Categorized | Articles, Call of Shame

IRS Agent Prefers Not to Confirm There is Evidence of Jurisdiction

Posted on May 9th, 2014 by Marc Stevens

This latest example for the Call of Shame involves two IRS agents.  I asked if she could confirm if there was evidence proving the constitution and code apply and there is jurisdiction.  She initially asks my client a question and I have to remind her to speak to me and answer my question.  So I ask again if she can confirm there is evidence, her delayed response?

“I prefer not to answer that question.”

holder-gun2

I wanted an answer and she predictably wants to put me on hold.  She will not tell me why she doesn’t want to answer.  We all know it’s because she has no evidence and will only look foolish answering.  We’re on hold for a while, so you can jump ahead to 5:32 where the next agent picks up.

We get a supervisor and she answers the question about evidence the constitution and code apply with a yes at about the 6:57 mark.  She then claims that working and receiving money is her support.  Of course, I ask her if she believes the constitution applies because my client received money and she predictably wants to bail.  She must have realized how illogical her position was.  Yes, because 200+ year old written instruments magically become applicable to you if you receive money.

She wants to start the conversation over and not discuss the constitution.  Before she hangs up on us, she agreed that she cannot confirm there is jurisdiction.  You’d think they’d see the need to stop, but they don’t, they are criminals.  Now those who see nothing wrong with forcing people to pay for services and have a vested interest in “governments” will refuse to grasp the significance of these calls.

This is an IRS supervisor admitting she cannot confirm there is evidence the constitution and laws apply.  If that is not bad enough, she doesn’t do anything to stop the attack and hangs up the phone.  All the critics who rant about me being a wacko never address the facts; if they address the 100% record of bureaucrats and politicians unable to provide evidence the laws apply, they marginalize it saying that’s not their job, or they are just ignorant.

They never provide the evidence these predators cannot though.  This is another objective record where the very people attacking us cannot prove their laws apply.  For those honest critics and those new to the material and are on the fence, listen to the recording and ask yourself this question: Why doesn’t the first agent want to answer if she can confirm there is evidence the constitution and law apply?

If we say she is honestly in over her head, then why not just say she can’t?  Good faith dictates that if you can’t confirm there is jurisdiction, then you call off the attack.  So even if she is ignorant, she did nothing to stop the attack and kicked the can.  That is certainly evidence of bad faith and until they have evidence of jurisdiction it’s proof they are trying to steal from a peaceful man.

While she was certainly in way over her head, we have to put this in context with the other calls and interviews.  No matter who the bureaucrat is, whether a supervisor as in this example, IRS legal counsel, federal magistrate and even a spokesman for an attorney general, they are all unable to provide any facts.  And let’s not forget none of the critics who have attacked me have put forth any facts to help these politicians out.

She prefers not to answer my question; yeah and I would prefer these predators left us alone, but I can’t just hang up and laugh about  it.

Please share this and the other call with everyone you know.  Let them hear how dishonest these predators are, that they have no evidence and we can and should be standing up to them.

 

 

              

10 Comments For This Post

  1. Brad Says:

    You renew my hope on a regular basis simply by being so refreshingly honest in your evaluations. Ty for making my life and therefore those who I am in contact with…better.

  2. JP Says:

    That was sooo good I had to listen to it twice!!

  3. Dale Says:

    The other thing about these calls that is so disingenuous is that if you let them know you are recording them (as they did when you called) they hang up immediately. Guess I can’t blame them though, I wouldn’t want any evidence of sounding THAT stupid either!

    By the way, I have come to hate that stupid standby music of theirs. lol

  4. Jonathan Rabbitt Says:

    “No I’m not calling to ask you about the constitution. I’m calling to ask about your evidence…”

  5. pete Says:

    Marc, Imagine that: you on you day off come to McDonalds in the uniform, you are standing on the floor and a manager comes in, you ask him: can you order me around man? he will say: that depends, if you are on duty-yes, if you are off duty and a wacko to come in dressed in the uniform-then no, not until you show up for work. then this is not a simple of “yes” or “no” question.
    when she asks:are you a citizen- that implies an contract, an agreement you got yourself into that makes their laws applicable to you in certain capacity (like being on duty at Mc donalds). IRS, did you make this money as an agent of the government, using your SIN number or not? if yes- there are tax duties attached to this, if not- is untouchable.
    that is not a yes or no answer to that question in my opinion.

  6. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Pete, you’re forgetting the agent has already made up their mind the laws apply, I just want the facts they based their argument on. There is no contract when aggression is involved though.

  7. pete Says:

    hi Marc! you actually wrote me back, cool! ok, I am not defending these thieves, but I think sooner or later one of them will spend some time to educate and might ask you this:
    “I come off a strong presumption that this money has been made by an agent of the government because it is deposited on the gov agent`s account. why do I think that? because this account has a SIN number attached to it and that implies that it was a gov agent who set it up. that means it is taxable unless you can prove otherwise by revealing the source of the money and providing an explanation why it ended up on gov agent`s account, unless you do that, my presumption stands”

    now they are being aggressive with the process of enforcing the contract, not trying to make you enter one, you have done that long time ago-was it lawful? absolutely not, but you did enter it anyway, until you correct all that, and set up accounts not connected to the gov-they will always presume to have jurisdiction over the funds.

    cheers Marc

  8. GivenFamily Says:

    It seems from all I have come across and read, there is a common theme. We as humans have given unknowing consent to be governed. At birth, our parents sign us over to the government and we get a SSN. Upon reaching adulthood, we are forced to obtain other government documents in order to have any sort of life (such as drivers license, insurance, registration of vehicle, etc etc). To get money (a must have in this sick country), we are compelled to produce to the employer our SSN and another form of ID (government issued of course). Without such, nobody will hire us. So once we get hired somewhere, a percentage of our money gets stolen from us and we generally never see it again. We also must keep up the registration, insurance, license in order to maintain work in order to provide food and shelter for ourselves and our family.

    The sad part of it all is it seems there is no way to “escape” without serious impact on quality of living. If you ditch the SSN and all forms of government ID, you are left to work jobs that illegal immigrants tend to work. They pay well below a living wage and generally are not “stable”. You are left to walk to and from work or risk being kidnapped by armed thugs and locked away for years or decades. Where I live, if the police request your ID, you are to present it or risk kidnap. There is no refusal of showing identification. If you refuse here, they can and usually do kidnap you and lock you away until they can figure out who you supposedly are. Then they will hassle you further for making them do so.

    Essentially in the USA it seems, you either “play by their rules” or “the entire corporation” will shun you. Much suffering can and will come from it.

    I wish I knew an answer.

  9. CHET WEST Says:

    GivenFamily,
    There is an answer, Dave Champion’s book Income Tax: Shattering the Myth. You will be amazed how detailed Dave is on the subject of Who is subject to any internal revenue tax!
    And, the most direct way of dealing with the criminals is found at
    www nontaxpayer.US

    In Liberty
    Chet West

  10. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Chet, unless the answer to the that question is no one, I would proceed with caution.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, November 1st, 4-7pm EST: Marc will be broadcasting another LIVE edition of the No STATE Project radio show again this week from deep within the 'fortified compound.' If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. 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 role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here