Categorized | Call of Shame

CoS – Set. 26, 2013 – IRS Supervisor Michael Altebrando: “I don’t have any jurisdiction. Its not me… you know… this is the law.”

Posted on September 26th, 2013 by Marc Stevens

I don’t get too many calls from IRS supervisors like this one.  It’s hard to tell if Michael is totally out of his element talking about evidence, he was drunk or both.  I didn’t expect the call and was actually getting ready to record the No State Project with Jan Irvin.  So I’m glad the call didn’t last but a few minutes because it was only minutes before my appointment with Jan.

I don’t even want to transcribe what was said in response to my question about evidence the constitution and code apply to me because it cannot demonstrate how stupid it is.  The contrast between speaking to Jan Irvin about critical thought and Michael’s inability to convey a rational thought was interesting to say the least.

But it does help prove my position, that the reason we have these gang of killers, thieves and liars among us is because so few people engage in critical thought.  My only real response to the call after he hung up on me was:

It’s calls like this that really demonstrate why these people need guns.

 YouTube Preview Image

 

              

53 Comments For This Post

  1. Kel Says:

    Two calls back to back? Pete’s gonna poop his britches!

  2. Max Says:

    Marc. This man is lost like a deer caught in the headlights. {uh…uh…its the law?} Every time I talk to people about law (And I apologize my great+ uncle was Uncle “Herb” Clark Hoover)(U.S. CORPORATION)… how did we get to be so dumb? People just shut down like they are intimidated by my intellect. People just walk away or get angry. Hell, I carry a pocket digital dictionary with me and people have gotten mad at me for saying; wait a minute I can find an answer for that. Mad. Now most people are calm, but, lost in conversation. Family too. HELP DUDE IM TRYING TO BE PATIENT WITH THESE PEOPLE BUT I THINK I WAS BORN INTO THE WRONG FAMILY!!!!!! Im sure thers a word for that right? Max

  3. Jim Says:

    I’m from Melbourne, Australia and I once asked a “compliance officer” from the ATO (Australia Tax Office) what evidence is there proving I am obligated to pay income tax? He replied by quoting various “Acts of Parliament” and said I was obligated under Australian law.

    I then asked him to explain how was the alleged obligation created without my consent or a valid contract? He replied that the fact I was a citizen or “permanent resident” of Australia meant I was subject to its laws.

    We went back and forth with my questions asking for facts and evidence and he became increasingly annoyed and frustrated and eventually said, “Look, you are not above the law and you have to pay income tax like everyone else or you can face severe penalties like fines, audits and imprisonment for tax evasion.” So in the end he resorted to threats and coercion when he realized he couldn’t intimidate, mislead and deceive me with his quoting of laws.

  4. Paul Says:

    “It’s calls like this that really demonstrate why these people need guns.”

    Good one Marc!

  5. Steve Says:

    Marc, Got 2 questions for you. I agree with what you are saying whole heartedly. So when you get these guys cornered and they hang up… have you done your client any good? Are you any closer to getting the IRS to drop the whole matter and leave your client alone?

  6. Donna Says:

    Good question Steve. On the ato website http://WWW.ato.gov.au it states tax is voluntary. But my interpretation of this is.. If you don’t volunteer your information, then we will get it from you under duress. So if you don’t voluntarily dob yourself in then they will endeavour to make sure you do.

    Now… Tax is supposedly derived from profit right? But the question stand then… How am I making profit from my blood sweat and tears
    ? Am I not worth a sum certain for my sweat and labour? I understand you can profit from goods sold but certainly not your time.

  7. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ steve, yes, most of the time they drop the attack.

  8. Kurt Says:

    Wow, Marc, you left the man speechless!

  9. Packa Says:

    hummmmmmmm…….

  10. Hugh Mann Says:

    What about revoking Social Security? I was 11 years old when I was issued a Social Security number. What’s the age of consent? No SS number, no tax ID number, no taxes.

  11. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ HUgh, I told them I didn’t want their benefits, please close the account.

  12. Max Says:

    Be careful what you sign. Everything is a contract. If you do not sign a contract, they have no “jurisdiction” over you. Albeit, they will try to convince you they do. Schools, IRS,SS, courts etc. etc. The funny thing is, that I did not sign my SS ‘contract’ how is it exactly they have power over that when one reaches adult age and the parents contract is now null and void. (Ever wonder WHY they want to keep kids on their parents insurance till age 26 or 27?) Ah hah!!!!!! Redefining the ‘legal’ age.

  13. NonE Says:

    Max Sed:
    Be careful what you sign. Everything is a contract.
    ————
    Hmm. And everything yellow is a banana.

    - NonMellowYellow(Where’s Donovan when we need him???)

  14. Max Says:

    NonE. You may prove me wrong sir. What say you banana breath!

  15. NonE Says:

    Max Sed:
    NonE. You may prove me wrong sir.
    ———–
    He who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof.

    - YeOldBananaBreath

  16. Max Says:

    Look up the term “suretyship”.
    Look up the definition of “Certificate of Live Birth”
    Look up, “UNITED STATES CORPORATION”
    Also, look up WHY your name is in ALL CAPS on all government forms.
    WHY is your name in ALL CAPS i.e. “NonE YeOld BananaBreath” on your “drivers” license? Hmmm? Anyone? Any one? BUELLER…BUELLER?

  17. NonE Says:

    “Everything is a contract.” – Max

    “Certificate of Live Birth.”

    So I was able to engage in a legally binding contract before I was even able to take my first breath?

    I would recommend a course in elementary logic, but I don’t think your religion would allow such blasphemous indoctrination.

    - Noncontractual

  18. Max Says:

    Yes!

  19. Max Says:

    Oh, and thank you, NonE, for the insult. You are quite the sesquipedalian of insults I see. It was real nice coming from a woman I’ve never met. Are you from New York?
    Just because you have neglected to educate yourself does question yours, not mine.
    Ask yourself. Why does your “Birth Certificate” say, in fact “Certificate of Live Birth”? Why does it not say ‘Birth Certificate?’Ever wonder? It is a COPY! Your parents registered you with the “STATE” It is legally binding (the state thinks) to make you part of ownership of the STATE. 2.) Who signed your Birth Certificate? Your mother! Your fathers name is nowhere on the document, most likely, and there is no space for the fathers name on said document. The hospital gets about $4,000 for your actual Birth CERTIFICATE from the STATE and is traded on the NY Stock Exchange and sold. It is called; SURETYSHIP!
    Do your due-diligence and research it, before you insult my intellect. Thanks

  20. NonE Says:

    So Max, You are telling me that my parents are able to sell me into servitude? Izzat it? Actually, both my mother’s and my father’s names are on my “Standard Certificate of Live Birth” and yet neither one of them signed it. It’s interesting that you suggest that because I have “neglected to educate myself” that makes it alright for me to be sold AND that you think that this is legitimate. (Apparently.) The way I look at it, you can write any crazy shit down on some paper, but that does not make it real. It’s odd that you would be posting such thinking here on Marc Stevens’ site where Marc states that Laws are Opinions backed by a Gun. So if I write some shit down on paper and stick a gun in your face you’ll then claim that I have a legitimate claim to whatever the hell it is that I claim? Izzat it? Because it sure seems like that’s what you’re saying.

    A lot of people believe that, so you’re not in sparse company.

    - NonNewYorker

  21. doyle Says:

    look up http://www.servantking.info it may help to explain without opinion.

  22. NonE Says:

    Say Max, I think you should change your name to Min. See, and I didn’t even have to use words larger than you can understand. :-) – NonReallyReallyGullibleAndSTILLnotFromNewYork

  23. Max Says:

    NonNewYorkerchick,

    This breaks it down to the basics so even you can understand:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG-D_7sr-Fk

  24. NonE Says:

    Thanks Min. Mucho Appreciado. – NonNewYorkChickieDo

  25. NonE Says:

    I wonder if it’s my VAGINA that makes me so Stoopid. Hmm. ;-) – NonE

  26. Max Says:

    Only if she does the thinking. ;-)

  27. Max Says:

    I did not say it was right or lawful. I simply stated that is the way it is.

    NotfromNewYorkEither. Pennsylvania

  28. Pete Says:

    @Donna: Your last two sentences were very powerful. I never thought of it that way.

  29. NonE Says:

    Min, If almost everyone believes the world is flat, does that make it so? – NonNewYorkVagina

  30. Max Says:

    NonENonNewYorkVagina,

    You mean, IT’S NOT? Those people at the Universal Zetetic Society lied?
    Say it isn’t so!

    Max

  31. Calvin Says:

    @Max: I’m not an authority on the application and interpretation of contract law, but when I pretend to be I take into account all the essential elements that are required for a VALID contract. Most notably the essential element of meeting of the minds.

    I am not looking forward to what kind of CORPORATE tomfoolery you plan on using in attempt to justify that a newborn can fulfill the element of meeting of the minds to have a valid obligation, but keep in mind; there is a finite tolerance level for baseless assertions here, so lets keep the conversation factual [as opposed to substituting facts with legal opinion], eh?

    Besides, what kind of valid obligation can men and women, who arbitrarily act with a monopoly on the use-of-force, legitimately create? Methinks NonE. ;)

  32. Dan Says:

    How thoughtful of you Calvin, thinking of NonE :)

  33. Max Says:

    The government/corporations do not care about “meeting-of-the-minds”. If they can force you, they will be it through the courts or via threatening letters or fines for money you do not owe to taxes you do not owe. Don’t get mad at me I’m just the messenger sharing knowledge. (god, some people are so grumpy and standoffish)

  34. NonE Says:

    Calvin Sed: “…there is a finite tolerance level for baseless assertions here…”
    ——-
    Going back to the soccer metaphors, huh.
    - NonVagina

  35. Max Says:

    Why is it that police say. “Anything you say, can and WILL, be used against you in a court of law”? It’s simply words and those words have hurt noone. Right or wrong? Because it WILL! You can be dealt greater sentencing because of your ‘words’. In America, there is one law; one rule. #1. DO NOT hurt anyone or take away their lawful rights. That is called Common Law! Admiralty/Statutory/Corporate law makes almost every action you do so “illegal”. ‘Don’t park here or I’ll take your money! Don’t walk on the Grass or you’ll be fined.’ Do NOT smoke here or you’ll be fined and arrested. (I dated a women in New York. Her colleague lit a cigarette on a train platform and WAS ARRESTED! Not fined! ARRESTED! Put in jail. For smoking!) They will rule every aspect of your life if you let them. The “Certificate of Live Birth” is where it starts. DO YOUR HOMEWORK everyone. You can deny it all you want. You can attack it, quoting this law, or that law. But, they do nOT care. The bottom line is that many people D NOT know anything about law except the basics (don’t speed etc.) Those are the one’s they go after and look for, because once they have you in their sights and the ‘system’ they do not want to let you go. You disobeyed their rules. Hey, if I started throwing rules and laws at you that I DEMAND you obey would you listen? You’ve never met me. And you’ve never met them, ‘lawmakers’ in government. Then why do we follow any of their arbitrary edicts? brainwashing.

  36. Max Says:

    What do you mean “baseless”? [sic]

  37. Calvin Says:

    Q: “What do you mean baseless?”

    A: 1) “Everything is a contract.” 2) ” look up WHY your name is in ALL CAPS on all government forms”

    Those are the only two that really got me. That being said, I will apologize because you did state that you are just relaying the information as you understand it and as you’ve researched it. You did lay out a series of facts to support your theory that “everything is a contract,” but I would still say that you need to have a meeting of the minds for it to be a valid contract, otherwise its invalid and void and therefor unenforceable. I also agree that the government will just enforce whatever they feel, if they feel like they can get away with it unquestioned. My apologies for reacting like a grouch, I was making an assumption that you were implying that the evidence to support the theory of CITIZENSHIP originating from a birth certificate could not be challenged, but it doesn’t seem like that is what you’re concluding.

    So its not that “everything [actually] is a contract,” its “everything is [considered] a contract [regardless that it factually is not].” That I get because I’ve heard bureaucrats actually claim that DL’s and jurisdiction are in-part social contracts, but they never want to examine the evidence of whether they actually hold all the elements of a contract.

  38. Max Says:

    Well said. And, exactly. If my explanations were to tacit, I apologize. I try to be succinct in my missives but, forgot one small detail you expounded upon. Yes, of course, in a perfect world a “meeting of the minds” is common sense; to you and me. But, those that want you money through fines or to imprison you for a traffic violation do not care about meetings of the mind. They are paid to protect corporations i.e. The D.O.T., the IRS, the COURTS, The FEDERAL RESERVE, basically all government is now a CORPORATION. You must prove it is NOT a valid contract.

  39. Max Says:

    As for contracts. What I see, is that they play on peoples’ ignorance. Ignorance (Lack of knowledge)is the problem. If one knows nothing about contracts (statutes) which are unconstitutional ‘laws’ whether they exist or not is not the problem. They all treat you as though you have contracted with them. Until you prove otherwise and question that and argue that, the courts and government will rule every aspect of your life if you let them. You must put something out there, that is, make your own law; ‘The Sovereign makes the law in America.’ The supreme court is the only binding court and is the exclusive and original jurisdiction. All other courts are voluntary courts. Let me repeat that! All other courts are inferior courts and are voluntary courts. But you will be tricked into one of these District Courts (nisi prius) courts. They are the front line, I see, as the ‘contract’ enforcers. They do not opereate under common law 99.999999%. But, you can remove for cause (Disqulification for cause)change of venue) to a higher court. A superior court, in a common law court of record. We do have remedy inside the code and we do have remedy outside the code (UCC etc.) But, Common LAw rules over statute, code, equity law etc. I am far from an expert but have a grasp on some of the basics. Max

  40. indio007 Says:

    For the record there are a lot more than contracts to bind people. There are trusts and implied trusts. This is the primary method of enslavement not contracts. There doesn’t need to be a meeting of the minds in a trust.

  41. Max Says:

    Thank you for the clarification, indio007. Great info. Thanks

  42. David Brandt Says:

    The representative said, “You know what to do, just do it.” Click, he hung up. This is the mark of the beast. The thoughts are placed in the forehead, the place of conscious thought, and then the right hand performs the action, whatever action that may be as dictated by the state. The thing that identifies it as the mark is the threat of arrest, indefinite imprisonment, torture, or death.

    The First Amendment declares that we are not obligated to obey such orders, or use a citizenship name, or a number forced upon us such as a s. s. number, n. i. n., or the like. See: Revelation 13:16 – 18.

  43. NonE Says:

    David Brandt Sed: This is the mark of the beast.
    ——
    I find it interesting how people accept something that someone said (a “law” or a “scripture”) as somehow magically binding upon other someones. A guy said something and somehow that makes the universe revolve around whatever that person said? Say WHAT? But if I say something different from what the first person said, well that doesn’t count. WHAT? How come I can’t just say stuff and make all of reality have to conform to what I SAY?

    I think there’s a fix in here someplace. (<–I said that, so PAY ATTENTION!)

    - NonBuyin'ThisModel

  44. David Brandt Says:

    What I’m saying is, they are enforcing these ‘laws’ by force, threatening ‘death,’ and ‘torture!’ Do you understand? That’s exactly what the 1611 King James Bible warns of!

  45. NonE Says:

    David Brandt Sed:
    What I’m saying is, they are enforcing these ‘laws’ by force, threatening ‘death,’ and ‘torture!’ Do you understand? That’s exactly what the 1611 King James Bible warns of!
    ——Let me see if I do understand. You make the statement that “That’s exactly what the 1511 K.J.B. warns of!” You close that sentence with an exclamation point. I am guessing that the exclamation point is supposed to imply that “DON’T YOU SEE, YOU FOOL?, IT’S ALL THERE IN THE BIBLE!” Is that what was implied by the exclamation point, or was something else meant? And if I am correct, then what is the message that I am supposed to be getting from this exclamatory declaration, that all I need to do to “save myself” is to read and believe the stuff some guy wrote down in 1611? Or are you attempting to somehow provide some actionable information which I may use to gain some measure of freedom from the violent psychopathic people who act under the banner of some assumed “authority,” be it “legal” or “biblical?”

    I’m sorry if I don’t grasp what you probably believe you’ve clearly implied.

    The fact that “laws” are being enforced by force (redundancy built into the idea?) and that psychopaths have done this in the past… just how is this information that I am supposed to benefit from, and that deserves being delivered to me with an exclamation point?

    I think I’m going in a circle here.

    - NonEye2(EvenThoImayBeMisteakenForHisSelfs)

  46. David Brandt Says:

    NonE,

    The First Amendment states that congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Revelation 13:16 – 18 states that to use the name of the beast (us citizen, or any un nation), or the number (a number assigned to the slave; the s.s. number) in order to buy and sell (working for a wage fits in to this category) is tantamount to accepting the mark in the forehead, or the right hand.

    The mark in the forehead is fearing the state for what it will do to you if you do not tow the party line. The mark in the hand is doing what the state dictates. A good example of this is an innocent homeless man being beaten to death by uniformed, corporate thugs. Are you starting to get the picture?

  47. NonE Says:

    David Brandt Sed:
    Are you starting to get the picture?
    ——
    No. Are you capable of stating a position and then supporting it?

    - NonE

  48. Dan Says:

    The picture is in the mail NonE. I received mine the other day, now I too know the TRUTH :) I feel so relieved that I do not have to think anymore. Although my party favors are on back order.

  49. Max Says:

    Hey it’s my old friend NonE. Any less confused my dear?

  50. Max Says:

    You too, Calvin.

  51. Kaci Bramucci Says:

    Hello there, I think your website could possibly be having web browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to give you a quick heads up! Apart from that, excellent blog!

  52. Martin Padilla Says:

    As a kid, I admired David Copperfield because he made the statue of Liberty vanish, now as an adult, I admire Mark Stevens because he make the charges desappear.

  53. NonE Says:

    Martin Padilla Sed:I admire Mark Stevens because he make the charges desappear.
    ———-
    Actually what I think he does is to make our illusions disappear. Which may even be more impressive. He’s definitely added great value to my life. :-)

    - NonE

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Sept 28, 2013 – Guests: Jan Irvin and Adam, Plus a NSP Group Chat - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] CoS Drop: IRS Supervisor Michael Altebrando: “I don’t have any jurisdiction. Its not me… you know… thi… […]

  2. CoS – Set. 26, 2013 – IRS Supervisor Michael Altebrando: “I don’t have any jurisdiction. Its not me… you know… this is the law.” - Unofficial Network Says:

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

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturdays, 4-7pm EST: NSP radio LIVE. Tune-in as we discuss the general topics of tickets, tyrants, assessments, and bringing about a voluntary society. The NSP is not live April 19, 2014, but is new recorded material so we will not be taking calls @ (218) 632-9399.



Click here to find out how to call-in with your questions and comments, join the Skype group-chat, tune-in to terrestrial and digital broadcasts, use the phone-in listen line, subscribe to the iTunes archive feed, and much more.

Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6













Bitcoin: 1NayJiRhb7gtVcSS4yNn6hxo6TJFPrQgb6




Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here