Attorney for IRS admits on recording...NO FACTS...NO WITNESSES....to taxable income
- View Source
Owning An IRS Lawyer
As promised, I've posted the entire phone call with the . This is from a pretrial conference recorded on Dec. 15, 2010; everyone knew I was recording. The only edits made are bleeping the client's name, the attorney's fax number and I had to amplify some of the audio of me speaking.
I think it's another great example showing tax agents have no factual support for their accusations. You will hear evasion after evasion from this IRS attorney and remember:this is an IRS attorney, not an IRS agent. This woman holds a doctorate degree, so it's reasonable to presume she knows more about taxation than the average IRS agent, or she's an expert on the interpretation and application of tax law than IRS agents.
This is a ; the parties are to put everything on the table, the facts, witnesses and theory of their case for trial; to see if there are factual disputes or come to an agreement to avoid trial. Keep this in mind when listening to the when you hear the attorney refuse to discuss witnesses and facts.
The attorney openly admits to not relying on or planning on calling any witnesses "at trial". This is just a distraction, not an answer to my question because I want to know if there are any witnesses with first-hand knowledge at all. When pressed, she claims there is a witness my client is a taxpayer, but, she cannot identify him/her and has had no contact with this unknown agent. She claims the unknown agent may not even work for the IRS anymore and may be across the country now. Therefore, she cannot claim the agent is qualified as a witness against my client because she doesn't know if the agent has any personal, first hand knowledge my client's a taxpayer. This is significant because her entire case is based on an unidentified, possibly unqualified witness she has had no contact with. The attorney isn't a witness or a party to the proceeding, so her opinion my client is a taxpayer has the same weight here as yours:absolutely none. Despite having no contact with her alleged witnesses, she's so absolutely certain their accusations are true that any challenge is automatically deemed "frivolous".
She also initially claims she would move to quash a subpoena issued to her unknown witnesses to testify. When I asked her on what grounds, she admitted she didn't have grounds. It was tough not laughing at her (I can now though). She then stated she would have to first see the subpoena, then decide if she would fight against having her witness testify. Yes, I let her off the hook on this, but I had made my point.
Ask yourself this question when you hear that part of the recording: Why would she fight having her own witness put on the stand? She won't call him and will fight if I call him as a witness. If it's so obvious everyone's a taxpayer, and the mere challenge itself is "frivolous", then why fight against having the agent testify in court under oath?
Later in the recording I question the attorney on the evidence she claimed the IRS has. I ask if there's a factual difference between income and taxable income and she agrees there's a factual difference. I ask if she knows the differences and instead of answering, she threatens to end the call. Again, I didn't ask her what those differences are, just if she knows. The attorney refuses to discuss the differences and makes the silly claim I'm making a "semantic" argument by asking her about the factual differences she admits exist.
This doctor of law refused to discuss the factual differences between income and taxable income, even though she admits there are differences. This is a pre-trial conference where we're supposed to discuss the facts. Why would she refuse if she had facts proving my client's a taxpayer with taxable income? If it's so obvious as governments and their apologists insist, then why the institutional refusal to discuss the facts? This isn't an isolated incident, I get this all the time from state and federal agents and their attorneys. At one point she tells me to "read the code" to find the facts she claims she relies on. Can you imagine being accused of murder, asking for the facts and being told to read the criminal code?
Are you convinced I'm making a frivolous argument by asking about the facts? Do you believe it's a "semantic" argument? What about the irony there? The IRS's entire case rests on words and I'm accused of "semantics".
There's no evidence anyone is a taxpayer and has taxable income. This is not the argument "one is not a taxpayer as defined by statute". The first is a factual issue, the second is one of law; two different animals, apples and oranges.
Taxation is theft and that's the reason there's no evidence to prove anyone is taxpayer with taxable income. That's why pro-government extremists and other control freaks always argue words such as law, constitution, court opinions when talking about people being liable for taxes. They can't produce any facts so they use smoke-screens to distract you; another one is the red herring about people being convicted of tax evasion as if that is evidence people owe taxes. If you believe that's evidence people are taxpayers with taxable income, then what about acquittals such as with Tommy Cryer and Lloyd Long? Using this red herring, acquittals would mean there is no evidence anyone is a taxpayer with taxable income. Obviously convictions and acquittals are not evidence someone is a taxpayer. No one is a taxpayer with taxable income for no other reason than taxation is theft.
If you stick to the facts, then tax agents and their attorneys will refuse to answer because there are no facts proving you or anyone else is a taxpayer with taxable income. Remember the maxim: "quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist." . By their own rules, the accusation/assessment you have taxable income is arbitrary; it's what bureaucrats themselves call a "" (US v Janis, 422 US 433, 442) and it's required to be . But we know governments don't play by their own rules, criminals don't play by the rules.
All of this is predictable and the natural consequences when services are provided on a compulsory basis. All the problems and abuses we see with governments are from one cause: support is compulsory. There is no reform, only abolition. Join me every Saturday from 1-3pm pst, 4-6 est, on the where we discuss bringing about a voluntary society.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5762 (20110105) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.