Categorized | Call of Shame

#CoS – IRS CDP “Hearing” – Nov 29, 2011

Posted on November 29th, 2011 by Calvin

She opens up with a accusatory statement condemning Marc’s client to TAXPAYER status without reviewing the facts and verifying the validity of such legal status by saying; “My job as a settlement officer is to resolve tax controversies on a basis that is fair and impartial to both the government and the TAXPAYER.” For some strange reason she believes the government is based on principals of fairness and impartiality when it coercively steals every cent it spends to pay for the crimes they wish to commit under guise of a legitimate service/social necessity. Also, to what Marc was pointing out, the legal status of TAXPAYER is established using certain factual criteria. The only question that is really being asked here is what facts do you rely on that Mr. X is a TAXPAYER, do they exist? Not being able to answer such a simple and straight-forward question leaves one to think: why? The answer on the other side of that question is what “they” are so hopelessly cognitively-dissonant of.

              

29 Comments For This Post

  1. Incubus Says:

    Daaaamn! The C word would have been at the tip of my lips if I were you. They must be on to you Marc. They’re coming out the door swinging lately, or so it seems. They won’t even put on a show anymore.

    First they ignore you, then they attack you, then you win.

  2. Zonsb Says:

    It used to be with the IRS: guilty until proven innocent. Now they won’t even allow a fair hearing. It appears to be: guilty, and you’re lucky if we even give you a fair hearing to prove your innocence. RAILROAD!

  3. Pete Says:

    I think they’ve studied their own IRS recordings of Marc calling for clients in the past few years, and given up any possibility of letting him ask questions. Kind of like a parasitic bacteria developing resistance to a highly effective antibiotic.

  4. Merrymen Says:

    You’re an inspiration, Marc.

  5. Corto Says:

    Man, I tell you, all “administrative courts” act like each and every one of them is a Black Robed man! I have been dealing with them on child support issues (like them STEALING X6 times my order per month!) And some peon paralegal wants to act just like she’s a Supreme Court Justice! Keep stickin it to them, Marc!

  6. Jake Witmer Says:

    I agree with Pete. …But at least Marc continues to lay bare their grotesque deception and incompetence for all to see. The Declaration of Independence mentioned something about “consent of the governed.” I don’t see any of that going on here. LOL The only thing I heard above was a tiny authoritarian mind dictating incorrect facts and opinions to a vastly more intelligent mind that displayed supreme patience.

  7. Jonathan Says:

    Guilty until guilt is admitted. Enjoy your fair hearing.

  8. Lyndon Says:

    The same nonesense occurs when talking to most if not all agents of a fictitious entity. The agents don’t really know where their authority comes from they just assume they have authority and get emotional when that authority is challenged. Anyway, the next step after one has played the talking game is to finish the administrative process which the adversary cannot win. Just love to hear the frustration in their voices when Marc asks them questions though.

  9. Rick Ashline Says:

    Marc, I think we need to go on the offense here,, Play this tape in front of a jury,, show the total arrogance of this person,, and then treat her like Mike Nyfong 2006 Duke University lacrosse case
    Abuse of Power,,, today this man is broke….! Show the Jury that they have no authority,, they commited fraud,,, they shold be in jail…

  10. jim miller Says:

    I’m new to all this and still trying to neurologically rewire my brain to even accept it. So my thought on this new repellent this lady just used on Marc is to find away use it back on them. She wouldn’t let you make the argument for your client at all. So can you get your gravitas back by being the first one to hang up? Immediately after she says I’m not going to argue with you don’t let her (or them) say another word. Get to the line that this is not a fair and impartial hearing because you won’t answer any of my questions and hang up on her before she has a chance to render a judgement. Feel free to laugh at me if this sounds stupid. Like I said I’m new
    That was harsh. First time (I) heard you get punked. What a cold bitch. Whomever she sleeps with at night needs an electric blankey.
    Your script looks like it’s going to have to evolve and that’s a good thing. I’m sure you can do it. “All things flow according to the whims of the great magnet”. Hunter Thompson RIP

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    I am still confident we’ll get an administrative hold on this one. It may sound like she got the best of me, though it’s pretty bad to admit to making your decision before the hearing.

  12. Peter B. Says:

    The so called levy that is imposed is from section USC Title 26 §6331 only has a narrow application. I was threatened with one in Dec 2010. Here was my response. I haven’t heard from them since. Maybe it will help someone.

    I am contesting and questioning once again the fraudulent imposition of IRS (Internal Revenue Service) penalties and now a Notice to Levy property. Remember every tax crime has willfulness as a prerequisite. You must prove something is wrong before it can be wrong (which the IRS still has not done). And that notification must be in court admissible, affidavit form signed under penalty of perjury (USC Title 26 §6065) with your real legal birth name, agreeing to take responsibility personally if your information is wrong. And providing the address where you can be personally served with legal papers if in fact you are wrong or fraudulent. This form 8519 is not signed under penalties of perjury. And there is no proof of the authenticity of your personal information. Therefore all correspondence is null and void. The Social Security Number referenced (xxx-xx-xxxx) is erroneous and no longer in effect.

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

    [parentheses added]

    1. The IRS needs to be reminded that your imposed appellation to me as a ‘Taxpayer’, is wrong. I am a non taxpayer as stated in my previous correspondence in which you have totally disregarded. Here it is for you again.

    “A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized…”Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)

    “And by statutory definition the term “taxpayer” includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. …Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts…”[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass’n., 100 F.2d.18 (1939)]

    “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws…” “The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital.” Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236

    2. It is interesting to note what is subject to this Levy. U.S.C Title 26 §6331(a) Levy and Distraint states that the imposition of the Levy may be made only 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. And those levies can only be issued with a judicial warrant of distraint signed by a judge.

    U.S.C Title 26 §6331
    (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.

    [your 8519 form conveniently omits this]

    3. Ms _________ in representing the IRS, can you prove that I am an 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, as defined in section 3401(d)? And being that U.S.C. Title 26 does not apply to me, (the IRS still has not proven this from previous correspondence) any IRS threats to levy any property is unlawful and frivolous.

    4. Also too Ms. _______, I have not been addressed by the Secretary directly or proven wrong by the Secretary in any of my correspondence in court admissible and signed under penalty of perjury (U.S.C. Title 26 §6065) written notice. The IRS still has not proven this from previous correspondence.

    5. Ms _______ in representing the IRS can you prove what enforcement authority and jurisdiction you have to impose a $5000 penalty plus interest and a ‘Notice of Levy’ on me? The IRS still has not proven from previous correspondence that I am subject and liable to U.S.C. Title 26. You are trying to exercise an authority you do not have and you are outside the bounds of your jurisdiction (unless you can prove otherwise)! You are required by law to cease procedure of an unlawful Levy.

    6. I have submitted to the IRS multiple documents seeking to understand and for the IRS to prove that I am liable to U.S.C Title 26. All of my correspondence has been ignored and disregarded. The only responses are a stubborn position to not refund money lawfully due and threats to take away property unlawfully without due process of law. You, Ms _______ and the IRS has defaulted by your silence that the facts stated in my previous correspondence are correct. And anything that the IRS is trying to impose after the fact is NULL, VOID and UNLAWFUL!

    Signed from ‘without’ the “United States” [defined in U.S.C. Title 26 §7701 (a)9, 10] in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1746(1).

    Sincerely,

  13. Lyndon Says:

    Jim Miller, I think you missed the point: asking questions of this nature either gains an outright removal of claim, or, if that fails, the agent of the IRS/CRA harms their case because of failing to provide due process. Either way, its a win if handle correctly. In most cases the administrative remedy will be what is needed though -in my opinion and experience.

  14. damon Says:

    Peter B,

    SEDM/Family Gaurdian…well done. They have deconstructed every piece of legislation to the T. They have connected the dots from the slave survaillance number and its relation to the Revenue Code.

  15. Peter B. Says:

    Thanks damon. I have spent quite a bit of time devouring the immense amount of info on those websites. It has helped me tremendously. It has so far disabled and neutralized not only the IRS but also the ‘state’ and local tax goons. I have sent out a lot of affidavits to just set the records straight.

  16. Greg Diaz Says:

    I believe the word is “*unt”…

  17. damon Says:

    Thank you as well Peter B. I too have spent many hours add nauseum on the materials and case law they have put together. It is pretty incredible and laid out in such a way that even I could absorb it. I have spent hours committing what I can to memory.

    I carry around an affidavit of citizenship, domicile, and tax status in my car. I also never signed my son up for the slave number and got his passport issued as a national. Good stuff.

    God bless my friend.

  18. Timothy Says:

    Forgive me guys but I think name calling is below honor, and we see clearly they have none. whether it be in ignorance or just …well…actually what else could it be? so lets not jump in the slime with them, if we’re honest we know we’re all ignorant at some levels more than others. so we need to not point fingers as well. after all before finding mark most of us we’re duped big time as well.
    and that wasn’t a hearing it was an accusatory pronouncement by someone who has some sort of power complex. I’m thinking for every accusation they make in this manner, the innocent needs to direct the questions to higher ups and start to put some pressure in their lap. because if we think reasonably, we know they(the agent) are getting their direction from higher ups. so throw some questions at them, constantly, until something gives? maybe even get a few victims together with a camera and catch them(the super-servants/big bosses) with some predetermined questions on their way out/in of the office, then post it, what do you think?

  19. Marc Stevens Says:

    I’m all for challenging those higher on the pecking order.

  20. damon Says:

    Just listened to it. She was pretty difficult to talk too. Then again it says right in the IRS mission statement…

    “Provide America’s !TAXPAYERS! top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.”

    What if your a ‘nontaxpayer’?

    What if the filing of a certain document you unkowingly elect to call what you earn ‘wages’ as legally defined and not commonly understood?

    Subpart E—Collection of Income Tax at SOURCE
    26 CFR § 31.3401(a)-3 Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements.

    (a) In general.

    Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term “wages” includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a VOLUNTARY WITHOLDING AGREEMENT[contract] in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (§31.3401(a)–3).

    (b) Remuneration for services.

    (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the amounts referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include any remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer which, without regard to this section, does not constitute wages under section 3401(a). For example, remuneration for services performed by an agricultural worker or a domestic worker in a private home (amounts which are specifically excluded from the definition of wages by section 3401(a) (2) and (3), respectively) are amounts with respect to which a voluntary withholding agreement may be entered into under section 3402(p). See §§31.3401(c)–1 and 31.3401(d)–1 for the definitions of “employee” and “employer”.

    What if you showed your ’employer’ what a ‘voluntary withholding agreement’ ACTUALLY was..

    26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
    top
    (a) In general.

    An employee and his employer MAY enter into an agreement[CONTRACT] under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement MAY be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to ALL such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)–1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

    (b) Form and duration of agreement.

    (1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W–4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W–4 shall constitute a REQUEST for withholding.

    It even says it is voluntary right in their own regulations folks! Show this to your ’employer’ man!!

    You can also TERMINATE the W-4 voluntary withholding agreement any time you want or can your ’employer’!!

    26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2) Voluntary withholding agreements.

    (b) Form and duration of agreement.

    (2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first “status determination date” (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W–4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W–4.

    (86 Stat. 944, 26 U.S.C. 6364; 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805)

    Who knew? Quit filling out the WRONG forms guys.

  21. Zonsb Says:

    What I find most useful with Marc’s methods is that they’re across-the-board effective for traffic tickets, tax issues, regulatory statutes such as health departments, drug possession, and basically anything that’s not an act of initiatory force — not a real crime.

    The methodology applies to all of them. One size fits all. Learn the method for one application and you’ll have learned effective damage control for most attacks coming from people calling themselves government.

    Bare in mind that government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun. Just as you wouldn’t expect lawless criminals to abide gun-control laws, government criminals don’t abide their own laws. Absent the two elements that constitute a valid cause of action, the State never has a case — not to mention there is no state.

    When in comes to damage control against government attacks, arguably, Marc’s methodology has saved more people more of their precious time than any other methodology I’ve researched.

    Besides being easy to learn because it’s logically consistent, a person can practice using the safety of parking tickets to hone their motions to dismiss and questioning skills in court. With confidence under their belt, they may chose to help other people do the same.

  22. damon Says:

    Anyone ever read this Supreme Court case?

    “The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616-617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

    Did you know that the FBI can only investigate government officers and employees? Congress limited them to such.

    TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 33 > § 535
    § 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and employees; limitations

    (a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any violation of Federal criminal law involving Government officers and employees—

    (1) notwithstanding any other provision of law; and

    (2) without limiting the authority to investigate any matter which is conferred on them or on a department or agency of the Government

    Are you an officer or employee of the government?

    If we look in TITLE 5 U.S.C.—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES § 552a. Records maintained on individuals;

    (12) the term ‘‘Federal benefit program’’ means ANY PROGRAM administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government,providing cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan guarantees to individuals; and

    (13) the term ‘‘Federal personnel’’ means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits). [This means socialist insecurity “benefits” also called “Old Age Survivor Disability Insurance]

    You see that? Wait..

    (13) the term ‘‘Federal personnel’’ means…individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits). [This means socialist insecurity “benefits” also called “Old Age Survivor Disability Insurance]

    Wait, I am not ‘federal personnel’! Do they consider me that?

    CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
    DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
    PART2 .CONTRACTS
    CHAPTER3. CONSENT
    Section 1589
    section 1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

    ” The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)

    This information is all public ‘notice’ and open to the general public.

  23. Zonsb Says:

    “The only question that is really being asked here is what facts do you rely on that Mr. X is a TAXPAYER, do they exist? Not being able to answer such a simple and straight-forward question leaves one to think: why? The answer on the other side of that question is what “they” are so hopelessly cognitively-dissonant of.”

    Facts rule. Facts render irrelevant the tens-of-thousands of pages of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

  24. damon Says:

    Hello Zonsb and God bless.

    *Sigh*. Look man. I don’t know.

    Where is this ‘facts rule’ written? From some ‘authoratative’ referance? Where can I find it? You state:

    “Facts rule. Facts render irrelevant the tens-of-thousands of pages of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.”

    Is this in a legal encyclopedia or some kind of Supreme Court decision/oppinion?

    Let us use the reasoning that “facts render irrelevant” whatever code and statute they try to make you/us belive is a law. Law is EXACTLY the thing they use to get your/our IMPLIED consent. This is why you/we are so completely ignorant of it when we get out of THEIR ‘education system’. They PURPOSLEY DO NOT TEACH IT.

    We have been through this before Zonsb. I will show you the ‘facts’ that make one a government whore called a ‘taxpayer’ (in small part).

    Domicile, slave survaillance number (socialist insecurity), ‘citizenship, and the filing of the WRONG forms. That is it in a nutshell. All these in conjunction will give you the appelation of ‘taxpayer’ bestowed upon you/us. If you wish to ‘limit the damage’ and still be a slave go right ahead.

    If the ‘facts render irrelevant the tens-of-thousands of pages of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations” as you claim then what about these facts?

    Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.
    Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit.
    No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
    He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
    He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it.
    He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden.
    He who enjoys the advantage of a right takes the accompanying disadvantage.
    A privilege is, as it were, a private law.
    A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person.
    One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.
    What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.
    He who does any benefit to another for me is considered as doing it to me.

    These deal with ‘benefits’. Do you have now or receive any ‘benefits’ from the ones who do ‘business at the barrel of a gun’? ADMIT/DENY

    If you do, does this not constitute a FACT that you are or may be in a ‘privileged state or activity’ with the one who ‘grants’ the privilege’ or ‘benefit’?ADMIT/DENY

    It is a FACT that they demand ‘payment’ for these ‘benefits’? ADMIT/DENY

    Have you ever read the Social Security Act? Admit/Deny

    Have you ever read the Internal Revenue Code? Admint/deny

    Have you ever read the Immigration and Nationality Act? Admit/deny

    If you have not read ANY of these how can you possibly be aware or even have knowledge of what you may or may not be giving up? Why would you sign ANY forms from them without having read the ‘rules’ that accompany the ‘privilege’ and/or ‘benefit’?

    I showed you in the Social Security Act ITSELF that if you consent to use of this socialist slave number you SIMULTANEOUSLY become SUBJECT to the Internal Revenue Code man. It is part of their SCAM,them KNOWING that MOST people will NEVER read it. EVER! To wit;

    Is it a fact that people who use this government property are subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Admit/Deny

    Section 8 of the Social Security Act
    INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

    SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected and paid upon the income of every individual a tax…

    It is a fact that Social Security Numbers and the accompanying cards are property of the federal government. Admit/Deny

    Code of Federal Regulations
    TITLE 20–EMPLOYEES’ BENEFITS
    CHAPTER III–SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    PART 422_ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES–Table of Contents
    Subpart B_General Procedures

    … Social security number cards are the PROPERTY of SSA [Federal government] and must be returned upon request. (It also states this on the card you carry itself).

    Do these maxim’s not apply to you/use? Admit/Deny

    What I approve I do not reject. I cannot approve and reject at the same time. I cannot take the benefit of an instrument, and at the same time repudiate it.

    He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

    They can easily build a ‘prima facie’ case with it (the number) alone. Fact. This is why they ask for the ‘name’ and accompanying number EVERY time they speak with one of Marc’s ‘clients’. Don’t give them a number and see how difficult it becomes for them to ‘serve’ you. It is a SLAVE number my man. People ley other people number them. It is sick. Like cattle. We have got to wake up.

    Peace be with you Zonsb. Caps are for emphazising only.

  25. Zonsb Says:

    Hey damon, interesting that you take it upon yourself to imply that I have been “talking”/responding to you. I haven’t been. Apparently your ego needs the attention. So be it. But please leave me out of it.

  26. damon Says:

    Hi Zonsb and peace be unto to you.

    That last post you had about ‘taxpayer’ and mentioning the regulations and United States code I alwayst cite was not indirectly intended for me?
    Very well. Then I just took the liberty to answer your question concerning the ‘taxpayer’ and the ‘proof’.

    “The only question that is really being asked here is what facts do you rely on that Mr. X is a TAXPAYER, do they exist?”

    Facts are in my above post of ‘taxpayer’ status.

    I was also curious where you get this information from?

    “Facts rule. Facts render irrelevant the tens-of-thousands of pages of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.”

    Can you cite an authority on the above statement (Supreme Court case/legal encyclopedia/legal dictionary), I am curious to look it up.

    Thanks Zonsb.

  27. Zonsb Says:

    For several years Marc has had a $5000 offer to anyone that can show factually proof/evidence that anyone is a citizen and I think it may also extend to factual proof/evidence of anyone being a taxpayer. Anyone that could show factual proof/evidence that anyone is a citizen or taxpayer should call into the No State Project and take Marc up on his offer. In the mean time, read this forum post: http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=2638&highlight=goalpost — Money, Power and Glory if You Can Prove This…

  28. akhero Says:

    she was fair!!!!!!!!!!! lol

  29. Echelon Says:

    This hearing officer needs, and has opened the door for, state and federal civil and criminal causes of action being brought against her.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Friday 09.12.11 | The Inner Circle Group Says:

    […] IRS CDP “Hearing” – Nov 29, 2011 by Calvin – Marc Stevens.net She opens up with a accusatory statement condemning Marc’s client to TAXPAYER status without reviewing the facts and verifying the validity of such legal status by saying; “My job as a settlement officer is to resolve tax controversies on a basis that is fair and impartial to both the government and the TAXPAYER.” For some strange reason she believes the government is based on principals of fairness and impartiality when it coercively steals every cent it spends to pay for the crimes they wish to commit under guise of a legitimate service/social necessity. Also, to what Marc was pointing out, the legal status of TAXPAYER is established using certain factual criteria. The only question that is really being asked here is what facts do you rely on that Mr. X is a TAXPAYER, do they exist? Not being able to answer such a simple and straight-forward question leaves one to think: why? The answer on the other side of that question is what “they” are so hopelessly cognitively-dissonant of. […]

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