Yes, tax denier Bob Hurt, who I believe has allied himself in some way with Charles Conces and the "Lawmen", began pushing the Laugenour garbage on me about a year ago in another forum, quoting from the document the Laugenours filed. Based on what I have read on Bob Hurt, he is very bitter about the Internal Revenue Service and about federal judges in particular.
Bob's wackadoo theory was that a request by the Laugenours under Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- that the court judicially notice certain preposterous tax protester assertions -- somehow resulted, in the Laugenour case, in a formal, legal determination that those assertions were true - merely because the DOJ failed to respond and the court did not rule.
Here are some of the assertions -- made by Bob Hurt, or by the Laugenours, and quoted by Bob Hurt:
Plaintiff, The United States of America, by and through McGregor W. Scott and Goud P. Maragani, has confessed the following adjudicative facts:
[ . . . ]
# Every time an IRS or Tax Division attorney from the Unite [sic] States Department of Justice makes any sort of demand relative to IRS form 1040, they are committing a felony crime.
# On one or more occasions a federal magistrate has been financially rewarded for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040.
# On one or more occasions a federal prosecutor has been financially rewarded for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040.
# Two or more rewards paid to two or more federal judges, magistrates, or prosecutors for a prosecution involving an IRS form 1040 would constitute racketeering.
# Use of the courts to prosecute actions involving IRS form 1040 has the intent and purpose of federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors receiving money and not for the purpose of putting money into the United States Treasury.
[ . . . ]
# Every single criminal or civil suit filed by the United States involving IRS form 1040 was a fraud absent a procedurally proper, lawful assessment including identifying the type of tax owed such as an impost, custom, duty, or an excise tax.
[ . . . ]
# An IRS levy does not apply to people in the private sector.
[ . . . ]
# Many of the people who have worked for the Internal Revenue Service or the United States Department of Justice, many federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors have played a role in taking money or property under the false pretense that many millions of Americans and others who happened to be domiciled within the United States or its territories actual owed some sum to the United States Treasury where no procedurally proper assessment verified a valid tax debt, are nothing in the world but common criminals.
[ . . . ]
# It is the standard operating procedure of the Internal Revenue Service to falsely state, on the Individual Master File and the Individual Master File's underlying documents, that individuals domiciled in the several states of the United States are actually operating a business in one of the Territories of the United States.
# Congress has made an alliance with the federal court system to the effect that if the federal judiciary will enforce the collection of the 1040 tax, the federal system can operate extra-legally for the purposes of fraud and extortion.
# Personnel within the United States Department of Justice have actual knowledge that federal judges and prosecutors receive kickbacks, dividends, and bonuses from Corrections Corporation of America and have a stake in sending people to prison for tax crimes that are never proved.
# The CID, "criminal investigation division" of the Internal Revenue Service maintains a file on every single federal judge and federal prosecutor to extort compliance with IRS fraud.
[ . . . ]
# Goud P. Maragani and McGregor W. Scott fabricated tax bills for David E. and Debra L. Laugenour.
# Gaud P. Maragani and McGregor W. Scott are nothing in the world but common criminals with a pattern of fraud and extortion that exceeds the requisites for criminal and civil racketeering warranting: (a). Inquiry to determine how many U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges are engaged in this racket, (b). Prosecution of all U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges involved in the racket to the full extent of the law including five years in prison per count to be served consecutively [after all these are the "keepers of the law"], (c). the United States of America returning all that has been taken from the American people for a so-called 1040 tax, (d). exoneration of all those imprisoned for a so-called 1040 tax issue, (e). compensating all those who have been imprisoned relative to a so-called 1040 tax, and (f). executing each and every U.S. Attorney, IRS agent, federal judge, federal magistrate, federal clerk, and federal circuit court judge whose acts in re: the so-61led 1040 tax were the proximate cause of the death of the target of IRS racketeering [ . . . ]
This was my response to Bob Hurt:
There is a procedure under the U.S. legal system whereby a party can be deemed to have admitted a fact. Unfortunately, that procedure is not found in Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. As explained below, a request by a party under Rule 201(d) does not result in an admission of anything.
Rule 201(d) relates to requests made by one party that the court ''judicially notice'' a particular fact. The "fact", however, must be "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (Rule 201(b)). Examples of statements of facts of this kind would be: "Albany is the capital of New York" or "the sun generally rises in the east and generally sets in the west" or "spring is followed by summer."
Preposterous statements like: "Every time an IRS or Tax Division attorney from the Unite [sic] States Department of Justice makes any sort of demand relative to IRS form 1040, they are committing a felony crime", and "An IRS levy does not apply to people in the private sector", and "The CID, 'criminal investigation division' of the Internal Revenue Service maintains a file on every single federal judge and federal prosecutor to extort compliance with IRS fraud" are about as likely to be judicially noticed as I am likely to arrive on the planet Neptune later today.
By law, the judicial notice of adjudicative facts, if one is made at all, is made by the court, not by the silence or acquiescence of an opposing party after the filing of a Rule 201(d) request. The idea that the absence of a Department of Justice response to the above-listed Laugenours' assertions found in a Rule 201(d) request would constitute, "by silence and acquiescence," an admission, agreement or confession of "all the Langenours' [sic] assertions" is without legal merit.
Bob wasn't satisfied with my answer. He pops in at Wikipedia every so often and tries to engage me in a debate about taxes. I haven't heard from him in a long time, though.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
