Frivolous Subject: Internal Revenue Definitions are Binding Without Your Consent to the Office the Obligation Attaches To
FALSE STATEMENT:
The general definitions of terms in IRC Section 7701(a) are all qualified with the language “where not manifestly incompatible with the intent (of a particular provision of IRC).
It is reasonable to assume Congress did not intend for anyone to be able to repudiate a tax obligation by arguing he is “not a person” or not an individual etc.
So in that sense, the term “person” in IRC can certainly be construed to include a natural person who has incurred an obligation or duty under the IRC, by way of the “individual” or other “person” as defined at IRC 7701(a).
Therefore for enforcement purposes, the responsible natural person and the legal person that incurred the obligation are indistinguishable, they are one and the same in the eyes of the law.
REBUTTAL:
It is a a violation of due process to FORCE me to GUESS about what congress “intended” by the I.R.C. Their intention must be absolutely unmistakable and clear or else the income tax franchise code is “void for vagueness”. And in effect, it absolutely is, as we prove below:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
The only thing REASONABLE about ANY law or any government is that EVERYONE is treated equally in the absence of their EXPRESS and informed consent TO BE UNEQUAL. That’s the basis of our entire system of government. The Declaration of Independence says so: “deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed”. See:
- Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf - Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf - Foundations of Freedom Course, Form #12.021, Video 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikf7CcT2I8I
No one ELSE can consent FOR YOU by filing a false report. YOU have to DIRECTLY consent by your WORDS (explicit/overt) or your ACTIONS (implicit/covert) or else there is not consent and you remain equal.
The only way you can become UNEQUAL and therefore owe a duty to anyone that they don’t owe to you is either by consent or by an injury you committed that you owe reparations for. That’s the entire basis for legal “justice” and the common law itself:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
Any other approach sanctions COMPELLED inequality, servitude, human trafficking, and injustice, which all result in crime. The only difference between rape and marriage is CONSENT. The only difference between consensual commerce and government RAPE is consent. There is NOTHING “reasonable” about instituting such INJUSTICES or PRESUMING consent. The very purpose of establishing government to begin with is JUSTICE, not INJUSTICE:
“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
Further, the GOVERNMENT is responsible for ABSOLUTELY nothing of substance, and the civil statutory “person” you speak of in the Internal Revenue Code is an office WITHIN the government. For proof, see:
- Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf - Proof That There Is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
Because the civil statutory “person” you speak of is an office within the government, it can therefore be responsible for NOTHING by implication in regards to the general public. For exhaustive proof, see:
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf
It is only when your public DIS-servants are trying to control or burden people OUTSIDE the government do they AVOID the requirement that government or its officers are NOT responsible for ANYTHING, such as in the case of “taxation”. In such a case, “taxpayers” are responsible to the GOVERNMENT and no one else.
If you think that slavery without consent is OK and that anyone can file a usually false information return against others instituting the PRESUMPTION of such slavery, whether it be to pay the taxes on the transaction so reported, or to become a slave to the administrative state and/or courts rebutting the false report, then ultimately you seek to promote and protect SLAVERY. These reports are FRAUD in most cases and serve in effect to institute criminal identity theft, so you are advocating the crime of impersonating a public officer, false personation, and slavery, whether to IRS or the courts, for those who do not consent to either receive the BENEFITS of obligations of taxation. For proof, see:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/0-CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf
Unless and until you EQUALLY advocate that I can elect YOU or the government into SERVITUDE without their express consent just like you propose that the government can do to me, you are a HYPOCRITE.
This article therefore constitutes the equivalent to an information return “electing” you into my uncompensated servitude for WASTING my time having to expose your stupidity so it doesn’t spread and harm and enslave others. You are in receipt of a “benefit” and you should be willing to pay for it in this case. Otherwise, there is unjust enrichment on your part.
If you either want to say that you don’t think that what we have done here is a “benefit” you should pay for, we argue the SAME thing about everything the GOVERNMENT does. Click here for proof. Who is the customer here? They don’t call them public SERVANTS for nothing: YOU and I are the customer, not THEM. The CUSTOMER is always right, meaning he or she ALWAYS has the authority to REJECT the benefit (the product offered by a Merchant of CIVIL protection) and the corresponding obligation to pay for it. If he/she does NOT, then we are ALL SLAVES.
THEIR REBUTTAL:
You are not “forced to guess” as the “I’m not a person” argument has been rejected as frivolous countless times.
An obligation incurred by an individual (a legal entity) is not severable from the living man or woman responsible for that individual. That would result in unjust enrichment.
That is why the “I’m not a person” argument fails against a tax liability. Additionally it is pure fantasy that you are entitled to make up your own procedures for dealing with your tax matters with the argument that you need not observe the procedures for a “person” or individual and that you somehow have the right to expect IRS and/or courts to abide by your made up procedures.
OUR REBUTTAL:
You are absolutely correct that if the EVIDENCE linking the human to the office of “person” is unrebutted, then it is INDEED “frivolous” to argue one is not a “person” as the reason they are no liable for a specific tax. That evidence is the usually false information return itself, which MUST be rebutted, hopefully before it is ever even filed, along with a criminal complaint against all future or present filers for criminal identity theft. Our Terms of Use and Service, Form #01.016, REQUIRES that all information returns be rebutted IN ADVANCE as part of the compliance process, in fact.
CIVIL obligations created by the filing of false information return reports or even false assessments ARE severable from the human target in the case of fraud or mistake. The IRC even provides criminal prosecution and penalties for such fraud or mistake and connects it to those who VOLUNTEER for the ligations of the office of “person”. See 26 U.S.C. §§6671(b) and 7343. You are therefore WRONG on this subject.
Our discussion and EVERYTHING on this site PRESUPPOSE that all such false reports have been rebutted, preferably IN ADVANCE, and that such a rebuttal is the MAIN but not ONLY basis for disputing the alleged liability. It is, in fact, a MANDATORY obligation of all members to REBUT all information returns failed against them AND to NEVER accept any “benefit” that might give rise to a tax obligation to begin with. Thus, there can be no “unjust enrichment” claim on the part of the government for such a scenario and in fact, there is an unjust enrichment claim AGAINST the government by our members if they are disturbed in any way by ILLEGAL tax enforcement or their illegally withheld monies are not returned PLUS interest and penalties by the government, the same way they try to do to most Americans. See below for an example of this:
Using the Laws of Property to Respond to a Federal or State Tax Collection Notice, Form #14.015-SEDM
https://sedm.org/using-the-laws-of-property-to-respond-to-a-federal-or-state-tax-collection-notice/
You can argue all you want about “unjust enrichment” but unless you are willing to pay me for the “benefit” of the services you involuntarily incurred and even DEMANDED in this case from us by your BEHAVIOR (implied consent to our quasi-contract), then your argument is moot and even hypocritical, whether there is a franchise CODE to enforce the implied obligation of reimbursement or not.
By the way, we have our OWN franchise code for just such an occasion where people like you refuse responsibility for paying for such “benefits”, and through your actions, you have incurred the excise taxable obligations to obey the franchise:
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
You can’t govern, tax, or regulate people who are equal to you. The point of departure for all legal questions is how you can create INEQALITY by law between the GOVERNED and the GOVERNORS and still call it “law”, instead of a voluntary franchise YOU get to decide to join and get to decide HOW and under WHAT conditions you express your consent. If you can’t do THAT, then you are just a SLAVE and a victim of legal sophistry. See the following if you don’t know what “sophistry” is:
An Introduction to Sophistry, Form #12.042
https://sedm.org/an-introduction-to-sophistry/
If you REALLY want to talk about UNJUST ENRICHMENT, consider the following:
- IRS charges for EVERY aspect of their “service”. In fact, they call themselves “the SERVICE”.
- You aren’t compensated or given a credit on your return for YOUR services to them in preparing paperwork to comply with their unilateral EDICTS.
- They determine the price for THEIR services. Why can’t you do THAT and submit a price list for the COST of your labor in helping or “servicing” their requirements? If you can’t, you really don’t own yourself and are a slave.
- They write their own “rules”/Regulations governing how you request their “services”. Why can’t you do that when they want your services?
- What if you don’t WANT their CIVIL services or to be a “customer” called a “taxpayer”, “citizen”, or “resident”? Government is just a business that delivers TWO services: CIVIL protection and CRIMINAL protection. CIVIL protection is optional and voluntary while CRIMINAL protection is NOT voluntary. Do you have a right NOT to be a “customer” of the CIVIL protection franchise or not, and if you don’t, don’t we have an illegal adhesion contract and a illegal monopoly on CIVIL protection?
Get a life and quit abusing so-called “law” as an excuse to elevate yourself and your benefactor/sponsor (the government) above everyone else.
TRUTH
Truth fears nothing
Truth fears no lies
Truth doesn’t need to conceal anything
Truth doesn’t have to do a cover up
Truth only hurts those who are unwilling to wake up
Truth is never your enemy [but IS the enemy of those who BENEFIT financially from untruths]
Truth knows no ego [or SUPERIORITY between the GOVERNED and the GOVERNORS]
Truth doesn’t give a shit about your status symbols [e.g. “person”]
Truth doesn’t care about your age, your weight or your skin colour
Truth couldn’t care less if it suits your comfort zone [your REVENUE from pleasing the government as a tax return preparer]
Truth doesn’t need any frills, any speeches, any glamour
Truth stands for itself
and it patiently waits till you are ready for it ❤️
[SEDM]
It’s always amazing how many people just don’t get consent. And somehow they haven’t connected the dots on information returns being the equivalent to swearing out a complaint with a cop. To allow them to see this we ask them:
QUESTION: Ever see those Cop’s episodes on TV where they come out to an alleged domestic violence situation with no evidence the cops can see? Do they automatically arrest someone?
ANSWER: No.
They always ask
“Do you want to swear out a complaint don’t they?”
We tell people…
Notice if you don’t swear out a complaint, they go away because all the powers of government are invoked by a moving party with an accusation. That complaint is the equivalent of under penalty of perjury: It’s an attempt to ascertain the truth for injuries suffered BUT the accused must be able to reach the accuser for remedy if the sworn accusation is wrong. Hence it’s sworn. In other words, “be careful” if you’re swearing out a complaint to be correct INCLUDING KNOWING the law to which you are assigning your accusation under.
Of course for info returns, the IRS just sits back and says:
“It wasn’t US who said you owe us. It was Tom Dinglefinger Stupid who claimed it.”
Then of course they run interference for Tom insuring he doesn’t have to know the law or realize just how he implicated an innocent party.
[…] Internal Revenue Definitions are Binding Without Your Consent to the Office the Obligation Attaches … […]