Conf. Call w/ Dave Myrland
Conf. Call - Josh Albritton and Stelios & guest, Dave Myrland –Complete – 3/12/06
Sunday March 12, 2006
Subsequent calls will be Sundays at
9 p.m. , Eastern;
8 p.m. , Central Time
7 p.m. , Mountain Std. Time
6 p.m. , Pacific Time
4 p.m. , Hawaiian time.
Call-in Number: 641-497-7400 pin 228078#
Total Time: 2 hours, 9 minutes, 9.540 seconds
Please mute out after logging in to reduce interference to the conference calls
Do not un-mute with a speaker phone
All questions can be submitted to Josh or Gabrielle previous to the conference calls
E-mailed questions are answered first
Then the call is opened for questions via telephone
Please state your first name or whatever when asking a question
If you want your words transcribed correctly, please reduce your word rate below Mach 1.
~2hr, 8 min., total
[David] My name is David Myrland, again my website where you can get just a ton of information about me is www.tocongress.com/1.html and the reason the website is name that is because I exhausted the other two branches pretty much before the end of 1996 by first attempting for three years to break the….[beep]…around tax laws that the IRS has put in place. And at the middle of ’93 a bunch of people that I wanted to prepare tax returns for said, ‘why don’t we go to tax court and accuse the IRS of these discrepancies that I identified and about thirty of them went to tax court….[beep]…. This is impossible.
[2 min., 42.652 sec.]
[5 min., 47.370 sec.]
[David] As I was saying www.tocongress.com/1.html is a slash page that I put up about my current endeavors, www.tocongress.com is the home page of a free curriculum that’s on the web; it’s my tax curriculum. It’s a data base, it’s not a website, you waive rights to free use by going in there you’re to leave the documents so the patriot movement doesn’t dice up my findings and distribute them piecemeal as they’ve done. What I’ve done, recently, is bring to a head basically a culmination of ten or more years in tax law research and litigation to a certain point in Congress, the reason being that I couldn’t go to the other two branches. I’m complaining to Congress about the other two branches. I exhausted them when the IRS wouldn’t answer questions in the early nineties. A bunch of my tax court clients appealed, five appealed to the appellate level, two on the 4th circuit, three on the 9th circuit. One in the 9th circuit dropped off and the other four appealed to the US Supreme Court. Another client came up through a state tax court, State Supreme Court, to the US Supreme Court, so I had five clients go all the way to the Supreme Court and this was me learning how to practice law. It’s the first thing I did was to take five people all the way to the Supreme Court, that’s how I learned my beginnings in litigation and it was all through the mail because the issues were strictly based on statute. So I discovered in 1996 after all these trips that tax law was futile because the courts and the IRS kept a veil of secrecy around it so I branched off into state law, mostly motor vehicle code, court rules and Constitution and you’ll find on www.publicvehiculartravel.com ; I just filed a complaint in the Department of Justice about the State of Washington government for misenforcing our motor vehicle code against public vehicular travelers because I found laws throughout Washington, counties and cities and state law that say highways are open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel. And you can go and look at that complaint; it’s free on the web. And so this complaint I filed in Congress happened because I—true, I left tax law in 1996 and participated in a couple of cases since then, but last summer, early summer, a gentleman in Texas, Mr. Jim Walden, said he feared a failure to file indictment and so I said, ‘you want an exhibit, you want a whopper of an exhibit that proves you’re not willful ahead of time? And he says, ‘sure.’ And I said, ‘well I know issues that they can’t talk about because I’ve been all the way to the Supreme Court on a bunch of issues so why don’t we file a law suit and brief these issues and show that they can’t even talk about them and that way any jury that they convene against you you’ll have to say that you can say that I sued them for proof they can talk to me and they can’t even answer the question. They can’t prove under these three laws that they have a contrary challenge. So we filed a rule to perpetuate—Rule 27 acts to perpetuate testimony, it’s kind of like half of a lawsuit where you open up a docket number just for discovery purposes and under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the IRS for statutory limitations of authority. And instead of answering to our three challenges based on law issues A, B, and C, the US attorney files a motion for a protective order against our twelve questions and judge Lee Yeekel in Austin Federal District Court in Texas issues a protective order against us and those twelve questions. And so, looking at that I said, ‘that’s a pretty good exhibit, isn’t it, Jim?’ He says, ‘oh yeah, that’s a good one.’ So I think that’s a valid basis for me to presume all of my analysis is exactly true that they’re stealing money in precisely the ways that I’ve alleged and so I took my entire analysis to the federal criminal code under Title 18 where you find mail fraud, extortion, racketeering, kidnapping, the rest of it, and I compared the entire criminal code to my findings and wrote a criminal complaint against Albert Gonzales and the DOJ against Everson and the IRS, against Snow and the Treasury, against two federal judges and District Court, against an IRS agent, against a couple of prosecutors. And the reason I lumped in the DOJ in there is because in September I was invited to a meeting by a taxpayer and his attorney to the US attorney’s office, here in Seattle, to sit in on a meeting where I listened to Bob Westinghouse, one of their top tax prosecutors, threaten this guy for two and a half hours about how he was going to prosecute him and his wife. And I learned all the holes in the basis or the foundation for all of their prosecutions and I wrote about it in the cover letter that went in with this criminal complaint. So between my cover letter, the Table of Authorities, and Abstract of Claims, a complaint, a brief, and exhibits it’s about a hundred and seventy-one pages, I think. There’s an affidavit from a thirty-year accountant that went in with the complaint. So it’s really a deluxe effort to expose the judicial and the administrative abuse through the judicial and executive branches concerning tax law to where Congress is entirely out of the loop. So by bringing this criminal complaint what I’ve hoped to do to expand on it for others to use it to their benefit would be to provide proof that they have joined this criminal complaint in saying, ‘I, too, believe felonies are being committed and I’ve joined that complaint that Dave Myrland filed and secondly this might not be you; if you have a controversy you can look at the people that are doing it to you, right now, for the IRS saying and not only do I join Dave’s suit but I want a name this local IRS agent that’s been levying my paycheck or liening my house and the District Director, I want to name them to the lawsuit under counts 4, 5, and 6 for extortion. And so now you’ve named these local people as specific defendants to a federal criminal complaint that’s in Congress. When you get that back in your hands with copies of the complaint that you just joined, now you have an exhibit that you can photocopy and serve on any public servant and they have total prior knowledge that the government is unable to even speak about tax law because I have all my docket numbers in the memorandum to show that this has been everywhere for years, many years ago. I’m way ahead of the curve regarding what’s being taught out there, I always have been since ’94, on. And the expose I’ve done by bringing all my docket numbers to bear, it’s a bunch of laundry to show how they’re so abusive and they’re wrong consistently on certain issues. And by filing this criminal complaint in bold-faced type I’ve challenged Congress, take back your control over taxation, right now. Here’s the proof that you have no control and either take back control over taxation or officially appoint Albert Gonzales as the Czar of law because I’ve proven he’s falsely prosecuting Americans and I’ve proven that every Congressman that was ever indicted was falsely indicted. So I’m trying to cause a war between Congress and the Department of Justice and I’m dead serious about it because it’s a whole bunch of work that came to a head in that memorandum and complaint that you’ll see there and it’s a whole lot ….that nobody else out there is teaching. If you’re into anybody else’s teachings, at all, you’re really going to appreciate the foundation that I have, it’s strictly statutory and the very logical method with which I analyze the tax code. Why don’t we have a break for a couple of seconds, Jan?
[Jan] Ok, I’m here; are you there, Gabrielle?
[Jan] Do you want to open the line for a minute and see what we get?
[Dave] This line is now open; hi, everybody.
[William] Hello, Dave.
[Dave] Hi, who’s this?
[William] This is William in Louisiana .
[Dave] Hi, William, got a question?
[William] Yes. I’ve gotten information about this from Gabrielle, yesterday, and I want ahead…. And I have a trial coming up on the 20th of this month, next Monday. I was looking at everything you had done and I decided to join the complaint. How would it actually help me at the time with a trial being so close?
[Dave] It depends on how long your trial takes and, understand, you’re trying to step in front of a freight train and you know it takes like a mile and a half to stop a freight train. And so, even so, I couldn’t guarantee anything even if it was six months away. Because the law matters so little, this is mostly about laundry and this is mostly about politics, it’s about proving to the judge that really he’s operating on behalf of people, they don’t even have the law on their side and so I can’t really promise you how fast I could really do something for you. What you ought to do is get my phone number from Gabrielle and call me tomorrow sometime.
[William] Ok, that’ll work, then.
[Dave] Why don’t you do that.
[William] Ok, thank you.
[Nick] Hello, Dave.
[Dave] Hi there, who’s this?
[Nick] Nick in Tennessee .
[Dave] Hello, Nick.
[Nick] You had commented that you were helping some other people with tax problems and I was curious if you heard of or helped at all Irwin Schiff and his issues.
[Dave] Understand, I can’t give legal advice; I’m not an attorney, I’ve never claimed to be one.
[Nick] I understand that.
[Dave] Ok, good. Irwin Schiff and I met for about eight hours one day and this was probably 1999 and when he was up here in Seattle for a seminar. And I was impressed with his dedication to three statutes and his refusal to learn anything more. And so it’s like you couldn’t get them out of 6050, whatever the assessment statute is there. One of his favorites, 6051, I can’t remember or 6012, I just can’t… Anyway, he was really hung up on a very narrow vein of procedures and administration whereas I’ve analyzed the imposition of taxes, the structure of the chapters they use to impose the taxes, the way they operate, the different force applied by certain statutes in those chapters and so I don’t know what he argued. Everyone knows that my work has been almost free for years and years. I was done in 1996 and everyone, they could have had this for almost free; I’ve always offered it on my curriculum and now it’s on the web for free except the video and some supporting material, but nobody’s really interested in this, they can’t take off and running with the understanding they need to really understand my analysis, but it’s really on the basics and so I didn’t really have a lot that I could have brought to Schiff’s party, anyway, because I don’t think anybody there could have argued it. And again, I don’t think the courts are a real promising venue for any of what I’m doing and that’s why I went to Congress. It’s one thing to bring this into court but understand, it only occupies the role of laundry. It’s just something they don’t want to talk about; they can steamroll past the law, still. You can’t slow down the court; I just did this in Congress last month. And so, you can’t slow down the court that fast. I’m looking right at an indictment in Hawaii , February 9th, 2006 by the Department of Justice but the Department of Justice received this complaint in the first week of January and they’re still prosecuting a month later and so you can’t slow these people down. The best you can do is make it politically unpopular and that’s why the website, this publicity around the complaint, is really good; it’s good for everybody. And I’m going to try to standardize this joinder process so I can leave it behind and participate less in it and get more people into it for less money. It’s just at its infancy stages and the joinders are very technical. If I could smooth this out to get more people into the channel, it would serve a lot of people.
[Nick] Right. Thank you.
[Stelios] Hi, Dave, this is Stelios from Arizona ; I’m also on the moderator line.
[Dave] Oh, hi.
[Stelios] Hi. I just wanted to comment on your work and, of course, you have a valiant and noble cause because the “tax system”, the elective tax system or voluntary tax system, known as the IRS that’s caused a lot of grief upon people of this society so I consider it to be noble but you must understand—again, I’m going to make this as a comment—that the actual taxing is done and considered through exclusive contract. They don’t need laws to do it, number one. Number two, Congress is writing laws for the other parts of that body politic, not for “us”.
[Dave] Well, you just contradicted about a thousand Supreme Court cases I’ve read that said, ‘statute is supreme,’ and misenforcement of a statute does not create a valid contract. Contract is a meeting of the minds, not a stunt…
[Dave] …and they pulled a stunt on us, the tax code’s perfect and there’s a pattern of regulations that changed a perfectly written tax code that preserves all common law rights and they changed it into a regulatory contrivance. That’s the argument I make and so since I make that argument I can’t pay any attention to an argument that involves a contract because I’m arguing there was no meeting of the minds. And so, I know a contract would never enter into it and so that whole realm of argument is something I feel that’s based on presumption where somebody’s looked at enforcement and presumed it to be legitimate and then found a justification for it in contract law whereas I looked at law, first, to find out that enforcement is not legitimate, it’s theft, it’s extortion, and that does not create a valid contract, no matter what I signed, who I signed it for, or whether or not it was witnessed. So…
[Stelios] Yes, I understand. So, good.
[Dave] …and so I never go there and I don’t have time for a seminar on it, either. I’ve been to many and so…
[Stelios] Of course. Now, what I was leading to was, of course, once you get into court, of course, it’s actually a separate and distinct venue from the plaintiff which would be the IRS, let’s say, in a given example. They are looking to execute what they see as jurisdiction based on you being a subject and anything that you present as being frivolous. That’s why….
[Dave] No, no, no, it’s based on them ignoring the law to accomplish extortion and a racketeering scheme.
[Stelios] No, I understand your point.
[Dave] No, it’s not a point, it’s law; law is a science and these are building blocks. And so, what you’re doing is you’re entirely off of building blocks and you’re building on something that is on the clouds whereas I’m building on things that lawyers operate on every day. And as somebody that’s been to the Supreme Court five times, as I’ve said, litigated on every federal level, five for six against the attorney general from the State of Oregon in Superior Court civil suits where I….
[Stelios] Right, I understand. With what results?
[Dave] I just said, ‘I’m five for six against the State attorney general of Oregon in Superior Court by coaching hay farmers and truck drivers on how to argue my writings.
[Stelios] Have the cases been closed?
[Dave] I said, ‘I’m five for six against the State attorney general of Oregon, that’s five out six I won by coaching hay farmers and so I know what I’m doing in Superior court…
[Stelios] No, I’m not saying…..
[Dave] …against State attorney generals and I’m saying, ‘everything you’re saying is totally off of the building blocks of law,’ and we can only impede everybody on the call by indulging you on these topics. We have to stay on the law and…
[Stelios] Then what would the law be, simply?
[Dave] I’ve just told you.
[Stelios] Based on statutory law.
[Dave] Yes, the law is perfect, it’s my biggest tool. I got a thousand cases that say law is….
[Stelios] Sure. Let me suggest one thing. Do I have to actually—based on what you’re saying—I need to become very proficient if not an expert on all of their statutes?
[Dave] Not at all. Title 18, Section 4 says that if you know of a felony or suspect a felony you have a duty to report it and this joinder is a way to fulfill that requirement. Once you see my findings you’re going to say, ‘gosh, if they need a protective order without even talking about the law I think they’re committing a felony. I’m going to join that complaint. I’m an American, I’m concerned and so I’m innocent in this. I think it’s a felony and please don’t consider me willful after this because I’m alleging it’s a crime, right here. If they need a protective order, I don’t believe I have a duty and so I’m trying to preempt willfulness with this effort more than I’m trying to stop the court. I’m trying to make somebody a fish that’s too big for their frying pan.
[Stelios] Also, I don’t want to be an advocate, but I’m going to mention one more thing. Isn’t a crime basically something that can only be agreed to because, in essence, you’re protesting a violation? Can there be a crime in the code? In essence, isn’t anything statutory a violation?
[Dave] You have to read. You’re about 200 cases behind where I can school—you’ve avoided so much case law that I can’t even talk to you about the fundamentals.
[Stelios] No, I understand.
[Dave] When you look at a penal statute it’s going to have certain elements that have to be in your conduct and if they aren’t met then the statute won’t apply to you.
[Stelios] Right—it would be a violation.
[Dave] And so, if the language of a felony statute has been violated like extortion or racketeering and you perceive that, you can report it to the federal government by joining this complaint saying, ‘I, too, complain.’
[Stelios] Right, but according to the penal code they say violations are not crimes.
[Dave] I’m in the US Code; it doesn’t say that.
[Dave] I’m in the US Code, Title 18.
[Stelios] No, it doesn’t say that in the US Code but the State courts do carry that presumption.
[Dave] I’m not in the State court with this, I’m in Congress, this is federal law where I’ve been for many years.
[Stelios] I understand, but again, my question to you would be with what results and you said, ‘five out of six’…..
[Dave] No, no, no, no, that was one instance of litigation on a State level; I was citing many places where I’ve been and I told you at the beginning of the call, my going to Congress is evidence that I think the courts, you’ll never win in. And so, with what results? They’ll penalize you if you talk about tax law. Ok, that’s always the result. Yeah, who’s next?
[TJ] Hello, this is T.J. I got a $39,000 tax lien on my credit report. How could this effectively…..
[Dave] When was the lien…..?
[TJ] I have no idea; I had a credit report and it’ll show up on a credit report, but I have no idea when they filed it.
[Dave] Oh, is that right? The lien is typically to encumber real estate. Do you have any real estate?
[TJ] No, no I don’t.
[Dave] Ok, that’s good. 7403, of the tax code provides that if they want to lien real estate they can go to court, they almost never go to court to get a lien on real estate. If this is a lien, even though it’s not on real estate, I would suggest that under 7403 if they didn’t go to court to get a lien, then all they did was give a Notice of Lien. And so, inquire to the US District Court where they would have had to file for the lien and ask for all the docket numbers concerning you and they’ll disclose all the docket numbers and then you clarify it or discern that all of those were void of any request for a lien. Now, you have evidence they didn’t go to court. Then you send to the IRS, head of the disclosure, I think it’s in Mary land or something, for a copy of the abstract of judgment and sent one to the court, as well. These are in your FOIAs and when they respond saying, ‘we don’t have anything like that,’ now you have proof they never went to a court to get a lien and therefore you want it taken off your credit report.
[TJ] Ok. Are you available for consulting on these matters?
[Dave] No, not on something like this. Really, over and above this with the kind of work I have to do just to keep this particular congressional thing rolling here.
[TJ] Is there somewhere I could find this procedure?
[Dave] Yes. I recommend you call OCIAA and it’s run by a Mr. Kennedy Foster. I’m looking for the number, right here; he’s in Seattle and he’s the one I got this information from and I’ll tell you what, I don’t have his number handy, I’m very sorry. Yes, I do, here we go. Looks like his conference call is 404-920-6610, the code is 095557# every Wednesday at five—he’s a sharp guy.
[TJ] Is that eastern standard?
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)