Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame

CoS – Sept 7, 2013 – More Circular Logic: “We do have jurisdiction… because the code applies because the code says so.”

Posted on September 13th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

Here is another example of the circular logic the psychopaths called the IRS rely on.  We ask about evidence, and all we get is hostility and circular logic.  This agent agrees her position is circular and doesn’t see any problem with that:

Marc:  “So your position is: the code applies because the code said so?”

Bureaucrat:  “That’s correct.”

code_appl

Those who do business at the barrel of a gun have no use for evidence, logic and reason.  Just pay us or we’ll take it by force and terrorize those around you.  Apologists will attack me, saying I’m the idiot and ask where a judge, working for the same team has ruled in favor of my “argument.”  Be your own judge though, who cares what some psychopath in a robe thinks: is the agent’s position logical, rational and based on evidence, or opinion back by aggressive violence?

You’ll notice that such people think that calling something a “law” means it magically applies for no other reason than it’s called “law”.  When you ask for evidence they will mock you, saying you don’t understand the nature of law, the law doesn’t require evidence.  There are those, such as this agent, who believe evidence is not required to prove the “law” applies to those they are attacking.  These people not only think they  do not need evidence the code applies, but that we need to show evidence it doesn’t.  That’s a lot of stupidity to process.

I invite all those who think they have evidence the constitution and laws apply to call into the No State Project and present your evidence.  Do what so many agents have not been able to do;  this is just one of many psycho tax agents who couldn’t provide any proof.  We can even do it on another live show if you can set it up.  If you’re not able to, then we can record a show, or you can post a video on the interweb and I’ll embed it here.

              

16 Comments For This Post

  1. RadicalDude Says:

    So, their claim is effectively estoppeled, then, right? I mean, you’re trying to resolve the matter by asking for the evidence, and then they just hang up on you, doesn’t that effectively amount to an abandonment of their claim?

  2. Latimer the Cat Says:

    From my perspective, several observations: A helpful interview, but one must sort through the drama to get to the center of the onion.

    – Just having her personally elaborate on the claim that they are making absent any evidence of jurisdiction is the most helpful. I don’t believe referencing “typical IRS opinion and argumentation”, not made by her, is helpful. They are not drawn-out statement of fact.
    – IRS characterizations, while reasonable and accurate, do not further her bad faith response and “frivolous” argument/position. Her position statements ought to be clarified via elaboration which was done. Those exposed positions of the IRS alone are sufficient evidence.

  3. Pete Says:

    Wow, Eric! I’d be careful with commodity prices being so high…someone might try to take your BALLS OF STEEL! Great Job!

  4. gulyguff Says:

    loved hearing Eric speak up for himself too. and good job as always Marc. another psychopath exposed.

  5. RadicalDude Says:

    “Latimer the Cat Says:
    September 13th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Those exposed positions of the IRS alone are sufficient evidence.”

    You mean evidence of bad faith and frivolousness on her part?

  6. Eplo Says:

    IRS has given NOTICE that their forms only reflect their
    interpretation of the law and Treasury Regulations

    From: RG
    Date: September 11, 2013 23:56:56 PM PDT
    Subject: Re: Poland Confiscates Half Of Private Pension Funds To
    “Cut” Sovereign Debt Load

    To my liked mind friends

    I am so sorry and sad to send you this email…..but times are hard
    and I just have to do it!!!!! I made a serious mistake in thinking
    that you would understand the metaphor of the statement….”pay your
    fair share”…..that I used respective of the CFR. The section
    noticed concerns the cross reference to section 61 of the IRC
    relative to the debt management of the bankruptcy of the federal
    government. See: The index and finding aid to the CFR as to
    this fact.

    But to continue on this subject, its really hard on me to hear
    and see that most people still do not understand the reality
    of the situation as to the scheme of deception and fraud being
    used by the IRS. In that I still see people posting information
    concerning the alleged Income Tax. Note: Please delete this kind
    of information from your hard drive, brain, because its only going
    to give you heart burn.

    So, just what is it that these people do not understand?? The IRS
    has explicitly stated that their forms and publication, see: IRS
    Publication 17, only reflect their interpretation, see: Title 5
    USC sec. 553 “Rules”, of the law, Treasury Regulations and court
    decisions. Further, its stated in Title 44 USC sec. 1505 that their
    interpretation lacks general applicability legal effect and force
    of law because its only their opinion on the law. Question: Why do
    these people refuse to accept the fact that the IRS is telling them
    the truth?

    Next, its noticed within the Federal Register that if a Treasury form
    W-2 has been filed, via an employer on behalf of an employee, see:
    Public Salary Tax Act – Subtitle C, that such form is an original
    tax return. And, therefore the Treasury form 1040 is not required
    to be filed unless said employee desires to claim allowances,
    deductions and credits. Notice: Title 44 USC sec. 1507 concerning
    information posted in the Federal Register and section 6211 of the
    IRC respective of the filing of a tax return as this fact relates
    to an alleged deficiency.

    Please try to remember the facts, the IRS has given NOTICE that their
    forms only reflect their interpretation of the law and Treasury
    Regulations. Relative to this stated fact, take notice that their
    form 1040 is required to be signed “under the penalties of perjury”
    and that the alleged Congress has given notice, see: P.L. 94-455,
    that any such form shall not relate or pertain to the tax imposed
    upon income noticed in Subtitle A. Another, point of interest is
    the fact that the IRS form 1040 is noticed, see: IRS Document 6209,
    as being filed, signed, by a fiduciary on behalf of an individual
    and not by an individual. Question: So, tell me why do you people
    waste your time and energy writing letters on the subject of an
    income tax??

    Of those who have had the misfortune of accepting their offer,
    contract, to appear in court. Do you recall the judge asking
    this question: Do you want to represent yourself in this matter
    before the court?? Now, the definition of the word “represent”
    means to stand in place of another and/or to act as a fiduciary to
    the ARTIFICIAL PERSON, a name written in all upper case letters,
    noticed on the court’s docket.

    I am not trying to beat a dead horse but the IRS has gone one my step
    further and given notice, see: IRS Document 6209, that their forms
    W-2, W-4 and 1099 are in point of fact class 5 GIFT tax forms. Now,
    correct me if I am wrong but aren’t Gift taxes noticed in Subtitle
    B of the IRC. Note: Again, I hope that many of you are starting
    to see why the courts have stated that all such arguments are in
    point of fact without merit and/or frivolous. Question: Do the
    legal words dishonor and traverse have any relevancy on this subject?

    Stay on point concerning the evidence……OBJECT / OBJECT /
    OBJECT…..respective of the facts so noticed above!!! All IRS
    forms are not legal and can only be placed into evidence if you do
    not object to them. Another item of importance, please stop opening
    mail addressed to the artificial person, decedent / dead person,
    because to do so is to accept their offer of being the executor to
    its estate. Note: Again, Estate and Gift taxes are noticed within
    Subtitle B of the IRC and not in Subtitle A of the IRC. Further,
    the words Employer and Employee are noticed in Subtitle C of the
    IRC respective of the Public Salary Tax Act. Read and re-read
    the rules noticed within 7801 et. seq., in that the location of a
    section has absolutely no relavance as to its relatenship to another
    section. The Congress has given notice that any legal connection /
    nexus is required to be noticed within one to the other section.
    Example: Its noticed within sec. 6212 to sec. 6213, 6214, 6861
    and 6903.

    Just my opinion on the subject. Check it out for youself and if I
    am not correct, please feel free to tell me that I am full of it.

    Blessing to all!!

    RG

  7. Mark Says:

    This guy is going to jail.

  8. Latimer the Cat Says:

    RadicalDude Says:
    September 13th, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    “You mean evidence of bad faith and frivolousness on her part?”

    Yes. That part of the evidence-gathering trip was very helpful. She gave exactly what was needed.

  9. Alex R. Knight III Says:

    Very nicely done! I’m amazed you both managed to keep that Eva Braun robot on the phone as long as you did. I’d be willing to bet your points made are going to haunt her sleep. 🙂

  10. Randy Says:

    Title 26 Subsection 6331 Levy and distraint (a) Authority of Secretary
    If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

  11. Randy Says:

    Next IRS call please ask them what SECTION of the code they applying the assessment from, please please pretty please.

  12. Randy Says:

    sorry, “… basing the assessment from …”

  13. Tim Says:

    Sorry Marc but you failed to make your point with your call. You’re asking an IRS agent, more or less an accountant that specializes in tax, to answer a legal question regarding constitutional authorization to levy/enforce tax policies.

    Do you ask a cop where they get their constitutional authority to write you a ticket for speeding or a meter maid where their constitutional authority is sourced when writing you a parking fine? Of course not, all they can do is point you to the codes that give them the authority to write their tickets and fines. That’s because they’re experts on what they’re charged with doing, being cops and meter maids, not experts on the constitution.

    If you were seriously interested in an answer to your question you would’ve called a private tax attorney or an IRS attorney.

  14. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ tim, you should listen to the entire call, I did mention what led to the question. I’ll post the entire call soon. This a lawyer with a tax agency, she already stated the constitution and laws applied, why not ask her for the evidence to support that opinion? Yes, the cop’s jurisdiction is based on the constitution being applicable, so I do ask cops the same question.

  15. Darrel Jones Says:

    I love it! The b*#ch didn’t know WTF to say. They need to have about 50000 of these calls a day. Keep giving them feces. They deserve all they get.

  16. Jadda Says:

    What is wrong with you Eplo and Randy?

    Even in a Collection Due Process (CDP) a procedure if you’ve received any one notice: aka Notice of Federal Tax Lien, a CDP is not a day in court. The revenue agent is not a judge or jury not even close. But they do and say Just pay us or we’ll take it by force and terrorize those around you.

    The IRS is not the government. The IRS levies (Deprivation of Property) because you used the federal reserve banks property and refused to pay a usufruct – usury charge for using federal reserve notes.

    The Constitution clearly requires that the government must provide due process before it deprives a person of real or personal property.
    Forget about section 61 of the IRC relative to the debt management of the bankruptcy of the federal government, if you use treasury money aka lawful money what does the IRS have to do with that? Plain and simple IRC deals with FRN’s.

    Welfare is delivered to you by FRN’s.
    The Supreme Court, in Roth v. Board of Regents (1970), noted that, “[t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.

    He/she must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

    He/she must, instead, have a legitimate claim or entitlement to it.”

    Hence, the key to whether a person has a property interest in a benefit is whether that person is entitled to the benefit. – See more at: That’s welfare.

    The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law. http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/due-process/

    The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states. Due process involves both procedural and substantive aspects.

    Procedural due process requires fairness in the methods used to deprive a person of life, liberty or property, while substantive due process requires valid governmental justification for taking a person’s life’ liberty or property. Due process requirements apply to both criminal. http://search.uslegal.com/?cx=001866675113529353458%3Aa1bz6zacbow&search_type=uslegal&q=Collection+Due+Process+&cof=FORID%3A11

    Procedural law or adjective law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
    Due process Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it.

    A court can adjudicate a dispute only if two conditions are satisfied- it must have jurisdiction over the parties and it must have jurisdiction over the type of legal issues in dispute. The first type of jurisdiction is called personal jurisdiction; the other is subject matter jurisdiction. – See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/jurisdiction/subject-matter-jurisdiction/#sthash.vP1rMFac.dpuf

8 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - Sept 14, 2013 - Co-hosts: Calvin & JT and Guest: John | MarcStevens.netMarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Attorney asks the defendant “what evidence do you have that the constitution and codes don&#82… neglecting the fact that the STATE has the burden of proof. […]

  2. NSP - Aug 23, 2014 - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] Jurisdiction because we said so. […]

  3. NSP - Aug 30, 2014 - Co-host: JT and Guests: Michael & James - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the most common courtroom logical fallacies such as Circular Logic: : “The law applies as a matter of […]

  4. NSP - Sept 6, 2014 - Co-host: Calvin - [UPDATE: FULL PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] the hands and eyes of an agent who’ll actually respond to the issues raised <> and more circular logic and strawman logical fallacies when questioning the applicability of the law is conflated and […]

  5. NSP - Feb 21, 2015 - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] using the Marcratic method <> effectively challenging the logical fallacy of “jurisdiction because we say so” <> the prosecutor (unsuccessfully) tries to shift the […]

  6. NSP - Apr 4, 2015 - Guest: Matt Papke - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] examples of bureaucrats using circular logic to defend their actions and […]

  7. NSP – Apr 4, 2015 – Guest: Matt Papke - Freedom's Floodgates Says:

    […] examples of bureaucrats using circular logic to defend their actions and […]

  8. NSP - July 4, 2015 - [UPDATED PODCAST] - MarcStevens.net Says:

    […] from NJ: Marc’s assistance that resulted in an educational Call-of-Shame worth sharing <> failed use of UCC/strawman theory in court <> the successes from utilizing […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream broadcast via Ustream.tv. You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.





Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.






Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here