To bang your head on a different wall...

[webhick]

Sue the IRS employee!

To file a civil suit against IRS personnel in their
personal capacities, what are the rules, parameters,
etc?

In a nutshell, to file against an agent in California,
and you live in Florida, what is required of the
Florida person so far as location of filing the suit?

Source: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=896

You have to file it in the state of "You can't sue an IRS employee for doing his job even if you think he has a personal responsibility to do his job the way you tell him to."

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

A better question is can the IRS agent counter sue for.... ah never mind, the losthead needs something of value to recover for a suit to stick. Ol' Geech, the bunrt out shell of a '74 Dodge Dart and his rotting single-wide are not considered "assets" but liabilities in all jurisdictions.

[Judge Roy Bean]

To file a civil suit against IRS personnel in their
personal capacities, what are the rules, parameters,
etc?

In a nutshell, to file against an agent in California,
and you live in Florida, what is required of the
Florida person so far as location of filing the suit?

You first have to find your way out of your nutshell.

[.]

Probably ain't gonna happen. But, maybe judges perk up a bit when they see the possibility of imposing serious sanctions for serious idiocy. I certainly would.

[ASITStands]

How did we miss it?!

I was thinking, from the replies I have been seeing it actually appears that for the most part at least that IRS employees are wanting to issue us CtC filers refunds but someplace along the line something is flagged on a computer or there is memo or policy that has been issued that all such returns are to goto the Ogden for final processing in which also shuts the tap on what was prior to be processed. It then seems that this Ogden office is some sort of CIA operation in effect, a de facto division or establishment of the IRS. It would be great to find out what the internal structure is for these ‘flags’.

As far as the time limits are concerned don't hold your breath. This is the federal government, they can take as long paying you back as they wish, I think up to 20-years or something ridiculous.

Maybe it's called the Frivolous Return Program and results from filing a frivolous return?

It's "some sort of CIA operation!" Maybe because the return shows "zero" income and includes Form 4882 that's some sort of 'flag' that signals a frivolous return? Ya think?!

Sometimes I wonder if there's something in the water.

He follows that brilliance with:

Perhaps we should start sending in along with our returns and amended returns a 'STOP - BEFORE YOU PROCESS' - 'PLEASE READ THIS §6702 FACTS SHEET' were we outline all the basic facts of this section.

Why don't you just point out, "I'm filing a frivolous return, so youse better pay attention?" Will anyone ever connect the dots or just keep banging their heads against the wall?

[Gregg]

wwhat maskes them think that putting

'PLEASE READ THIS §6702 FACTS SHEET'

on it will have any effect? They send you a like notice about friviluos returns before they start issuing penalties and you ignore them, although they happen to actually contain factts.

[ASITStands]

More head banging ...

EricCalderon's Rebuke of ForumAdmin

[Lasagna]

This is probably a stupid question, since I'm sure the answer is "because they're morons," but why have TPers form such an attachment to filing applications for writs of mandamus? It seems like every link to a TPer website that gets posted here leads to a two-page "discussion" on how best to draft a mandamus. Do they just like the word? Is it part of "Cracking the Code"? Why the intense TPer attraction?

[The Observer]

This is probably a stupid question, since I'm sure the answer is "because they're morons," but why have TPers form such an attachment to filing applications for writs of mandamus? It seems like every link to a TPer website that gets posted here leads to a two-page "discussion" on how best to draft a mandamus. Do they just like the word? Is it part of "Cracking the Code"? Why the intense TPer attraction?

Because it sounds good. It's Latin. It gives them a feeling of power. Since they really don't understand it, it is mysterious. Since their buddy paytriots don't understand it either, it makes them feel like they have the one-up on their friends. They think that it will score points with those babes with the beehives at the Dew Drop Inn. It might impress the judge in their case. Because it is the first word they learned that had more than two syllables in it.

I'm sure you can come up with some other reasons as well.

[ASITStands]

This is probably a stupid question, since I'm sure the answer is "because they're morons," but why have TPers form such an attachment to filing applications for writs of mandamus? It seems like every link to a TPer website that gets posted here leads to a two-page "discussion" on how best to draft a mandamus. Do they just like the word? Is it part of "Cracking the Code"? Why the intense TPer attraction?

You're right! It's a stupid question. Not for your asking but for their attachment to it.

Not sure who in tax movement first proposed using mandamus, but it's considered the highest form of appeal in the tax denier community after a lower court denies your case. Usually, the process is described as a writ of mandamus to the supreme Court.

At least, that's how I've encountered it. What no one ever considers is the relatively infrequent granting of mandamus by any higher court in any jurisdiction. Rather futile hope I'd think but hope nevertheless. Hope springs eternal among tax deniers.

They're right, you know! And, no one can talk them out of it (though it's been tried).

[grixit]

Ok, what do they mean by an "Article III" as opposed to an "Article I" court?

Article III says let there be a Supreme Court and oh yeah, Congress gets to create whatever other courts they want to.

Article I says one of the powers of Congress is to create courts below the Supreme Court.

So it seems to me that the Supreme Court is the only court that is purely "Article III", while all other courts are both "III" and "I", there is no such thing as a court that is purely "I".

[LPC]

Ok, what do they mean by an "Article III" as opposed to an "Article I" court?

Judges appointed to courts established in accordance with Article III of the Constitution are entitled to the guarantees of Article III, meaning that their compensation cannot be reduced and they can be removed only by impeachment.

Judges appointed to courts established under Article I of the Constitution can be (and are) limited to terms of years, and can be removed from office more easily.

So, for example, Tax Court judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, just like Article III judges, but serve for terms of only 15 years, and can be removed by the President "after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause." See IRC section 7443(e) and (f).

And the idiots at LH have it wrong again, because Tax Court is clearly an Article I court. The IRC says so in section 7441.

[Dr. Caligari]

The U.S. Tax Court, and perhaps a few other specialized tribunals, are considered "Article I courts" because the judges serve only fixed terms (15 years, IIRC) whereas the judges of courts created under Article III have life tenure (per Article III, section 1).

[Dr. Caligari]

As usual, Dan beat me to the reply, and said the same thing I was going to say, except that he said it with greater erudition.

[LPC]

This is probably a stupid question, since I'm sure the answer is "because they're morons," but why have TPers form such an attachment to filing applications for writs of mandamus?

Because they're morons certainly sums it up, but there are other factors at work, I think.

A writ of mandamus is issued by a court to a government official when the government official has clearly and plainly failed to do something that the official is absolutely required to do. There are very few things that government officials are clearly and plainly required to do, and courts don't like to second-guess government officials about what is or is not required (or at least courts say that they don't like to) and don't like to exert that kind of power, so the writ is rarely granted.

Tax deniers WANT power over government, and they think that they are clearly and plainly right (and the government is wrong), so the writ of mandamus fits their emotional needs perfectly.

[grixit]

Ok, but both are created by Congress and both are inferior to the Supreme Court, at least in that appeals can end up there. And while lowering or eliminating pay was a big deal at one time, since the Founding Finaglers used it against the british government and didn't want it used against them, i don't see it happening much today. Certainly any attempt to rein in a judge that way would provoke serious bad publicity for whoever did it.

[ASITStands]

The U.S. Tax Court, and perhaps a few other specialized tribunals, are considered "Article I courts" because the judges serve only fixed terms (15 years, IIRC) whereas the judges of courts created under Article III have life tenure (per Article III, section 1).

It was my understanding both tax and bankruptcy courts are Article I Courts.

Is that correct, and are there others? And, is the only real difference fixed terms?

Tax Court is considered an administrative court. Is that true of bankruptcy court?

And, what's the difference between an administrative decision in an Article I Court or a judicial decision in an Article III Court such as district or appellate court?

[fortinbras]

Other Article I courts include the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Court of Claims, and the territorial courts such as the Marshall Islands and Guam.

[ASITStands]

Other Article I courts include the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Court of Claims, and the territorial courts such as the Marshall Islands and Guam.

Thought so. Thx.