Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bradshaw
    Just a note in reply. You must attack teh NOD,the assessments, and procedures. What is the type of tax teh IRS is claiming you owe? Is it excise?, or income?
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Just a note in reply. You must attack teh NOD,the assessments, and procedures.
      What is the type of tax teh IRS is claiming you owe?
      Is it excise?, or income? are you involved in any exciseable activity? did you sign a Voluntary Withholding agreement? are you an employee of teh Federal government or subdivision etc., thereof.
      Tax Court is a trap if you don't know what you are involved in.
      YOu must discover the facts of the case and enter them into evidence.
      If you get the shaft there you can file in US District court to void Tax Court judgment.
      If teh IRS agents haven't followed procedures (and they never do) you can sue them both in their official capacity and their individual capacity.

      Hope this helps

      In Freedom
      Larry


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: hvncb
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: 10/11/2004 11:09:59 PM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...


      Any tips on how to deal with IRS Court and attorney with his motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim....I am in Tax Court at the moment for an NOD...It's a long complaint, basically here are the assignments of errors (and facts of errors)
    • abzalootly
      My experience in dealing with motions to dismiss is pretty dismal - however, the law library is your only hope. I always find what I need there - not on the
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 13, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        My experience in dealing with motions to dismiss is pretty dismal -
        however, the law library is your only hope.

        I always find what I need there - not on the web...


        Most important thing is to file request for leave to amend in a
        timely respond to the dismissal

        G-luck!
      • chancellor
        I hate to jump in here with this BUT!!!!!! in order to save one guy from paying a $5000 fine and paying $38000 in a phony IRS assessment we filed a 1040 and
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I hate to jump in here with this BUT!!!!!! in order to save one guy from paying a $5000 fine and paying $38000 in a phony IRS assessment we filed a 1040 and it worked out to $2300. The case is in the process of being dismissed. We thought paying $2300 was better than getting a judgment for $43000. We plan to sue for a refund in the US Court of Claims. We felt it was a better position to be in given the fact that nothing else either one of us has ever used produced a win. Another friend was charged with willful failure to file and the beast wanted about $8000 for 3 years. We filed and he paid about $800 for the 3 years and the gummerment dropped the case. We felt $800 was better than 5 years in club fed. I hope all the gunho people on this group don't beat on me too hard but I have NEVER seen anything on any of these groups or put out by any of the tax gurus even make the BEAST miss a step. We live in a lawless Nazi Police State and that is the reality. Now I am ready for my beating.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: nickster97@...
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:38 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...




          Ahhh...I see Clyde Hydes group coming to rest. You are in tax court.
          They have specific Jurisdiction, the accuracy of the NOD as far as the
          amount and not whether one is liable. You are too far gone now and
          will be penalized if you continue. Of course, you are free to chose
          the opposite direction, and continue on the same path of destruction,
          but one never should be in tax court in the first place.
        • chancellor
          I hate to jump in here with this BUT!!!!!! in order to save one guy from paying a $5000 fine and paying $38000 in a phony IRS assessment we filed a 1040 and it
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I hate to jump in here with this BUT!!!!!! in order to save one guy from paying a $5000 fine and paying
            $38000 in a phony IRS assessment we filed a 1040 and it worked out to $2300. The case is in the process
            of being dismissed. We thought paying $2300 was better than getting a judgment for $43000. We plan to
            sue for a refund in the US Court of Claims. We felt it was a better position to be in given the fact that
            nothing else either one of us has ever used produced a win. Another friend was charged with willful failure
            to file and the beast wanted about $8000 for 3 years. We filed and he paid about $800 for the 3 years and
            the gummerment dropped the case. We felt $800 was better than 5 years in club fed. I hope all the gunho
            people on this group don't beat on me too hard but I have NEVER seen anything on any of these groups or
            put out by any of the tax gurus even make the BEAST miss a step. We live in a lawless Nazi Police State
            and that is the reality. Now I am ready for my beating.

            ----- Original Message ----- From:
            nickster97@... To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:38
            PM Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...

            Ahhh...I see Clyde Hydes group coming to rest. You are in tax court. They have specific Jurisdiction, the
            accuracy of the NOD as far as the amount and not whether one is liable. You are too far gone now and will
            be penalized if you continue. Of course, you are free to chose the opposite direction, and continue on the
            same path of destruction, but one never should be in tax court in the first place.

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • hvncb
            Well Nickster, I am sure that you know well that Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear underlying liability and a First Amendment complaint as I am doing is
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 21, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Well Nickster, I am sure that you know well that Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear underlying liability and a First Amendment complaint as I am doing is appropriate because lack of jurisdiction (1.8.17) has everything to do with underlying liability.
               
              �Petitioners, however, underestimate the importance of this Court's time-honored reading of the Constitution as giving Congress wide discretion to assign the task of adjudication in cases arising under federal law to legislative tribunals.�  See, e.g., American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546 (1828) (the judicial power of the United States is not limited to the judicial power defined under Article III, and may be exercised by legislative courts); Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 565-567 (1933) (same); quoted in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 889 (1991).
               
              The IRS is under a notorious, administrative defaut ...I am sure you know all about that too...
               
              ....but tell me, how did you find out what my case is about to determine I am "too far gone now and will be penalized if you continue."
               
               
               

              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, nickster97@y... wrote:
              >
              >
              > Ahhh...I see Clyde Hydes group coming to rest. You are in tax court.
              > They have specific Jurisdiction, the accuracy of the NOD as far as the
              > amount and not whether one is liable. You are too far gone now and
              > will be penalized if you continue. Of course, you are free to chose
              > the opposite direction, and continue on the same path of destruction,
              > but one never should be in tax court in the first place.
              >
              > If you are a US citzen, demonstrated by the social contract you have,
              > and the interpreting contracts you have, you are liable for income
              > taxes, period. There are only 2 things that you can do which is to
              > forgoe all the contracts you have or learn to minimize your exposure.
              >
              > I haven't seen one win out of Hydes default process for taxes, but it
              > does work well in the traffic industry. I believe there are over 90%
              > wins on that end. But don't go there for taxes, you will be hurting
              > when you get out of there, big time.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, hvncb <hvncb@y...> wrote:
              > > Any tips on how to deal with IRS Court and attorney with his motion
              > Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim....I am in Tax Court at the
              > moment for an NOD...It's a long complaint, basically here are the
              > assignments of errors (and facts of errors)
              > >



              Do you Yahoo!?
              vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
            • nickster97@yahoo.com
              Because you seem to be under the impression that the consitution means something in your particular case. Believe it or not, you gave that up years ago
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 27, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Because you seem to be under the impression that the consitution means
                something in your particular case. Believe it or not, you gave that up
                years ago whithout knowing it. Clyde has done you a disservice. If you
                had rebutted certain presuptions before you were assessed, then you
                would have not been liable in the first place. You seem to believe
                that you are acting as a human being rather than a fiducuary acting
                for a trust entity. You seem to believe that you have some unalienable
                rights when what you really have are rights granted to you by the US
                in which you are a citizen and that because of that, you reside in one
                of the 50 states. You are not taxed for you the human being but have
                the FIDUCUIARY responsibility to file and pay for the priveledged
                entity known as YOU! (Your name in all caps).

                Therefore, asking the court what makes you the human being liable is a
                frivolous position. Your entity known as YOU has already been
                assessed, the only thing that you can banter about that room is either
                that the statutory notices were defunct or the amount of the
                assessment is in question. There has been already one case that was
                fined for defaulting the government. You can make it the second if ou
                want, be my guest. Clyde and myself went round and round with this six
                months ago and the telltale signs are coming out. Clyde is on the
                losing end of this one.

                Take a day out of your busy schedule and read the following, I believe
                it will challenge your whole belief system.

                http://usa-the-republic.com/amendment_14/usa.html




                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, hvncb <hvncb@y...> wrote:
                > Well Nickster, I am sure that you know well that Tax Court has
                jurisdiction to hear underlying liability and a First Amendment
                complaint as I am doing is appropriate because lack of jurisdiction
                (1.8.17) has everything to do with underlying liability.
                >
                > "Petitioners, however, underestimate the importance of this Court's
                time-honored reading of the Constitution as giving Congress wide
                discretion to assign the task of adjudication in cases arising under
                federal law to legislative tribunals." day!
              • drbradb1
                Nick, you have used the word assessed or assessment in your post.What is the definition you are using?The legal proper procedurally correct assessment is the
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nick, you have used the word assessed or assessment in your post.What is the
                  definition you are using?The legal proper procedurally correct assessment is the 23C
                  Form.Why is it there is never one of these in our IMF's?The 4340 and Racs 006 are
                  only presumptive evidence of an assessment.Why not rebutt the IRS presumptions in
                  an evidentiary manner, and make the IRS come forth with a 23C?How do I rebutt the
                  presumption that I am a fiduciary of some trust when I can't prove that that is what
                  the IRS is acting on?I can use their own manuals and regs to prove they must have a
                  23C.Brad

                  - In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, nickster97@y... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Because you seem to be under the impression that the consitution means
                  > something in your particular case. Believe it or not, you gave that up
                  > years ago whithout knowing it. Clyde has done you a disservice. If you
                  > had rebutted certain presuptions before you were assessed, then you
                • nickster97@yahoo.com
                  Brad, The tax is on the passing of and recieving of FRNs. The more you collect, the more you owe in income tax for those Subject to the jurisdiction 26 CFR
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brad,

                    The tax is on the passing of and recieving of FRNs. The more you
                    collect, the more you owe in income tax for those "Subject to the
                    jurisdiction" 26 CFR 1.1-1. Who is under that jurisdiction? Any United
                    States citizen that is enamoured with a number, be it EIN, SSN or Some
                    TIN users. The tax is a tax on the priveledges associated with being a
                    US citizen, namely limited liability, discharge of debt under HJR 192,
                    and the associated "Benefits" of Social Security.

                    The ONLY way out of the income tax scheme is to reclaim soveringnty
                    which is total self sufficiency without a number. Other than that, the
                    best way is to learn how to mininmize your tax exposure by learning
                    about entities which is how the game is set up and played.

                    The problem with most anti tax promoters is that they depend on old
                    law that doesn't pertain to what it really is today...The new deal
                    created this mess and we should thank our parents and grandparents for
                    messing things up for us. There really is no way to repair the damage
                    now, people would rather have security than freedom.

                    As far as trying to beat the IRS at their game, forget it, they are
                    both executive and judicial tied together to uphold public policy
                    rather than law. It will not do you any good. The 23C argument has
                    been tried and is a loser. It would be much better to spend your time
                    , money and energy studying the game as it stands and winning in that
                    relm than fighting and losing. Just to remind you, name me someone
                    that has won big time in the past 40 years?



                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "drbradb1" <drbradb1@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Nick, you have used the word assessed or assessment in your
                    post.What is the
                    > definition you are using?The legal proper procedurally correct
                    assessment is the 23C
                    > Form.Why is it there is never one of these in our IMF's?The 4340 and
                    Racs 006 are
                    > only presumptive evidence of an assessment.Why not rebutt the IRS
                    presumptions in
                    > an evidentiary manner, and make the IRS come forth with a 23C?How do
                    I rebutt the
                    > presumption that I am a fiduciary of some trust when I can't prove
                    that that is what
                    > the IRS is acting on?I can use their own manuals and regs to prove
                    they must have a
                    > 23C.Brad
                  • David L. Miner
                    Nick -- I don t want to sound rude, but you really do not have an accurate understanding of the current so-called income tax. The income tax has nothing to do
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Nick --

                      I don't want to sound rude, but you really do not have an accurate
                      understanding of the current so-called income tax.

                      The income tax has nothing to do with "the passing of and receiving of
                      FRNs." And it is not "a tax on the privileges associated with being a US
                      citizen." It may be a tax BECAUSE of the privileges but it is not a tax on
                      the privileges.

                      The current income tax as it is enforced on individual Americans is an
                      excise tax on certain businesses and privileges. If you are not involved in
                      those businesses or privileges, the tax does not apply to you. It is as
                      simple as that.

                      You claim "the ONLY way out of the income tax scheme it to reclaim
                      sovereignty." That is somewhat true. But then you go on to say that "is
                      total self sufficiency without a number." There you missed the boat again.
                      No matter what you do, that number is associated with you. The SSN and the
                      IRS will never cancel that number or disassociate it with your name. No
                      matter what efforts you put out, they SSN and the IRS will STILL have that
                      number associated with your name.

                      No matter what you claim about trusts, the so-called income tax and the Form
                      1040 have nothing to do with trusts and fiduciaries.

                      I have managed to do things which you disclaim and have removed myself and a
                      couple thousand clients off the rolls of the IRS. The trick has nothing to
                      do with the SSN and nothing to do with your disclaimer of "old laws." The
                      trick to getting the IRS out of your life is to force it to correct the
                      intentional and fraudulent lies contained in your Individual Master File.
                      Every American who has ever filed a Form 1040 has an IMF. In that IMF are
                      specific errors that allow for the IRS to do what it wants. Correct those
                      errors and the IRS is magically limited by the laws. Why? Because the IRS
                      software does not allow any agent to initiate any demands or collection
                      efforts against an individual American properly described in his/her IMF.
                      You can choose to disengage from society or government or FRNs or banks or
                      anything else you want. That is fine with me. But I can get the IRS off
                      your back with a lot less hassle and grief.

                      I have decoded hundreds of IMF records. Almost every one has the individual
                      listed as a business that earns more than $10 million a year. Almost every
                      IMF has the individual listed as using a bogus SSN or the SSN belonging to
                      another. And most files have the individual listed as being required to
                      file returns from the US Virgin Islands.

                      Brad was correct -- you can force the IRS to live according to the laws.
                      But there are certain exact procedures you must go through in order to
                      accomplish that. And those procedures do involve (actually start with) the
                      lawful assessment, although they do not require the Form 23C. The form is
                      not listed in law so the IRS can change forms when it wants, and the IRS
                      stopped using that Form about 10 years ago, for the most part. The form is
                      not required by law, but the assessment is. So the IRS usually uses a means
                      of recording the assessment that does not involve the Form 23C.

                      But you can only confront the IRS properly if you go into a special hearing
                      armed with all the errors in the IMF. The IRS has the authority to complete
                      an informal assessment and proceed with collections, but ONLY for certain
                      businesses and certain business returns. If they have you listed as that
                      type of business then you can challenge all you want and the IRS will stand
                      by its "assessment." On the other hand, force the IRS to change you from a
                      business to an individual not involved in a revenue taxable activity, and
                      suddenly the agent is faced committing a felony by persecuting you for not
                      fulfilling the requirements that don't apply to you. Until the IMF is
                      changed, however, the IRS is required by law to act according to the data in
                      that file. The IRS isn't ignoring the law -- it is following the law,
                      according to the info it has about you.

                      This is why so many efforts to challenge the IRS fail. Patriots demand that
                      the IRS follows the law. The IRS claims it is, or it ignores us and doesn't
                      claim anything at all. Why? Because if the info in your IMF is correct,
                      then you are merely lying to the IRS agent to avoid paying the tax. So you
                      get the IRS to change the IMF and the IRS has no legal means of avoiding
                      charges of fraud. The agent ceases pursuing you or faces jail.

                      It is deeper than that, and more permanent than that. But that is the
                      simplified description of the process.

                      Frank or Mary or Jim screams, "You can't assess me or tax me or levy my bank
                      account." The IRS says, "You are a farming business in the US Virgin
                      Islands earning in excess of $10 million a year selling your stuff to
                      America. Yes we can."

                      I force the IRS to correct the errors so when I challenge it, the record
                      says, "No, Agent, you really CAN'T do that to him."

                      You said: "...name me someone that has won big time in the past 40 years? "

                      My name is David L. Miner. I live in Gatlinburg, TN. I have not filed or
                      paid in 15 years. I have helped more than 2,000 Americans get to that same
                      place.

                      Yours in freedom,

                      Dave Miner
                      www.FreedomSite.net



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: nickster97@... [mailto:nickster97@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 2:51 AM
                      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim...


                      Brad,

                      The tax is on the passing of and recieving of FRNs. The more you
                      collect, the more you owe in income tax for those "Subject to the
                      jurisdiction" 26 CFR 1.1-1. Who is under that jurisdiction? Any United
                      States citizen that is enamoured with a number, be it EIN, SSN or Some
                      TIN users. The tax is a tax on the priveledges associated with being a
                      US citizen, namely limited liability, discharge of debt under HJR 192,
                      and the associated "Benefits" of Social Security.

                      The ONLY way out of the income tax scheme is to reclaim soveringnty
                      which is total self sufficiency without a number. Other than that, the
                      best way is to learn how to mininmize your tax exposure by learning
                      about entities which is how the game is set up and played.

                      The problem with most anti tax promoters is that they depend on old
                      law that doesn't pertain to what it really is today...The new deal
                      created this mess and we should thank our parents and grandparents for
                      messing things up for us. There really is no way to repair the damage
                      now, people would rather have security than freedom.

                      As far as trying to beat the IRS at their game, forget it, they are
                      both executive and judicial tied together to uphold public policy
                      rather than law. It will not do you any good. The 23C argument has
                      been tried and is a loser. It would be much better to spend your time
                      , money and energy studying the game as it stands and winning in that
                      relm than fighting and losing. Just to remind you, name me someone
                      that has won big time in the past 40 years?


                      ---
                      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                      Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
                    • nickster97@yahoo.com
                      That was not a rude post, this is what discussion boards are all about. All I really want to know about is how do you get around the 7852(e) exemption for the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That was not a rude post, this is what discussion boards are all
                        about. All I really want to know about is how do you get around the
                        7852(e) exemption for the IRS not to change information and reduce
                        liabilities?

                        We have been working on that one, and that is a stumbling block

                        The provisions of subsections (d)(2), (3), and (4), and (g) of section
                        552a of title 5, United States Code, shall not be applied, directly or
                        indirectly, to the determination of the existence or possible
                        existence of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person for any
                        tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition or
                        offense to which the provisions of this title apply.

                        They have been using this provision against us for the past year.



                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "David L. Miner" <dminer@f...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Nick --
                        >
                        > I don't want to sound rude, but you really do not have an accurate
                        > understanding of the current so-called income tax.
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.