IRS: Specified Frivolous Position

[Marc Stevens]

(02-29-2012 01:49 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.

I disagree because if you take a opinion/legal position, then they can point to a contrary opinion from their courts, and label it a frivolous argument. They've been responsive, bad place to be in.

They do the same thing when you make an issue of fact, but you can point they are incorrect. If you listen to the Kimberly Clarke recording you can hear when she agrees we did not raise a frivolous argument.

I've even had the FTB agree factual questions are not frivolous arguments.

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-29-2012 02:28 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 02:23 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 02:05 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

Einstein Wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I'm not expecting a different result. I'm expecting the IRS to stonewall and lie like they always do. The purpose of the letter is to lay out what the law they are ignoring, actually says.

http://web.archive.org/web/2002021200424...cript.html In case anyone is interested.

I didn't wrote that. EINSTEIN wrote that. Can't you read?

OUCH (stumbles on cactus and falls to the ground, covered with spines sticking out at every which angle) SCREAMS in pain.

- NonElucidacious

I'm not qualified to answer this post. I'm just trying to find out who the prick and who the pricked are, factually.

[NonEntity]

(02-29-2012 02:35 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

Prick Wrote:OUCH (stumbles on cactus and falls to the ground, covered with spines sticking out at every which angle) SCREAMS in pain.

- NonElucidacious

I'm not qualified to answer this post. I'm just trying to find out who the prick and who the pricked are, factually.

If you don't know that by now... well there's no hope. None. Not any!

- NonEnotAny

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-29-2012 02:33 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 01:49 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.

I disagree because if you take a opinion/legal position, then they can point to a contrary opinion from their courts, and label it a frivolous argument. They've been responsive, bad place to be in.

They do the same thing when you make an issue of fact, but you can point they are incorrect. If you listen to the Kimberly Clarke recording you can hear when she agrees we did not raise a frivolous argument.

I've even had the FTB agree factual questions are not frivolous arguments.

Can somebody give me a point to the Clarke recording. I don't remember that name in any that I have listened to.

Mr. Stevens, your CoS is great for exposing them, but do they ever really back off? How does one get them to back off? How does having them hang up on the phone do the damage control?

I'm resigned to the situation that this turnip is going to bleed.

[NonEntity]

(02-29-2012 02:47 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Mr. Stevens, your CoS is great for exposing them, but do they ever really back off? How does one get them to back off? How does having them hang up on the phone do the damage control?

I'm resigned to the situation that this turnip is going to bleed.

In case Marc doesn't have the time, from what I've heard of his experiences you will never get them to admit that you are right and they are wrong, but what you very well may get is for them to stop sending you paperwork and threats. They will not concede, but if they will just leave you alone, isn't that what you want? That, it appears to me, is the kind of result that Marc's methods sometimes attain.

- NonE (speaking only for myself and what I think I've heard, not speaking for Marc in any fashion.)

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-29-2012 02:57 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 02:47 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Mr. Stevens, your CoS is great for exposing them, but do they ever really back off? How does one get them to back off? How does having them hang up on the phone do the damage control?

I'm resigned to the situation that this turnip is going to bleed.

In case Marc doesn't have the time, from what I've heard of his experiences you will never get them to admit that you are right and they are wrong, but what you very well may get is for them to stop sending you paperwork and threats. They will not concede, but if they will just leave you alone, isn't that what you want? That, it appears to me, is the kind of result that Marc's methods sometimes attain.

- NonE (speaking only for myself and what I think I've heard, not speaking for Marc in any fashion.)

That sums up nicely, what my perusing the website has led me to "believe".

[eye2i2hear]

(02-29-2012 02:33 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 01:49 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Correct. Yet the attempt must be made.

I disagree because if you take a opinion/legal position, then they can point to a contrary opinion from their courts, and label it a frivolous argument. They've been responsive, bad place to be in.

They do the same thing when you make an issue of fact, but you can point they are incorrect. If you listen to the Kimberly Clarke recording you can hear when she agrees we did not raise a frivolous argument.

I've even had the FTB agree factual questions are not frivolous arguments.

A quote seems apropos here:

Quote:OUCH (stumbles on cactus and falls to the ground, covered with spines sticking out at every which angle) SCREAMS in pain.

dag-nabbit!
Marc, why didn't I connect those dots?! Indeed, They are after all, all about "Controversy" and "Argument" (as it after all, "Justifies" Them).

Do you think Est could have made the point he was after via putting it in the form of questions rather than statements?

And Est, did you do the letter prior to being aware of Marc's insight/approach?

(one other consideration I had after our initial exchange, Est, about the objective/hope of such, is that I can only imagine, after all the "stuff" (to be nice) about Tax Law I've seen in my paytriot daze/days, how many similar pages of such these Agents get; seems likely enuff to me they'd simply mentally "File 13" anything like it into that infamous "Frivolous" Box upon it being of any length)

--NonGrasshopper2

[NonEntity]

(02-29-2012 03:03 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  That sums up nicely, what my perusing the website has led me to "believe".

Thanks. That's why I get the big bucks.

But really, if you lay it all out as you have in your letter, they are just going to ignore it and you, call it frivolous and you a criminal and they can print all the money they want while you will soon be bled dry. It appears that you need to get them one on one in a situation where you are dealing with them verbally, so that you can set them up by asking them questions that they pretty much have to answer. Example: "Can I get a fair trial?" You have to get that ON THE RECORD before you then ask, "Can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?" and so on. If they can see the entire trap (of truth) that you have set for them they will never answer question one, they will simply say, "FRIVOLOUS!" Have you maybe heard that one yet? <rolls eyes>

You following me here? Fairness and honesty and justice and truth are not issues that will come up. No matter how much you think they matter.

Read Barrett's "Twilight of the Psychopaths."

It is the nature of a bureaucracy to weed out people with integrity.


- NonE

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-29-2012 03:05 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 02:33 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  I disagree because if you take a opinion/legal position, then they can point to a contrary opinion from their courts, and label it a frivolous argument. They've been responsive, bad place to be in.

Do you think Est could have made the point he was after via putting it in the form of questions rather than statements?

I did attempt to give this consideration.

(02-29-2012 03:05 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  And Est, did you do the letter prior to being aware of Marc's insight/approach?

It was written about the same time I started rooting around this website. So it did have "some" effect on our thinking as it was drafted. The Tom Cryer court case and what I could find of the case transcripts were also on my mind. http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php

(02-29-2012 03:05 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  (one other consideration I had after our initial exchange, Est, about the objective/hope of such, is that I can only imagine, after all the "stuff" (to be nice) about Tax Law I've seen in my paytriot daze/days, how many similar pages of such these Agents get; seems likely enuff to me they'd simply mentally "File 13" anything like it into that infamous "Frivolous" Box upon it being of any length)

A quick look at this page supports your statement: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-012r.html

(These deep links don't always stay the same. If the link doesn't take you to
Part 4. Examining Process
Chapter 10. Examination of Returns
Section 12. Frivolous Return Program
you will have to navigate in from http://www.irs.gov/irm/)

---

(02-29-2012 03:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 03:03 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  That sums up nicely, what my perusing the website has led me to "believe".

Thanks. That's why I get the big bucks.

(02-29-2012 03:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  But really, if you lay it all out as you have in your letter, they are just going to ignore it and you, call it frivolous and you a criminal and they can print all the money they want while you will soon be bled dry. It appears that you need to get them one on one in a situation where you are dealing with them verbally, so that you can set them up by asking them questions that they pretty much have to answer. Example: "Can I get a fair trial?" You have to get that ON THE RECORD before you then ask, "Can I get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?" and so on. If they can see the entire trap (of truth) that you have set for them they will never answer question one, they will simply say, "FRIVOLOUS!" Have you maybe heard that one yet? <rolls eyes>

Yes I have. Just not personally yet.

I think they might have told Joseph Andrew Stack he's frivolous:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6...04083.html

(02-29-2012 03:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  You following me here? Fairness and honesty and justice and truth are not issues that will come up. No matter how much you think they matter.

Read Barrett's "Twilight of the Psychopaths."

It is the nature of a bureaucracy to weed out people with integrity.

That needs to go on the quotes board.

[NoConsent]

Eye2i2hear thank you for the kind words.

---

"I pay mine with a credit card but not automatically" and "...have for 6-7 years now used money orders for the likes of paying charge card statements..."

I haven't had a credit card for many years, so I'm a little rusty on this: aren't all credit cards attached to a bank somehow, even the ones issued by the likes of Walmart and United Airlines, etc.? And therefore aren't you still doing business with the banks, just in a different way? I guess it's time I considered getting one: the benefit of getting one is that IRS doesn't get to reach in and clear the account the way they can with a checking account, right? Thoughts?

---

"If you listen well to Marc's calls with the I.R.S. you will note that this is the issue he almost always focuses on." Got a quick link to said audio files?

[eye2i2hear]

(03-01-2012 05:09 PM)NoConsent Wrote:  ...
the benefit of getting one is that IRS doesn't get to reach in and clear the account the way they can with a checking account, right? Thoughts?

Precisely.
I'd prefer not to do business with them at all, for sure, and often feel dirty if I think about it long; but it's a big war zone with lots of battle fields.

Quote:"If you listen well to Marc's calls with the I.R.S. you will note that this is the issue he almost always focuses on." Got a quick link to said audio files?

From down at the very bottom of the forum pages, there's a link:
http://marcstevens.net/

(the forum is a sub-set of that main page)

See the categories up towards the top:
NSP Archive
Interviews
Call of Shame
Video

[NonEntity]

(03-01-2012 05:09 PM)NoConsent Wrote:  "I pay mine with a credit card but not automatically" and "...have for 6-7 years now used money orders for the likes of paying charge card statements..."

I haven't had a credit card for many years, so I'm a little rusty on this: aren't all credit cards attached to a bank somehow, even the ones issued by the likes of Walmart and United Airlines, etc.?

I have credit cards. I've also got a bank account. I've had the credit cards when I did not have a bank account. Perhaps you are confusing credit cards with debit cards. Debit cards are direct links to bank accounts, like a plastic check, if you will.

I have credit cards as it just seems like shooting myself in the foot not to have them. How on earth could I buy something from Amazon or eBay, etc. if I didn't. It's just my acceptance that the system is totally rigged and if I want to be able to function I need to maintain a credit card.

I'm not doing it to support the banking industry. I'm doing it to make life livable, just like I have a drivers license so I don't regularly have to spend time in jails.

If you find that you can live without a credit card, please do so. But if you are doing it at great cost to yourself for the purpose of feeling pure or something, is this act saving the world?

Credit cards allow easy access to markets of all shapes and sizes all over the world. Cash... well, it's much more limited. It's all in what you want to do. Silver? More limited yet.

- NonE