual issue, the second is one of law; two different animals, apples and oranges.
Taxation is theft and that’s the reason there’s no evidence to prove anyone is taxpayer with taxable income. That’s why pro-government extremists and other control freaks always argue words such as law, constitution, court opinions when talking about people being liable for taxes. They can’t produce any facts so they use smoke-screens to distract you; another one is the red herring about people being convicted of tax evasion as if that is evidence people owe taxes. If you believe that’s evidence people are taxpayers with taxable income, then what about acquittals such as with Tommy Cryer and Lloyd Long? Using this red herring, acquittals would mean there is no evidence anyone is a taxpayer with taxable income. Obviously convictions and acquittals are not evidence someone is a taxpayer. No one is a taxpayer with taxable income for no other reason than taxation is theft.
If you stick to the facts, then tax agents and their attorneys will refuse to answer because there are no facts proving you or anyone else is a taxpayer with taxable income. Remember the maxim: “quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.” The Clara, 102 US 200. By their own rules, the accusation/assessment you have taxable income is arbitrary; it’s what bureaucrats themselves call a “naked assessment” (US v Janis, 422 US 433, 442) and it’s required to be vacated. But we know governments don’t play by their own rules, criminals don’t play by the rules.
All of this is predictable and the natural consequences when services are provided on a compulsory basis. All the problems and abuses we see with governments are from one cause: support is compulsory. There is no reform, only abolition. Join me every Saturday from 1-3pm pst, 4-6 est, on the No State Project where we discuss bringing about a voluntary society.
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 amy 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.
By Marc Stevens