Frivolous Positions: Introduction

1. Introduction

The term “frivolous” is defined as follows:

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 proposent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense.  Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Col.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.” 

[Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p. 668]

In the context of taxation, a frivolous position is one that does not deal directly with the existence of liability or the amount of liability for tax in the context of the DECLARED CIVIL STATUS of the “taxpayer”.

2. IRS Tactics for Rebutting Frivolous Positions

The most common tactic used by the IRS to rebut frivolous positions is to:

  1. Refer to the party they are rebutting with a term that PRESUMES consent to acquire the obligations associated with the status. We also call this “hiding consent”.
  2. PRESUME a DOMESTIC situs for the party they are rebutting. By Domestic, we mean a status or property ELECTED to be WITHIN the United States federal corporation as PUBLIC property.
  3. PRESUME the meaning of terms like “foreign” as being used only in their geographical context instead of their PRIVATE or FOREIGN context.
  4. Equivocate with terms that have multiple contexts. For instance, conflating POLITICAL citizens* with CIVIL/DOMICILED citizens**+D.
  5. Attack general statements that are susceptible to multiple contexts and not revealing ALL the contexts implied or the one they are PRESUMING in their definition.

3. Sophistry

All of the above tactics have in common that they are techniques of “sophists”. Sophisty is the abuse of language to deceive people.

soph•ist•ry – the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

We must carefully avoid all such forms of deception and especially those by lawyers and governments.  Legal ignorance or imprecise speech INVITE sophistry. Legally ignorant people make very imprecise statements that are not true in all cases. All the hearer of IMPRECISE speech needs to do in order to discredit it is to point out even ONE scenario where the speech or claim is UNTRUE, or to employe legal “terms” that PRESUPPOSE the scenario where it is untrue.

IMPRECISE speech in the legal field is called “general expressions”. The following maxims of law government “general expressions”:

“Dolosus versatur generalibus. A deceiver deals in generals. 2 Co. 34.”

“Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.“

Generale nihil certum implicat. A general expression implies nothing certain. 2 Co. 34.

Ubi quid generaliter conceditur, in est haec exceptio, si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque. Where a thing is concealed generally, this exception arises, that there shall be nothing contrary to law and right. 10 Co. 78.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]

General expressions are only possible if the terms being employed are:

  1. UNDEFINED
  2. LOOSELY or IMPRECISELY defined.
  3. Susceptible of multiple contexts in which all contexts that exist are UNDISCLOSED by your opponent.

Example techniques involving sophistry are the following dishonest techniques:

  1. Using vague terms or “words of art” and refusing to define which meaning or context is implied.  This is the most obvious evidence that you are dealing with a sophist.
  2. Using emotions rather than law and facts and evidence to persuade.  This is especially true when they try to make you afraid if you don’t do something they want you to do that will usually benefit them personally.
  3. Judges not allowing juries to even read the law they are enforcing. This forces them to operate in an emotional rather than law and facts mode, and to have these things filtered or misrepresented by CORRUPT judges who usually have a criminal financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, 28 U.S.C. 144, and 28 U.S.C. 455.
  4. Presumption about the meaning of terms.  See Presumption:  Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017.
  5. Equivocation of geographical terms (Form #11.215) or words of art (Form #10.004).  See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.
  6. Omission in addressing issues raised administratively and in court to prevent losing on a particular issue.  This is opposed by using defaults and nihil dicit judgments.  See Notary Certificate of Dishonor Process, Form #07.006.

We refer to those in the government or the legal profession who engage in sophistry as “diabolical narcissists”, psychopaths, or sociopaths.  The video below describes how to deal with SCUMBAG people (Form #11.401) like this.  The legal profession is filled with scumbags like this whose motto is win at all costs and to hell with justice (Form #05.050) or morality:

Diabolical Narcissism: The origin of all evil in the political sphere-Anne Barnhardt
https://sedm.org/diabolical-narcissism-the-origin-of-all-evil-in-the-political-sphere/

4. Specific Terms and Contexts Most Susceptible to Sophistry

The purpose of confusing contexts within the government and legal profession is to kidnap your civil legal identity or the status of your private property and bring either one within the legislative jurisdiction of a specific government. The result is IDENTITY THEFT if you are aware of it as described in:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

Below is a list of contexts that are most susceptible to sophistry in the tax field:

  1. Government terms: “United States” can mean
    1.1. The GOVERNMENT as a legal person and federal corporation.
    1.2. The geographical “United States” within the Constitution consisting of the exclusive jurisdiction of the constitutional states.
    1.3. The geographical “United States” used in most federal civil law, consisting of the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government within territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia.
  2. Geographical terms: POLITICAL v. GEOGRAPHICAL “United States” and “State”.
  3. Citizenship terms: POLITICAL Citizens* v. CIVIL/DOMICILED Citizens**+D.
  4. Foreign/Domestic terms:
    3.1. Foreign is synonymous with PRIVATE.
    3.2. Domestic is synonymous with PUBLIC and within the government as either a PUBLIC STATUS or as PUBLIC PROPERTY of some kind.
    3.3. Foreign v. Domestic is never geographical and always CIVIL.
    3.4. Someone can be foreign and still be on land protected by he Constitution.
  5. Public v. Private terms:
    4.1. PUBLIC context is always connected with DOMICILE, CIVIL jurisdiction, and government granted privileges.
    4.2. PRIVATE context is always connected with CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL context, constitutional rights, and never civil statutory privileges.

5. Most Susceptible Audience to Sophistry

People most likely to fall prey to sophistry are:

  • The legally ignorant.
  • Those who are lazy or inclined to presumption because of their laziness.
  • Those who have never been badly victimized by sophistry.
  • Those who never question anything.
  • Those suffering the Dunning-Kruger Effect. See:
    What if You’re the Dumbass?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT81fe2IobI

6. Debating Sophists

If you are engaged in a debate with them or litigation against them is to:

  1.  In debates or litigation or depositions: INSIST that they DEFINE ALL TERMS and the CONTEXT of those terms (STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL) the BEGINNING of the debate or legal action, and to provide default definitions that apply to and limit the debate BEFORE it begins. We solve this with our SEDM Disclaimer and our Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027.
  2. Insist that the meaning of ALL contexts of terms they are using be identified.  This is ESPECIALLY true if it is a legal term that has two mutually exclusive and non-overlapping contexts such:
    2.1.  CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY
    2.2.  PHYSICAL/GEOGRAPHICAL and LEGAL
  3. In government forms and correspondence: Attach a mandatory attachment that defines all terms on the form to completely eliminate any commercial purpose or any government jurisdiction.  See Avoiding Traps in Government Forms, Form #12.023.

The above tactics have the effect of:

  1. Preventing equivocation as a method to procure your consent INVISIBLY to convert usually PRIVATE property or rights to PUBLIC property or rights.
  2. Forcing them to expose all of their usually unconstitutional and self-serving presumptions (Form #05.017) up front so that they can be challenged and prevented from damaging you. 

7. Preventing Sophistry in Your Own Speech and Its Interpretation

The best way to PREVENT sophistry in your speech is to:

  1. Provide detailed definitions of all key words BEFORE any debate begins. These definitions should define BOTH what is included and what is excluded in the meaning of the term.
  2. Avoid terms defined by your opponent or reject their definitions. These definitions are ambiguous enough that they invite sophistry and equivocation.
  3. If your opponent uses terms susceptible of multiple contexts, then respond by identifying the multiple contexts and asking them which one they mean.

8. Resources on frivolous tax positions:

  1. The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, IRS
    https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction
  2. Rebutted version of the IRS “the Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, Form #08.005
    https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf
  3. Authorities on “frivolous”, Family Guardian Fellowship
    https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/frivolous.htm
  4. Responding to “Frivolous” Penalties or Accusations, Form #05.027** (Member Subscriptions)
    https://sedm.org/product/meaning-of-the-word-frivolous-form-05-027/