Question 1 discussion

[Jamie0331]

Question 7 discussion; Respondent throughout its response to Petitioner’s petition, used the
word “frivolous” regarding the position Petitioner takes on some of the issues, yet defaulted with
no reply or rebuttal to many other court cases supporting his allegations, including this court’s
previous rulings, and, in effect, are calling these same counter rulings as “frivolous.”
Good faith by Respondent would have been revealed had it addressed the many cites made on the issues which clearly stated what the controversy was, and answered it. The issue herein is, can
Respondent simply dismiss this court’s, and other court’s, previous rulings on the challenges
made? Respondent cited several past cases which used its favorite bias word, “frivolous,” yet not
one shred of evidence has ever been presented from those same court cases to prove in what
“way” the alleged controversy was “frivolous,” and in contradiction to the claims. Simply
“believing” something to be “so,” and stating it, doesn’t make it so, even in the courts, if it is
rebutted.
In other words, was there evidence in the cited court’s records that the courts had before them to
rule as “frivolous” the controversy in question? To Petitioner’s knowledge, these collective
challenges, with court evidence in support, have never been before said lower courts, and most, if
not all, were acting through presumption of “everyone knows that...” rather than requiring
evidence in fact to be provided to the courts. The use of a previous court’s ruling, that was itself
“frivolous,” and a void judgment with no evidence, is not evidence in fact.
If Petitioner’s court evidence is not considered or addressed, the very real conclusion that
Respondent has been acting under color of law for decades against the American people,
impoverishing and enslaving them, will go unheard. Respondent has steadfastly refused, over and
over again,1
to publically address the millions who are questioning these same things, thus, due process is simply being denied to Petitioner and all Americans through this taxation scheme.

[BBFlatt]

Another lie.

Form 1040 (2017 version) bears OMB control number 1545-0074 and the instructions include the required PRA notice.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

[Famspear]

….In other words, was there evidence in the cited court’s records that the courts had before them torule as “frivolous” the controversy in question?....

Wrong question. There doesn't need to be "evidence" of this kind. A frivolous argument is an argument not worthy of serious consideration.

If Petitioner’s court evidence is not considered or addressed, the very real conclusion that Respondent has been acting under color of law for decades against the American people, impoverishing and enslaving them, will go unheard. Respondent has steadfastly refused, over and over again....

That's BS. As is the rest of the rhetoric in your post.

Thank you for playing!

[Famspear]

Question 6 discussion; Respondent failed to provide lawful assessment despite Petitioner not
only requesting evidence of the same in past years in certified letter correspondences, but also in
the Tax Court and Appeals Court, which were ignored.....

Thanks, but that's gibberish.

Collect your thoughts.

The law is clear for any alleged lawful assessment against any American. (Internal Revenue Manual, Supra, Page m). Form 23C is used to officially assess tax liabilities.....

(The rest of the rant clipped.)

This is a version of the old "the IRS didn't show me a valid assessment" nonsense. The courts have rejected this over and over and over. You do not have a legal right to see the actual assessment document in order for you to owe the tax. Sorry, but that's it.

Thanks for playing!

[Famspear]

Question 5 discussion; Respondent is purporting itself, and has been for decades, to be an
agency of the U.S. Government, and yet denies being “an agency of the U.S. government” in its
own testimony. (Diversified Metal Products, Supra, Page g).

No, you're citing the old Diversified Metal Products case. In that case, a government lawyer incorrectly denied that the IRS was a government agency.

The IRS is both a bureau of the Department of the Treasury and a Federal government "agency." There is no legal requirement that the IRS prove that to your satisfaction.

The rest of the world is not here to persuade you that you are wrong. You are not a special snowflake.

But, thanks for playing!

[Jamie0331]

Question 8 discussion; Respondent is responsible to know its own laws, its own constitutional
limitations, and the original intent of Congress. Respondent should have shown more good faith
in dealing with Petitioner, and all Americans, (U.S. v. La Salle, Supra, Page u), in providing clear
lawful information rather than being silent in its fiduciary obligations. To do otherwise is clearly
fraud against Petitioner and all Americans. (McNally v. U.S., Supra, Page o).
This court chastised Respondent previously in its duty to provide information and ordered it to
not be silent “where it had a duty to act.” (U.S. v. Tweel, Supra, Page v). The courts are clear on
stopping arbitrary abuse of power. (United States v. Morton Salt Co., Supra, Page u). Clearly,
given evidence herein, Respondent has failed to comply with this court's ruling, and this suggests
ongoing multiple violations of 18 U.S.C., including 18 USC § 1342 and 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as well
as complete, willful, wanton disregard for the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

[Famspear]

Question 4 discussion; Respondent has been acting under the name “Internal Revenue Service,”
and promoting policies, punishment and propaganda under the same name all the while knowing,
or surely should have known, that this entity was “cancelled” in 2005, (TREASURY ORDER:
150-06, Supra, Page t), and yet the Respondent, et al, has been continuing to function under said
name, and to mislead Petitioner and the public, using the term “Internal Revenue Service,” or
“IRS.”
This brings up the obvious question... just what is this entity that is acting under the falsified
name of “IRS?” How can it so egregiously commit mail fraud under 18 USC § 1342 - “Fictitious
name or address,” among many other 18 U.S.C. violations under color of law?
Each piece of mail so sent out under the name “IRS” since 2005, and each agent doing so, is one
count of mail fraud and subjects them to criminal penalties. This includes original Summons documents to Petitioner’s business associates by IRS agents who can be named, as well as all the
courts named, and parties involved, raising the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, (RICO) violations -18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 , as well. Is this something the courts can simply
continue to ignore?

Completely wrong.

The term "Internal Revenue Service" is the correct legal name of the agency. We've already been through Treasury Order 150-06. You are posting duplicate nonsense that has already been debunked.

The idea that the name "IRS" is a "falsified" name is frivolous -- not worthy of serious consideration.

Also, do not re-post duplicate arguments.

If you continue to make duplicate posts, your material may be deleted without further warning.

[Jamie0331]

Question 9 discussion; The Tax Court, Appeals Court, named courts and Respondent failed to
prove the threshold issue of standing to assess deficiencies against Petitioner prior to ruling. All
challenges to standing were immediately made regarding Respondent’s authority and jurisdiction
to bring “deficiencies” against Petitioner, or others. However, burden of proof is on Respondent
to present in the record such proof when challenged, (Hagans, Supra, Page j), and on the courts to
“assure that standing exists,” (Summers, Supra, Page s), but all the courts erred in not viewing the
elements of this issue declared herein or requiring proof of standing from Respondent. This court requires proof of authority in assertions of power by anyone dealing with a person
claiming government authority. (Federal Crop, Supra, Page h), and that “no sanctions can be
imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.” (Standard v. Olsen, Supra, Page r).
“Mere good faith assertions of power” by the Respondent “have been abolished.” (Owens, Supra,
Page o). The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must
be proven. (Main, Supra, Page n). If the Respondent has standing (through jurisdiction and
authority) to bring deficiency assessments against Petitioner, or others, especially outside lawful
or constitutional channels, it is not of record.

[Famspear]

Question 2 discussion; Over the decades since the early 1900's, the definition for what is called
“income” has been distorted from original intent, and what was well known by the courts,
Congress, and the people.

(ranting clipped)

No, the meaning of "income" has not been distorted from "original intent."

Instead of posting long, goofy diatribes of gibberish, try posting one or two sentences at a time, with citations to whatever authority you believe you have.

Thanks for playing!

[Famspear]

Question 9 discussion; The Tax Court, Appeals Court, named courts and Respondent failed to
prove the threshold issue of standing to assess deficiencies against Petitioner prior to ruling.

Courts don't need to "prove" things to you. The Respondent (who is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue if you're in the U.S. Tax Court) doesn't need to "prove" that the government has "standing".

You are very, very confused about legal terms and concepts.

If the IRS issues a notice of deficiency to you and you file a Tax Court petition, the IRS has not "assessed" a deficiency -- not yet. THE WHOLE PURPOSE of allowing you to litigate in the U.S. Tax Court is to allow you to litigate the validity of the deficiency amount (1) without first paying the tax, and (2) WITHOUT THE IRS ASSESSING THE DEFICIENCY.

The ASSESSMENT does not come until AFTER THE TAX COURT CASE IS COMPLETED, BOZO!

"Standing" is a legal concept that has nothing to do with whether the IRS has the legal authority to issue a notice of deficiency or to assess a tax.

You're very confused about legal terms.

[Jamie0331]

Question 10 discussion; Respondent filed its response to Petitioner’s documents, claiming that
he failed to comply with Rule 34(b). Petitioner was confused by the Respondent’s failure to
provide response to the evidence presented, and with the focus alone on “Rule 34(b).” Petitioner
filed a motion for clarification on court jurisdiction, and Petitioner’s options, and for an
enlargement of time with the Tax Court, due to being provided an opportunity to file an
“amended” petition. This was not clear to Petitioner, and he asked for some basic clarification
regarding what constitutional standing the court had, if any, to address Petitioner’s constitutional
questions and challenges on Respondent standing and the issues, so he could properly prepare the
amended petition, or take other legal steps.
The court granted an enlargement of time, but Petitioner received no apparent ruling or response
from the court on the request for clarification. Petitioner, again, filed a second request for
clarification. Petitioner never received any apparent response from the court noticing him of any response to this as well, and thus, filed a “motion to compel ruling on request for clarification.”
Petitioner was denied this motion with no explanation. Petitioner later discovered that said
original motion for clarification and enlargement of time was immediately stamped as denied
upon initial filing in the court, but with no NOTICE of this to Petitioner of this decision, except
for granting the enlargement of time. (This seemed to be a part denial and part granting of the
same document. (See Tax Court docket documents). (Please also see question and discussion
#14 on improper notice, Page 26).
Respondent wanted to understand whether the court could or would address the constitutional
challenges presented. If the court could not, Petitioner would then have had the opportunity to
“amend” the Petition using, apparently, a line by line rebuttal to each and every aspect of the
deficiency, per Rule 34(b), or move for change of venue. However, the end result would be that it
all would have all been denied by Petitioner anyway, just as he stated in the beginning, and for
which he introduced evidence which should have preempted any Rule 34(b) compliance issue due
to threshold issues.
Petitioner believes this failure to respond to requests for clarification on basic issues of the court’s
constitutional jurisdiction to address constitutional questions raised, and Rule 34(b), in regard to
the original standing challenge which was completely ignored by the court, deprived Petitioner of
proper due process, especially when added to the previous errors. (Please see question and
discussion #12 on due process).
liable to file a 1040 form, but failed to provide any law, IR Code, or other lawful proof making
Petitioner personally liable to do so, despite almost 10 years of certified requests for same. The
courts have clearly stated that... presumption is NOT “a means of escape from constitutional
restrictions,” (Heiner, Supra, Page j), and has “never treated a presumption as any form of
evidence.,” (A.C. Aukerman, Supra, Page b). Presumption “cannot acquire the attribute of
evidence,” (Del Vecchio, Supra, Page f), and “may not be given weight as evidence,” (New York
Life Insurance Co. Supra, Page o). Simply put, “presumption” is a legal nullity in this, or any
court, and does not replace the burden of proof.
The IR Code's 64,000 pages is an amalgam of fractionated, distorted and obfuscated terms and
alleged requirements which has no clear statutory construction regarding Petitioner’s personal,
private liability to file a 1040 tax form. “Void for vagueness” doctrine applies in this case, unlike
clear statutory liability which is declared for alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxation, among
others. "Void for vagueness doctrine may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the
scope of the act . . . " (Winters v. New York, Supra, Page w), and such vague laws “suffer a
constitutional infirmity.” (Ashton, Supra, Page b).
The determination of whether a “statute is impermissibly imprecise, indefinite, or
incomprehensible, must be made in light of the facts presented,” (Buckley, Supra, Page d).
If the laws do not afford the average person the ability to discern what is actually expected, and
see how he is clearly affected by said law, that such “laws that do not are void for vagueness.”
(Grayned, Supra, Page i). The IR Code contains nothing regarding personal liability against Petitioner or most Americans.
Lastly, the courts have declared that if there is any doubt as to the construction of a statute, “the
doubt should be resolved in favor of the (alleged-JTM) taxpayer." (Hassett, Supra, Page j).
Doubts certainly exist herein and within the IR Code itself, as presented, especially since no
actual law has been presented on the record.

[Famspear]

Question 8 discussion; Respondent is responsible to know its own laws, its own constitutional
limitations, and the original intent of Congress. Respondent should have shown more good faith
in dealing with Petitioner, and all Americans, (U.S. v. La Salle, Supra, Page u), in providing clear
lawful information rather than being silent in its fiduciary obligations. To do otherwise is clearly
fraud against Petitioner and all Americans. (McNally v. U.S., Supra, Page o).
This court chastised Respondent previously in its duty to provide information and ordered it to
not be silent “where it had a duty to act.” (U.S. v. Tweel, Supra, Page v). The courts are clear on
stopping arbitrary abuse of power. (United States v. Morton Salt Co., Supra, Page u). Clearly,
given evidence herein, Respondent has failed to comply with this court's ruling, and this suggests
ongoing multiple violations of 18 U.S.C., including 18 USC § 1342 and 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as well
as complete, willful, wanton disregard for the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Yada yada yada. More gibberish.

Jamie, make your point. Come to a conclusion. State, in one or two short sentences, what you are driving at.

[Famspear]

Question 10 discussion; Respondent filed its response to Petitioner’s documents, claiming that
he failed to comply with Rule 34(b). Petitioner was confused by the Respondent’s failure to
provide response to the evidence presented, and with the focus alone on “Rule 34(b).” Petitioner
filed a motion for clarification on court jurisdiction, and Petitioner’s options, and for an
enlargement of time with the Tax Court, due to being provided an opportunity to file an
“amended” petition. This was not clear to Petitioner, and he asked for some basic clarification
regarding what constitutional standing the court had, if any, to address Petitioner’s constitutional
questions and challenges on Respondent standing and the issues, so he could properly prepare the
amended petition, or take other legal steps.
The court granted an enlargement of time, but Petitioner received no apparent ruling or response
from the court on the request for clarification. Petitioner, again, filed a second request for
clarification. Petitioner never received any apparent response from the court noticing him of any response to this as well, and thus, filed a “motion to compel ruling on request for clarification.”
Petitioner was denied this motion with no explanation. Petitioner later discovered that said
original motion for clarification and enlargement of time was immediately stamped as denied
upon initial filing in the court, but with no NOTICE of this to Petitioner of this decision, except
for granting the enlargement of time. (This seemed to be a part denial and part granting of the
same document. (See Tax Court docket documents). (Please also see question and discussion
#14 on improper notice, Page 26).
Respondent wanted to understand whether the court could or would address the constitutional
challenges presented. If the court could not, Petitioner would then have had the opportunity to
“amend” the Petition using, apparently, a line by line rebuttal to each and every aspect of the
deficiency, per Rule 34(b), or move for change of venue. However, the end result would be that it
all would have all been denied by Petitioner anyway, just as he stated in the beginning, and for
which he introduced evidence which should have preempted any Rule 34(b) compliance issue due
to threshold issues.
Petitioner believes this failure to respond to requests for clarification on basic issues of the court’s
constitutional jurisdiction to address constitutional questions raised, and Rule 34(b), in regard to
the original standing challenge which was completely ignored by the court, deprived Petitioner of
proper due process, especially when added to the previous errors. (Please see question and
discussion #12 on due process).
liable to file a 1040 form, but failed to provide any law, IR Code, or other lawful proof making
Petitioner personally liable to do so, despite almost 10 years of certified requests for same. The
courts have clearly stated that... presumption is NOT “a means of escape from constitutional
restrictions,” (Heiner, Supra, Page j), and has “never treated a presumption as any form of
evidence.,” (A.C. Aukerman, Supra, Page b). Presumption “cannot acquire the attribute of
evidence,” (Del Vecchio, Supra, Page f), and “may not be given weight as evidence,” (New York
Life Insurance Co. Supra, Page o). Simply put, “presumption” is a legal nullity in this, or any
court, and does not replace the burden of proof.
The IR Code's 64,000 pages is an amalgam of fractionated, distorted and obfuscated terms and
alleged requirements which has no clear statutory construction regarding Petitioner’s personal,
private liability to file a 1040 tax form. “Void for vagueness” doctrine applies in this case, unlike
clear statutory liability which is declared for alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxation, among
others. "Void for vagueness doctrine may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the
scope of the act . . . " (Winters v. New York, Supra, Page w), and such vague laws “suffer a
constitutional infirmity.” (Ashton, Supra, Page b).
The determination of whether a “statute is impermissibly imprecise, indefinite, or
incomprehensible, must be made in light of the facts presented,” (Buckley, Supra, Page d).
If the laws do not afford the average person the ability to discern what is actually expected, and
see how he is clearly affected by said law, that such “laws that do not are void for vagueness.”
(Grayned, Supra, Page i). The IR Code contains nothing regarding personal liability against Petitioner or most Americans.
Lastly, the courts have declared that if there is any doubt as to the construction of a statute, “the
doubt should be resolved in favor of the (alleged-JTM) taxpayer." (Hassett, Supra, Page j).
Doubts certainly exist herein and within the IR Code itself, as presented, especially since no
actual law has been presented on the record.

Wrong.

And, if you can't write a coherent argument or make a coherent point in one or two sentences, you will not be taken seriously.

But, thank you for playing!

[Duke2Earl]

Jamie...

You have not posted a single thing worthy of discussion yet. People have been claiming the nonsense you post over and over and over again for years. They have lost each and every time in court. No federal court has EVER held that individuals are not liable for income tax. Period.

[Jamie0331]

Question 12 discussion; Due process is the right to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to
have the “right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right
in the matter involved,” and if presumption is the evidence basis of alleged facts, then “this is not
due process.” (Black's Law Dictionary, Supra, Page b).
The Tax Court and Appeals Court showed extreme bias against Petitioner, and this court affirmed
that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” (Levine, Supra, Page n). Petitioner filed for
recusal of judges twice on this issue, and once, it was apparently granted, (see Tax Court docket
showing transfer) but this changed nothing showing any attempt at “justice” in this instant case.
The courts have ruled that only if it appears “beyond doubt” that the plaintiff can “prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,” can the courts dismiss the case or
ignore the evidence. (Conley, Supra, Page e). Petitioner has a plethora of evidence herein and
presented to all the lower courts, but believes “fraud on the court” has occurred because proper
procedures and compliance to law were not complied with. (Bulloch, Supra, Page d). Furthermore, this court stated that not being able to be heard in the courts on the matter in
controversy, and Petitioner having to refuse to comply with some alleged duty in order to be
heard “runs afoul of due process.” (Schulz, Supra, Page q).
Because the lower courts, for many decades, have consistently ignored, denied and refused to
review the entire evidence record, they have thereby denied due process to the people.
(Kazubowski, Supra, Page m). Only through NOT complying with alleged “laws” was this able
to be brought to this point before the Tax Court, Appeals Court, and now before this Supreme
Court, where the Respondent claims “answers” would be provided, but haven’t been thus far, but
where “fundamental fairness and substantial justice” should occur. (Vaughn, Supra, Page v).
No required answers from Respondent forced this poor utilization of judicial economy. This
court has stated that the courts are free to disagree with the administrative enforcement actions if
a substantial question is raised. (United States v. Morton Salt Co., Supra, Page u). Clearly
substantial questions have been raised in the 9 courts to date, yet no supported answers have been
forthcoming.
“Fundamental fairness and substantial justice” was denied Petitioner by every named lower court
despite being a constitutional right guaranteed Petitioner by the 14th Amendment which prohibits
the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving “any” (See question 15, Page 28)
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Respondent is attempting to
deprive Petitioner of property, even presently, despite this case still in the courts, via several
NOTICE OF LEVY statements being received by Petitioner since this case was initiated. One set s in conflict with alleged “deficiency” notices now before this court. Respondent doesn’t know
what is going on with its own procedures and figures, and should be frozen from ANY action
against Petitioner. Additional proof documentation can be provided to the court.

[Jamie0331]

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06, SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005. REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06,
dated July 9, 1953. “The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be
known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled.”

Where is your proof of this not being correct?

[Jamie0331]

https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of- ... 50-06.aspx

[Jamie0331]

You do realize that these discussions are from the U.S. Supreme Court. Thru-motion for ORDER | Direct Tax | United States Constitution?

[Famspear]

You do realize that these discussions are from the U.S. Supreme Court. Thru-motion for ORDER | Direct Tax | United States Constitution?

No, they're not. They may be from a document that someone filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. They're not statements by the United States Supreme Court.

[Famspear]

No, that's just a link to the source document. The source document does not say what you claim it says, nor does it mean what you claim it means.