This is another great example of why sticking to just the facts is so effective at showing the IRS and other “government” types cannot support their arguments. That is why they have to use violence to get compliance, people won’t cooperate with con men.
The agent claims yes, he can confirm there is evidence proving the constitution and code apply to Chris and there is jurisdiction to require a “return” be filed. When I ask him for the specific facts the constitution apply, the agents says:
Wage income reported to the IRS.
I ask him to clarify, if the evidence the constitution applies to Chris is financial information provided under threat, duress and coercion. He doesn’t answer, and I ask how forcing people to give the IRS information proves the constitution applies. The agent disagrees claiming no one is forcing anyone to give the IRS information. I point out that 26 USC 7203 does prove the information is coerced, you give the information or you go to jail.
The coercion, while important, does not have to be part of the discussion to prove there is no evidence proving the constitution applies, so I drop that from my questioning. I ask him directly how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris.
The agent avoids the question claiming he does not want to “misguide” me. So I repeat my question:
How is the financial information considered facts proving that the constitution applies to Chris?
The agent then claims that if the information is given it is “assumed”. I restate what we’ve already said, that he confirmed there were facts, he said the facts were the financial information, and I again ask him to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris.
He avoids the question and I ask him again to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris. He avoids again, I recap what he’s already said and ask once more to explain how the financial information proves the constitution applies to Chris and at 6:50 the agent gives an honest answer:
I don’t know.
What’s funny is the agent, clearly out of his element, now wants to get a supervisor to clarify the question for me, so I can understand. I do understand the question, I’m not the one who claimed a financial statement, given under threat of jail, proved the constitution applied to Chris. I refrain from such groundless arguments.
He tries to get the pressure off by making excuses, that he is not there is prove the constitution applies. I respond by stating that he probably spoke to soon and if he’s not qualified to confirm there is evidence the constitution applies, he should not be accusing Chris of being a “taxpayer”. The IRS agent then makes the common plea of not being a lawyer, as if that excuses him from accusing Chris of being a “taxpayer” with the IRS’s jurisdiction.
Before he puts me on hold, he refers to Chris as a “taxpayer” again, and I call him on it since we have his admission “I don’t know” that he can’t begin to prove the constitution applies to Chris. Instead of addressing his false allegations, he just ignores me and puts us on hold. This call is evidence the agent committed a felony by making false statements, see 18 USC 1001.
I did cut the five minutes were were on hold, I also cut the first 30 minutes or so when we were initially on hold and the verification process as that contained personal information.
When they come back I state that since by his own admission he can’t prove any jurisdiction over Chris, that it would be prudent to stay proceedings and put a hold on the account so it doesn’t escalate. The agent agrees and puts a hold on the account, so he did the right thing and the computer won’t escalate the attack.
This call is instructive because all I did was ask questions, getting more and more specific and asking the agent to clarify his statements. It’s a simple to follow and replicate method; just asking questions. I got disagreement when I added in the information being under threat, duress and coercion. I know I don’t need to bring that up to establish the agent doesn’t have any facts proving the constitution applies, but it does help when in person and they can’t just hang up.
Discrediting the argument is accomplished by just taking the agent’s statement the facts proving the constitution applies to Chris are the financial statements given to the IRS. It seems crazy to me that an unsigned written instrument from 1787 could possibly apply to me today because some men in DC coerced someone to give the IRS financial information. That is truly irrational.
But it’s just that easy to tear apart the argument the constitution and code apply to us. This is what I did, and I’m paraphrasing:
M: Can you confirm there’s evidence proving the constitution and code apply?
M: What are the specific facts relied on proving the constitution and code apply and there is jurisdiction?
IRS: Financial information provided to the IRS.
M: How does the financial information prove the constitution applies?
IRS: I don’t know.
We can also ask why the info proves the constitution applies. Why and how questions are part of the trivium; after we get some information from the agent regarding their argument, then we ask how and why their argument is correct. If they had facts and a logical argument, then they’d just present them. “I don’t know” just doesn’t do anything to inspire any confidence with me.
But, if you think that forcing people to give financial information to the IRS proves the constitution applies, please call into the No State Project with your evidence and your logic. Do what no IRS agent, IRS lawyer, bureaucrat and “government” apologist has been able to do in all these years.