- Greetings,Glad to see that someone actually got the jest of the post in the first place; Congratulations.Too many are dancing around the obvious fallacy of all these prosecutions the DOJ and IRS "wins"; they never actually prove a "known legal duty", therefore, the DOJ did not prove its case making it voidable. After reading "The Motion", I believe it has elements in it for "NOBODY" to formulate an appeal for Irwin and others, by a motion to collaterally attack a void judgment.The only hurdle I see is getting past the court(s) saying we don't have standing because we are not "interested parties", which is absurd, because the issue of all of these prosecutions and convictions (taxes) is that we are all subject to being accused and prosecuted by the DOJ/IRS, for "tax crimes" or "income tax evasion", therefore, we are "interested parties".I am doing the research now on what is of use in The Motion, and will post as I get closer to a Draft that needs some review and input from the Group, to see if there are any holes that need to be filled. Any assistance in this effort would be greatly appreciated.Kind Regards,Publicus (also known as "NOBODY")
- therefore, we are "interested parties".
Then you speak to the court as amicus curie if you are not a party to the action.
Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.