INSTRUCTIONS:  5.6.  Litigate the RIGHT issues and learn how to get them in front of a jury

Related research:

The government wins against freedom fighters in court most of the time because it is very successful in getting them to both argue and litigate the wrong issues so that jury attention isn’t focused on the important or more provable issues.    This is a famous war tactic:  Get your enemy to use up all his ammunition on decoys before the real war starts.  Getting freedom fighters to argue the wrong issues is also how the government’s opposing counsel can make litigants look incompetent and stupid in front of the court and justify sanctions against them.  That’s why we always say:

“Never argue what your opponent wants to argue about.  Stick to your own issues or you will spend all of your time defending against their frivolous verbal abuse and never get to your issues.  If you have to address their issues, do so last as time permits and discuss your issues first.”

Therefore, one of the most important things you need to learn before you litigate is what the best and most important and successful issues are to litigate.  If you spend all your time arguing unimportant minutia, you will lose the jury and the case and piss off the judge.  One attorney we spoke with even had a term he uses to describe the process of arguing the wrong issues:  "mental masturbation".  Furthermore, only a fool would let an attorney lead the case or leave it up to their attorney to decide what the important issues are, because as we said in section 1.11.3 of the Great IRS Hoax, most attorneys are licensed by the state and don’t dare blow up the fraudulent income tax system for fear of losing that license and literally starving to death.  The judges are just as biased because they think their pay comes from income taxes and if they turn on the IRS, they could be audited or harassed endlessly by collection actions or have all their pay confiscated in retribution.  How is judicial independence possible with that kind of insidious conflict of interest overpowering our laws and constitution?

Remember that all litigation is broken down into two aspects:  

  1. Facts, which are handled by the jury;
  2. Law which is handled by the judge.  

The only exception to this general rule is when the judge has bias, in which case Thomas Jefferson said:

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty."
[Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283 ]

As much as possible, you should try to break the issues down in your mind, in your arguments in court, and in your pleadings between these two major areas, so that the litigation can be divided into things for the jury and things for the judge to decide.  The facts are disclosed in the affidavit section within your pleading.  The law is addressed in the Points and Authorities section of your pleading.  All successful tax litigation boils down the issues to law and facts in controversy that a judge and a jury respectively can establish and rule on which:

  1. Are as simple as possible.
  2. Reveal with evidence the conflict of interest present in the opposing counsel and the judge. The best time to do this is during voir dire, and you should grill the judge and the attorneys mercilessly to show their bias.   See sections 2.8.13.1 and 6.9 of the Great IRS Hoax for more details on this.
  3. Are embarrassing for the government to talk about, so that they will default and acquiesce to your position.
  4. Show lack of jurisdiction on the part of the government.
  5. Point out all important presumptions that violate your due process rights under the Constitution.   See section 2.8.2 of the Great IRS Hoax for a list of some of the false presumptions.
  6. Reveal the hypocrisy and arrogance of the government towards most citizens, which gets the jury mad enough to rule against the government.
  7. Include evidence that is entertaining for the jury and conclusive of the facts you are trying to establish.

Before you formulate a list of issues to litigate, you must have read at least the first five chapters of this book or you won’t have enough background to understand most of the issues.  These chapters provide excellent preparation and background that is invaluable.  After you have read these chapters, you hopefully will realize that that the important issues, arranged in descending order of importance, are:

Table 3-12: Important issues to litigate

# Issue Section(s) in this book where discussed Section(s) in Great IRS Hoax book where discussed Reason
1 No territorial jurisdiction of I.R.C. 5.2 through 5.2.11 Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A through C only apply inside the federal zone.
2 No territorial jurisdiction of federal court 6.4 through 6.4.9 5.4.15, 5.5.4 Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce only crimes under Title 18 inside the federal zone.
3 Not a “U.S. citizen”   4.12 through 4.12.9 , 5.6.12 In most cases, your proper status is either “state-only citizen” or “U.S. national” depending on which of the two you chose and based on your expatriation paperwork.
4 No “income”   5.6.6 “Income” is constitutionally defined as corporate profit only.
5 Lack of liability statutes and the IRS has no authority to legally “assess” a liability   5.4.4, 5.5.8, 5.6.1, 5.6.13 There is no statute making anyone liable for the income tax imposed in 26 U.S.C. §1.  The IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual section 5.1.11.9 clearly lists the types of returns for which a Substitute For Return (SFR) can be prepared and the 1040 isn’t listed, and neither does 26 U.S.C. §6020 or the IRS’ own training materials authorize such an assessment either.  The only amounts a “taxpayer” is liable for are the amounts on a return, and only the “taxpayer” can file the return under 26 U.S.C. §6151 and 26 CFR §1.6151.
6 I’m not a “taxpayer” and neither the IRS nor the federal courts have the power to confer that status upon me   5.6.13 The only people who are “taxpayers” are those who volunteer to be, because there is no statute making anyone liable for payment of Subtitles A income taxes.
7 Involuntary income taxes violate the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits involuntary servitude 3.4.1 3.10.6, 3.10.9, 4.12.5 thru 4.12.5.4, 5.4.1, and 5.4.2 In a free country, slavery and involuntary servitude has to be illegal.  I never volunteered or consented to pay the tax so it can’t apply to me.  Any tax forms that I signed or filed were submitted under duress, in which case they are not admissible as evidence of consent.  Income taxes, unless voluntary, amount to slavery.
8 No implementing regulations authorizing enforcement actions against state citizens living in 50 union states 3.8, 3.14.2 through 3.14.4, 5.4.7, 5.4.8 of our Great IRS Hoax book A statute cannot be enforced without:  1.  An implementing regulation; 2.  An agency with investigative jurisdiction; 3.  Publishment of the implementing regulation in the Federal Register.
9 Sixteenth Amendment does NOT authorize Subtitle A income taxes and there isn’t a Constitutional provision that does authorize taxes on income that is other than “corporate profit” 3.10.11 through 3.10.11.11, 3.16.11, 5.4.2, 5.6.6, Intro to Chapter 6. According to the Supreme Court, the Sixteenth Amendment never authorized a tax on other than “corporate profit”.  Only an indirect tax on corporations involved in revenue taxable activities, which are foreign commerce.
10 Illegal collection actions under 26 U.S.C. §7433 and 26 U.S.C. §7214   3.4.6, 3.5.4.21 The IRS cannot administratively lien or levy the property of a private person outside of the federal zone without violating their constitutional rights.
11 The Internal Revenue Code is “void for vagueness” and there is no possible way that I can sign a return under penalty of perjury stating that it is true because I not only don’t know the law, but it is impossible for me to fully understand the law without making reading and learning all 9500 pages of it into a career.    5.11 Laws that are simple enough for the common man to read and understand are the only thing that are enforceable in court.  Any other type of law is void for vagueness and violates the right of due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.  However, even many tax professionals, attorneys, and most federal judges admit that they don’t understand the tax laws.

Notice that we didn’t put the 861 argument of section 5.6.11 of the Great IRS Hoax in the above list, because the regulation at 26 CFR §1.861-8 upon which it is based have been so obfuscated by the Treasury Secretary so as to be extremely confusing and the case would therefore focus too much on minutia to be comprehensible for most juries.  A better way to attack that regulation is that it is “void for vagueness” or by using Larken Rose’s Theft By Deception video.  Below are some additional issues that should NOT be litigated for the reasons above and other reasons.  We have listed only the most popular bad arguments, but there are many others not listed.  Chapter 9 provides an exhaustive listing of all the bad arguments you shouldn’t address in your litigation because they don’t hit the important points:

  • The Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified.  There has been a lawsuit in each federal circuit over this issues spearheaded by Larry BeCraft and Bill Benson and in each case, the U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled that this was a political question and that the court could not address the issue.  See U.S. v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1498 (1986) as one example.  As we point out repeatedly throughout this book, the federal income tax under Subtitles A through C only applies inside the federal zone and most people don’t live in the federal zone.  We agree that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn’t properly ratified, but it doesn’t matter, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new powers of taxation” upon Congress.  See Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), for instance.
  • The income tax is a “direct tax” and the Constitution doesn’t authorize direct unapportioned taxes under 1:2:3 and 1:9:4.  This argument has been lost several times because it doesn’t focus on the definition of “income”, which the Supreme Court has ruled several times means “corporate profit”.  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) took the focus off of what type of tax the income tax is: direct or indirect and instead focused on which types of “income” are taxable.  We agree with you that the income tax under Subtitle A is enforced by the IRS as though it were a “direct tax” and that the Constitution doesn’t authorize a direct tax, but the better argument to focus on that has more success in court is "income" because the Supreme Court has ruled on it several times is the definition of “income” shown in item 4 in the above table.   See sections 3.10.6, and 5.2 thru 5.2.5 of the Great IRS Hoax for further details on this subject.
  • The monies I received are not “lawful money” but debt obligations of the U.S. government owed to the Federal Reserve.  Debt obligations aren’t taxable in the States under 31 U.S.C. §3124 and neither are they taxable for the federal government.  See section 5.6.2 of the Great IRS Hoax for details.  This argument, although correct, is not something that has traditionally gone very far and juries don’t understand it very well.

Another very important thing to know is what you can use as the basis for your legal rights and remedies.  We emphasize that you can only use sources of law that have what the courts call the “force and effect of law”.  You must be able to discern law from hearsay.  Anything that does not have the force of law is hearsay and is usually inadmissible as evidence (fact) in a court of law.  We have taken the time to catalog on our website all the various authorities, statutes, regulations, and IRS documents to explicitly list which sources are admissible as evidence and which confer rights and you should thoroughly review that section and understand it completely:  Below is a link to that portion of our website.  It’s in the website because it is frequently updated: