You have to hear this to believe it. Never have I heard a judge say this! Does she think the rules of procedure does not aplly here?

Click here to view the embedded video.

More proof that the City of Glendale has more than just crooked cops. It has or had a crooked Judge.

Imagine that today if you are in the City of Glendale, CA in front of this judge, you do not have the right to cross examine the witness!

“They made a point, I can make a point and somebody’s got to make a point in order to get crazy fines eliminated.”

The video below gives an overview of the events:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sharon’s act of intentional nuisance is certainly corageous and made what would otherwise have been an easy profit for city revenue grabbers a very time-consuming and costly endeavor.  However, she has several tactical and legal remedies that could have been applie prior to the expiration of her optional appeal, that could have been even more impactful in standing down the city plunderers by exposing the fictions behind their very credibility.  This approach, however, requires a principled understanding of the very nature of governments and not merely an objection based on the amount or severity of the fine imposed.  Below is an overview of how Sharon or a property owner facing a similar “nuisance assessment” by a city could challenge the fine using the city’s own theater of “due process.”  The approach and detail of the strategy may vary given the local procedures imposed by different cities.

•  File with the municipal court, and serve the inspecting officer and city prosecutor with a “motion to dismiss” the violation charges based on failure to state a cause of action.
• Appear in person to whatever hearing or procedure is offered after contacting the city regarding the appeal.
• Ask strategic questions of the judge or other overseeing official designed to expose the lack of standing and proper basis for a cause of action, as well as the biased nature of the proceedings as being a conflict of interest between the judge’s being employed by the very party bringing the action (the city or state).
• If permitted to question the officer responsible for the assessment, use a tactical line of questioning designed to expose the officer’s lack of qualification or factual knowledge necessary to bring a valid cause of action.

By allowing the appeal time to lapse and paying the fine, Sharon essentially gave away the most critical part of the battle by acknowledging the legitimacy of the cause of action behind the fine and the city’s factual jurisdiction over her.

Government entities, at every level, operate fundamentally on a total fiction… the fiction that there is such a tangible, definable thing as “the state” or “the city” apart from the individuals that act supposedly on its behalf.  They also operate on the provably invalid presumption that citizens exist, owing a “duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection.”  Such citizens do not exist, because no such duty of protection exists as courts all across the country have consistently held when asked to enforce a duty of protection in individual cases.   This basic disconnect with reality poses a fatal tactical flaw inherent to virtually any bureucratic prosecution or assessment.  They can’t connect their fictions to you in any factual way!  Since the presumption in law is that a “fact not appearing is presumed not to exist” this makes them unable to connect their claims of jurisdiction to your individual situation.  For more information on tactical strategies of bureaucratic damage control surrounding this principle, please visit http://www.marcstevens.net

Many adults, however, use whatever remaining capacity they have for imagination in the ways public schools have trained them. They use it to engage in a very twisted and potentially destructive form of fantasy.  These fantasies obscure the obvious moral reality of a given situation and justify an act or situation based on the conditions of the imaginary construction, instead of the more immediate and apparent reality. It is upon the widespread participation in this very psychologically dubious exercise that a whole host of institutional, everyday abuses of real people depend.

Perceived Differences and Ethnic Abuse.

Racial and ethnic abuses are frequently attributed primarily to the human tendency for fear of the different or unknown. It is often said that it is the apparent difference of the victim that forms the justification in the minds of the aggressor or the passive enablers. While fear of the unknown is very real, and perceived differences may make the exercise more palatable to certain people who have a legitimate desire to harm others for that reason, this mentality is only realistically attributable to a very small segment of those who are tolerating the act of abuse.

By assigning the blame for these abuses to the human tendency for hostility to the different, we have laid a philosophical groundwork for a fundamentally irrational solution to racism which has millions of people living in guilt and fear of the very acknowledgment of a cosmetic or ethnic difference. This only alienates individuals from one another because while one them is pretending to ignore a racial or ethnic difference, the person with whom they are interacting may be very proud of those distinctions and perceives the exercise of ignoring them as an insult.

Collective Abstractions: The Real Problem

This approach, along with perpetuating ethnic and racial divisions, largely misses the mark. It also does not explain the historical occurrences of widespread social and political abuse based on ethnic or social distinctions which are not visibly apparent. When we evaluate the mentality of someone who commits an act of aggressive violence against another individual, we just look carefully at the mindset that enabled the harm to be committed. Was the aggressor simply a sociopath who enjoys hurting people for the sake of doing so? It is certainly possible, but rare statistically and so this can not account for the widespread tolerance and even participation in such act that have occurred historically.

When we examine most of these historical occurrences of ethnic abuse, we can easily identify the specific mental exercise which really enabled the act of violence against the individual to be supported on any sort of widespread scale. It is the same psychological exercise that enables acts of violence in other, otherwise obvious, instances of immoral harm. It is the act of imagining that the harm is being done to a unit of a larger collective group, to which certain dangerous or “evil” attributes are assigned which enables the abuse. Whether these attributes are visibly apparent makes no difference, as long as people are willing to use their imagination to assign that attribute to a victim. This exercise serves to dehumanize the victim and obscure the obvious moral implications that we could not escape if we viewed the victim as another individual with inherent value. It is the abstract group or the individual’s associated status that is being acted against in the mind of those who justify it, not the individual.

Authority as a Basis for the Morality of an Act.

In addition to the exercise of viewing the individual victim as merely a manifestation of their identified group, another dangerous use of imagination is the assignment of inherent virtue by authority to obscure the otherwise obvious immorality of an act. If you saw one person force another person’s car off of the road, get out with a weapon brandished, kidnap that person and take their property at the point of a gun then this would obviously be a harmful crime under most systems of morality. Put a uniform on the aggressor and some fancy colored lights on the vehicle he is driving and it becomes an act that is not only morally permissible but likely to be applauded by most people. My purpose here is not to assess the actions of police in general or any specific case of alleged abuse, but for the reader to honestly ask;

“How is the fundamental morality of the act changed by the intangible designation of authority I attribute to the perpetrator?”

“Is this distinction really significant enough to result in the opposite of what would otherwise be a very obvious determination of this action as being violent and immoral?”

As Stanley Milgram observed in his well-known experiment, individuals are all-too willing to allow and even engage in acts they perceive to be causing pain and harm to another individual when the act is given a cloak of abstract authority. This video below describes in detail his psychological experiment and the results;

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Go chop down a forest”

The worst aspect of this exercise is that it involves acting on the basis of a perception which is an impossibility.  We perceive that we, or those acting with our tacit or explicit approval, are acting not against the individual human that their actions inevitably are taken against, but against the group with which we identify him. Likewise, we perceive the aggressor not as an individual but as the incarnate embodiment of the virtues and priorities we have assigned to their position of authority.  Just as one can not chop down a forest but can only chop down trees, one can only take action against individuals and only individuals are capable of action.

These social abstractions and fictional constructs have their legitimate descriptive and explanatory purposes, but as a basis for individual action and determinations of the morality of an act against an individual they can and have lead to the worst abuses in history.  They can not can alter the fundamental morality of the act in question… just as the forest does not really exist.

No tax agent wants to be questioned on the facts supporting his legal opinions you’re a taxpayer with taxable income with an obligation to file a tax return because there are no facts, just opinions.  This is not about legal interpretations, it’s about  facts.

Just the other day an IRS agent conducting a criminal investigation wouldn’t tell me which agent determined my client was a taxpayer with taxable income.  He even claimed no determination had been made.  Yes, I had to keep from laughing.  I asked, “You recommended prosecution for tax evasion and there’s been no determination my client’s a taxpayer with taxable income?”  He refused to answer the question.  There’s a shock.  They always work to insulate the agent making the determinations because it only takes a few questions to prove they have no facts to support their opinions.

Remember my analogy: a tax assessment is like a traffic ticket, the IRS/tax agent is the cop making the legal determinations.  If the cop doesn’t show up to court to testify and submit to cross-examination, then his ticket must be kicked out.  The judge and tax apologists on the interwebs can rant and rave all they want, it doesn’t prove anything, the ticket still has to be kicked out.

In the audio, you’ll hear the agent admit she’s not qualified to make legal determinations my client is a taxpayer with taxable income.  Despite her admission, under oath, the hearing officer refuses to strike her testimony and abate her assessments.  Her job is to make tax assessments and she admits she’s not qualified to do that.

This is significant because at the beginning, I ask the hearing officer, an attorney, about the grounds for vacating assessments; he agrees that if the agent cannot verify the assessments, that’s grounds to vacate the assessments.  We also object to the hearing officer as he admittedly represents the opposing party, though he insists he can still be fair.  To date, there’s been no decision made, and it’s well past the ninety-day time limit.

You’ll notice I don’t quote laws during this hearing; all I do is challenge and ask questions.  It’s far more effective to not take a position and just challenge the opinions being made against you.  If the opinion is coming from a tax agent, it’s bogus and can’t withstand investigation.  Here, the agent who made the opinions my client is a taxpayer with taxable income admits she is not qualified to make such opinions.

Please keep in mind this isn’t an isolated incident, I have tax agents admit all the time they’re not qualified to make legal determinations people are taxpayers with taxable income.  I played this clip on the show a couple of weeks ago with a tax agent in Canada.  She admits she’s not qualified to determine if there’s evidence Canadian laws apply to my client.  Think about that for a moment.

If it’s so obvious the law is applicable, then why admit they are unqualified?  Why not just present the facts?

There are no facts proving the constitution and laws apply to anyone.  All governments have are myths backed by violence.  No one owes taxes or any other obligation to governments and if anyone thinks they can present facts proving the constitution and laws apply to anyone, they are welcome to call my radio show, the No State Project, anytime for an opportunity to do it publicly.  We’re live every Saturday from 4-7pm est and the call in number is (218) 632-9399 and we do not screen calls.  We can even set up a time and record the segments if Saturdays are not convenient.

It’s alleged by some lawyers, including federal judges, the federal courts have jurisdiction over every IRS complaint to enforce an IRS summons. If you suggest otherwise, you’ll be denounced as a wacko and a blathering idiot. 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 “sophistry” and “patently frivolous.” It’s not that you’re just incorrect on the law, it’s “frivolous” and couldn’t possibly have any merit at all.

But is it true? Are federal judges always correct; is the suggestion the IRS does not have standing to complain really sophistry? Is it possible the IRS doesn’t have standing to complain and the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear such complaints?

After all, complaints to enforce an IRS summons only request the court to enforce the summons, there’s no claim of injury or that you’re required to comply with the IRS. There are no allegations of wrongdoing. I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.

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

First, no one voluntarily supports judges, they don’t offer their services to the market on a voluntary basis. This is not opinion, it’s the truth and beyond doubt. We’re all forced to pay them; threat, duress and coercion is the MO of federal judges. Do you trust someone who forces you to pay them?

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

I’ll present the law below and do it one point at a time. This way if I’m in error, you’ll be able to point out where I went off course.

1. The jurisdiction of the federal courts is not unlimited, even when the IRS is involved:

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 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).” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).

In my experience federal judges have never presumed an IRS complaint was outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. They’re too busy chanting “frivolous” over and over.

2. Let’s examine those limits. To start, we need to examine why there are governments, the PR is they are only to protect rights. From the Declaration of Independence “To Secure these Rights, governments are instituted among Men…” and various constitutions, such as Arizona: “established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

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

3. For federal courts, we find, consistent with the purpose for government, the following from Article III § 2 of the US constitution: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made…to controversies to which the United States shall be a party…”

This is the “case and controversy clause”. It’s pretty clear; the federal courts are limited to only cases and controversies. This has been always been held by the supreme court:

“As we have already seen, by the express terms of the Constitution, the exercise of the judicial power is limited to “cases” and “controversies.” 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.” Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346.

4. There are no exceptions there for any particular agency or complaining party. Either there is a case or controversy or the court has no jurisdiction.

5. 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:

“damnum absque injuria…Damage without wrong, the sense of the expression being that there is no cause of action. 1 Am j2d Actions § 78.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 304.

“damnum et injuria…Loss and wrong, the two essential elements which must exist in combination as essentials of a cause of action. 1 Am J2d Actions § 70.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 305.

“injuria…A wrong; the violation of a legal right.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 627.

Contrary to what you’ll hear from government apologists, case and controversy is not synonymous with “government complaint”.

6. This is probably why the supreme court has always held a case and controversy includes the violation of legal right, an injury:

“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.” Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208 (emphasis mine).

Without going any further we see because the IRS complaint didn’t allege the violation of a legal right, the courts are acting outside their strict limitations when they don’t dismiss them. The argument the courts may not hear a complaint that doesn’t set forth a legal injury (such as the IRS complaint) is based on solid grounds and is not “frivolous”. This is true even if there is a legitimate exception for the IRS.

7. In setting forth the requirements of a federal case and controversy, the supreme court has held:

“In 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. This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit. 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). The 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. 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 . . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490 (emphasis mine)

Notice this is regarding the general limits of the federal courts, not just the Warth complaint under review, it says “every federal case” and the judicial power itself exists only to redress or protect against injury. It did not say federal jurisdiction as far as the complaint before the court or private litigants only. It’s about federal jurisdiction period, there no exceptions:

“[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)…” SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).

To find an exception one must assume the text does not mean what it says. Remember, I’m only going by what the text clearly states and those who hallucinating more have denounced me as a wacko.

So far the law is clear, because the IRS complaint did not allege a controversy, the federal judge should dismiss. But, I’m no lawyer, what do I know? Are there legal exceptions making the IRS special, thereby not only making federal judges ignore the case and controversy clause, but making a challenge “patently frivolous”? Let’s look:

8. Do government agencies get a free pass? Do government agencies automatically have standing in courts just by virtue of being government? 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:

“Because 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.” Walker v. Cheney, 230 F.Supp.2d 51 (2002).

This district court judge quoted the supreme court regarding the case and controversy clause:

“”These requirements together constitute the `irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing, which is an `essential and unchanging part’ 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).”

This is from a federal court case involving two government parties, so I think it applies to government, even the IRS. Notice the bold part about “essential and unchanging”. But it’s somehow frivolous when applied to the IRS. Really? There is also:

United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897) complaint dismissed because US government lacked standing.

“The 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.” United States v. FMC Corp., 717 F. 2d 775 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1983.

“the State of Massachusetts presents no justiciable controversy either in its own behalf or as the representative of its citizens.” Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 US 447.

9. May a statute confer standing on a complaining party? This has been alleged, let’s look at 26 USC § 7604(b):

Ҥ 7402. Jurisdiction of district courts

(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.”

This appears to give district courts jurisdiction over that particular subject matter. 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 § 2. There is also no attempt to hallucinate the IRS/US government/United States has a legal right to books, record and testimony. This is only a grant of subject matter jurisdiction that is still subject to the case and controversy requirement.

To prove this, the supreme courts have held:

“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.

Even with 26 USC § 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:

“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).

Good luck getting a federal judge to presume an IRS complaint is outside their jurisdiction. Remember just challenging the IRS is considered “patently frivolous” by judges who get paid from the money the IRS steals from the productive. 26 USC § 7402 is not on it’s 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. Let’s examine what the supreme court held here:

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

A case or controversy, despite a statute authorizing a proceeding, is still required before the courts can have jurisdiction. What part of this is vague or unintelligible?

“[I]t is well settled that federal courts may act only in the context of a justiciable case or controversy.” SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).

26 USC § 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’s supposed to create the controversy in order to permit the courts to grant relief absent a justiciable controversy.

The easiest way to look at this is: Does a justiciable controversy require more than a request for relief? 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?

10. Even if we accept the irrational position 26 USC § 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. Again the supreme court has held:

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

“But 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.

§ 7402 doesn’t create a justiciable controversy nor somehow excuse this strict limitation of the federal courts. Per the supreme court, the constitution does not vest the courts judicial power beyond cases and controversies. 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:

“The 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. 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 . . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490.

11. Now let’s really delve into the world of hallucinations and make believe. This is where we’ll see people pretending there’s a controversy to overcome the plain language of the case and controversy clause.

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

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:

“The actual or threatened injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of “statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing . . . .” Warth v Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500.

What do you when your own PR limits your objective to steal people’s property? You start making things and sanctioning anyone who dares to question it.

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 “the invasion of which creates standing…”

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

So even with what looks like a free pass for the IRS and other government agencies really isn’t:

“To 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. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555. However, a litigant to whom Congress has “accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,” id., at 573, n. 7—here, the right to challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, §7607(b)(1)—“can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy”. Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

To further clarify and show I’m not making things up, like “congress” does, look again at these holdings of the supreme court:

“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.

and:

“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.” National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc., 337 U.S. 582 (1949).

See, it’s not automatic and the controversy must be presented on the face of the complaint, which does not happen with a complaint to enforce summons.

So we’ve examined the actual textual limitations and none of them permit an IRS complaint to enforce a summons because there is no controversy. We’ve 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’t a justiciable controversy. That’s hardly a frivolous position.

A “prayer” for relief, on it’s own, is not a justiciable case or controversy. There has to be an invasion of a legal right and that must appear on the face of the complaint.

Points 1 through 9 are solid and I would expect critics, if they have disagreement it’ll be with points 10 & 11. But those are based entirely on hallucinations committed to paper. 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.

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.

So when a federal judge (just a lawyer whom we’re forced to pay) rules the IRS has standing, despite any allegations in a complaint, he is hallucinating an invasion of a non-existent right. Either that, or they are imagining the jurisdiction of the federal courts can legally go beyond cases and controversies. Remember, 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.

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

And this is without even getting into what type of civil action the IRS filed i.e., contract or tort. Think about that.

Original Article – Frivolous, Really?

This is a short video of the call linked in the last article Owning an IRS Lawyer. What these people don’t like, it that when you stick to the facts, it exposes the truth about their entire case, it’s based on words. I’m sure there are psychologists who would call the lawyer’s frustration and “playing semantics” crack as “projection”. All they have are words such as taxpayer and taxable income to deflect attention away from the fact they are stealing your time. So when it is clear they have no facts, just words and violence, they accuse me of playing semantics.

Introduction

We start with the premise that the widely shared beliefs in a society are:

1. Don’t harm other people
2. Respect their property
3. That part of nature that you transform and make valuable becomes yours
4. A violation of these principles is an attempt to live at the expense of others, and cannot be allowed

In a small village this could work in a straight forward manner, where people all know each other. If you did something bad everyone would learn about it, which would cause an immediate backfire and you would have to make things right or become an outcast. What is relied on here is the reputation of someone, which describes their trustworthiness.

Knowing the reputation of members of the society by memory is possible in a small village, but becomes quickly impossible as the society becomes larger. It also becomes more complex. For example: one person has agreed to make a delivery at a certain time but is delayed two hours because of a heavy storm. Who now owes what to whom? Or: there is a rich person with a lot of resources and a not so rich person who wants to trade his labor. How does the little guy know that he will be treated fairly? Who does he go to if his overtime isn’t paid? Remember, there is no government in a voluntary society.

Luckily, we can foresee problems. In a market where there is no government, it is a valuable asset -competitively speaking- to be able to show your potential business partners that you can be trusted. You set yourself up to be checked, and if you don’t follow through then you lose that asset that allowed you to be trusted.

One way in which this principle could be formalized and professionalized is as follows:

Contract Arbitration and Reputation Records

You pay a business for a special kind of database service. With this service you have the ability to create permissions to add an entry, to create permissions to read the database, but no possibility to change or remove entries. The next step is when you engage in a contract with someone, that you agree on an arbitrator (who is also paid) who will interpret the actions of the parties according to the contract in case of a dispute. The arbitrator gets an access code to make an entry in the databases of the parties. If there is a dispute and the arbitrator decides against you, and you are not willing to comply with the ruling, then the arbitrator will put his findings in your database. This means that you no longer have a way of showing potential trading partners that you are trustworthy; at least until you make things right. And in this market where such a proof has become the norm, you will be at a great disadvantage. Trading partners also require from each other that the arbitrator keeps a publicly accessible list of the unresolved disputes by way of the details of the violator and the full details of the case.

People can’t just get a new record when they’ve done something bad, because a record that doesn’t go back far is more a proof that someone is trying to hide something. In the same way, a record hosted by a provider that people can’t verify is reliable is of little value.

Personal records are very important, so providers have to make sure there are multiple online, offline and offsite backups; making them impervious to natural disasters and crime.

People will only agree on arbitrators that they trust, because they don’t want to be judged unfairly. People will also want arbitrators that are trusted by many other people, so that a strike in the other person’s record will have a big impact, lowering the risk of being cheated by the other party. Another differentiating factor is the knowledge the arbitrator has about the specific kind of business that is being done. A dispute about farm animals requires a different set of knowledge than a dispute about microchips. The only way to get a good idea of the behavior of an arbitrator and their performance in a specific field is that they give insight into the cases that they’ve handled before. They could make the cases anonymous or give people a discount to be able to publish it, and cases where someone doesn’t go along with the ruling get published anyways. Consumers also have a need in being able to make their case public themselves (with possible extra evidence) if they think they’ve been wronged by an arbitrator. Independent organizations could facilitate in all these functions so that people can find out about arbitrators, their specialties, their performances, their prices, and to keep them in check. The career of an arbitrator is thus built on making sound judgments and in a voluntary market will face a quick ruin if they stray from this.

Property

The above described system deals with persons and property, but only that property which is mutually recognized. Both parties can perceive to have benefit from a trade and at least temporarily agree on what property is who’s and what limits of behavior exist (for example, before you go into a car showroom you contract that the store and the goods there are not yours and that you will pay for any accidental damages). So what happens when two people have a disagreement about property outside of contractual agreements? Suppose two businessmen want to do mining in the same area, but one of them is using an entrance with his equipment and the other one wants to pass. Do they draw their guns? What is the solution? Who is actually right?

In a same manner as before, these problems can be foreseen. And because they can be foreseen we come to expect certain proofs and procedures to be adopted to handle the situation.

Society at large does not want people to take property that does not rightfully belong to them. So in the case of land, to gain legitimacy in the public view in case of a conflict, you pay for an independent and trusted service of verifying and filing what you have done to the land and when. If you have publicly trusted records that you built a house somewhere 20 years ago, and some other person shows up who declares it is his yet he has no verifiable and trusted record of this, then we can safely conclude that the second person is either a criminal or deranged. A protection agency would in that case also be willing to draw arms if necessary, to protect the legitimate owner. This is also to say that a protection agency cannot simply sell its services to any buyer in any way because they too are scrutinized by the public. If they are viewed as being above-the-rules mercenaries, criminals, they become the opponent of the entire society, which has many more guns, resources, manpower, and are all cooperating.

In the mining example there is no clear criminal. This means that resorting to strong arm tactics would be highly suspect. Because it is easy to see that this kind of non-contracted dispute can also occur it becomes expected from people engaging in new land use to have a predetermined and knowable list of arbitrators that they are willing to use in such a case. As different fields have different arbitrators specializing in them (farming, drilling, mining, et cetera), there will be suitable arbitrators that are successful and respected. We expect these to occur on those lists. All of this would be the reasonable solution. If one of the two parties feels he is being treated unfairly, he will always have the trump card of going to the press and making the case public, for which there can be a high price to pay by his opponent.

Identification

How can you prove to a customer that a reputation record belongs to you? We foresee this problem and it is of very high value to us so we allow ourselves to be uniquely identifiable by our reputation provider, which becomes part of the service.

Market context: costs and benefits

The mechanism that has been explained is one way in which a voluntary society could function. Some situations may warrant a higher investment for an even lower risk. For industrial land disputes they may settle on using multiple arbitrators from the field who decide through a vote. For contract-disputes people may want to use a tiered arbitration, meaning that the first arbitration step is cheaper and either party can decide to decline the verdict and go for the final -more precise and expensive- procedure. It is also possible that the function of reputation service and arbitration is offered as one, and it could just as well become separated even further. We cannot know these things exactly, and what the market will come up with will most likely far exceed any of our current imaginations.