Categorized | Articles, Success Stories, Video

Property Tax Assessment Dropped – Documentary Proof

Posted on December 8th, 2012 by Marc Stevens

Jameson joined me yesterday and gave details about a property tax against him that was dropped.  While there was not a lot of money involved, the principals involved are very important; the basis of the attack is the same regardless of the amount the predators claim we owe them.

As he relates in the video below, all Jameson did was challenge the tax agents on the facts the relied on to support their opinions.  Instead of doing the usual chest beating and making claims of “debating” or “arguing”, they dropped their attack and moved on.  As you can see in video and the docs linked below, there was no payment made by Jameson and the account was zeroed out.

As this is a yearly attack, it will be interesting to see if the computer spits out another claim next year.   And is it an attack; all claims we owe taxes are an attack.  People acting as governments do not ask; they order us and there is always a gun under all that paperwork.

Congrats to Jameson on a job well done.  This is another example showing why it’s so important to just focus on their lack of facts proving their “laws” apply to anyone.  The code is used to cover their violence; asking them for the facts makes it impossible for them to keep the gun hidden.  So whether they claim we owe them one dollar or a million, the basis is the same: Our code says we can do XYZ to you.  And that’s their greatest weakness.

These are the documents from the video that prove the tax predators zeroed out and dropped their attack

This is the video Jameson references in our video.


19 Comments For This Post

  1. Incubus Says:

    Awesome possum!

    I like one of things he mentioned about asking if they had facts/evidence for this specific occasion/charge. Seems like a useful tactic in preventing them from having a complete mental breakdown.

    Jameson, love the whiskey!…:D

  2. Bruce Sloane Says:

    the Marc critics that continually being up ” parking tickets ” are not a Win

    obfuscate the real issue, which is the fact Marc is teaching the process of Winning any Statutory offense

    Thanks …!!!

  3. NonE Says:

    Bruce, I know you have value to add. If you would write in complete and coherent sentences, perhaps someone could gain something from your efforts.

    – NonE

  4. Chris Says:

    I listed to the entire YouTube audio conversation. It didn’t sound like Mr. White made any headway with the bureaucrat. The conversation sounded typical of what I personally have encountered MANY times: “round and round we go, where she stops, NOBODY KNOWS.”

    You’re dealing with stupid bureaucrats who are bound by duty to unquestioningly obey the “laws”, or else lose their job/paycheck.

    Why did it take 30 minutes before Mr. White asked the question:
    “What facts do you have that make the STATUTES APPLICABLE to (his client)?”
    That’s what the entire conversation was all about, and I did not hear the bureaucrat directly answer the question, nor did I hear him acknowledge the meaning or relevance of it. So how is that a “win”?

    What I want to know is this:

    Why does Mr. White waste his time with this stupid bureaucrat, when the CAUSE of the problem is the LEGISLATURE?

    Currently the “driver license” issue is making its way through the Georgia legislature, so they will make a provision for NON-COMMERCIAL persons to use their property to go on the “highways and byways” without “licensing”, JUST LIKE WHEN THE NATION WAS FOUNDED. This is what needs to be done to solve the CAUSE of the problem.

    What I got out of the audio conversation was this:
    The bureaucrat got totally confused, and repeatedly resorted to THREATS and INTIMIDATION (i.e., “legal action”). What do you do when THAT happens? It’s a “world of hurt” to say the least, EVEN IF you “win”. How do I know? I’VE BEEN THERE.

    The “fact” is, the tax in question is a DIRECT TAX on PERSONAL PROPERTY. IF the “legislature” codified it into law, THEN it becomrs “mandatory” to those over whom it applies (but not necessarily over EVERYBODY). The question is OVER WHOM does that DIRECT TAX apply? I PROMISE you, the “county attorney” will NEVER tell you the truth. Neither will ANYBODY in the “motor vehicle department”. How do I know? I’VE BEEN THERE. The best I got from the “top dog” was a statement warning me that I have no idea what kind of “powers” I’m messing with.

    Therefore, whoever “signs-up” for a “motorvehicle” “registration”, has CHOSEN to “volunteer” for a STATE-CREATED OBLIGATION, thereby declaring himself as a “taxpayer”, based on possession and use of a “motor vehicle”. That’s what the STATUTE says/requires.

    If you don’t want to “pay the tax” connected to a state-created obligation, then DO NOT SIGN-UP FOR IT. But the CONSEQUENCES will be constant “pull-overs” by the cops, that result in JAIL and COURT TIME.

    Signing up for a motor vehicle registration, and then claiming to not be a “taxpayer” b/c one doesn’t have a “motor vehicle” is rediculous. The FACT remains: Once you “sign-up”, you are VOLUNTARILY DECLARING YOURSELF TO BE A “taxpayer” with a “motor vehicle”.

    The “method” Mr. White uses is very mixed-up, b/c it is telling people to live in both worlds: the “nontaxpayer” and the “taxpayer” worlds.

    None of this makes any sense. Either Mr. White is going to get his client totally “disconnected” from “the system”, or he is going to advise him to “join” “under compulsion”, and thereby skip the hassles associated with “disconnecting”. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either a woman is pregnant or she is not pregnant. She can’t be “partly pregnant”.

    The caveat of “disconnecting” from the “system”, as previously stated, is constant “pull-overs” by the cops, including JAIL TIME and COURT TIME, not to mention “impounded vehicle” and all the other “coercion” and “losses” therewith associated. How do I know? I’VE BEEN THERE, due to the very thing being done here: challenging the “system” with the “truth” and “facts”.

    So, basically, what’s going on here is Mr. White is advocating operating in both systems.

    How can that be consistent with “the facts”?

    It isn’t, plain and simple.

    This “method” needs quite a bit of “refining” and “improvement” in order for it to be USEFUL to the average person. If you want to “change things”, then you need to develop a “system” that can’t be countered by “words” or “schemes”.

    That’s my 2 cent’s worth, based on my personal knowledge of the facts involved … Chris

  5. NonE Says:

    Chris sed: “…so they will make a provision… JUST LIKE WHEN THE NATION WAS FOUNDED. This is what needs to be done to solve the CAUSE of the problem.”
    So bowing before (subjugating one’s self) a “superior authority” who pretends to be a “fair” slaveholder is the solution to some fictional problem? And that problem would be what, lack of personal integrity?

    – NonJonathan 😉

  6. Andy Says:

    The tax was abated. The tax collector on the phone was not going to admit that fact that the property tax is a scam. There can be no valid contact/obligation acceptance under threat duress and coercion — it’s not voluntary and not a valid acceptance thus no contract.

  7. Pete Says:

    Why even bother to talk to a group of people who call themselves a ‘government’. Do things in writing that Marc suggests with a 15 or 30 day estoppel clause. When they don’t answer the questions with proof or don’t answer within that time, you have a paper trail in good faith of trying to arrive at a solution. Then don’t deal with them anymore. I’ve done it with success.

    i.e. the third and last time dealing with a ‘law firm’ acting as a collection agency. My account was sent from a ‘state collection agency’ (in which I responded basically the same way) to this ‘law firm’ collection agency. Long story behind this but suffice it to say these are some tactics I used with success.

    To whom it may concern,

    I am in receipt of your form letter dated June 11, 2012. I must admit still some perplexity as to the nature of its contents.

    First, your letter suggests that I am obligated in some way or may owe some unpaid ‘debt’ to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in the amount of $625. I am unaware of any valid, binding and subsisting instrument or contract bearing my signature that authorizes you to compel that performance of me. Nor am I aware of any such involuntary requirement imposed upon me by Positive Law. This letter is my response that I disagree and dispute the validity of this charged tax/debt.

    Second, you state that this account has gone on for far too long and you have offered me your assistance, yet I continue to resist facing this overdue obligation and that I can decide to address and resolve this liability (voluntarily)? I do not need your assistance and your assertion is denied. I replied January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#____________________. I did not receive any response to the verification I requested within the 30 days allotted from any representative at (company). Who has first hand personal knowledge regarding this (“debt, liability, obligation”). Thus correspondence from January 25, 2012 is null and void.

    In case someone at (company) has ‘misplaced’ the questions and verification I need answered in my correspondence sent January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#______________ before I pay anything. Here they are:

    1. All documents on which you base your position that a natural person such as myself has an obligation or liability to pay this type of tax/debt that you are imposing and/or trying to collect.

    2. All documents that specifically identify all laws, statutes, regulations, and Supreme Court case cites that impose an obligation upon me for this type of tax/debt and that I am a ‘taxpayer’.

    3. Copies of all determinations, signed with a penalty under perjury statement made by a real person at ______________________________, LLP and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge that concluded that any obligation was imposed upon me, and which specifically determined the extent of this obligation.

    4. Copies of all delegation of authority to make any determinations in reference to me regarding this tax/debt.

    5. A Certified True Bill showing the exact amount I am supposed to owe to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue signed penalty under perjury by a real person at (company) and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge of the facts.

    6. An itemized statement of account showing all goods and/or services delivered to me by said entity upon my request or demand.

    7. A Certified True Copy of the valid, binding and subsisting Instrument or Contract bearing my signature which authorizes this or any related collection activity.

    8. A Certified True Copy of the mandatory Article VI (United States Constitution) Oath of Fidelity for each individual at (company) who is involved with this collection activity.

    9. The policy number and name and address of the underwriter of the Bond(s) required by Law that insure said individuals in the handling of Public Funds.

    10. Positive identification of all real parties of interest to any Valid Instrument or Contract which authorizes this collection activity, including all holders in due course on the instrument.

    Unless, within 30 days after the receipt of this notice there is a failure to respond to stated requests it will result in an estoppel, fraud by silence:

    “Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel.” [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932]

    “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d.297]

    Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 192 U.S. 397; 24 SCt 382 (1904)
    “the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language”.

    Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)
    “Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax. Merely imposing a tax does not establish liability to pay the tax. Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax.”

    Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)
    “‘Tax’ is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute or it does not exist.”

    Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)
    “The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.”

    11. All communication is only accepted in writing.


  8. Kel Says:

    I do believe this is the same Chris who called Marc a deceitful schemer/con man, made the basless accusation that his methods were a joke and did not work and would not give evidence when confronted, and labeled everyone on the forum as being cult members while accusing everyone as “posturing”.

    So I wouldn’t was your time; anyone.

    And rediculous is not a word. It’s ridiculous. The misspelling probably comes from a lack of understanding correct pronunciation. It is a short i not a long e.

  9. Kel Says:

    Waste* your time.

  10. Jameson White Says:

    The call on the video I made was from a year ago and not for me but for a co-worker/good friend (also, first try at this). The one I made for myself was improved upon and more to the point but he still made no concessions on the phone. The NSP-NC call was just more or less a practice run to see how they would react.

  11. JP Says:

    None: Great comment on Bruce. Maybe this guy is an alcoholic or something? LOL

  12. NonE Says:

    I don’t want to was anyone’s time as that would be a rediculous waste of intellekt.

    – NonE

  13. Kel Says:

    Are you paid by the hour or is it just a labor of love, NonEntertaining? 🙂

  14. Andy Says:

    Is it intent to confuse or just doesn’t care or is actually clueless that it confuses people/readers?

  15. Chris Says:


    Thanks for your content. You sound like a guy I was discussing my tax case w/who was successful 15 years ago. Today, his method wouldn’t work. I’m not saying yours didn’t work, but let’s fact is: your approach works only sporadically. Why it does, is unknown to me and anybody else I’ve asked. Apparently most of the people in theis forum have no clue. Unless you’ve got a “backup plan”, you’re asking for trouble when you mess with the status quo. I am not advocating NOT “asserting your rights in the legal forum”, just doing so “properly” and “intelligently”, which requires a LOT of planning and “resources”.


    Thanks for clarifying. Did you understand what I said about being in “both worlds”, when you get a “vehicle registration” vs. “totally disconnecting” from the “system”? If so, how do you address that “fact” and its long-term effects?

    … Chris

  16. NonE Says:

    I’m paid by the our.

    – the Very Freakishly Foaming

  17. NonE Says:

    “I am not advocating NOT “asserting your rights in the legal forum”, just doing so “properly” and “intelligently”, which requires a LOT of planning and “resources”.”

    You mean like Larken Rose did?

    – the Very Not Buying the Kool-Aide this time NonE

  18. LC in Texas Says:

    I am interested in all information referring to Appraisal Districts and County Taxes.

  19. LC in Texas Says:

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Property Tax Assessment Dropped – Documentary Proof - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] Click here to view the embedded video. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: 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 now broadcast via 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