How to get my

[Famspear]

I think this thread has just about had it.



Thoughts, anyone?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I think this thread has just about had it.



Thoughts, anyone?

Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?

I think it is funny you jerks say you want to educate people, when really it looks like you want to belittle them and pat yourself on the back.

A question comes up you can not answer, hey lock the thread..... Lmfao

[Famspear]

Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?

I think it is funny you jerks say you want to educate people, when really it looks like you want to belittle them and pat yourself on the back.

A question comes up you can not answer, hey lock the thread..... Lmfao

Oh, boo-hoo! The rest of the world owes you an answer to your every question, eh PD?

Boo-hoo!

We've answered question after question after question, and your iddy-biddy feelin's are hurt. You feel belittled, eh?

That's because you've been humilated. And you did it to yourself by coming here and in part by pretending to be looking for "answers".

You don't want to be educated. You just want to play games.

[wserra]

I actually think that PD's "moral duty" question is an intelligent (!) one, albeit one that belies his professed intent to go study more. I intend to respond. However, I have an all-day deposition today, and it will be late today or tomorrow before I have the chance.

Please don't lock the thread.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Thank you air, it is a question I would truely like an answer too. I went thru google scholar and have found nothing on it.

I have also tried to find the other part, they have to respond if not doing so would be misleading.

The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.

Pondsford and nord Davis in particular.

[Pottapaug1938]

I think this thread has just about had it.



Thoughts, anyone?

Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?

I think it is funny you jerks say you want to educate people, when really it looks like you want to belittle them and pat yourself on the back.

A question comes up you can not answer, hey lock the thread..... Lmfao

This is a perfect example of troll-boy's approach; and an example of one which I have seen many times before on Quatloos. Keep asking endless questions and "moving the goalposts"; and when we get tired of the troll's antics and discuss locking the thread, the troll crows something like "you won't answer my questions, so you're locking the thread".

Tell you what, troll-boy. We're not here to play law professor for you. You want an answer? Then, go to law school and learn how to analyze cases and perform legal research.

[AndyK]

A cursory Internet search (Which PD could have done on his own) reveals that "moral duty to respond" is primarily a philosophical, societal concept strictly outside the limits of statutory and (in most cases) common law.

Moral duties are self-imposed based upon one's upbringing and societal context.

So, what relevance do moral duties have to tax evasion?

PD ?

[JamesVincent]

....You want an answer? Then, go to law school and learn how to analyze cases and perform legal research.

You don't have to go to law school to understand the basic concepts behind a case. I never finished college, and the little college I did go to was either for computer networking or history. It does, however, require an open mind and that is something most of the trolls we see lack. They don't truly want to learn, they want someone to tell them the answers, and they really don't want to hear them since they already "know" it. So you get a one sided argument in which people who do know try to explain to a brick wall why they're wrong and the brick wall just reiterates the same thing over and over, or continually change what they're after. I know, from personal experience, that it takes less then 5 minutes to find 90% of the cases discussed on Quatloos on pages like WestLaw, Justia, Google Scholar, or others. People without a Pacer account may be limited in their searching but can still find out the relevant parts, especially in older cases. The issue is more psychological then it is in learning or teaching, like Famspear brought up in another thread.

[noblepa]

Hi,

I've been lurking on this site for a long time and enjoy it very much. I've learned a lot. I am not a troll; I believe that the legal experts here truly know the law.

IANAL, but my understanding of affidavits includes two items:

1. An affidavit is a statement of FACTS, made by a party to a legal case, to the best of the affiant's knowledge. An affidavit does not normally contain conclusions about the interpretation of the law. In this sense, wouldn't an affidavit have a sort of prima facie assumption of truth? (I understand "prima facie" to mean a rebuttable statement that, on its face, is assumed to be true). What PD seems to want to do with his affidavit, is to gather some 'facts' from his IRS records, and then send an 'affidavit' to the IRS that ends with the legal conclusion that he is not liable for federal income taxes.

Even if an affidavit does not enjoy the prima facie assumption of truth, isn't the actual effect the same? If one party to a case makes certain statements (perhaps in the form of an affidavit) isn't the trier of fact (a jury or the judge), likely to accept those facts, unless the other party rebutts those statements?

2. Isn't an affidavit normally filed in court, and associated with a specific case currently before that court? Can a document sent to a third party (not a court) even be properly called an affidavit, even if it fits the definition in all other respects?

Would not a document containing conclusory legal interpretations be more properly considered a motion? Again, this would only apply in court and for a specific case.

Thanks,
Paul Noble

[notorial dissent]

Paul, welcome.

In theory, an affidavit is supposed to be "a statement of FACTS", that doesn't necessarily mean it is.

You have pretty much hit it all right on the head. Most of what you are talking about though takes place in court, and is a somewhat different arena than being out in the regular world, and if statements are presented in court and not challenged, then they are presumed to be true, unless they are so utterly ridiculous as to not be.

There is a difference between making statements in court that need to be responded to, and sending wild silly assed nonsense to to outside party. That is where the confusion seems to be.

[chronistra]

2. Isn't an affidavit normally filed in court, and associated with a specific case currently before that court? Can a document sent to a third party (not a court) even be properly called an affidavit, even if it fits the definition in all other respects?

I think there are examples of documents sent outside of a court that are properly affidavits, yes.

For example, I have some familiarity with the vehicle titles section of my state's dept of revenue, and there are quite a number of affidavits in use there ("I am the transfer-on-death beneficiary of So-and-So and they're dead and here's the death certificate so please transfer the title"; "Our agency impounded this vehicle as abandoned and here's what we did to notify the owners and now we sold it at auction and this is the purchaser so please give them the title"; "Our company repossessed this vehicle pursuant to security agreement thus-and-such and the debtor would not hand over the title so please issue a new one"; etc., etc.)

These documents are not filed in court, not associated with a court case, and sent to a third party, but state law says the Dept of Revenue has the duty to issue titles and state regulation specifies under what conditions, so there is a legal duty to respond. If the state fails to respond, or if the state's response is subsequently challenged (So-and-So shows up and says they are not dead, or the debtor claims unlawful repossession), there may subsequently be a court case in which the affidavit will become evidence.

This of course is quite different from sending an affidavit to an agency that has no duty to respond, which is the OP's proposal.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Great post, I can see I have more studying to do. Now I have just one question and everyone seems to skip it in favor of the legal duty to respond.

What is the moral duty to respond about? Where can I find information about this moral duty to respond?

Unless and until a "moral" is codified into law or regulations promulgated by legal authority, "moral duty" is a personal affair and you cannot unilaterally impose your view or expectations on anyone.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hi,

I've been lurking on this site for a long time and enjoy it very much. I've learned a lot. I am not a troll; I believe that the legal experts here truly know the law. ...

Even if an affidavit does not enjoy the prima facie assumption of truth, isn't the actual effect the same? If one party to a case makes certain statements (perhaps in the form of an affidavit) isn't the trier of fact (a jury or the judge), likely to accept those facts, unless the other party rebutts those statements?

2. Isn't an affidavit normally filed in court, and associated with a specific case currently before that court? Can a document sent to a third party (not a court) even be properly called an affidavit, even if it fits the definition in all other respects?

First, Paul - welcome to Quatloos!

As has been noted before, accepting an affidavit as "truth" has limits and as I pointed out to PD, context is the issue.

They are particularly convenient in mediation and arbitration and as you probably know, the vast majority of civil cases never even reach trial.

I have seen one instance where a party literally had a 3" stack of two-page, notarized affidavits from persons who found themselves in similar circumstances. Having each of them deposed or especially having them travel to appear as witnesses would have been absurdly expensive. The fact there were so many had a significant influence on the outcome of the mediation.

Would not a document containing conclusory legal interpretations be more properly considered a motion? Again, this would only apply in court and for a specific case.

Thanks,
Paul Noble

I can see no place for legal interpretations in an affidavit, but that doesn't stop the whacko denizens of the 'net from grinding out "Affidavits of Truth" with all kinds of gibberish in them.

[LPC]

The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.

Already addressed above. See "I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond" in the Tax Protester FAQ.

And people have swallowed broken glass and have come out okay also.

Pondsford and nord Davis in particular.

They told you so themselves, didn't they? Well, then it must be true.[/sarcasm]

I only believe what I can verify from reputable sources. You're certainly not a reputable source, and I don't even know where to start looking to find anything about "Pondsford" or "Davis." I did run "Pondsford" through both PACER and the US Tax Court, and nothing showed up.

[JamesVincent]

I only believe what I can verify from reputable sources. You're certainly not a reputable source, and I don't even know where to start looking to find anything about "Pondsford" or "Davis." I did run "Pondsford" through both PACER and the US Tax Court, and nothing showed up.

If it is the same Nord Davis, Nord Davis Jr., he was one of the earlier TD/ sovrun types. IIRC was also pretty big proponent of the common law jury situation. Died in 1997? I believe. Was a pastor with Christian Identity, a big, very racist church organization that made the KKK look like pikers.

[JennyD]

Thank you air, it is a question I would truely like an answer too. I went thru google scholar and have found nothing on it.

I have also tried to find the other part, they have to respond if not doing so would be misleading.

The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.

Pondsford and nord Davis in particular.

If you are talking about anyone who writes A4V on their Tax Returns with an affidavit of fact that they are accepting for value, it is NOT true that they have come out ok, sometimes it takes a bit for the IRS computers to catch up, or someone to see the situation, but in the end the IRS will come after you with a vengeance...

Oh and then a lot of times they call law enforcement and you're in even more trouble..

I would tread very carefully when dealing with the Internal Revenue Service..

(but then again, judging by your posts, you seem like the type of person I have to throw some nice silver jewelry on every day..)

[Red Cedar PM]

The reason I ask is because people have sent letters to the IRS and not paid taxes and seem to have come out ok.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Didn't your mother ever teach you that?

I am aware of people who cheat on their taxes, but most of them get caught eventually either by the IRS or they get into some other kind of trouble because of their dishonesty (i.e., they lose their job, family, or other asset when someone finds out they are a tax cheat). The only people that I am aware of who consistently evade taxes and "come out okay" are those that deal only in cash. Of course, that would require you to:

1. Not perform work for or do business with any reputable company, as they would want to give you a W-2 or 1099 in exchange for said work / business
2. Forgo any social security, medicare, or various other government benefits
3. Not obtain any car loans, mortgage, credit cards, bank accounts, etc.
4. Still live with the Sword of Damocles over you and your family's head your entire life in case you did get caught

So basically you can live on a subsistence level with no safety net if that meets your definition of "coming out okay." Of course if that was the case you would probably be under the filing threshold anyway. But you'd be a great patriot!!!

[Dr. Caligari]

Yes, what is the moral duty to respond?

That phrase "moral duty to respond" comes from your quote from the Tweel case. The facts of that case and the context in which the quote appears make very clear what the court was referring to.

You did read the full opinion in Tweel before you posted that quote here, didn't you? So you of course know that Tweel had nothing to do with the IRS's failure to respond to someone's affidavit.

[fortinbras]

Some of the people who openly fail to file or pay the IRS turn out, on inspection, to be so threadbare that it's hardly worth the IRS's time and energy to try to squeeze them. Even the IRS enforcement does a little calculation on return on investment of its own labor. On the other hand, people with assets who openly defy the IRS - especially if they've gotten or made some publicity that might attract other people to the dark side, can expect to be on the IRS dance card.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Yeah, except that is not the case with ponsford. If you go to usa the republic website under the iris link, it has his letter to the iris as well as a per from the iris releasing a 30 year lien for over 1 million dollars.

Now why would they not try to take his stuff or throw him in jail?

Do you have to owe more then a million bucks or something?


While Nordic.Davis.might have been a racist from what I understand he was a patriot most of us could only hope to be. If the stories are true he was well liked and enjoyed many friends in law enforcement and supposedly help to end the Vietnam war( operation rolling thunder).

Google his pdf " pardon me but"

Also.Jenny, he did not write a4v on returns because after he found out the scam, he just did not send returns in.


I believe Andy said that while they do not have a duty to respond, any letter I send them would.go into my administrative record and would be shown to a jury, is that correct?

If so then some of the Davis per makes a little more sense now.