This is a Call of Shame that should lead to more civil disobedience to these people called “governments”. It so perfectly demonstrates not only the complete lack of evidence, but also the lack of empathy that is so common with government types. This is not an isolated incident, it’s indicative of the institutional dishonesty and lack of integrity by those called “government”.
The tax agent, a supervisor named Phil, agrees the laws apply if one physically in Maine. This is the foundational argument used to justify every act of aggression done by these predators. His initial response when I ask if he has any evidence to support his argument? Laughter; yes, he laughs. Because truth be told, the question is hilarious. He then says he doesn’t really know how to respond to my question. So, he tried to deflect the attention away and goes for the old dodge we’ve heard so many times here at the No State Project, he says I’m making a legal argument.
This is where you need to stop the evasion and keep the burden on them, it’s their argument, I’m just asking for the evidence and they lie saying it’s an argument. No matter how many times they try, a question is not an argument; don’t let them get away with this nonsense. He again tries to divert attention away by asking me what I’m looking for; this is a silly tactic and you should just keep going back to the question.
When pressed he says he basing it on what he’s been taught over the years. So I plug away asking if he bases it on any actual facts. He again asks what would be acceptable to me. This is the same distraction that didn’t work the first time. Their argument is the laws apply to those physically in Maine, they operate by that argument everyday, they justify their actions with it and they bear the burden of proof. Unless they want to be honest and admit they have nothing, keep plugging away asking for the facts.
I point out that since he cannot support his argument and prove jurisdiction, then the tax assessment should be vacated. After a short pause Phil just restates his opinion, “in my opinion it does apply to him.” I agree, it’s his opinion and ask again if he has any facts and he recycles the earlier dodge that didn’t work by asking what I’m looking for. I’m looking for the facts you base your opinion on, how much clearer can I make this?
Phil makes a clear confession of immorality at the 2:55 mark: “I don’t see where I need to come up with facts to support that. Do you?” It was a long morning already and I was almost speechless. I tell him I do, explain why and then ask him: “Because otherwise what would separate what you are doing from common theft?” His response? The classic predator retort: “The law? (It sounded like he was responding with a question.)
Of course, we already established he had no evidence, and didn’t see the need for evidence, the sacred writ actually applied to Dan. So I restate that there’s no evidence of jurisdiction and there should be a stay at least until someone at the tax agency can prove jurisdiction. Listen to the call, I made a strong case and used his own admissions against him.
Phil tries to use my statement Dan is in Maine with his opinion the laws apply and refuses to stop proceedings. I again ask for evidence and he comes out with another diversion asking if I have evidence the constitution and laws don’t apply. This is illogical of course, the burden is always on the one making the argument.
I ask him if he has a problem taking someone’s property by force when he has no evidence of jurisdiction. He says he is because of the policies and procedures they have in place. I ask about whether jurisdiction should be established before they proceed against someone and Phil hits me with this gem at the 5:52 mark: “I think it’s assumed.”
So what we have here is an example of someone with a callous disregard for others, he doesn’t care there is no evidence of jurisdiction, he will not stop the attack. Honest people would at least stop the attack until there was evidence of jurisdiction, but those calling themselves government are not honest and they just don’t care about silly things like proving jurisdiction.
The call ends when Phil refuses to stop and I ask about speaking with his supervisor. I deleted the end where I give my contact info. Phil would not give me the supervisor’s direct contact information, he wanted to speak to him before I did.
This is another objective example of a direct confrontation of a bureaucrat about their foundational argument: If you’re physically in Maine, then the laws of the state of Maine apply. He readily agrees and insists this argument is true: “Definitely”. When asked for evidence, he has nothing, he claims he doesn’t need evidence, and has no problem just assuming it’s true. He maintains the assumption despite having no facts at all to support the argument.
What does this brief interaction with Phil tell you about him and those he works with? I ask that this, and other Calls of Shame, be posted and distributed as much as possible as it is a great example of the immorality and cruelty that is the direct result in the belief in “government”. It’s empowering to know your opponent has no evidence to support their arguments. If you know people who still believe there are governments and citizens/residents, then tell them about this call. Listening to this and the other calls should be enough to at least convince people there is something seriously wrong going on.
As always, if you think you can do what this professional tax man could not do, if you think you have facts proving the constitution and laws of the “state” of Maine apply just because one is physically in Maine, call the show. The No State Project is live every Saturday on LRN.fm. I’ll even schedule you as a guest or appear on another live broadcast so you can present your facts.