:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Geibes
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 116
Joined: Friday July 8th, 2005 12:34 pm MDT

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Geibes » Monday June 4th, 2007 12:32 pm MDT

With Team Law's permission, here is a link to a document produced by Corp U.S.'s IRS titled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments. It's a great read for those who may have been indoctrinated by a Patriot Mythology group. Team Law has debunked many if not all of them in this forum and in the Patriot Mythology section of the main Team Law web site, but I thought it would be interesting reading nonetheless. Also, if you keep in mind the Standard for Review, you can even see how IRS doesn't understand some of it's own statutes. If that's the case, how can we possibly be expected to understand the code. Team Law can help its Beneficiaries deal with IRS and taxes and the best way I found to become a Beneficiary is to let Way of Kings™ nominate you.
Geibes
Education is bliss!

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Postby Gabo » Monday June 4th, 2007 4:43 pm MDT

I find the IRS's "Truth" about frivolous tax arguments, while not incorrect, to be somewhat misleading.
Every one of their contentions is being made with the assumption that the person is a "taxpayer" and US citizen.

Now, if the whole point of disproving these contentions is to prove that the person is a US citizen and taxpayer, then how can the IRS give a fair argument if they begin by assuming that the person is?

For example, on the question regarding the size and scope of the "United States", the IRS argumes that "[t]he Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves."

Instead of responding clearly and answering the question, we get a constructed answer designed to make people believe that the several states are part of the "United States" in the IRC when they are not.

The positive thing about this is that the IRS clearly knows the several states aren't included in the meaning of the term "United States", otherwise they wouldn't spend time responding to this question with such an answer.
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
- Helen Keller

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Admin » Wednesday June 6th, 2007 1:09 am MDT

:h: Gabo:
We expect the point Giebes was making was that IRS has openly shown the errors most tax protestors make on their own Frauds page. Your response seems to be a rebut of that page when in fact we have to agree with their presentation (for the most part) and we have been showing those same errors for years debunking almost every tax protest that has come up so far. It is not that we believe the taxes IRS is collecting are “fair”; we do not even think fairness is relevant to the point. The only thing relevant to the point of taxes in the United States of America is the law (tax code and that which follows).

We think Geibes point in referencing our Standard for Review is it reveals the true nature of any given relationship. Using that tool will reveal our response also seems to target the wrong party and to thus be off-point. All of the cases reviewed on IRS’ fraud page are cases dealing with “Taxpayers”. All such Taxpayers have Taxpayer Identification Numbers (hereinafter “TIN”). Virtually all TIN’s either are or are based on Social Security numbers (hereinafter “SS#”). Finally, all SSNs are assigned to entities (trusts) the Social Security Administration creates; which entities are therefore not people. However, all such entities are by definition taxpayers; and almost all such persons are by definition citizens of Corp. U.S. as defined in Corp. U.S.’ 14th article of amendment to the Corp. U.S. constitution.

Thus, when reviewed in their proper perspective, what IRS is presenting on their fraud page is correct and any allegation that such taxpayer’s are free natural Citizens of the United States of America is simply a misunderstanding of who the parties are in the taxpayer relationship. Thus, your response seems a bit out of place and off point to the intent of Geibes’ comment. We thus respond to say, “IRS’s “Truth” about frivolous tax arguments” was not only accurate but right on target and we disagree with your allegation that it is somewhat misleading. We have read the page and again point out that understanding such presentations requires the understanding provided by following our Standard for Review and that should make it plain and clear that the taxpayers IRS is dealing with are not people.

You contest:
wrote:For example, on the question regarding the size and scope of the "United States", the IRS argues that "[t]he Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves." .

Instead of responding clearly and answering the question
But, no question was asked wherein IRS was required to give an answer and the code provides the scope of their authority. So we are not surprised by their comments related to the matter.

The problem with the tax code is it is incomprehensible and therefore impossible to obey, honor or comply with. How can anyone obey, honor, sustain or comply with something they cannot possibly ever understand? It is impossible.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Admin » Friday January 25th, 2008 9:27 pm MST

A post was made by a Team Law beneficiary, whose inquiry required a response that was more technical than we can provide except on our Beneficiary Forum; so, our response and that inquiry were moved to a topic of the same name (The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments) in the Beneficiary Forum.

Jorge
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 11
Joined: Wednesday January 23rd, 2008 2:22 pm MST

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Jorge » Tuesday February 5th, 2008 11:33 am MST

If one follows the IRS as they are bound to through whatever of the various contractual obligations open and notorious or invisibile the UNITED STATES has requested from us in the form of "SIGN HERE" then why not follow the rules. If any agrees that I personally am not a resident of the UNITED STATES or a Federal Employee [emphasis on Employee as defined in USC and IRS code] but am domiciled in a place my community calls California and by way no means THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA as a man I can not be domiciled in a theoretical legal fiction then I would file as such. That would make me foreign or alien to US and I would not be a resident as I have never lived or even been near Washington, D.C. or Puerto Rico or Guam non of that Federal territory then I must be a Non-Resident Alien. By the IRS own definition I would be EXEMPT from any Federal Tax liability and so on. Why don't more people that would answer as I did not do the same and file a 1040NR and avoid the dishonor of argueing the law or the jurisdiction or their "citizenship"?

Please share some thoughts.

Thanks.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Admin » Tuesday February 5th, 2008 1:38 pm MST

:h: Jorge:
The answer to your inquiry strikes the nail on the head of the reason tax protestors usually get their arguments wrong and accordingly loose virtually all of their cases.

You are inquiring about a taxpayer’s relationship as if that relationship was your own!

To understand the answer to your inquiry you must first understand the nature of the relationships involved. That is exactly why we published the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article. Thus, to discover the nature of any relationship, we suggest you may want to review the Standard for Review published in the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article, then continue here as follows:

IRS’ purpose is to collect tax debts from taxpayers. The taxpayer is identified by the Taxpayer Identification Number (hereinafter “TIN”). A Social Security (hereinafter “SS”) number is a TIN. Following the Standard for Review proves, the taxpayer is virtually never a man; rather, the taxpayer is virtually always a business entity created in some relationship to a SS Administration created trust. As a matter of law, such trusts are created whenever the SS Administration offers a SS card to its recipient after first reserving the ownership of said card to the United States Government (Corp. U.S.) and then asks the recipient to hold the SS card until its actual owner wants the SS card back.

Again, that is exactly why we wrote the Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole article; so people could learn what that relationship is from their own experience.

Anytime anyone gives someone else something to hold that does not belong to the holder, a trust is created (see: Contracts, Trusts and the Corporation Sole). Thus, when the SS Administration presents an SS card and offers someone the privilege (and obligation) of holding the same for a time while they reserve the ownership of the SS card to the United States Government, they create a trust and that trust is known by its SS name and SS number, which are printed on that SS card.

Anytime that SS number is used in any relationship, it is that trust (so created, named and numbered) that is the party involved in the relationship; respectively, the party that lends said trust its consciousness and physical capacity is not the party holding or using the SS name, number or card. That is to say: the man is not the taxpayer; the taxpayer is the SS Administration created trust that was so named and numbered and holds the SS card.

Simply stated, that trust so numbered is the taxpayer, not the man.
Thus, IRS’ job is to collect from the taxpayer.

Now, back to your inquiry:
Your inquiry inquires after a presupposed relationship between you and Corp. U.S. and presupposes your defending your interest in that relationship; but we imagine the only things that even remotely presupposes you have such a relationship is either your inquiry or your defense—especially as it may relate to an actual taxpayer. Still, the taxpayer is identified by its TIN; which we expect is related in every instrument that ever comes from IRS dealing with any presupposed tax liability.

Thus, if you are the respondent to any such liability, then all of the elements of your inquiry dealing with: residence, contracts, rules, Federal Employees, domiciles, Corp. States, legal fictions, IRS definitions, exemptions, tax liabilities, jurisdiction and or citizenship, are also only related to the taxpayer defined by the relationship secured to the use of the TIN.

In other words, your inquiry regarding IRS collection activities has no merit to your natural-self unless you allege the same with your argument and defense. Accordingly, when you (a natural-man) bring for yourself any argument or defense to IRS contesting a taxpayer’s obligation to a tax, the only merit your argument or defense can possibly have is proof of your General Partnership relationship to the taxpayer; thus, making the natural-man equally, collectively and severably liable to the tax alleged. This is exactly why most tax protestors loose.

Team Law can easily help people learn how to resolve such matters, but we can only provide that level of support to Team Law beneficiaries; so, if the major hints we provided above don’t help you answer your own inquiry then you will have to follow it up in our Beneficiary Forum.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Reb
Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Friday December 7th, 2007 5:01 pm MST

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Reb » Friday June 6th, 2008 10:48 am MDT

It must be recognized that the list of frivolous tax arguments published by the IRS is endless confirmation of various defendants’ attempts to prove the basis of what they believe is the grounds for liability of an income tax.

The various defendants have attempted to carry the burden of proof as to the validity of the tax, and then to prove it is invalid. It is an impossible undertaking. The courts will require that any defendant making such an effort must prove there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the income tax MIGHT be valid. It cannot be done.

It is irrelevant what the IRS declares in publications or what is written in the regulations and manuals. The only place where coercive force can be imposed upon a citizen is via a court, and the court pleadings are the beginning of any potential incarceration or confiscation of property.

Due Process places the burden of proof for a valid tax upon the government. If that burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to disprove the validity of a tax liability, the defendant cannot win. Yet this shift has continuously occurred over the past 50 years.

The Constitution for the United States grants jurisdiction to the federal courts for “cases and controversies.” Controversies are specifically delineated in the Constitution and are irrelevant to this discussion. Criminal pleadings that do not identify a putative violation of a statutory legal duty have been repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court to not constitute a case. Jurisdiction therefore does not attach. Thornhill v Alabama, 310 US 88, 96; US v Adesida, 129 F3d 846, 850 (6th. Cir 1997); US v Armstrong, 951 F2d 626, 628 (5th cir. 1992); US v Hughey, 147 F3d 423, 436 (5th. Cir 1998); US v Dabbs, 134 F3d 1071 (11th.Cir. 1998); Thor v US, 554 F2d 759, 762 (5th. Cir 1977).

Criminal proceedings for income tax cases rely upon citations of IRC 7201 through IRC 7215 (Chapter 75). The Supreme Court, citing the Congressional Record as supportive, has declared Chapter 75 provisions apply to ALL taxes collected by the IRS. Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 348. In addition, a list of 100 cases wherein Chapter 75 was utilized to impose penalties on defendants in other than income tax cases is available. The various legal duties are identified in other Chapters. Chapter 75 therefore cannot identify a statutory legal duty for ANY tax as required by Due Process. The indictments/ informations are legally invalid. Stirone v US, 361 US 212, 217; Dunn v US, 442 US 100, 106-107.

Appellate review of income tax indictments have ruled that IRC 6012 or other statutes do not need to be identified after Chapter 75 has been cited. The essence of their position is that the lack of the proper citation does not prejudice the defendant. Their logic is flawed. In the alternative, the practice is a blatant claim by the appellate court that a conviction can be based upon a statute not identified in the indictment. The courts cannot do that.

“Prejudice” is an applicable standard where an erroneous statute imposing liability in the indictment has been cited. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a position where NO statute has been cited that imposes liability. A claim of prejudice when NO criminal statute has been cited has been declared to be a non-sequitur. Harris v US, 149 F3d 1304, 1308; Kelly v US, 29 F3d 1107, 1113-1114; Patton v US, 281 US 276, 292.

FRCrP 7(c)(3) appears to condone an indictment that does not identify a statutory provision claimed to be violated. If valid, this provision would extend jurisdiction to filings that do not fulfill Supreme Court standards for a “case.” Procedural rules cannot be used to extend jurisdiction specifically restricted by the Constitution. Further, the two cases relied upon as supporting the procedural change, US v Hutcheson and Williams v US , adjudicate cases involving a wrong statute being cited in an indictment. They do not support an indictment with NO citation of statutory duty.

Larry Becraft, with all due respect for his professional acumen, is quick to rely upon US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 as judicial conformance with due process. The Vroman court relied upon the Supreme Court adjudication of Hamling v US, 418 US 87 as supporting an indictment without an identified statutory duty. Hamling does not support that conclusion. Reliance by the Vroman court upon the Hamling adjudication included a discussion that mere “elements” of an offense was sufficient for a valid indictment. The position is spurious. The appellate courts are corrupting the words of the Supreme Court.

Elements are the components (facts) that must be conclusively evidenced at trial to prove a violation of an alleged offense. If there is no offense alleged, evidencing all of the facts in the world does not prove a thing. An offense cannot be proven if an offense has not been alleged. Until an offense has been alleged, it is impossible to know what the elements that must be proven really are.

Is the income tax imposed upon a corporate privilege ??? Or upon the status of an alien ??? Or upon the status of a government employee ??? Or some other premise ?? If so, these potential conditions of liability must be alleged and submitted to contestation with the burden of proof of the validity of the tax (as proven by the elements) upon the government to comply with the mandate of Due Process.

There will be no justice until this breach of consistency is emphatically presented to the courts, and I see no members of the bar that want to lead the crusade. (Would it ruin their business income ??)

Until the United States, and the IRS, is required to plea and CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF of the validity of a statute that imposes an income tax, as mandated by Due Process, there can be no successful challenge to its legality. Attempts by defendants to prove the tax does not apply to them will merely be appended to the list of Frivolous Tax Arguments and featured on Quatloos.

Reb

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Admin » Friday June 6th, 2008 8:16 pm MDT

:h: Reb:
Wow, seems like you needed a space to vent, but your post asks us no questions, and though it may seem like there is no remedy in the courts, there are those that do prevail. When we review such cases (considering the true light of the parties fighting in them), we see a far different picture because we observe the true nature of the parties in contest and we look and the style of the pleadings, not merely the review after the fact.

We still contest that when proper parties file cases dealing with the actual nature of the relationship in the courts they prevail. In fact, we do not believe there is any way not to (unless you quit).

Of course, that requires proper preparation of the case from its inception and we know of no place were people learn to get that right except when they educate themselves as Team Law beneficiaries. Accordingly, we are limited from sharing how that kind of thing is done except with Team Law beneficiaries.

Wherefore, we can understand why others may be skeptical. We can assure you our statement is accurate, we have never been shown any way to loose in such matters if the case is plead correctly. The cases you cited that were not are thus an example of what not to do.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Nsoniat
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 3
Joined: Thursday October 21st, 2010 1:47 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Nsoniat » Monday January 17th, 2011 2:47 pm MST

Admin wrote:We still contest that when proper parties file cases dealing with the actual nature of the relationship in the courts they prevail. In fact, we do not believe there is any way not to (unless you quit).
Is there publicly accessible evidence to these prevailing cases?

What reasons are there to trust a court system that can interpret the laws however they want? Sure there might be victories now, but what is to stop Corp US from creating/altering/re-interpreting a law (example: patriot act or declaring martial law) and no longer allowing victories? We are also trusting the executive branch to enforce the courts decisions. When Corp US can change the laws on a whim, how can we trust they will remain steadfast to the legal process?

--Nick

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Postby Admin » Monday January 17th, 2011 3:12 pm MST

:h: Nsoniat:
You can study case law and find wins and supporting court decisions all over the place if you do the requisite study with reasonable research tools. You can find links to such tools on our Online resources page. One of the newest such tools posted there is Google Scholar. It is rapidly becoming our favorite case law study tool (for when professional services like Lexis are simple too expensive or otherwise unavailable). Google does a great job searching its available case law—and it is free.

To your question:
Nsoniat wrote:What reasons are there to trust a court system that can interpret the laws however they want?
We return the question: “What limits you from doing your duty by learning the law and applying it?” That is the remedy to the tyranny you inquired after. The people must learn the law and apply it. Sure a judge can get away with running a kangaroo court set against the people that fight for freedom there. But they cannot get away with that with an educated population. They simply will not be able to stay in office. I have personally removed several judges from the bench for acting outside of their office. That was only possible because I learned the law and applied it. Quite frankly, the task was easy; all it took was a bit of diligent study (to gain a bit of uncommon knowledge I was already required to know) and then I had to stand up and apply the law.

Our interpretation of the balance of your inquiry is: ‘Can’t the government just turn tyrannical?
Of course, it is possible; however, never in the history of our country have the people been better equipped to learn the law and apply it than now. We have better tools for studying, learning, communicating and applying the truth now than we have ever had before.

So we ask people like you and me to awaken to the natural necessities of learning, knowing and applying the law. If the people do it, they will save our nation and the world. If they fail in that responsibility, they lose. Team Law can help whenever people are ready. We will not do your work for you but we can help you learn how to do it for yourself so that you may never have to be in the situation of having to throw your lot on the mercy of the court and trust them to do anything.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest