Class, Rodney Dale

[Jeffrey]

If one consents to giving the Court personal jurisdiction over their person that’s what would give the Court jurisdiction

So let's say you get charged with a crime, you tell the court you don't consent or give them jurisdiction, they throw you in jail anyways.

What then? What do you do if the court decides (as they always do), that they don't need your consent.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey notarial.

Yes you are correct, Rod Class’ stuff is not based in reality, as its legalese and he lost l every attempt the Government’s Court because he was there as a defendant (a debtor).

Rod tried to play lawyer, with real lawyers, in the legal society’s Court; using their words, phrases, Statutes, Acts, Codes, court cases, forms, etc., and he based his position and opinions on the legal society’s material.

What he should have done, is filed his own claim in law; common, and prosecuted his case in his Court and put the Government in the position of defendant.

You wrote: “he should be in prison where he belongs for the simple reason he is a dangerous lunatic.”

Specifically, who did he wrong and cause loss, injury or harm to? Dangerous to whom, especially by suggesting he be locked up forever and treated like an animal.

Yes, I’m simple, an idiot to the legal society’s gibberish and evenly a little foolish; while holding a belief based upon facts & evidence.

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275 ; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33.

The Government cannot license and therefore legalize something that is - in itself, unlawful in the first place.

Ex - The Nazi's created Statutes/Acts/Codes that legalized the killing of Jewish men, women & children. The soldiers response was - "We were just following orders. But the Nuremberg trials held them & their acts as unlawful, and put many of them to death.

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - IDIOT. A person who has been without understanding from his nativity, and whom the law, therefore, presumes never likely to attain any. Shelf. Lun. 2. See Insanity. State v. Haner, 186-Iowa, 1259, 173 N.W. 225 ; Jones V. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 752, 159 S.W. 568, 569.

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - IDIOTA. In the Civil Law. An unlearned, illiterate, or simple person. Calvin. A private man; one not in office. In Common Law. An idiot or fool.

My position is how & why, would I want to learn the legal society’s words, phrases, Statutes, Acts, Codes, court cases, forms because I’m not a lawyer, and therefore I’m not competent to play in their Courts. And thankfully, there is no law forcing me to have to understand their legalese gibberish.

[Famspear]

.....If one consents to giving the Court personal jurisdiction over their person that’s what would give the Court jurisdiction, not the fact that the date one was born, is recorded in a family Bible....

In the United States, where you are a defendant in a criminal case, the court has "personal jurisdiction" over you (in the sense in which you are thinking) regardless of whether you consent or not.

In the United States, where you are a defendant in a non-criminal case, the court has personal jurisdiction over you if you consent by filing an answer with the court without making what is known as a "special appearance."

In the United States, where you are a defendant in a non-criminal case, a court could also have personal jurisdiction over you, even if you do not consent. For example, if your only residence is in California, and someone sues you in a California state court, the California court will probably have personal jurisdiction over you, regardless of whether you consent or not.

[Famspear]

....The Government cannot license and therefore legalize something that is - in itself, unlawful in the first place....

In the first place, that statement is more gibberish.

In the second place, under the U.S. legal system, nothing is "unlawful in the first place." Things are unlawful because a legislature made them illegal.

A legislature can repeal a law it previously made -- a law that made something illegal. Where a legislature does that, the legislature is legalizing something that was unlawful.

You are completely wrong.

My position is how & why, would I want to learn the legal society’s words, phrases, Statutes, Acts, Codes, court cases, forms because I’m not a lawyer, and therefore I’m not competent to play in their Courts. And thankfully, there is no law forcing me to have to understand their legalese gibberish.

My position is you should want to learn what the law is, because such knowledge is generally beneficial to you. And the law doesn't belong to the "legal society" (by which I assume you mean those persons licensed as attorneys and counselors at law -- you know, lawyers, solicitors, etc.). In a sense, the law belongs to all of us.

If you have a legal problem, you don't need to be "competent" to "play in court." You just need to be bright enough to recognize that you need a lawyer to present your case. Let your lawyer "play in court" on your behalf.

You refer to real legal discourse as being "gibberish" to you. That is not surprising. Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has addressed this phenomenon with respect to American tax protesters. And, I believe what he says may apply to you as well:

Most tax protesters really don't understand what goes on in courts, or court opinions. They don't understand "due process" or "jurisdiction" or "burden of proof." To them, what goes on in court is just moving words around. It's incomprehensible and nonsensical to them, which makes it the same as magic.

Their response is to try to rearrange the words to find the right incantation, the right spell, to allow them to win. What they write is meaningless gibberish to us because what we write is meaningless gibberish to them. They respond in an imitative but nonsensical way because superficial manipulations of words is all that they can understand.

And when I say they can't understand, I'm not necessarily commenting on their intelligence, because it's really a combination of ignorance and emotional blockage. They don't really want to understand anything that means they're wrong, so they don't really try to understand.

--Daniel B. Evans, June 19, 2009.

More from Daniel B. Evans:

The reason that tax protesters write gibberish is that they don’t understand basic legal concepts like jurisdiction, due process, or common law, and frequently misapply the meanings of even ordinary words like “income” and “includes.” Combine that kind of ignorance with self-righteous anger towards the entire legal system and delusions of literacy, and the result is usually an indecipherable tapestry of legal jargon woven together into an unintelligible mess.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey Jeffrey.

If I was charged with a crime, I would tell the court that - 'I, a man Jay, am here and the person is present; by Special Appearance'.

This is the proper way to deal with jurisdiction.

Then I would say - "I require pen & paper and a leave of Court, to properly answer the Court."

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - REQUIRE. To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel, request, need, exact. Beakey v. Knutson, 90 Or. 574, 174 P. 1149, 1150. Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Page, 65 OkI. 101, 164 P. 116, 117, L.R.A.1918C, 1; State ex reI. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 124 P.2d 768, 773.

They can use force and/or violence since they have guns, tasers, pepper-spray, nightsticks, etc., yes, they can throw me in jail. That's doesn't mean they are or more to the point, acting lawfully.

For example, its the same way if I was to use force and/or violence to rape you and then to physical detain you in my basement. Anyone can force another to do something against their will, that doesn't mean they are right, nor that there isn't a remedy.

Might doesn't make anything right.

You wrote: "What then? What do you do if the court decides (as they always do), that they don't need your consent."

I would sue then in law; common.

But the bigger question is - 'Do you believe that the Government has the authority to do whatever it wants, especially without some type of lawful process?'

If the answer is yes, then that's a terrifying proposition!!

Jay

[Famspear]

Hey Jeffrey.

If I was charged with a crime, I would tell the court that - 'I, a man Jay, am here and the person is present; by Special Appearance'.

This is the proper way to deal with jurisdiction.

Incorrect, at least in the United States. The concept of a "special appearance" applies in civil cases, not criminal cases.

Then I would say - "I require pen & paper and a leave of Court, to properly answer the Court."

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - REQUIRE. To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel, request, need, exact. Beakey v. Knutson, 90 Or. 574, 174 P. 1149, 1150. Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Page, 65 OkI. 101, 164 P. 116, 117, L.R.A.1918C, 1; State ex reI. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 124 P.2d 768, 773.

They can use force and/or violence since they have guns, tasers, pepper-spray, nightsticks, etc., yes, they can throw me in jail. That's doesn't mean they are or more to the point, acting lawfully.

For example, its the same way if I was to use force and/or violence to rape you and then to physical detain you in my basement. Anyone can force another to do something against their will, that doesn't mean they are right, nor that there isn't a remedy.

Might doesn't make anything right.

"They" are right -- but not because they can use force. They are right because "they" obviously understand the law and know how to use it properly. You do not.

But the bigger question is - 'Do you believe that the Government has the authority to do whatever it wants, especially without some type of lawful process?'

If the answer is yes, then that's a terrifying proposition!!

Take a deep breath.

Exactly who is claiming that the Government (the United States government, or a state government in the United States) has the authority to do whatever it wants? Who is claiming that the government does not need to afford people with "lawful process"?

If you give an example, we can discuss it.

[Jeffrey]

They can use force and/or violence since they have guns, tasers, pepper-spray, nightsticks, etc., yes, they can throw me in jail.

So what's the point of using your magic words in court if they're just going to ignore you?

I would sue then in law; common.

And they'd throw out your lawsuit like they have with every guy who has tried that, including Karl Lentz who you seem to be parroting.

The courts don't have to follow your rules, you've got no way of forcing them to.

[Famspear]

The courts don't have to follow your rules.......

That's a key point that I think "jay" is missing. Jay seems to think that his own rules are the rules that the courts should follow. He doesn't understand (or refuses to accept) the real law, and he has come up with his own set of rules -- based on gibberish he found on the internet.

[rogfulton]

Hey Jeffrey.

If I was charged with a crime, I would tell the court that - 'I, a man Jay, am here and the person is present; by Special Appearance'.

This is the proper way to deal with jurisdiction.

Then I would say - "I require pen & paper and a leave of Court, to properly answer the Court."

Black’s Law 4th Ed. - REQUIRE. To direct, order, demand, instruct, command, claim, compel, request, need, exact. Beakey v. Knutson, 90 Or. 574, 174 P. 1149, 1150. Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Page, 65 OkI. 101, 164 P. 116, 117, L.R.A.1918C, 1; State ex reI. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 124 P.2d 768, 773.

They can use force and/or violence since they have guns, tasers, pepper-spray, nightsticks, etc., yes, they can throw me in jail. That's doesn't mean they are or more to the point, acting lawfully.

For example, its the same way if I was to use force and/or violence to rape you and then to physical detain you in my basement. Anyone can force another to do something against their will, that doesn't mean they are right, nor that there isn't a remedy.

Might doesn't make anything right.

You wrote: "What then? What do you do if the court decides (as they always do), that they don't need your consent."

I would sue then in law; common.

But the bigger question is - 'Do you believe that the Government has the authority to do whatever it wants, especially without some type of lawful process?'

If the answer is yes, then that's a terrifying proposition!!

Jay

Jay, take a look at my signature block below the line.

While it is a quote from an American President, the legal systems on both sides of the border are close enough that I am willing to bet the sentiment applies both places.

[Pottapaug1938]

Jay -- if I were unlearned in a certain kind of knowledge -- say, physics, I would look to those who are experts in the field and trained in the scientific method if I wanted to increase my knowledge. I would NOT surf the Internet and click on any site which seemed like it was relevant; and I would NOT rely on quotes from old treatises and reference materials on physics without making sure that what I saw was 1) relevant to my question and 2) still scientifically valid -- i.e., not overruled by later discoveries in physics.

You are following the rocky trail followed by so many of your kind who come here, "just asking", and argue a point using word salad just as you are now doing. This site is populated by attorneys, tax professionals and other people well educated in their chosen field; and most of us are pretty god at spotting legal word salad which, to paraphrase an earlier comment, is too far "out there" to merit a rebuttal which, among other things, might make the proponent feel like the argument has some colorable merit (you'll hear us mention the Crain and Wnuck decisions in this context). The proposition that you can "sue then in law; common" to stop a criminal case against you in its tracks is a perfect example of just how clueless you are when it comes to understanding the law. You have had the true nature of common law explained to you by people who know it well; so from here on in I will have to assume that, if you continue along this line of argument, you are nothing less than our latest troll du jour and merit no further responses.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey Famspear.

Umm, legal / lawful / illegal / unlawful are (4) words, with very different meanings.

There are no synonyms in law, especially in contract law – ‘shall’ & ‘must’ are not the same words.

No, the Government cannot license something that is in itself, unlawful.

You are aware that before the invention of the automobile, driving was being performed across the country?

Cowboys used to drive the cattle to the market traffic (commerce), which was 400+ miles away.

Did these cowboys have a license? No, off course not, as it was lawful.

Today, by licensing this same activity, that in no way takes from it being lawful since.

A Government license is the granting of a privilege, while performing a function of government.

Ex – Walmart grants the privilege to its stock receivers of driving a forklift, with a Walmart forklift license. That doesn’t stop that some man from driving a forklift at his second job or at home, that license is only to be used when performing a function of the grantor of the license.

You wrote: “My position is you should want to learn what the law is, because such knowledge is generally beneficial to you. And the law doesn't belong to the "legal society" (by which I assume you mean those persons licensed as attorneys and counselors at law -- you know, lawyers, solicitors, etc.). In a sense, the law belongs to all of us.”

Let’s see – I go into Court & submit paperwork siting Smith vs Smith, Johns vs Keating & Ford vs USA.

What is the Judge going to say – “Jay, that’s your opinion and as you are not licensed, your opinion lacks merit.”
What are you going to say: “Jay, you are completely wrong.”

I could try to learn legalese & procedure until I’m blue in the face, if I’m not a Bar member, everything I do is just an opinion without merit. That’s the reason why wish to remain an idiot, I am deemed incompetent to play their game, and as you know the incompetent cannot be tried. Yes, incompetent was a legal and a common meaning.

You wrote: “You just need to be bright enough to recognize that you need a lawyer to present your case. Let your lawyer "play in court" on your behalf.”
Umm, you are aware that your well-being is the 4th position of a lawyer’s duties right?

1st duty – To the Bar society
2nd duty – To the Court
3rd duty – To the public at large
4th duty – To his client

If you are paying for a lawyer, for whatever the matter – you would feel comfortable to being the 4th concern on your large list of duties?

Yes, I have read Daniel B. Evans reference to ‘tax protesters’ and yes he is correct when he stated – “Most tax protesters really don't understand what goes on in courts, or court opinions. They don't understand "due process" or "jurisdiction" or "burden of proof." To them, what goes on in court is just moving words around.”

But as for the – “It's incomprehensible and nonsensical to them, which makes it the same as magic.”

This I don’t agree with, it’s the thing about human nature, people will read into things, and specifically into tax & IRS related papers, more than is what is actually written on the paper.

Ex – When people get IRS Notices, they believe the IRS is coming against them, when in fact is the US Attorney that is actual party they are interacting with in Court.

I have read these people papers and no where on the paper does it read IRS, but they keep telling me it’s the IRS coming after them. I see their name & US Attorney, it’s a tax issue, but no where is the phrase IRS.

Yes, Daniel has it spot on with – “Their response is to try to rearrange the words to find the right incantation, the right spell, to allow them to win. What they write is meaningless gibberish to us because what we write is meaningless gibberish to them. They respond in an imitative but nonsensical way because superficial manipulations of words is all that they can understand.”

Again yes – “And when I say they can't understand, I'm not necessarily commenting on their intelligence, because it's really a combination of ignorance and emotional blockage. They don't really want to understand anything that means they're wrong, so they don't really try to understand.”

The biggest problem I see is this because people do not understand:

1) Paying taxes is voluntary
2) On will go to jail, If one does not pay their taxes

Yes taxes are voluntary, the problem people have is they believe they have to pay taxes, they just need to change there belief and have the IRS (who has the burden of proof) prove they owe taxes, instead of jumping to that conclusion.

Tax protesters argue over an imaginary tax amount, instead of having the IRS prove their tax request is valid & verified.

Mr. Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,:

“Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as day and night.” - Feb. 3 thru Mar. 13, 1953

1971, the following quote was found in the IRS instruction booklet for Form 1040:

“Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe.”

The real reason tax protesters write gibberish is that they don’t understand basic concept of stopping the use of their own unfounded presumptions, that they are using when dealing with the IRS.

Some is ignorance, some self-righteousness, some is anger towards an imaginary foe, as they see the IRS as some big monster to fear, when they should just stop, think and ask those in the IRS a few questions.

Here are a few questions I would ask the IRS:

1) Please define ‘income’?
2) Please define ‘taxable income’?
3) Is there ‘untaxable income’?
4) Is there a difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
5) If yes, specifically what is the difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
6) Have you determined the amount of tax you believe I owe?
7) Would you please sent me an itemized True Statement & a True Bill, signed under Full Commercial Liability that the tax you claim is owed, is calculated to the penny and if which you have first-hand personal knowledge of and are available to testify to under oath or affirmation in open court?

Then follow up with:

Dear IRS. After you have answered & presented all of the above required information and materials, I would be happy to pay you every single penny, as soon as you provide me with the True bill & itemized Statement. Thank-you.

*If the IRS has a tax amount great, but I would make them prove it first.

Jay

[Jeffrey]

Here are a few questions I would ask the IRS:

Before you get ahead of yourself, what exactly happens if the IRS doesn't answer? You don't have the ability to punish them for failing to answer your questions.

You're basically suggesting that the IRS is like some Dragon in a fairy tale that if you just stump it with a riddle they can't solve they'll leave you alone and go away. "Wait before you eat me Mr. Dragon, answer my riddle!"

IRS doesn't have to play your games.

[Famspear]

Hey Famspear.

Umm, legal / lawful / illegal / unlawful are (4) words, with very different meanings.

There are no synonyms in law, especially in contract law – ‘shall’ & ‘must’ are not the same words.

You don't know what you're talking about.

No, the Government cannot license something that is in itself, unlawful.

That's just more gibberish.

You are aware that before the invention of the automobile, driving was being performed across the country?

Cowboys used to drive the cattle to the market traffic (commerce), which was 400+ miles away.

Did these cowboys have a license? No, off course not, as it was lawful.

Today, by licensing this same activity, that in no way takes from it being lawful since.

Baloney.

A Government license is the granting of a privilege, while performing a function of government.

No. Not exactly. For example, a driver's license involves the grant of privilege, but my driving does not involve a function of government.

Ex – Walmart grants the privilege to its stock receivers of driving a forklift, with a Walmart forklift license. That doesn’t stop that some man from driving a forklift at his second job or at home, that license is only to be used when performing a function of the grantor of the license.

Thank you for sharing that with us, but you're still going nowhere.

You wrote: “My position is you should want to learn what the law is, because such knowledge is generally beneficial to you. And the law doesn't belong to the "legal society" (by which I assume you mean those persons licensed as attorneys and counselors at law -- you know, lawyers, solicitors, etc.). In a sense, the law belongs to all of us.”

Let’s see – I go into Court & submit paperwork siting Smith vs Smith, Johns vs Keating & Ford vs USA.

What is the Judge going to say – “Jay, that’s your opinion and as you are not licensed, your opinion lacks merit.”
What are you going to say: “Jay, you are completely wrong.”

I could try to learn legalese & procedure until I’m blue in the face, if I’m not a Bar member, everything I do is just an opinion without merit. That’s the reason why wish to remain an idiot, I am deemed incompetent to play their game, and as you know the incompetent cannot be tried. Yes, incompetent was a legal and a common meaning.

I still think you may need a lawyer at some point.

You wrote: “You just need to be bright enough to recognize that you need a lawyer to present your case. Let your lawyer "play in court" on your behalf.”
Umm, you are aware that your well-being is the 4th position of a lawyer’s duties right?

1st duty – To the Bar society
2nd duty – To the Court
3rd duty – To the public at large
4th duty – To his client

You actually got one partly right! At least, under Texas law....

For a person licensed as an attorney and counselor at law in Texas, the first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The second duty is to uphold the Texas Constitution.

The third duty is to honestly demean oneself in the practice of law.

And the fourth duty is to represent one's client to the best of one's ability. So, at least you got #4 correct!

If you are paying for a lawyer, for whatever the matter – you would feel comfortable to being the 4th concern on your large list of duties?

Yes. I would feel comfortable about that. If YOU don't feel comfortable about the fact that the lawyer's first duty is NOT to his client under our legal system, that's your problem.

Yes, I have read Daniel B. Evans reference to ‘tax protesters’ and yes he is correct when he stated – “Most tax protesters really don't understand what goes on in courts, or court opinions. They don't understand "due process" or "jurisdiction" or "burden of proof." To them, what goes on in court is just moving words around.”

But as for the – “It's incomprehensible and nonsensical to them, which makes it the same as magic.”

This I don’t agree with, it’s the thing about human nature, people will read into things, and specifically into tax & IRS related papers, more than is what is actually written on the paper.

Ex – When people get IRS Notices, they believe the IRS is coming against them, when in fact is the US Attorney that is actual party they are interacting with in Court.

No. When you receive an IRS notice, you are not interacting with United States Attorney or a Court.

I have read these people papers and no where on the paper does it read IRS, but they keep telling me it’s the IRS coming after them. I see their name & US Attorney, it’s a tax issue, but no where is the phrase IRS.

If you see the name of the U.S. attorney and you don't see the words "Internal Revenue Service," that's a different notice. In that case, the notice is not coming from the IRS.

This is not rocket science.

Yes, Daniel has it spot on with – “Their response is to try to rearrange the words to find the right incantation, the right spell, to allow them to win. What they write is meaningless gibberish to us because what we write is meaningless gibberish to them. They respond in an imitative but nonsensical way because superficial manipulations of words is all that they can understand.”

Again yes – “And when I say they can't understand, I'm not necessarily commenting on their intelligence, because it's really a combination of ignorance and emotional blockage. They don't really want to understand anything that means they're wrong, so they don't really try to understand.”

The biggest problem I see is this because people do not understand:

1) Paying taxes is voluntary
2) On will go to jail, If one does not pay their taxes

Yes taxes are voluntary, the problem people have is they believe they have to pay taxes, they just need to change there belief and have the IRS (who has the burden of proof) prove they owe taxes, instead of jumping to that conclusion.

As already explained in other threads over the past few years, the word "voluntary" in this context has more than one meaning. "Voluntary" in the context of "our voluntary tax system" refers only to the fact that people are expected to voluntarily file tax returns and pay taxes -- even though it is legally required and even though they can be punished, under the law, for not voluntarily complying.

This is not rocket science.

Tax protesters argue over an imaginary tax amount, instead of having the IRS prove their tax request is valid & verified.

In a non-criminal U.S. federal tax case, the government is not generally required to prove that the tax amount claimed by the government is the correct amount. In almost all cases, the legal burden of proof is on the taxpayer.

Mr. Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,:

“Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as day and night.” - Feb. 3 thru Mar. 13, 1953

1971, the following quote was found in the IRS instruction booklet for Form 1040:

“Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe.”

Again, none of that means that you're not required to by law to VOLUNTARILY do just what is described there.

The real reason tax protesters write gibberish is that they don’t understand basic concept of stopping the use of their own unfounded presumptions, that they are using when dealing with the IRS.

Some is ignorance, some self-righteousness, some is anger towards an imaginary foe, as they see the IRS as some big monster to fear, when they should just stop, think and ask those in the IRS a few questions.

No, the real reason tax protesters write gibberish is that they are trying to justify their own beliefs -- or actions.

Here are a few questions I would ask the IRS:

1) Please define ‘income’?
2) Please define ‘taxable income’?
3) Is there ‘untaxable income’?
4) Is there a difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
5) If yes, specifically what is the difference between ‘taxable income’ & ‘untaxable income’?
6) Have you determined the amount of tax you believe I owe?
7) Would you please sent me an itemized True Statement & a True Bill, signed under Full Commercial Liability that the tax you claim is owed, is calculated to the penny and if which you have first-hand personal knowledge of and are available to testify to under oath or affirmation in open court?

The IRS is not under a legal or moral obligation to answer those questions, or to have "first-hand personal knowledge" or to "testify under oath", etc., about your taxes.

Then follow up with:

Dear IRS. After you have answered & presented all of the above required information and materials, I would be happy to pay you every single penny, as soon as you provide me with the True bill & itemized Statement. Thank-you.

*If the IRS has a tax amount great, but I would make them prove it first.

No, you wouldn't. You cannot "make" the IRS prove it first.

[Famspear]

As I have written before:

When tax protesters argue that there is no legal obligation to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax based on the use of the word "voluntary" in some court decisions and other publications, the protesters are engaging in a fallacy sometimes called "whole word equivocation." Essentially, the government is using the word "voluntary" in one sense and the tax protesters are using the word "voluntary" in another sense.

The tax protesters are arguing that the government is using the term "voluntary" as an adjective to mean: "acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation" (per Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "Acting or performed without external persuasion or compulsion" (The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985)), or "Without legal obligation...." The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985).

But that's not what the government means by "voluntary" in this situation.

Instead, the government is using the term in the sense of "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "done by design or intention" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1312, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976)) or "Acting one one's own initiative" (The American Heritage Dictionary, p. 1355, Houghton Mifflin Co. (2nd ed. 1985)).

Clearly, a person can consent to do something which he is also legally obligated to do. The term "voluntary" in the context of filing a federal income tax return and paying the tax means that the individual consents to doing what he is legally obligated to do: To file his tax return by the due date and to pay his tax by the due date. As one commentator has pointed out, this is consent in the same sense that many (but not all) motorists voluntarily drive within posted speed limits and voluntarily stop where a stop sign is posted -- even when there is no other traffic nearby, and even when no policeman is nearby.

[Burnaby49]

The courts don't have to follow your rules.......

That's a key point that I think "jay" is missing. Jay seems to think that his own rules are the rules that the courts should follow. He doesn't understand (or refuses to accept) the real law, and he has come up with his own set of rules -- based on gibberish he found on the internet.

Thanks for leaving the "canadian" part out of his name. I suspect another Michael360 situation coming up eventually and I'd prefer not having the true north strong and free associated with it.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey Pottapaug1938.

The law & physics are to totally different topics.

Of course I leave the science to the experts in the field and trained in the scientific method, if I wanted to increase my knowledge.

But I don’t have a bunch of physicists telling me my opinions about physics are gibberish, just because I don’t have a Bar card and a membership to the lawyer’s club.

Ex – The Big Bang Theory, I have Christians asking me if I believe in the Big Bang. I say no, it’s not about belief, it’s simply the best scientific explanation. Along with the fact the universe wasn’t created, as the Big Bang was an expansion event – time/space and matter were created at the point to time though.

As compared to ‘law’ – it is merely someone’s opinion, the whole topic of ‘law’ is based upon someone else’s opinion – it’s strictly based on precedence.

No the problem isn’t word salad, it’s that ‘box of authority’ they are bound to work within, especially within the legal system.

I’ve talked to front line clerks, their response – “We can’t do that or We don’t do that sort of thing or Its not part of the procedure”, and the alike.

Question 1 - Are these Crain and Wnuck decisions you mention – Are these legal opinion of some type?
Question 2 – Is the common law available to me to use in Canada & the USA?
Question 3 – Would I be able to bring a verified claim into court, to be settled?
Question 4 – Am I bound to only filing some type of complaint into court?

And no its not my position to be condescending and demanding, sorry if it comes across as such.

Jay

[Famspear]

By the way, in a U.S. federal criminal tax case -- for tax evasion, for example -- the government DOES have the burden of proof.

In the case of federal tax evasion, the government must prove:

1. An unsatisfied, legally owed tax in a substantial amount, whatever that means (although the government does not have to prove the exact amount owed or the exact amount that the taxpayer attempted to evade or defeat).

2. an affirmative act, on the part of the taxpayer, constituting an attempt to evade or defeat either the assessment of the tax or the payment of the tax.

3. willfulness -- the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty -- a legal duty of which the defendant is AWARE (this is an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid legal defense). Generally, an actual belief that the law does not require the defendant to pay the tax does not negate willfulness. However, an actual GOOD FAITH belief that is based on a MISUNDERSTANDING caused by the complexity of the TAX law CAN negate willfulness.

A refusal to believe that the law is what the law is might be an actual belief, but such a belief could be validly rejected by the jury as not evidencing an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law.

Some kinds of actual beliefs might "work" for the defendant, while other kinds might not.

[Famspear]

....But I don’t have a bunch of physicists telling me my opinions about physics are gibberish, just because I don’t have a Bar card and a membership to the lawyer’s club....

That's not why you're being told your opinions are gibberish.

As compared to ‘law’ – it is merely someone’s opinion, the whole topic of ‘law’ is based upon someone else’s opinion – it’s strictly based on precedence.

No the problem isn’t word salad, it’s that ‘box of authority’ they are bound to work within, especially within the legal system.

Wrong again.

I’ve talked to front line clerks, their response – “We can’t do that or We don’t do that sort of thing or Its not part of the procedure”, and the alike.

Maybe they're right.

Question 1 - Are these Crain and Wnuck decisions you mention – Are these legal opinion of some type?

Yes, those are U.S. court decisions.

Question 2 – Is the common law available to me to use in Canada & the USA?

Not in the sense that you are thinking, I suspect. You can't just "choose" which form of law (common law versus statute versus treaty, etc.) that you want to use. If you want to win, you have to use only the law that applies.

For example, if you want to sue the United States of America for a U.S. federal tax refund, you have to use statutory law -- something called the Internal Revenue Code (along with the case law that interprets the statute of course). But, you can't just say "I think I'll use common law instead and just ignore the statute" and reasonably expect to win.

Question 3 – Would I be able to bring a verified claim into court, to be settled?

Depends on the kind of case. If you're suing someone in a state court over some amount that is due to you (let's say you did some plumbing work for someone and didn't get paid), you might or might not be able to win in court with a "verified claim". There is nothing "magical" about using a verified claim.

Question 4 – Am I bound to only filing some type of complaint into court?

You're bound to file whatever kind of pleading is required by the law as applied to the kind of case you want to file, whether it be a "petition" or a "complaint" or whatever. Depends on the kind of case.

[mrjaycanadian]

Hey Burnaby49.

No, I am fully aware that the Courts don't follow my rules, even moreso, I wouldn't even pretend they did.

Sorry to say it, but I fear the Courts don't have to follow any rules.......

I simply believe the Courts should at the very least follow their own rules of law.

As it has been explained to me, the Court is = A Prosecutor (the mover) and his (case), as it is his Court, he defines the rules of his Courts.

Examples:
- A Prosecutor in Family Court, would follow the rules of Family Court?
- A Prosecutor in Tax Court, would follow the rules of Tax Court?
- A Prosecutor in Bankruptcy Court, would follow the rules of Bankruptcy Court?

Aren't the above (3) examples true?

If I bring a proper claim into Court, and I move that claim under the rules setup in that Court, as I and my claim (the case) are the Court. Is that true or not true?

No the "canadian" part out of my name was picked back in the mid 90s, as I was Jay a Canadian - no conspiracy there, sorry!!

Just Jay here.

[fortinbras]

Prosecutors don't participate in Bankruptcy or Family Court. In Tax Court the govt is represented by a Treasury Dept lawyer but he is not a prosecutor because the Tax Court does not handle criminal cases.

Criminal cases about tax evasion or tax fraud are tried in the US District Courts, with Dept of Justice tax section lawyers as prosecutors.