Adventures Success Stories?

[Marc Stevens]

wserra Wrote:You quote from the IRM concerning a criminal matter, failure to file per 26 USC 7203. The burden of proof, as in every criminal matter, is on the govt, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment applies. I fully agree that the govt would be quite ill-advised to attempt to try such a case on records only. What we were actually talking about, however, was Stevens' tape of a conference in a Tax Court case - a civil matter, burden of proof on Stevens' "client" (since he failed to comply with the law and file a valid return), no Confrontation Clause rights.

Is this a joke? Questioning of witnesses is still a due process requirement. Sorry for the huge block of text, but it's necessary:

"Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots. 25 They find expression in the Sixth Amendment which provides that in all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with [360 U.S. 474, 497] the witnesses against him." This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, e. g., Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242 -244; Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 474 ; In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 , but also in all types of cases where administrative and regulatory actions were under scrutiny. E. g., Southern R. Co. v. Virginia, 290 U.S. 190 ; Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292 ; Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 19 ; Carter v. Kubler, 320 U.S. 243 ; Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269 ." Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496.

And that's some legal opinion you threw out up there, you assume, just like the IRS, the "law" is applicable to my client for him to then not comply with. You don't even have a name and you're certain he's a taxpayer, has taxable income and required to file a return. Nice assumption.

I can't take calls until my March 5th show (I'm out of town both weekends), please call in and have the facts to connect my client to the constitution and the "laws" therefrom.