Warning: include(/hermes/bosweb/web227/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-base.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /hermes/bosnaweb03b/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache.php on line 63

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/hermes/bosweb/web227/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-base.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php-5.2.17/lib/php') in /hermes/bosnaweb03b/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache.php on line 63

Warning: include_once(/hermes/bosweb/web227/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/ossdl-cdn.php) [function.include-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /hermes/bosnaweb03b/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache.php on line 80

Warning: include_once() [function.include]: Failed opening '/hermes/bosweb/web227/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/ossdl-cdn.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php-5.2.17/lib/php') in /hermes/bosnaweb03b/b2040/ipw.freedivo/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache.php on line 80
Why Not Arm Yourself to the Teeth for Your Collection Due Process Hearing? | Legalbears Blog Forum

Why Not Arm Yourself to the Teeth for Your Collection Due Process Hearing?

Posted on: January 6, 2010 by: admin

IRS Terminator Overview 1: Give the IRS a New Year They Will Never Forget!

Meet the IRS at your Collection Due Process Hearing armed to the teeth with non-frivolous arguments that put IRS personnel in fear for their jobs & for their own criminal prosecution. This combination package provides you with much of what you need to accomplish this. Get prepared to argue that the IRS must withdraw their lien in your CDPH.

Give the IRS a New Year They Will Never Forget!

http://www.irsterminator.com This combination package includes my IRS Terminator package; the fastest & most effective way to stop an IRS levy. It also includes my http://www.irslienthumper.com package; the best administrative arguments to make to remove or withdraw an IRS lien. It’s best to know this stuff before you get involved in a Collection Due Process Hearing. Order this combination package out of my shopping cart.

Whip Up on the IRS by Scouting Them First both Inside & Out!

This combination package incorporates my online legal research video to help you figure out what tricks the IRS used to prevail over opponents in the past. It also incorporates the Golden FOIAs to help you figure out whether the IRS really did follow all the required steps while trying to collect money from you. Whether the IRS followed all the steps is the best issue to raise in a Collection Due Process Hearing because most likely they have not which invalidates their actions. Order this combination package out of my shopping cart.

Part 2 of this post is here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be Sociable, Share!


19 Responses to “Why Not Arm Yourself to the Teeth for Your Collection Due Process Hearing?”
  1. Richard Deerfield says:

    What happens if I do not file Fed. or State this year? I’ve been out of work since May and barely surviving off unemployment insurance, can’t afford any withholding, I know I’m going to be liable for thousands I don’t have. I’m thinking of just not filing at all (never done that before).


  2. admin says:

    If you are unemployed, no one is going to send a reporting form to the IRS, would they? If the IRS doesn’t get a reporting form they shouldn’t have a problem. If they send you a letter saying, “Where is your return?” Just write them back and say I was unemployed and didn’t make anything. Another option is to send them a statement instead of a return telling them there is no return because you weren’t working. Look at 26 USC § 6011 or 6012 for the statement option mentioned in statute.

  3. Frankie Harper says:

    First, let me say that I did read most of this site! But I am still of the opinion that if the IRS comes after you, ALWAYS ARGUE JURISDICTION FIRST!!!, THEN ADDRESS THE ISSUES AS YOU OUTLINE ON THIS WEBSITE.


  4. Frankie Harper says:

    ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: about five years ago I did not file a 1040 form and asked the IRS to show me the law that required me, a sovereign citizen of the state of Arizona, to file a 1040 form, as I did not engage in the selling of alcohol, Firearms or tobacco and some form of Gambling. Also i am not a resident of Washington D.C. or one of the outlying islands or US possessions.

    I have refused to contract with them.

    I asked them show me in the law where they (IRS) had JURISDICTION over me. It has been five years and they have never to this date, provided me with the law It’s always under advisement. Wonder why it take them five years to answer a simple letter. I am not against paying my fair share if they have jurisdiction and the law says so.

    Please comment!!

  5. admin says:

    Frankie, nobody is getting invited to a Collection Due Process Hearing unless they already made a jurisdictional statement by giving an IRS collection agent, i.e., an employer or someone they have contracted with either a Social Security Number or an Employer’s Identification Number (EIN). People have the hardest time believing they can exist or do business without those numbers. They don’t recognize, or are unwilling to deal with the fact that, further down the road when they try to argue jurisdiction they will be perceived by anybody in the know in the IRS as talking out of both sides of their mouth. Nobody is going to say to them, ‘You have a Social Security Number, don’t you?’ The whole system was set up like this on purpose. My position is, you won’t have to make a jurisdictional argument if you don’t give the collection agents (employers and parties you contract with) a number. If you quack like a duck, i.e., live outside their system, they will treat you like a duck. Most people are not clever enough to do this. The packages described in these videos is designed to help the people win who are already in the trap.

    Here’s where the Feds are winning by intimidation; businesses primarily exist to make money for their principles. They do not exist to make tax arguments that oppose the authorities on behalf of their employees. There are more profits to be had by turning their employees money over to the IRS and leaving the employee to expend their own time and resources arguing with the IRS. They look at somebody like Dick Simkanin, who is currently in prison for standing up for his employees, as silly, stupid, or both.

    For more on the jurisdictional statement made by giving out an SS# or EIN I recommend reviewing my buddy Chris Hansen’s site here: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/TIN.htm

  6. admin says:

    Frankie, I hope when you wrote them you properly spelled jurisdiction and sovereign. Here is an article about Dick Simkanin titled 129 Years For Asking to See The Law. Numerous people have asked to see the law, and like Simkanin, many of them have not liked the result.

    I recently posted to my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court a post that dealt with your issue of your claim of being “sovereign citizen of the state of Arizona”. I put a subject line on it of “Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States??“. It is a bunch of citations of cases where people made the assertion that they were a “sovereign citizen of the state of Arizona” and lost. At the conclusion of that post I wrote, “What this post is intended to do is apprise you of the reality of the situation. As is the case with most legal arguments we become familiar with respecting the income tax have already been tried by somebody in a real to life court situation with verifiable results. When dealing with the income tax it is not time to rely on word-of-mouth pop law; it’s time to know what the courts have already ruled and have a realistic plan based on knowledge for dealing with them. As for me, the Name Jahuwah [not the names J-sus, the Lord, or G-d] is a strong tower, the righteous runs into it and is untouchable. Proverbs 18:10.”

    When I first started dealing with these issues more than 20 years ago, I filed a withholding certificate with my employer with a high number of dependents. I based this on a case decision I got a hold of saying that it was OK to put a million dependents if you wanted. It was only when I went in search of additional support in the law library that I discovered that decision was a laughing stock in the courts and that there was no way I could rely on it for anything. I further discovered that they were jailing people for putting high numbers of dependents on those forms. I’ve grown tired of people who say, if you give them enough time the IRS will get you; so, I’m not going to say that to you. However, I am going to say that, after you review my Tips & Tricks post you are going to realize that you are a bit naive for believing that if you go to court, civil, criminal, or administrative and say, I’m a “sovereign citizen of the state of Arizona” that they will respond, ‘Oh, you’re one of those!? We’ll just have to let you go then. You win!’ This is why I like so much what attorney Larry Becraft has done on his site.

    I hope you recognize that court is a form of debate. Attorneys recognize, by virtue of their training, that, “Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience [be it judge or jury] are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.” They also recognize, “The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one’s ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to destroy; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or destroyed after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short. Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them. However one large misconception about debate is that it is all about argument; it is not.” The part that is not “all about argument” in any tax case, no matter what form it takes, is that the judge, the prosecutor, the IRS attorney, the collections agent, and the hearing officer all have a one trillion dollar interest in maintaining a system of fear and intimidation as it exists today, outside the law as it is written. They are not going to let someone who says I’m a “sovereign citizen of the state of Arizona” stand in the way of their living high on the hog and being able to borrow without restraint. We also need to recognize that the great majority of people who would sit as our jurors will never get to hear our jurisdictional argument unless we box them in in advance by doing something similar to writing a letter like you have. I don’t like your assumption that they kept the letter as part of the record and that they will not lose it on purpose. Also, I do not like your assumption that anyone read your letter and that it is somehow affecting the actions the IRS is taking respecting you. I get to many calls from people saying that they have responded, by certified letter, to everything the IRS sent and that they are still coming.

    If you want to see how your “no jurisdiction” argument has fared I suggest you read the annotations of 26 USC § 7421. I know from having read a lot of those cases that an injunction is available to restrain the collection of taxes if you can prove the IRS does not have jurisdiction. Can you predict how many times that has happened?

    Dr. Jacques Jaikaran, author of Debt Virus: A Compelling Solution to the World’s Debt Problems, whom I met and enjoyed the company of at Rightway Law Frontline Master’s Symposiums, told me when he was criminally charged in essence, I can beat this on the jurisdiction issue. He was convicted, lost his license to practice medicine, and went back to jail after he got out because he failed to earn enough money for the court.

    My point; let’s don’t be naive. Let’s recognize that like good Boy Scouts we must be prepared. Packages like the one described in the videos in this post are designed to better prepare us for the reality of the situation. The better prepared we are; the less naive we are, the more likely it is that we will prevail should the need arise.

  7. Bill says:

    After years of study everything points to this being a rights issue and not merely a tax issue. First, look at the court being used. It is an Art 4 territorial court (USDC) and not an Art 3 (Dist Court of the US) which is a judicial common law court. It can only be used to enforce fed statutes and codes upon federal citizens. It has no power over true state citizens in the several states. The question should be then, just whom does the constitution allow the gov to claim as fed / US Citizens? To understand this one needs to research the issue of fed citizenship.

    Federal citizenship was a creation of the 14th amendment. They are called US Citizens. What rights do US Citizens have? The SC says they have almost none since they have no access to any of the rights of any bill of rights.

    US Citizens would generally be the Indian, black and anyone born in any of the current unincorporated territories but when looking at what was done to the Japanese during it appears to include all non-white people.

    Research proves the constitutions were written by and for white people and they have never really been amended to bring other groups under the concept of full inalienable rights. Simply a historical fact that needs to be changed with amendments to all constitutions – state and fed.

    This will grate against gov programming but research proves that white state born people cannot be converted into US Citizens. They are citizens of the state in which they were born. Studying 14th case history proves all this.

    So, now we have a clear class of people that are constitutionally exempt from most United States laws. United States in legal pleadings excludes the several states. Do your own research.

    While the income tax, being an excise tax arising under the territorial powers of congress (the United States) applies to many people, we know it, like state income taxes, does not constitutionally apply to white state born people.

    This is where the jurisdictional challenge can be powerful. The gov knows this. Even under the 14th is the right to due process but it is not common law due process. Here you only have the power to examine the facts in a fair and unbiased proceeding. Even the jury is a privilege which the gov is planning on doing away with around 2020.

    Whether you are a person that some constitution forces into US Citizenship and thus a person pretty much without rights is a factual question that you have a right to have answered.

    It is the judges job upon your petition to compel the plaintiff (gov) to show you where in the constitution the power was granted to congress to impose territorial law, such as the income tax, upon you – or to impose US Citizenship upon you and deny you almost all rights originally secured to white state born people.

    Since everyone is being taxed as US Citizens and subjected to laws that often do not apply to them, they do not produce the proof even when it exists because that would give the game away.

    The catch 22 is that if the judge doesn’t do that or dismiss – he has denied you due process and the case can be attacked with a writ of error for a void judgment for denial of due process and failure to prove jurisdiction. This is bad behavior and can get the judge fired. Further, it is about the only way to set one up to be sued in their personal capacity for a personal injury to you.

    Under the 14th people only have three constitutionally secured rights. The 13th, 14th (due process) & the 15th. All else are mere civil rights which do not operate against the fed gov according to the Supreme Court.

    Do not take my word for this, spend a few years researching this on your own. In the meantime, until you know the score and are ready for a hard fight and have people to take care of your family if you are locked away by a corrupt court, I would pay if possible. It is unwise to go into a fight unarmed and unprepaired.

  8. admin says:

    I consider Bill’s comments to be well reasoned and researched out. The reality of the situation is that his argument has been made in the Article 4 courts and have been rejected. Not because they are invalid; mostly I think, because the parties that tried to make them thought that there would be no opposition in the debate, at least nothing valid, and that they could just utter the magic words, I’m not a citizen of the United States and their case would be dismissed.

    What I do not like about Bill’s comments is that he does not acknowledge all the prior rulings in the courts that go against what he says. It looks like he does not understand the concept of debate, i.e., there is going to be somebody on the other side who is going to making best efforts to defeat his position who is going to have a bunch of appellate court precedent to back the counter argument up.

    He is also taking the approach that the courts are like computers where if you put the right argument in you will get a right result out. I think he is overlooking that the courts do not want to publish decisions the rest of the courts laugh at and ridicule. Because they are so overburdened, courts take the short route to deciding cases. If a bunch of precedent already exists, that is already in their word processor from a prior case, a clerk will simply copy and paste and rule against Bill. I’m saying human nature must be taken into account.

    I just searched all the Federal Circuit courts and the US Supreme court for the phrase “free white” and there were 44 results indicating Bill’s argument will not be being heard for the first time.

    Tommy Cryer is the example I would follow. He did a brilliant job of setting up his issues of law via pre-trial motions. Then, he had a brilliant chess like strategy for trial involving the “Notorious Notebook” involving his trial strategy that the judge “ordered” him to turn over to the prosecution. The “Notorious Notebook” being ordered into the hands of the prosecutor is exactly what Tommy sought. Inside it were his strategies designed to completely take the wind out other side’s sails. And that is exactly what happened, the prosecution couldn’t put on an aggressive case because to do so would have exposed the whole scam. If Tommy lost, he had the wherewithal to appeal his issues of law, preserved in his pre-trial motions, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.

    As you may know, Tommy was acquitted of all charges.

  9. admin says:

    In the videos at http://irsterminator.com I talk about burden being on the movant and that the IRS is the movant in a collection due process hearing. Here are some cases that need to be looked into respecting this concept from my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court:

    The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant
    to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the
    pleading. It is also a requirement for the movant to allege and evidence the
    defendant had a duty beholding to the movant. A couple of cases applying the
    principals to tax issues include Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958)and
    Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. Shepardizing the cases, and following
    the headnote key numbers in the Federal Digest system, can readily locate
    additional cases.


  10. admin says:

    Someone at a Yahoo Group responded to my comments to Frankie by saying, “I don’t believe the IRS or any tax agency uses the SSN to establish jurisdiction, because jurisdiction was never established WITH the SSN.”

    Your beliefs may not be founded on sufficient research. Have you looked up who is ENTITLED to apply for an Social Security Number? Answer: UNITED STATES CITIZENS! I challenge you to prove me wrong on this from the Social Security Act. Everyone I know that stopped using the Social Security Number stopped having any problem with the IRS.

    Here: http://retirement.gov/online/ss-5fs.pdf

    I found the following quote as part of the application for a Social Security Number, “To apply for an original card, you must provide at least two documents to prove age, identity, and U.S. citizenship…” I’m telling you right now, there is nothing innocent about the use of the phrase “U.S. citizenship”. In the instructions with the application there is a section: “EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS The following lists are examples of the types of documents you must provide with your application and are not all inclusive.” In this section of instructions there is another section saying, “Evidence of U.S. Citizenship In general, you must provide your U.S. birth certificate or U.S. Passport.”

    If you press farther and research the statutes you will find no mention of state citizens: Search Title 42 of the US Code “Your query “state citizen” returned 0 results.”

  11. Alisa says:

    Since when has the birth certificate been evidence of U.S. citizenship? SSA says a lot of things on their application instructions, but they don’t cite any U.S. Code that says the birth certificate is evidence of U.S. citizenship. There’s not even a state law that says the birth certificate is evidence of state citizenship yet the birth certificate says you were born in the State of _______.

    The SSA application instructions are not law- they are mere rules or guidelines you MUST follow if you want the card/number. The instructions says the information you provide on the application is VOLUNTARY but they won’t issue a card to you if you don’t provide the information. How VOLUNTARY is that? The SSA is not in compliance with the The Privacy Act. The Privacy Act states that if the information requested is mandatory the government agency requesting the information has to cite the[ir] authority for requesting the information, but if the information is voluntary no citation is necessary because the information requested is not mandatory. The SSA cites their authority for requesting the information on the application instructions but the information they request is not mandatory- it is voluntary. They make the information appear mandatory (by citing an authority) when the application instructions says it is a VOLUNTARY. The fact of the matter is that the information is VOLUNTARY and by law (The Privacy Act) they should provide you a card and number without asking for personal information.

  12. Alisa says:

    Here’s what it says on the application instructions:

    “The information you furnish on this form is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information MAY prevent us from issuing you a SS number or card. ” (Emphasis added)

    It doesn’t say WILL prevent us from issuing you a SS number or card. It says MAY prevent us.

    You’d probably have to take them to court to get them to comply with The Privacy Act.

  13. Alisa says:

    SSA can have personal information about you in their computers but that information should remain PRIVATE- and your NAME should not be on the card, because they’ve always said that the card should not be used for identification purposes. If that was true, then why do they print your NAME on the card?

    If you lose the card they ask that you provide them adequate identification. If the i.d. satisfies them they’ll issue another card and your NAME should not be on the card. The only reason your NAME is on the card is because they are not in compliance with the privacy laws, which means that your personal information should stay private with SSA. Since your identity is not private they get to enact more laws for identity theft.

  14. Alisa says:

    Thinking more about why SSA prints your NAME on the card, I’ve decided they do this because your NAME is your property and when someone returns the card to SSA (if lost or stolen) suggests that not only the card/number is their property but your NAME on the card is also. The number alone would suggest that only the card/number is their property. But since SSA does not comply with the privacy laws, not only is the card/number their property, but your NAME on the card is also their property. The card/number/NAME belongs to SSA. Your NAME no was longer your private personal property when you failed to notice the SSA was not in compliance with the privacy laws and therefore your property [NAME] would not be kept private/confidential with them.

  15. Celeste says:

    Even though my husband works as contract labor (his is a repeat business) no ss#, no hire. How do you get around this?

  16. admin says:

    Alisa, this one sounds to far out there for me. Do you have any research to back up your assertions? Bear

  17. admin says:

    Once they have the number, it is virtually impossible to get them to turn loose of it. If I were you, I would send my husband out to look for another job and teach the new employer how to let him work without a number by doing a search in Google for these terms: famguardian.org “no Social Security” and studying the issue out. I would suggest learning to live life without the number. No, make that, I would suggest making a heart felt commitment to live without the number.

  18. Rosalinda Minner says:

    Thank you very much I found just the info I already searched everywhere and just couldn’t find. What a great website.