Yesterday I shared...
Yesterday I shared some information with you, some of it is readily available and can be found online with just a simple search in any search engine. Conversely, there was some other information shared that isn’t quite that easy to get your eyes on.
One thing I failed to mention is that I’m not giving any legal advice and nothing I say should be considered as legal advice. Any information, ideas, or suggestions are strictly for entertainment purposes and to stimulate your thought processes.
With that "legal disclaimer"...
With that “legal disclaimer” in place I am going to expand just a little bit on the matter of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction as it relates to courts here in the USA to be more specific.
So just like I usually do we have to define some words that are going to be important in understanding what I’m saying.
All definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition
• Jurisdiction: The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.
There are several types of jurisdiction but the two types that the U.S. Tax Court must have in order to decide a case that is put before them to lawfully decide is “in personam” and “in-rem” so we need to define those next.
• In–rem and In-personam : In the Roman law, from which they are taken, the expressions”in rem” and “in personam” were always opposed to one another, an act or proceeding in personam being one done or directed against or with reference to a specific person, while an act or proceeding in rem was one done or directed with reference to no specific person, and consequently against or with reference to all whom it might concern, or “all the world.” The phrases were especially applied to actions; an actio in personam being the remedy where a claim against a specific person arose out of an obligation, whether ex contractu or ex malcficio. while an actio in rem was one brought for the assertion of a right of property, easement, status, etc., against one who denied or infringed it., again from Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition.
In layman’s terms in-rem is referred to as subject matter jurisdiction and in-personam is referred to as personal jurisdiction if that helps you understand it a little better.
So yesterday I...
So yesterday I told you that members of our Tuesday night conference call group were having real good success when initiating an action against the commissioner of the IRS in the US Tax Court.
Some of you might have some doubt as to having a case dismissed that the petitioner brought before the court at the request of the respondent would be a good thing for the petitioner. So I am going to try to explain it a little better and a little more in depth.
First of all...
First of all the IRS commissioner and his team of lawyers he has aren’t a bunch of dumb asses. But they also aren’t used to being the pursued party in court; they normally are the party in pursuit of our asses.
So turning the tables on them is not something they really know how to deal with. They would rather let some people go away from the income tax scheme than run the risk of having a case tried and lose, thus setting a precedent. That’s the first way of looking at it.
Personally I don’t fully buy into that line of thinking because there have been people who have won against the IRS in court with a jury deciding the verdict. I might also mention those were cases that the IRS brought to court and very rarely do they lose. In most instances the IRS charged the people with willful failure to file rather than tax evasion.
A case that...
A case that comes to mind on one who did win was the Federal Express pilot, Bernice Kugland I think was her name.
If not for a woman on that jury who kept insisting to the judge to provide them a copy of law she broke she would probably be behind bars in federal prison. Every time the jury made the request using notes to the judge from the jury deliberation room via the bailiff, a note would come back from the judge saying, “you have everything you need to decide the case”.
That one woman convinced the other eleven people on the jury that none of them could honestly vote guilty with good conscience since they couldn’t see the law for themselves and make a determination.
Somewhere on YouTube there is a video about that case and the defendant (Kugland) and the woman from the jury are on it explaining how the case and deliberations unfolded.
It’s a big gamble hoping you would get a juror who would understand their duty as a juror and would stand their ground. Let’s keep in mind that probably all twelve of those jurors paid income tax and would be of the opinion that Kugland should too.
Like I was...
Like I was saying, I don’t know that setting a precedent by losing is the reasoning. I believe it has to do with the jurisdiction just like the dismissals say, but for different reasons other than listed. I actually have a couple copies of the court orders of dismissals and have read them numerous times word for word.
Before I get...
Before I get to that though, we need to keep in mind that most people will hire an attorney or several attorneys to represent them in court. The court system is designed and revolves around money not justice; and the lawyers and judges want to keep it that way.
None in our group has used an attorney to file suit against the IRS commissioner.
Whether you know it not, by hiring an attorney to represent you you’ve admitted to the court that you are incompetent. Quite frankly; that is the only way the judge wants to see you in court because he knows that he can railroad you and your lawyer isn’t going to put up a fight.
Plenty of people...
Plenty of people do go it alone without an attorney and the judge can quickly determine the skills of the pro se respondent (or lack of skills) so that doesn’t scare the judge or the IRS since you most likely are there in a respondent (defendant) position.
The fact that a person will go against the IRS in their own person, coupled with initiating the suit and bringing up the failure on the part of the IRS to provide a letter of determination and notice of deficiency has to be downright scary for the court and the IRS.
Even the defense attorneys people hire to defend them don’t bring up the letter of determination and the notice of deficiency as a defense. The judge and the IRS have to be thinking, “what the hell else does this person know?”
I know this...
I know this is getting pretty lengthy and I should probably break it up into a couple of segments but knowing how my situation has been lately I don’t know how long it might be before I could finish it so I am going to press on. Thank you in advance for sticking it out with me.
So let's take...
So let’s take a look at one of those court orders, I’ve left off the top portion that has the member who filed the case and the docket number because I don’t feel comfortable sharing someone’s personal information.
Keep in mind that the "respondent" in this case is the Commissioner of the IRS.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On October 29, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or other notice of determination was issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 that would permit petitioner to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.
Although the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner failed to do so.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(Signed) Michael B. Thornton Chief Judge
ENTERED: MAY 11 2016
SERVED May 11 2016
So it’s real clear that the IRS didn’t send the petitioner the two statutory required items being the notice of deficiency or the notice of determination and that the IRS commissioner is wanting the case dismissed and that is what the IRS commissioner asked for.
Where it becomes...
Where it becomes a little “foggy” to me is that the IRS contends that by the IRS not sending those items the petitioner he can’t invoke the Courts jurisdiction.
I call bullshit on that, either the court has jurisdiction or it don’t; it isn’t contingent on what someone did or didn’t do with regard to the law.
So either the tax law is no good, or the court is no good, or could it be that the petitioner is no good? I am no legal scholar by any sense of the imagination and don’t claim to be but common sense tells me that in this scenario it is actually the petitioner that is “no good”.
By "no good"....
By “no good” I mean from the perspective of in personam jurisdiction. Remember (or go look again at in personam jurisdiction) it means having to do with a specific person. When you go to court with a lawyer you are not in personam so the court isn’t required to meet that standard of jurisdiction.
Standing on your own two feet alone in court by the way doesn’t necessarily make you in personam, you can be tricked into giving up that status and most courts try to do that all the time.
There is a whole...
There is whole lot at stake for the government in the form of tax revenue and all it would take is for one successful person acting on his own behalf (“in personam”) to force the US Tax Court to prove jurisdiction (which the court doesn’t have in my opinion) and it would be lights out on the IRS and collecting income tax. The Court and the IRS just can’t risk it; they’ve been put in a corner and have elected to take their blows from some formerly ignorant people are how I see it.
You can bet...
You can bet that the judges and the IRS had several meetings over this situation and what would be this best way out for the government.
I know some of you are asking, “but wait just a minute Sult, the court directed the petitioner to file an objection and he didn’t do it, why not?” and that is a perfectly good question.
I have even a better question, why would he object?
On the surface...
On the surface it looks like the petitioner lost his suit and that is just what the court and the IRS want you to think. That is why it is worded the way it is, but the reality is that either court lacks jurisdiction or the IRS does.
Keep in mind that this ruling was made final back in May of 2016 and the motion to dismiss was done in October of 2015. That is five years ago and here we are in October of 2020 and the Court is still turning out the same dismissals and nothing more has taken place against the petitioners in these cases.
Lack of jurisdiction...
Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction; is it really that important to have a definitive answer on whether or not it is the court that lacks jurisdiction or the IRS?
If the IRS hauls you into court they are taking you to the US Tax Court, and one of the two of them lacks jurisdiction or it could be both.
The point is that jurisdiction is everything and in order to have a chance at winning or at least a stalemate you have to be “in personam” when dealing with the IRS in court.
Again, this is not...
Again, this is not legal advice and it shouldn’t be interpreted as such. It is solely for entertainment purposes and so I can maybe gather a few HIVE for taking the time to write and post it.
Thanks for reading.
Until next time,
Sult
Don't forget; if you want your very own ‘Vote Guzbuck in 2020" t shirt or your own “Guzbuck..I’m good.” coffee mug then check out the guzbuck_shop here.
This here is a sticky wicket.
When you start getting into the court system, and what they consider law...
the only reasonable thing is to gather up all the lawyers and judges and put them on an island away from the rest of the world.
Larken Rose let the IRS take him to court, and although he proved his case, and the IRS failed to answer many, many questions, he was still sent to jail.
The reason is that the courts are all phoney.
There is only one American court, and that is the court of Import Export.
Every other so called "court of law" is a actually a court of the banks.
And it is a scam, just like our money.
What really makes this horrible is that it was all set up so that rich people could bludgeon little people. Little people can't afford court. (even when they are being tried for a felony)
Fortunately, some little people are learning and using the courts to bludgeon back. Soon the courts will be so overbooked, and such a detriment to the ruling elite/banks that the system will be abandoned.
You'll have to fill me in on the court of Import Export I am not familiar with that one.
People have no idea how much money is being made off of those courts, just the little justice of the peace court for our precinct generates over $12 million a year in traffic fines and court costs. Now that I think about; that court only covers the western half of precinct theere is another court about 12 miles to the east most likely doing about the same I'd guess.
I'm familiar with Larken Rose and his story. I agree he got shafted.
I had to laugh today as I heard part of the Rush Limbaugh show when he said this election is about the constitution. He said if the democrats win that we'll have given up everything the constitution protects for us and they'll do away with it.
I hate to tell him but that happened over 100 years ago, itss just they have pretty much kept it a secret.
I wish for once he'd just speak the truth about this country, he has to know it is all a sham. If doesn't he might as well tie the other half of his brain behind his back to keep his dumb ass company.
Thanks for the read and comment. Very much appreciated.
Sult