{"id":15923,"date":"2011-03-16T07:00:36","date_gmt":"2011-03-16T14:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/?p=15923"},"modified":"2014-12-18T13:56:10","modified_gmt":"2014-12-18T20:56:10","slug":"frivolous-really","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/frivolous-really\/","title":{"rendered":"Frivolous, Really?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"MarcStevens.net<\/a> | Do federal courts have jurisdiction over every civil complaint filed by the IRS?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s alleged by some lawyers, including federal judges, the federal courts have jurisdiction over every IRS complaint to enforce an IRS summons.\u00a0 If you suggest otherwise, you\u2019ll be denounced as a wacko and a blathering idiot.\u00a0 If you present the law to a federal judge showing the IRS complaint does not present a controversy and the court lacks jurisdiction, then they will rule against you and call it \u201csophistry\u201d and \u201cpatently frivolous.\u201d\u00a0 It\u2019s not that you\u2019re just incorrect on the law, it\u2019s \u201cfrivolous\u201d and couldn\u2019t possibly have any merit at all.<\/p>\n

But is it true?\u00a0 Are federal judges always correct; is the suggestion the IRS does not have standing to complain really sophistry?\u00a0 Is it possible the IRS doesn\u2019t have standing to complain and the federal courts don\u2019t have jurisdiction to hear such complaints?<\/p>\n

After all, complaints to enforce an IRS summons only request the court to enforce the summons, there\u2019s no claim of injury or that you\u2019re required to comply with the IRS.\u00a0 There are no allegations of wrongdoing.\u00a0 I\u2019m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.<\/p>\n

Could federal judges be wrong to allow these complaints?\u00a0 Before we analyze and present the law, let me ask this question: are federal judges credible?\u00a0 I don\u2019t think so and there are two related reasons why.\u00a0 And no, the reasons are not because I hate federal judges or I\u2019m bitter about having motions denied.\u00a0 Both reasons are based on irrefutable facts; speculation I leave to the government apologists.<\/p>\n

First, no one voluntarily supports judges<\/strong>, they don\u2019t offer their services to the market on a voluntary basis.\u00a0 This is not opinion, it\u2019s the truth and beyond doubt.\u00a0 We\u2019re all forced to pay them; threat, duress and coercion is the MO of federal judges.\u00a0 Do you trust someone who forces you to pay them?<\/p>\n

Second, the IRS are the ones who forcibly take our property to pay these judges<\/strong>.\u00a0 Think they are independent and impartial?\u00a0 The fact we\u2019re forced to pay them undermines any credibility a judge may have.\u00a0 These indisputable facts make it clear why a federal judge would rule in favor of the IRS in direct opposition to the law.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll present the law below and do it one point at a time.\u00a0 This way if I\u2019m in error, you\u2019ll be able to point out where I went off course.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 The jurisdiction of the federal courts is not unlimited, even when the IRS is involved:<\/p>\n

\u201cFederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.\u00a0 They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U. S. 131, 136-137 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dall. 8, 11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 182-183 (1936).\u201d\u00a0 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins<\/span>., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).<\/p>\n

In my experience federal judges have never presumed an IRS complaint was outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts.\u00a0 They\u2019re too busy chanting \u201cfrivolous\u201d over and over.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Let\u2019s examine those limits.\u00a0 To start, we need to examine why there are governments, the PR is they are only to protect rights.\u00a0 From the Declaration of Independence \u201cTo Secure these Rights, governments are instituted among Men\u2026\u201d and various constitutions, such as Arizona: \u201cestablished to protect and maintain individual rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

I do this because we\u2019ll see a logical progression with what I present and why; one point leads to the next.\u00a0 You\u2019ll also see why the arguments the courts may hear IRS complaints to enforce summons are irrational.\u00a0 You\u2019ll see how government apologists have to disregard the limitation of the courts and start pretending.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 For federal courts, we find, consistent with the purpose for government, the following from Article III \u00a7 2 of the US constitution:\u00a0 \u201cThe judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made\u2026to controversies to which the United States shall be a party\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

This is the \u201ccase and controversy clause\u201d.\u00a0 It\u2019s pretty clear; the federal courts are limited to only cases and controversies.\u00a0 This has been always been held by the supreme court:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs we have already seen, by the express terms of the Constitution, the exercise of the judicial power is limited to “cases” and “controversies.”\u00a0 Beyond this it does not extend, and unless it is asserted in a case or controversy within the meaning of the Constitution, the power to exercise it is nowhere conferred.\u201d Muskrat v. United States<\/span>, 219 U. S. 346.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 There are no exceptions there for any particular agency or complaining party.\u00a0 Either there is a case or controversy or the court has no jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0 I wrote this is consistent with the purpose of government because a case and controversy always involves the violation of a right, without the violation of a legal right, there is no case or controversy:<\/p>\n

\u201cdamnum absque injuria<\/strong>\u2026Damage without wrong, the sense of the expression being that there is no cause of action.\u00a0 1 Am j2d Actions \u00a7 78.\u201d\u00a0 Ballentine\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/span>, page 304.<\/p>\n

\u201cdamnum et injuria<\/strong>\u2026Loss and wrong, the two essential elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action.\u00a0 1 Am J2d Actions \u00a7 70.\u201d\u00a0 Ballentine\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/span>, page 305.<\/p>\n

\u201cinjuria<\/strong>\u2026A wrong; the violation of a legal right.\u201d\u00a0 Ballentine\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/span>, page 627.<\/p>\n

Contrary to what you\u2019ll hear from government apologists, case and controversy is not synonymous with \u201cgovernment complaint\u201d.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0 This is probably why the supreme court has always held a case and controversy includes the violation of legal right, an injury:<\/p>\n

\u201cthe duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal<\/em><\/strong>, is limited to determining rights<\/em><\/strong> of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.\u201d\u00a0 Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration<\/span>, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208 (emphasis mine).<\/p>\n

Without going any further we see because the IRS complaint didn\u2019t allege the violation of a legal right, the courts are acting outside their strict limitations when they don\u2019t dismiss them.\u00a0 The argument the courts may not hear a complaint that doesn\u2019t set forth a legal injury (such as the IRS complaint) is based on solid grounds and is not \u201cfrivolous\u201d.\u00a0 This is true even if there is a legitimate exception for the IRS.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0 In setting forth the requirements of a federal case and controversy, the supreme court has held:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a “case or controversy” between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III.\u00a0 This is the threshold question in every federal case<\/span><\/strong>, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\u00a0 As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on his behalf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962).\u00a0 The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party<\/span><\/strong>, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally. \u00a0A 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 . . . .”\u00a0 Warth v. Seldin<\/span>, 422 US 490 (emphasis mine)<\/p>\n

Notice this is regarding the general limits of the federal courts, not just the Warth complaint under review, it says \u201cevery federal case\u201d and the judicial power itself exists only to redress or protect against injury.\u00a0 It did not say federal jurisdiction as far as the complaint before the court or private litigants only.\u00a0 It\u2019s about federal jurisdiction period, there no exceptions:<\/p>\n

“[I]t is well settled that federal courts may act only in the context of a justiciable case or controversy.” Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 395 U. S. 788 (1969)\u2026\u201d\u00a0 SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights<\/span>, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).<\/p>\n

To find an exception one must assume the text does not mean what it says.\u00a0 Remember, I\u2019m only going by what the text clearly states and those who hallucinating more have denounced me as a wacko.<\/p>\n

So far the law is clear, because the IRS complaint did not allege a controversy, the federal judge should dismiss.\u00a0 But, I\u2019m no lawyer, what do I know?\u00a0 Are there legal exceptions making the IRS special, thereby not only making federal judges ignore the case and controversy clause, but making a challenge \u201cpatently frivolous\u201d?\u00a0 Let\u2019s look:<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0 Do government agencies get a free pass?\u00a0 Do government agencies automatically have standing in courts just by virtue of being government?\u00a0 The answer is no; there are no exceptions in the text of the constitution and there are opinions proving there is no free pass for governments:<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause the Comptroller General does not have the personal, concrete, and particularized injury required under Article III standing doctrine, either himself or as the agent of Congress, his complaint must be dismissed.\u201d Walker v. Cheney<\/span>, 230 F.Supp.2d 51 (2002).<\/p>\n

This district court judge quoted the supreme court regarding the case and controversy clause:<\/p>\n

\u201c”These requirements together constitute the `irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing, which is an `essential and unchanging part<\/strong>‘ of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and a key factor in dividing the power of government between the courts and the two political branches.” Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (emphasis mine).\u201d<\/p>\n

This is from a federal court case involving two government parties, so I think it applies to government, even the IRS.\u00a0 Notice the bold part about \u201cessential and unchanging\u201d.\u00a0 But it\u2019s somehow frivolous when applied to the IRS.\u00a0 Really?\u00a0 There is also:<\/p>\n

United States v. American Bell Tel. Co<\/span>., 167 U.S. 224 (1897) complaint dismissed because US government lacked standing.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe order of the district court holding that the United States may sue to enforce section 135(c) will be reversed, and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.\u201d\u00a0 United States v. FMC Corp<\/span>., 717 F. 2d 775 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1983.<\/p>\n

\u201cthe State of Massachusetts presents no justiciable controversy either in its own behalf or as the representative of its citizens.\u201d\u00a0 Massachusetts v. Mellon<\/span>, 262 US 447.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0 May a statute confer standing on a complaining party?\u00a0 This has been alleged, let\u2019s look at 26 USC \u00a7 7604(b):<\/p>\n

“\u00a7 7402. Jurisdiction of district courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong>(b) To enforce summons<\/strong><\/p>\n

“If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, or other data, the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or may be found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.”<\/p>\n

This appears to give district courts jurisdiction over that particular subject matter.\u00a0 But notice this does not attempt the replace the case and controversy requirement, they may have jurisdiction if the IRS presents a case or controversy as required by Article III \u00a7 2.\u00a0 There is also no attempt to hallucinate the IRS\/US government\/United States has a legal right to books, record and testimony.\u00a0 This is only a grant of subject matter jurisdiction that is still subject to the case and controversy requirement.<\/p>\n

To prove this, the supreme courts have held:<\/p>\n

“the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.”\u00a0 Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter<\/span>, 177 U.S. 505.<\/p>\n

Even with 26 USC \u00a7 7402 jurisdiction is not automatic and federal judges are required to presume the IRS complaint is outside federal jurisdiction until the IRS can prove it and that requires a controversy to be alleged, remember Kokkonen:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dall. 8, 11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 182-183 (1936).\u201d\u00a0 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins<\/span>., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).<\/p>\n

Good luck getting a federal judge to presume an IRS complaint is outside their jurisdiction.\u00a0 Remember just challenging the IRS is considered \u201cpatently frivolous\u201d by judges who get paid from the money the IRS steals from the productive.\u00a0 26 USC \u00a7 7402 is not on it\u2019s own, evidence the federal courts have jurisdiction over a complaint to enforce an IRS summons regardless of how many times you call me as a blathering idiot.\u00a0 Let\u2019s examine what the supreme court held here:<\/p>\n

“. . . suits, though involving the Constitution or laws of the United States, are not suits<\/strong> arising under the Constitution or laws where they do not turn on a controversy<\/strong> between the parties in regard to the operation of the Constitution or laws on the facts. . . .”\u00a0 National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc<\/span>., 337 U.S. 582 (1949) (emphasis mine).<\/p>\n

A case or controversy, despite a statute authorizing a proceeding, is still required before the courts can have jurisdiction.\u00a0\u00a0 What part of this is vague or unintelligible?<\/p>\n

“[I]t is well settled that federal courts may act only in the context of a justiciable case or controversy.\u201d\u00a0 SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights<\/span>, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).<\/p>\n

26 USC \u00a7 7402 does not create the controversy required under Article III, it permits the courts to hear a complaint and grant relief, there is nothing implied it\u2019s supposed to create the controversy in order to permit the courts to grant relief absent a justiciable controversy.<\/p>\n

The easiest way to look at this is: Does a justiciable controversy require more than a request for relief<\/strong>?\u00a0 We know it does, so why are federal judges not only ruling in favor of the IRS, but calling a challenge patently frivolous and sanctioning people thousands of dollars?<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0 Even if we accept the irrational position 26 USC \u00a7 7402 seeks to create a justiciable controversy or act as a thinly veiled substitute, congress is not permitted to extend federal judicial power beyond a case and controversy.\u00a0 Again the supreme court has held:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction<\/strong>, whether original or appellate.\u00a0 The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it.\u00a0 Their concurrence is necessary to vest it<\/strong>.\u00a0 It is the duty of Congress to act for that purpose up to the limits of the granted power<\/strong>.\u00a0 They may fall short of it, but cannot exceed it<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 The Mayor v. Cooper<\/span>, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 247 (emphasis mine).<\/p>\n

\u201cBut this Court clearly and unequivocally rejected the contention that Congress could thus extend the jurisdiction of constitutional courts, citing the note to 2 U. S. 410; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, and Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697.<\/p>\n

\u00a7 7402 doesn\u2019t create a justiciable controversy nor somehow excuse this strict limitation of the federal courts.\u00a0 Per the supreme court, the constitution does not vest the courts judicial power beyond cases and controversies.\u00a0 Even if we pretend a justiciable controversy can be created out of thin air, the court clearly states two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, the constitution and congress and the constitution does not permit the courts to hear anything but cases and controversies:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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.\u00a0 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 . . . .”\u00a0 Warth v. Seldin<\/span>, 422 US 490.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0 Now let\u2019s really delve into the world of hallucinations and make believe.\u00a0 This is where we\u2019ll see people pretending there\u2019s a controversy to overcome the plain language of the case and controversy clause.<\/p>\n

Does 26 USC \u00a7 7402 provide the IRS with procedural right and if so, does that satisfy the case and controversy requirement?\u00a0 Here again, the answer is still no, even when the government is pretending.\u00a0 It must be kept in mind IRS complaints to enforce summons do not, at least in the ones I\u2019ve worked with, allege any wrongdoing, they do not allege any right held by the IRS\/US has been violated.<\/p>\n

The supreme court has held, without any rational basis, that congress can create legal rights and the invasion of them would then constitute an injury to then confer standing in a federal court:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe actual or threatened injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing . . . .”\u00a0 Warth v Seldin<\/span>, 422 U. S. 490, 500.<\/p>\n

What do you when your own PR limits your objective to steal people\u2019s property?\u00a0 You start making things and sanctioning anyone who dares to question it.<\/p>\n

Without even addressing the purely hallucinatory nature of a majority of 535 men and women creating a legal right to my books, records and testimony out of thin air, all we really need to focus on is the second part \u201cthe invasion of which creates standing\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint for enforcement of IRS summons does not allege there is a legal right to the books, records and testimony.\u00a0 This is probably why there are no allegations of an invasion of the right necessary to create standing.\u00a0 If there are no allegations there was an invasion of this imaginary legal right, then there is no justiciable controversy.\u00a0 No controversy and the courts may not act.<\/p>\n

So even with what looks like a free pass for the IRS and other government agencies really isn\u2019t:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo demonstrate standing, a litigant must show that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that a favorable decision will likely redress that injury.\u00a0 See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555.\u00a0 However, a litigant to whom Congress has \u201caccorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,\u201d id., at 573, n. 7\u2014here, the right to challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, \u00a77607(b)(1)\u2014\u201ccan assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy\u201d.\u00a0 Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al<\/span>., 549 U.S. 497 (2007).<\/p>\n

To further clarify and show I\u2019m not making things up, like \u201ccongress\u201d does, look again at these holdings of the supreme court:<\/p>\n

“the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit authorized by the statutes of Congress is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal courts.”\u00a0 Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter<\/span>, 177 U.S. 505.<\/p>\n

and:<\/p>\n

“To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. . . . The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another. . . . A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto . . . , and the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint.”\u00a0 National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc<\/span>., 337 U.S. 582 (1949).<\/p>\n

See, it\u2019s not automatic and the controversy must be presented on the face of the complaint, which does not happen with a complaint to enforce summons.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019ve examined the actual textual limitations and none of them permit an IRS complaint to enforce a summons because there is no controversy.\u00a0 We\u2019ve also addressed the imaginary, just create a procedural right out of thin air, and the IRS still does not have standing to maintain the complaint because there isn\u2019t a justiciable controversy.\u00a0 That\u2019s hardly a frivolous position.<\/p>\n

A \u201cprayer\u201d for relief, on it\u2019s own, is not a justiciable case or controversy.\u00a0 There has to be an invasion of a legal right and that must appear on the face of the complaint.<\/p>\n

Points 1 through 9 are solid and I would expect critics, if they have disagreement it\u2019ll be with points 10 & 11.\u00a0 But those are based entirely on hallucinations committed to paper.\u00a0 Those judging this rationally cannot escape that creating a right is not only in the realm of make believe, but it still does nothing to create the Art. III required controversy.<\/p>\n

Even if we allow for the hallucination of a right, there is no attempt to further hallucinate the invasion necessary to create the controversy necessary to give federal courts jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

So when a federal judge (just a lawyer whom we\u2019re forced to pay) rules the IRS has standing, despite any allegations in a complaint, he is hallucinating an invasion of a non-existent right.\u00a0 Either that, or they are imagining the jurisdiction of the federal courts can legally go beyond cases and controversies.\u00a0\u00a0Remember, I’m all about open, honest investigation into the truth, if you disagree, feel free to post comments on the forum and call into the radio show.<\/p>\n

No wonder they sanction us thousands of dollars when we point out how wrong they are.\u00a0 And make no mistake, these judges, whose salary and life-long pensions come from what the IRS forcibly take from us, are demonstrably wrong.<\/p>\n

And this is without even getting into what type of civil action the IRS filed i.e., contract or tort.\u00a0 Think about that.<\/p>\n

By Marc Stevens<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MarcStevens.net | Do federal courts have jurisdiction over every civil complaint filed by the IRS? It\u2019s alleged by some lawyers, including federal judges, the federal courts have jurisdiction over every IRS complaint to enforce an IRS summons.\u00a0 If you suggest otherwise, you\u2019ll be denounced as a wacko and a blathering idiot.\u00a0 If you present the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[294],"tags":[61,173,11],"class_list":["post-15923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-federal-reserve","tag-irs","tag-tax"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}