Adventures Success Stories?

[NonEntity]

Micah,

You might find that reading Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" would help you to understand the position being taken by those you are battling with here. If you read it, it's not all that long, you may find that you can come back and have some real ammunition to engage in this debate. Or not. It's a very interesting read, nonetheless.

(He's an old dead guy who wrote this stuff back in the good ole days of the 1800's when the country was young and perfect and stuff like that.)

- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

Micah68 Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:How about responding to my earlier posts when I responded to your insults about us being armchair voyeurs?

How about it?

You responded to my "insults" with what I would call "insults."

I could respond, but what would be the point?

Intelligent discourse maybe? I didn't insult you, others may have though. But you should expect that when you insult people.

Micah68 Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:Since you're back, how about an honest look at the merits of the argument without regard to how the courts decided with Edwards?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Asking me if I'm willing to take an "honest look" at something is rhetorically dishonest (or disingenuous), because it suggests that I haven't been honest in the past. I therefore am in a no-win situation. I can't agree to take an "honest look" now because that would amount to an admission that I wasn't honest in the past. And I can't refuse to take an "honest look" now because that would be an admission that I'm not being honest now.

So, you're being a manipulative jerk (to put it politely), no matter how you look at it.

Really? I'm the jerk? Another insult, big surprise. Until this post, all you did in was insult me and not look at the actual arguments. You had the nerve to also accuse us of being "armchair voyeur"s who "disgust" you, when we are all involved, against our will with government predators. If you were honest, you would have listened to some shows, did some investigation and known how involved we all are. Instead you insult us because you didn't take the time to investigate before you condemned us. If you're in a no-win situation it's only because you put yourself there. Learn from it, don't attack people until you do some investigation first. Better yet, just stop the insults and stick to issues you have some information about.

Until now you have not been honest, though you finally laid out something to really respond to. So I commend you on bringing something to the table besides insults, though you did still refer to me as a jerk.

Micah68 Wrote:

Marc Stevens Wrote:Look at the case and controversy clause and for now, ignore how the courts ruled. Make a decision on the merits based on what you read in the constitution, then let's compare that to what the courts said. Can you do that?

Sure. Can you?

I posted another article regarding that, so yes, I can <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marcstevens.net/articles/443-frivolous-really-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.marcstevens.net/articles/443 ... ally-.html</a><!-- m -->

Micah68 Wrote:Let's look at what the Constitution and the statutes of the United States say.

1. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to impose taxes. See Article I, section 8, and the 16th Amendment.

2. The Constitution also says that the judicial power of the United States, which is vested in the courts of the United States, is the power to decide "cases" arising "under the Laws of the United States" and "to which the United States shall be a Party...." See Article III, section 2.

3. Congress has imposed a tax on incomes. See Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. section 1 et seq.

4. Congress has also stated that, in order to enforce the tax on incomes, the commissioner of internal revenue has the power to summon people to produce books and records of their incomes and "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." 26 U.S.C. §7402(b).

5. So if a person that is summoned refuses to appear, there is a "case or controversy." The government wants the person to appear and produce records relating to taxes, the person doesn't want to produce the records, and the tax revenues of the government hang in the balance.

6. Just to put icing on the cake, 28 U.S.C. §1345 declares that federal district courts have jurisdiction of "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress."

It really can't be much clearer than that. The federal government thinks it is owed tax monies, the (alleged) taxpayer disputes the debt, the government seeks records, the (alleged) taxpayer refuses to provide the records, and so there is a "case" that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States can be decided by the courts of the United States.

If you want to refute that, you shouldn't quote federal judges because you have declared that "I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges...." So you're pretty much limited to the words of the Constitution and federal statutes.

Read the article I posted yesterday, I address what you don't. And you'll see that it can be clearer. First, even with a statute regarding a proceeding, jurisdiction is just not automatic as you allege:

"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." Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505.

See? No icing there, not quite as "clear" as you laid out. There still has to be, on the face of the complaint, allegations of the invasion of a legal right. So there are two issues for you to address. First, IRS complaints to enforce a summons, in the ones I have worked with, allege no wrongdoing or the defendant has violated a right to books, records and testimony. Without that, there is no controversy and the courts are obligated to presume there is no jurisdiction:

“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).” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).

Second, whether the IRS/US government has a legal right to the books, records and testimony is just a legal opinion, based on the application of the US constitution and law. This opinion, even if it were in the complaint (it's not) would be based on the agent who issued the summons, this would be part of the "good faith" the IRS needs to maintain the action. But, in the Edward's case, agent Gilbert was ruled by judge Downey to be incompetent to give legal opinions. So, as Gilbert is not permitted to testify the summons HE issued was for a legitimate purpose under the LAW, the IRS/US can not maintain the action because they can't establish good faith. Nor can they even begin to maintain they have a legal right to the books and records, the invasion of which would give rise to a controversy giving the courts jurisdiction.

Most of you quatloos guys have denounced me as a nut because I maintain the IRS agent's opinions are relevant. How can they not be relevant when the entire complaint is based on them and must be supported by an affidavit of good faith by the IRS agent who issued the summons? I think the affidavit is subject to challenge, and you guys hurl insults. You really think it is stupid to challenge a witness on statements made in a affidavit being used against you?

As far as the statement about the federal judges, you again misunderstood. I was referring to looking at the argument's merit independent of whether a federal judge I submitted it to, such as Downey, accepted it or not. You guys attacking me as an idiot based your insult on nothing more than Downey and the appellate panel rejected it.

Last, if you can't respond to my posts without insulting me, then I'll be hitting the ignore button. If you want to refer to me as a jerk or armchair voyeur, do it on another forum. Remember, despite your relentless insults, you're always able to and encouraged to, call into my radio show, I'm live every Sat. from 4-7pm est the number is (218) 632-9399. Also, it's a live broadcast, I can't control recordings.

[WorBlux]

Micah68 Wrote:Now you're being silly. If you don't know what I mean by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, then you're really wasting my time.

It's not that we don't know what we're talking about, we want to make sure your sure of what you're talking about.

Factually what is the constitution? Factually, what is really there at the surface level, that which is, before you add or subtract opinions via interpretation or inference?

[Zyrq]

Micah68 Wrote:

Zyrq Wrote:

Micah68 Wrote:The federal government thinks it is owed tax monies

Who is federal government?

The government of the United States of America.

Who/what is “government of the United States of America.”? I’m not asking this just to annoy you. Can you tell me how that “government” looks like? Personally I have never seen one, that’s why I want to know, so I can further examine how that “government” is capable of turning its thoughts into obligations supported by threats or use of physical force. I believe if I turn my thoughts into physical force, I’ll be called a criminal/thug, but it seems to be alright when that “government” does the same thing…So again, who or what is “government”? Saying :"government is - government of U.S." doesn't provide responsive answer to the question.

Micah68 Wrote:The income tax is imposed on "every person" with income in excess of a certain amount. So if a person has enough income, they are required to file returns and be a taxpayer.

Required by whom, and based on what authority do they have a right to tell people what is required from them?

Micah68 Wrote:

Zyrq Wrote:

Micah68 Wrote:and so there is a "case" that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States can be decided by the courts of the United States.

Factually, what is "Constitution" and "laws of the United States"?

Now you're being silly. If you don't know what I mean by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, then you're really wasting my time.

I didn’t ask you : “what do you MEAN by “Constitution” and "laws of the United States"?”, I’ve asked you: “FACTUALLY, what is "Constitution" and "laws of the United States"? “. See the difference?

[creolefood]

Micah68, you wrote: "The income tax is imposed on "every person" with income in excess of a certain amount. So if a person has enough income, they are required to file returns and be a taxpayer."

Of course, "they" are "required" to! Why? Because the "government" has guns! And the liquor store clerk who has a gun stuck in his face by an armed robber is "required" to turn over the contents of the register to the robber.

Besides the fact that the "government" has guns and uses violence or the threat of violence to "require" people to pay, how is this supposed "obligation" to pay taxes created? Does your answer come from the following list?

A. The "social contract"
B. "Your duties as a citizen"
C. "If you don't like it why don't you move to Somalia"
D. "Oh, you're just an anarchist!"
E. "The courts have ruled that ________ "

[armando]

On Feb 27 I created (or a least tried, I have not been approved yet) an account on the quatloos forum. They seem to only talk about the parking ticket and don't mention any thing about the bank lawsuits or the failure to appear charge that I helped a friend (Julio) with using Marc's information. They also bashed me and called me names. But what do I care, my mine has been freed and I see the system for what it is. Once again Marc thanks. We enjoyed the workshop and hanging out. I have a snapshot of my registration at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rgvnostate.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rgvnostate.com</a><!-- m --> at the bottom of the page.

Armando
RGV No State

[NonEntity]

HERE's a success story from spike regarding a collection service.

- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

armando Wrote:On Feb 27 I created (or a least tried, I have not been approved yet) an account on the quatloos forum. They seem to only talk about the parking ticket and don't mention any thing about the bank lawsuits or the failure to appear charge that I helped a friend (Julio) with using Marc's information. They also bashed me and called me names. But what do I care, my mine has been freed and I see the system for what it is. Once again Marc thanks. We enjoyed the workshop and hanging out. I have a snapshot of my registration at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rgvnostate.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rgvnostate.com</a><!-- m --> at the bottom of the page.

Armando
RGV No State

I won't go back to that website, I have better things to do than read their silly insults and rants. They accuse me of lying about helping people and when we post evidence, they insult and say it's not a real court or the judge was just pissed off. I post a case number from a "court of record" and they lie and say there is no such case, even after I post the judge's order granting the motion to dismiss.

When they call you names it's because they have no facts to counter. And facts are not what they are interested in. I'm glad I could help and also enjoyed the workshop. I'll be posting the audio this week regarding Marciano's property tax issue, this is going to be interesting.

[Micah68]

Marc Stevens Wrote:First, even with a statute regarding a proceeding, jurisdiction is just not automatic as you allege:

I never alleged that.

Marc Stevens Wrote:"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." Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505.

Which is correct, but irrelevant.

In order for the federal courts to have jurisdiction, there must be a statute that creates that jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction must be one of the types authorized by Article III of the Constitution.

In the Shoshone Mining decision, the Supreme Court held that a federal statute that creates a federal cause of action does not automatically create jurisdiction in the federal courts to hear that cause of action.

But that has nothing to do with actions by the federal government to enforce federal tax liabilities, or to enforce a summons to produce records relevant to tax liabilities, because there are statutes that specifically give the federal courts jurisdiction over those actions.

Specifically, Section 7402 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC §7402, which is titled "Jurisdiction of district courts," provides in subsection (b) that:

Quote:(b) To enforce summons

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.

And then there's Section 7604 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC §7604. which is titled "Enforcement of summons," which provides in subsection (a) that:

Quote:(a) Jurisdiction of district court

If any person is summoned under the internal revenue laws to appear, to testify, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, the United States district court for the district in which such person resides or is found shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, records, or other data.

So there are statutes that specifically grant jurisdiction to federal district courts to enforce administrative summonses, which means that your Shoshone Mining citation is totally irrelevant.

Marc Stevens Wrote:There still has to be, on the face of the complaint, allegations of the invasion of a legal right.

The Constitution doesn't say that, the statutes of the United States don't say that, and the federal rules of civil procedure don't say that, so you seem to be relying on quotations from opinions written by judges that you claim not to care about the opinions of.

In one of your blog postings you say that, "I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges." And yet you seem to cite them often when you think that their opinions, taken out of context, might support what you claim. It's only when a federal judge squarely and directly contradicts what you want to believe that you lose interest in what they think.

Marc Stevens Wrote:So there are two issues for you to address. First, IRS complaints to enforce a summons, in the ones I have worked with, allege no wrongdoing or the defendant has violated a right to books, records and testimony. Without that, there is no controversy and the courts are obligated to presume there is no jurisdiction:

That's wrong, and contrary to what the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964). In Powell, the Supreme Court stated that, in order to enforce an administrative summons, the IRS does NOT need to "meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of his summons," but must merely show "that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession, and that the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed...." 279 U.S. at 57-58.

Marc Stevens Wrote:Second, whether the IRS/US government has a legal right to the books, records and testimony is just a legal opinion, based on the application of the US constitution and law. This opinion, even if it were in the complaint (it's not) would be based on the agent who issued the summons, this would be part of the "good faith" the IRS needs to maintain the action. But, in the Edward's case, agent Gilbert was ruled by judge Downey to be incompetent to give legal opinions. So, as Gilbert is not permitted to testify the summons HE issued was for a legitimate purpose under the LAW, the IRS/US can not maintain the action because they can't establish good faith. Nor can they even begin to maintain they have a legal right to the books and records, the invasion of which would give rise to a controversy giving the courts jurisdiction.

More sophistry. The statute authorizing the IRS to issue summonses for records does not require any "legal opinion" of any "legal right" and the Supreme Court opinion in Powell, which the court was following in Marc Edward's case, does not require any "legal opinion" of any "legal right." As the district court stated:

Quote:Mr. Gilbert stated under oath that the investigation that he is conducting will be conducted for legitimate and lawful purposes under the laws of the United States, the inquiry that he seeks is relevant for that purpose; that the material sought is not already within the government's possession; that the administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Service Code have been followed, and no criminal referral regarding the taxpayer's case has been made to the Department of Justice.

Did Gilbert not state those things under oath, or was the district court wrong about what the Powell decision requires?

Marc Stevens Wrote:Most of you quatloos guys have denounced me as a nut because I maintain the IRS agent's opinions are relevant. How can they not be relevant when the entire complaint is based on them and must be supported by an affidavit of good faith by the IRS agent who issued the summons?

I don't know what any "quatloos guys" think, but I think you're a nut because you think that the relevant testimony of an IRS agent can be ignored because because he is unable to answer irrelevant (and nonsensical) questions about the difference between "Wyoming" and the "State of Wyoming."

[Micah68]

creolefood Wrote:Micah68, you wrote: "The income tax is imposed on "every person" with income in excess of a certain amount. So if a person has enough income, they are required to file returns and be a taxpayer."

Of course, "they" are "required" to! Why? Because the "government" has guns! And the liquor store clerk who has a gun stuck in his face by an armed robber is "required" to turn over the contents of the register to the robber.

Besides the fact that the "government" has guns and uses violence or the threat of violence to "require" people to pay, how is this supposed "obligation" to pay taxes created? Does your answer come from the following list?

A. The "social contract"
B. "Your duties as a citizen"
C. "If you don't like it why don't you move to Somalia"
D. "Oh, you're just an anarchist!"
E. "The courts have ruled that ________ "

I would say that there are several answers to your "why?", and I would rank those answers as follows:

1. Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.

2. The taxes were enacted by a democratically elected government, and in a democracy you either have to take the good with the bad, or you have to choose a different form of government, such as a monarchy.

3. The government has more guns than you do.

Which answer you choose to believe says more about you than about the government.

According to a family story, one of my ancestors converted to universalism, a belief that all are saved by the grace of God. He was confronted by a neighbor who pointed out that, under his (my ancestor's) beliefs, he (the speaker) could rob and steal and cheat and murder and still go to heaven. To which my ancestor replied that "yes, and there are other religions for people like you."

The point is that some people have to be threatened to do the right thing, while others want to cooperate and do what's best for society (or their souls). If you don't care about police or the courts or crime or national defense or clean air or water or worker safety or food safety or people who are hungry, then yes, the reason you need to pay taxes is because there are people with guns who will come after you if you don't. If you're a person with a social conscience, or a sense of right and wrong, or someone who cares about society as a whole, then you might think of a reason to pay taxes that doesn't require a gun to your head.

Your choice.

[armando]

Well put Micah68, governments have made this world a much better place. I am 36 years old and every birthday I think about how bad the world was the year before.

Are you kidding me. All the money that government steals and every year the world is worst than the year before. Please tell me your are joking.

[indio]

Micah68 Wrote:

creolefood Wrote:Micah68, you wrote: "The income tax is imposed on "every person" with income in excess of a certain amount. So if a person has enough income, they are required to file returns and be a taxpayer."

Of course, "they" are "required" to! Why? Because the "government" has guns! And the liquor store clerk who has a gun stuck in his face by an armed robber is "required" to turn over the contents of the register to the robber.

Besides the fact that the "government" has guns and uses violence or the threat of violence to "require" people to pay, how is this supposed "obligation" to pay taxes created? Does your answer come from the following list?

A. The "social contract"
B. "Your duties as a citizen"
C. "If you don't like it why don't you move to Somalia"
D. "Oh, you're just an anarchist!"
E. "The courts have ruled that ________ "

I would say that there are several answers to your "why?", and I would rank those answers as follows:

1. Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.

2. The taxes were enacted by a democratically elected government, and in a democracy you either have to take the good with the bad, or you have to choose a different form of government, such as a monarchy.

3. The government has more guns than you do.

Which answer you choose to believe says more about you than about the government.

According to a family story, one of my ancestors converted to universalism, a belief that all are saved by the grace of God. He was confronted by a neighbor who pointed out that, under his (my ancestor's) beliefs, he (the speaker) could rob and steal and cheat and murder and still go to heaven. To which my ancestor replied that "yes, and there are other religions for people like you."

The point is that some people have to be threatened to do the right thing, while others want to cooperate and do what's best for society (or their souls). If you don't care about police or the courts or crime or national defense or clean air or water or worker safety or food safety or people who are hungry, then yes, the reason you need to pay taxes is because there are people with guns who will come after you if you don't. If you're a person with a social conscience, or a sense of right and wrong, or someone who cares about society as a whole, then you might think of a reason to pay taxes that doesn't require a gun to your head.

Your choice.

Where is this Utopia? Anyhow enough of this cart before the horse crap. Your saying that the IRS has a right to inspect private papers without an allegation of wrong doing. All they need to do is swear it is a legit investigation. Unlike a normal case in which the plaintiff would be required to show cause with particularized facts about said papers and how they are involved in some wrong whey all need to say we swear it's a legit investigation......

How does some IRS agent answering these narrow set of questions satisfy minimum sufficient contacts ? Than again if there aren't sufficient contacts he won't have the requested records anyway because he never would have performed the act that created them.

I just want to know what principle of law gives the IRS the right to someone's papers. You have to admit the legal standard for seizure going from probable cause of injury to probable cause we are investigating.

It sounds like an audit to me but where does the legal duty arise from? It is not the demand that creates the obligation.

[zonsb]

Micah68 Wrote:1. Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.

I don't know as though it's possible to make a more back asswards (ass backwards) statement than what you just said. A civilized society would have put rule-of-the-jungle taxation in the trash bin of history 2400 years ago. There's nothing civilized about attempting to provided services at the barrel of a gun

I say "attempt" because they don't provide protection. Government -- that is, men and women actors playing the role of external authorities known as government -- has provided mountains of empirical evidence proving it.

[Micah68]

armando Wrote:Well put Micah68, governments have made this world a much better place. I am 36 years old and every birthday I think about how bad the world was the year before.

Are you kidding me. All the money that government steals and every year the world is worst than the year before. Please tell me your are joking.

Where did I say that the world is getting better every year, or that governments have made the world a better place?

[Micah68]

indio Wrote:I just want to know what principle of law gives the IRS the right to someone's papers.

The answer is section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:

Quote:§ 7602. Examination of books and witnesses

(a) Authority to summon, etc.

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary is authorized—

(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;

(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and

(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.