Related articles:

When you are litigating in a federal court against the IRS, you have two opponents who are both defending the government:

  • The U.S. attorney with the Department of Injustice (D.O.J.), who will be representing the IRS,  and
  • The judge.

As we pointed out earlier in section 5.4.9, the Department of Justice has no lawful delegated authority to prosecute Subtitle A Tax Crimes, and even if they did, they aren’t authorized to do so outside of the federal United States/federal zone.  We also pointed out earlier in section 5.5.4 that federal courts have no lawful delegated authority to enforce criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code no matter where the offense occurred.  This is because the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the federal government has no “police powers” within the union states and only the state government have this power.  This basis alone ought to be enough to get any tax prosecution initiated by the government thrown out of federal court as frivolous!  However, the corruption and gameplaying doesn’t stop there.  We’re only getting started folks.  Now do you understand why Irwin Schiff says that more federal crimes occur daily on the federal bench in federal court than anywhere else in the country?

When patriots do their homework and use their Constitutional rights and legal research effectively when litigating, they can and often do back the government into a corner and make them desperate.  If you successfully disarmed the government of their chief weapons and all their bombastic and rhetorical tools and evidence, corrupt judges and attorneys for the government will then grasp for the equivalent of the “race card” by trying try to falsely accuse these successful patriots of using “frivolous” arguments or  of being “vexatious litigants”.  They know that in order to win, they have to paint you with a negative word or stereotype to make you look bad in front of the jury and the judge and thereby increase their chances of winning.  They also have to get some negative words into the court record so the appeals court will have something to slander you with also, even if it isn’t true.  They know that this will deter you from coming back with an appeal if they wrongfully make a finding against you.  This approach is a red herring intended to make slanderous charges stick against you so the judge can fine or sanction you and thereby take attention away from them having to defend against your sound and valid legal arguments.  This kind of extortion is also designed to empty your pockets so you can’t afford to defend yourself by filing an appeal.  The reasoning on their part is:

“If you repeat a lie often enough and forcefully enough, people will begin to believe it!”

Such tactics are the government’s way of financially “punishing” dissenters, just like the Communists punished political dissidents.  The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee us a right to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances at all times, but this seldom stops corrupt judges from financially sanctioning people who expect their rights to be honored!  Judges will act in court like you don’t have any rights, and as long as you claim to be a “U.S. citizen” or a “U.S. person” occupying the federal zone by filing a form 1040, they will be right!  These tactics, of course, are unethical, emotionally abusive, and irrational, but they are part of the “psyops” (psychological operations) campaign the government systematically uses against sovereign Americans to maintain the extortionary slave tax called the income tax.  Its illegal, its brutal, its unfair, and as long as we don’t fight it on the political front by getting judges who use it FIRED and sanctioned and stripped of their retirement pay, it will continue.  This is one of the reasons we believe that federal judges need to be elected rather than appointed by the president, because it would stop these abuses immediately.

The intent of this section is therefore to teach you how to defend against charges of being “frivolous” in order to increase your chances of winning.  Let’s start off with a definition of “frivolous” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 668:

Frivolous:  Of little weight or importance.  A pleading is “frivolous” when it is clearly insufficient on its face, and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent.  A claim or defense is frivolous if a proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense.  Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Colo.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142.  Frivolous pleadings may be amended to proper form, or ordered stricken, under federal and state Rules of Civil Procedure.

Frivolous action.  Groundless lawsuit with little prospect of success; often brought to embarrass or annoy the defendant.  See Failure to state cause of action.

Frivolous appeal.  One in which no justiciable question has been presented and appeal is readily recognizable as devoid of merit in that there is little prospect that it can ever succeed.  Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, Mo.App., 527 S.W.2d 50, 53.  IN federal practice, if a court of appeals determines that an appeal is “frivolous,” it may award damages and single or double costs to the appellee.  Fed.R.App.P. 38.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 668]

The elements necessary to prove frivolity therefore include:

  1. Of little weight or importance. (According to who: the judge or an objective written standard that can be clearly proved, and WHAT objective standard?).
  2. Groundless (not based on a legal claim and doesn’t prove the elements necessary to prove that claim.  See section 6.6 for how to build a good legal claim).
  3. Little chance of succeeding.  Once again, according to what:  the judge or an objective written standard that can be clearly shown or proved?
  4. Insufficient pleading that doesn’t address the issues.
  5. Designed or intended mainly to embarrass the opponent

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.C.P.) authorize judges to sanction litigants for frivolous arguments.  Below is a cite from the Notes of Advisory Committee on 1980 amendments to Rules.

Subdivision (f), Rule 26, found at{@2499}?:

If the court is persuaded that a request is frivolous or vexatious, it can strike it. See Rules 11 and 7(b)(2).

The notes on Rule 11 of F.R.C.P. at the above website also state on the subject of sanctions for frivolous arguments under Rule 11:

Sanctions that involve monetary awards (such as a fine or an award of attorney's fees) may not be imposed on a represented party for violations of subdivision (b)(2), involving frivolous contentions of law. Monetary responsibility for such violations is more properly placed solely on the party's attorneys. With this limitation, the rule should not be subject to attack under the Rules Enabling Act. See Willy v. Coastal Corp., __ U.S. __ (1992); Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enter. Inc., __ U.S. __ (1991). This restriction does not limit the court's power to impose sanctions or remedial orders may have collateral financial consequences upon a party, such as dismissal of a claim, preclusion of a defense, or preparation of amended pleadings.
[Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 11]

So when your arguments are frivolous, the court can either sanction your attorney financially, or strike your pleadings entirely, leaving you defenseless with nothing to argue in front of the court, because you can only argue what is in your pleadings!  If you are litigating in pro per, the above rule would seem to imply that you can’t be sanctioned.  However, the judge who is attempting to sanction your attorney has to meet the burden of proof and honor your due process rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.  He must, for instance:

1.Provide evidence or proof on the record supporting his claim that your case is “frivolous”.

2.Give you a jury trial if you request one as part of the determination of whether it is frivolous.

3.Have the charges heard and ruled upon by a judge other than himself based on the evidence he presents.

If any of the above elements are missing, then you have been deprived of due process and the judge’s ruling on the contempt or frivolous sanctions is a void judgment that can be vacated (nullified) at any time without a statute of limitations!  Realize also that a “threat” by a judge to sanction you for either frivolous pleadings or contempt is simply a charge or accusation against you designed to intimidate and coerce you.  It is NOT, however, a judgment, nor is the judge solely allowed to make the judgment of frivolity or contempt himself on a case he is hearing, since this would be a conflict of interest in violation of  28 U.S.C. 455.  In many cases, if you are using an attorney instead of litigating yourself in pro per, your attorney will also try to convince you that the sanction was against you rather than him, so he doesn’t have to pay it personally.  We have a joke about this that helps reveal why he might do this:


The Godfather, accompanied by his attorney, walked into a room to meet with his accountant. The Godfather asked the accountant, "Where's the three million bucks you embezzled from me?" The accountant didn't answer. The Godfather demanded again, "Where's the three million bucks you embezzled from me?"

The attorney interrupted, "Sir, the man is a deaf-mute and cannot understand you, but I can interpret for you."

The Godfather said, "Well, ask him where the !@#$ money is." The attorney, using sign language, asked the accountant where the three million dollars was.

The accountant signed back, "I don't know what you're talking about." The attorney interpreted to the Godfather, "He doesn't know what you're talking about."

The Godfather pulled out a pistol, put it to the temple of the accountant, cocked the trigger and said, "Ask him again where the !@#$ money is!"

The attorney signed to the accountant, "He wants to know where it is!"

The accountant signed back, "Okay! Okay! The money's hidden in a suitcase behind the shed in my backyard!"

The Godfather said, "Well, what did he say?"

The attorney interpreted to the Godfather, "He says you don't have the guts to pull the trigger."

What are some ways we can defend against such clearly unethical and illegal judicial and DOJ and legal profession tactics?  Here are a few very successful techniques you should incorporate into every aspect of your litigation against the government:

  1. Prevent frivolous charges by including an affidavit of true facts in every pleading that you file with the court.  Filing the pleading with an affidavit or notary seal makes it a “verified” pleading or motion.  The affidavit should declare under penalty of perjury the facts and evidence needed to establish your claim or defense.  Remember that you are the injured party in most cases and in addition to acting in pro per as your own attorney, you also have the ability to act as a witness.  No pleading can be called frivolous which includes such an affidavit.  Your government opponent cannot act as a witness, so this puts you at an advantage over him.
  2. If you are the moving party or the plaintiff, ensure that you clearly establish the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to act in your pleadings.  The moving party who is seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction always bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists.  Jurisdiction of the court cannot either be waived by the judge or stipulated by the opposing parties, it must be proven by the moving party using law and evidence and it must be done on the court record.
  3. Emphasize that you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment.  This is a right guaranteed by the constitution, and the exercise of rights cannot be penalized, taxed, or fined by the government!
  4. Always demand a jury trial.  The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a jury trial.  28 U.S.C. 2402 also requires that if you are suing the U.S. government, you are entitled to a jury.  However, you will only get a jury if you ask for one in your pleadings.

    “Ask not and ye shall DEFINITELY receive not.”

  5. If you are the defendant and you amended your “U.S. citizenship”, emphasize repeatedly both in your pleadings and your oral arguments that you have been deprived of due process of law because the jury is not a jury of your peers.  People cannot serve on any federal juries these days without being a “U.S. citizen” and since you, the accused, are not a “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401, but rather a “National” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21), then its you, a sovereign against a group of communists from the totalitarian socialist democracy who are part of the federal corporation called the “United States**” and that is wrong.
  6. Make sure you pick issues for which there is a controversy about facts, so that a jury must be involved in order to rule on the case.  Judges will incorrectly tell you that their role is to rule on law, while the role of the jury, they will say, is to rule only on facts.  In fact, juries can rule on both the laws and the facts when there is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the judge, and you should communicate that to the jury frequently throughout the trial.  Thomas Jefferson agreed with this when he said (see under “Jury Nullification” and under “Judicial Branch”):

    "With us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except the judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in a jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because to that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges."
    [Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482]

    "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]

    "If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right which is casual only is less dangerous to the state and less afflicting to the loser than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system."
    [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:179]

    "The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it."
    [Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:35]

    If both parties agree on the facts, then the judge will try to take advantage of this by eliminating the jury and doing a summary or declaratory judgment.  Always make sure you pick at least one issue of fact that you know the government won’t agree to and which will therefore require a jury to decide so that the government’s power will be constrained by that of the jury.  Having a jury there will also keep the judge from becoming a tyrant because he will be watched by concerned citizens on the jury who want their rights protected from government abuses.

  7. Use only maintstream, successful arguments that you can easily explain to juries.  A case cannot be described as frivolous which relies on arguments that have never been challenged or refuted in court, or for which there is no court record of the challenge because the case was unpublished.  Successful arguments by patriots are often made unpublished by the courts so that others won’t find out about them.  This is part of the government cover-up you should expect and expose to the jury.  Cases that are unpublished can’t be cited as authorities!  Therefore, when you use successful mainstream arguments, the government will have a hard time finding case cites or authorities to use against you, and because silence against your arguments by the government constitutes acquiescence in the legal field, you will kick their butt in front of the jury!  We have a list of successful and mainstream arguments you can use later in section
  8. Keep your arguments laser focused.  Pick only a few key arguments instead of a long laundry list of complicated issues.  If you get wrapped up on complicated issues like the 861 issues, you will confuse the judge and the jury, and this will make them reluctant to rule in your favor.  Even though they are supposed to give you, the accused, the benefit of the doubt, they will typically give the government the benefit of the doubt absent clearly defined arguments and claims on your part as a pro per litigant.
  9. Call ahead of each hearing and request a preread.  A “preread” is a request to the judge to review certain parts of your pleadings in advance of the hearing so that he will be familiar with them.  Either side can request a preread, and calling the judge or his clerk before the hearing can also help build a rapport with the judge that will advantage your case.  Prereads are typically requested and accomplished a day or so before your scheduled hearing, and the court rules in many courts often define the rules under which you can request “prereads”.  In your preread request, select succinct parts of your pleadings or evidence that emphasize key issues and the rational basis for your claim with that issue.
  10. When you are contradicting your opponent, use the government’s own words against them.  Don’t rely on your own opinion or belief.  This book has lots of cites from the government’s own mouth proving the illegality of the income tax as it is enforced.  Quote these sources frequently as proof of your own position.
  11. If your arguments are rational, logical, and unemotional, your chances of being called “frivolous” are correspondingly reduced.  Don’t get emotionally wrapped up in the issues, but at the same time, be passionate about what you believe because the judge and the jury will buy it!
  12. A passionate appeal can make a big difference.  Be assertive, practical, and respectful at all times with everyone.
    “Do you homework and know your facts but remember:  It’s passion that persuades!”
  13. Anticipate arguments of your opponents and disprove them in your pleadings before you ever get into court.  This will silence the ignorant babblings of your opponent before you ever get in the courtroom.
  14. Question all authorities cited by your opponent.  If he cites court precedents/cases in his pleadings as authorities for his position, look every one of them up and make sure you understand the weak points of his authorities.
  15. Keep the size of your pleadings and evidence to a minimum.  Long or voluminous pleadings can create a big burden on the judge to read a lot of materials.  This may get him mad and want to sanction you for creating extra work for him and your other government opponent.  One way to minimize the bulk of your pleadings and evidence is to “lodge” larger evidentiary exhibits before a hearing so they don’t need to become a permanent part of your court record.  You “lodge” an exhibit by coming into court and providing to the clerk the exhibit and a notice of lodgment.  A copy of the notice of lodgment is then sent to your opponent, which is a way of putting him on notice that he should come in and read what you have submitted to the court.