AN OUTLINE OF A WINNING PLAN
Using the 8 Point Response FormatBy: Bob Minarik
"Everybody wants to win, but very few want to prepare to win." says a veteran former Indiana basketball coach who has a track record as a winner for more than 20 years. The bottom line of what he says is that those who do prepare will win and those who don't will be consistent losers.
If you want to know how to win, study a winner. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. You just need to look at the bottom line of those who are successful winners and start building from their established foundation. Find the common thread found in all winners and adapt it for your use. For starters take a moment to assess any good coach, or successful general, or good parent and you will find there are four basic foundational corner blocks from which they all build. These blocks are a plan, preparation, patience and discipline. Within those cornerstones are communication, faith, and perseverance.
If we understand this principle and we have the conviction to fight the good fight, we must seek out and incorporate the wisdom of those who have developed a track record and a standard as winners. We should be studying the techniques of winners like Vince Lombardi, Bobby Knight, and Bobby Fisher. If you have to ask,"Who are those guys?", then you have some homework to do as they are not just sports figures, but important role models for establishing a winning record.
A very early winner was a Chinese philosopher, by the name of Sun Tzu, who lived about 500 years before Christ. Sun Tzu's strategy for winning has been used by military generals throughout history, even to this day, and his words and works have been incorporated into a book entitled, THE ART OF WAR (9.00 bucks includes postage - paperback edition from Oxford University Press, Attention: Order Dept., 2001 Evans Rd., Cary, North Carolina - Ph. 1-800-451-7556). In my opinion, one of the most important observations he made was as follows:
" If a man knows himself and knows his opponent, he need not fear a hundred battles. If a man knows himself and knows not his opponent, for every victory he will suffer a defeat. If a man knows neither himself nor his opponent, he is a fool and will suffer defeat in every battle."
As Sun Tzu points out, the key to success is knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of our opponents on a one on one basis. Today, we have a reputation for losing because we are trying to recover on an individual case by case basis from mistakes we made five or more years ago or because we totally relied on what we thought was a silver bullet.
If we have heard it once we have heard it a thousand times, "There is no such thing as a silver bullet." A fact of life, that we are going to have to face, is that today's judges will simply deny any issue of law that could inflict any fatal injury to our present "income" taxing structure.
Although I'm well aware of the judicial tyranny we are encountering, I feel that the bottom line of the cause for our losses was lack of preparation due to a lack of knowledge, effort, and/or the lack of desire to prepare to win by each and every one of us.
In addressing any problem involving the Internal Revenue Service, we should understand that attacks by the government upon the rights of the people have taken place for years and that a WAR is being conducted for control of our home, our property, our family, our minds and our bodies. If we don't understand or refuse to acknowledge and accept this fact, it would be wise to get back in the system and be "good little slaves" as the issue is not merely misuse of tax revenues, but more importantly the unlawful theft of our rights, our liberty and our property.
A successful preacher was once asked, "How is it that your congregation is so knowledgeable and enthusiastic?" The preacher responded, "First I tell them what I'm going to tell them, then I tell them, then I tell them what I told them."
In following that guideline, we'll start by telling you that our entire purpose is to lay out fundamentals for a winning position, using the IRS as an example adversary. Then we'll try to communicate to you an outline of a winning plan of action that incorporates those fundamentals and which can be adapted to any government, corporate, or individual intrusion into your life. Then we'll address some of the "dos and don'ts" and give you some workable examples as a guide.
What we won't do, is do it for you. The responsibility to put that plan into action will be yours.
One of the best approaches in dealing with any potential problem is look at the worst case scenario and then work backwards in looking for a solution.
If we're going to learn from history, we need to establish and incorporate certain fundamentals so that new participants can be winners in the future and present participants can back track on a sound basis before serious injury is done unto them.
For those involved or about to get involved in the tax patriot movement or who just personally want to claim their rights and stop the "voluntary" submission of information as subjects to the IRS, the worst case scenario is that the government wants to put you in jail, take everything you have, destroy your marriage and break up your family. And that folks is NOT an exaggeration!! Never, ever underestimate an opponent that has a track record as vile, yet as successful as the IRS!!!
In addressing this threefold scenario, it would be wise to try to rectify the most serious possibility first - the destruction of your marriage and your family. Let's look at a hypothetical, yet realistic example. The major breadwinner of the family realizes that he is being ripped off and he has been acting the part of the servant and not the master. He says, "Enough of this theft, I'm no longer going to voluntarily waive any of my rights and the security of my papers and effects." But before any action is taken, a physical break needs to be made from the time when one was a "subject" filer to when he starts to reclaim his status as master.
In order to insure at least one of the family providers is protected from a fraudulent attack, it would be wise to sever any "marital tie" for so called "tax purposes" which had been previously established. Past "joint returns" should not be left hanging. Wisdom should prevail. At least one year of submission of a "single return" by the homemaker or provider should be made. Instead of a potential attack being made against both family providers, one is now available to keep the family going if the other should come under criminal attack and be conscripted into the prison labor force.
Any family property held singly or jointly can and should also be protected before one attempts to reclaim his master status. Attempts to transfer or sell property after an alleged "tax year" in which the government could even claim a potential tax liability, usually won't wash. Even if, an after the fact transfer did wash, you are still likely to incur unnecessary hassle and expense trying to quiet title to property which they can cloud with just 10 minutes of their time and a 12 buck recording fee. There are timely and acceptable methods to transfer property before the fact. Those should be researched and appropriately implemented.
Generally today's courts will simply roll over to the government's claim of a fraudulent conveyance. Even though the courts grant most favorable status to the government, they usually won't grant such favorable status unless they can project a good reason to, at least, maintain the facade that the theft is legitimate. Don't give them that opportunity. If one is going to make a transfer of title or deed, it should be done prior to the stopping of the submission of information tax forms. You may either follow this suggestion or sell the property to a stranger and move to a different location.
Wisdom also suggests that you and your spouse get out of the banking system. And not just a partial get out, rather a complete get out. NO checks period. NO bank accounts period. Information held by a third party is seldom, if ever, protectable. No privacy claim can be made after you voluntarily waive the right. Just read the fine print on the application you sign to open an account and you'll get the picture.
Covering yourself against the third case scenario of coming under criminal attack, will also have great benefit in protecting against an attack on the family and property. A reasonable, chronological, systematic approach should be used. In a criminal trial situation in the federal courts, you will not receive a jury of your peers. It is rare to have a juror who is not partial to the government. If they are not pre-screened before jury selection, they most certainly are after the voir dire (questioning) by the judge. When the judge asks the jurors, "Is there anyone here who has taken a position for or against the collection of taxes?", you generally end up with a bunch of wimps who won't decide a case on the merits but who will roll over because nothing plausible has been offered by the defendant that their limited thinking ability can comprehend. You'll have to overcome their presumption of your guilt and their belief that if you weren't guilty, you wouldn't be there.
In a criminal trial, you are in a situation against both the judge and the government as adversaries. Every judge will always claim that the jury is the judge of the facts but the judge is the judge of the law and he will impose an obligation on the jury to determine the facts in light of the law the way the judge instructs the jury. Error or not, this is a fact of life today, regardless of the fine efforts being made by the Fully Informed Jury Amendment Committee to bring an awareness to the public that the jury is the rightful judge of both the law and the facts.
Judges, however, will usually try to present at least the facade of justice, but no legal issues of substance, that will effect the outcome of the verdict, will be granted. I think one of the biggest errors we, in the patriot movement have made, is that we have spent so much time developing legal arguments, that we have overlooked the development and presentation of the factual issues.
I repeat, we have to go back to basics. Although I am not overly impressed by the "Cheek" decision [U.S. v. Cheek, 111 S.Ct. 604 (1991)], I see this decision as giving a pretty solid foundation for a favorable jury instruction on the issue of "willfulness", which is a very important element in all federal tax offenses charged. This case should be obtained and reviewed.
Every approach should be addressed from the position of what a reasonable and prudent man would do, based on today's standard of what is considered a reasonable and prudent man. Would a reasonable and prudent man stop filing forms which he has submitted annually for 20 plus years without first making a good intentioned inquiry? I personally think that approach would be unacceptable to the average "boobus Americanus" juror.
I believe and I think the government believes, that even today's "If I gotta pay, you gotta pay" thinking juror would have the benefit of doubt for a man who testified that before he stopped filing, he made serious inquiry and responded to every inquiry by the government before he stopped filing tax forms.
We urge the use of any response or inquiry format that shifts the burden of response back upon the government to produce substantiation and verification of their claim that you are now, and always have been, one of their subjects. The response format we are suggesting, incorporates some very basic, yet simple maxims of law that are designed to overcome and bring into issue the unproven presumptions of the government.
After much testing and with growing success, we have a basic response format which we can adapt to any government inquiry. We simply call it "The 8 Point Response Format".
It consists of 4 major points: (1) Respond, (2) Accuse, (3) Deny, and (4) Question, which was brought to our attention about 20 years ago through the old Patriot Network by the efforts of Dr. Al Steever. After much trial and error and the changing times, we added four sub points which are (5) Establish your Intent, (6) Make your Demand, (7) State your Authority, and (8) Set a Time Limit.
Lets take those points one at a time and comment on their purpose.
(1) RESPOND - With only rare exception, a response should be made to every government inquiry whether it be personally written or a computer spit out. Failure to do so, may establish whatever presumption the government wants to imply under the "doctrine of acquiescence" or "tacit procuration." If you don't understand those terms, make it a point to look them up in a good law dictionary at any law or public library. On the positive side, each response is a link in your chain of evidence of your good faith intent to obtain from the government any facts linking you to a "legal duty."
To prevent any confusion as to your response, I believe it wise to always include, in your first paragraph, a complete description of the form or letter to which you are responding.
(2) ACCUSE - This doesn't mean you have to call them "no good scum-suckin' thieves". This may be true, but common courtesy should always prevail. Remember, and keep foremost in your mind, you are writing a business letter to a business person, the agent, and the letter you write may be presented to a future jury. Simple statements such as "Your conclusion is in error," or "You are proceeding on a false presumption," or "You haven't responded to my last inquiry," are some appropriate examples.
(3) DENY - Always remember these two basic maxims of law "Failure to object timely is fatal" and "That which is not denied is admitted". If someone calls you a whore and you don't deny it, you will be presumed a whore and that presumption will be established by your silence. So, if someone in the IRS calls you a "taxpayer" or claims you have a "taxable period" or that you have an obligation, you need to make a specific denial.
Another sub point that could well be included here is to MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION - A simple statement like: "Based on my study and as per your own Code, I have determined that I do not have an obligation or a legal duty. I claim all of my rights and have no knowledge of waiving those rights. I have determined that I am not one who is liable or was made liable to waive those rights or to furnish information to you. I am not one who comes within the purview of your statutes."
I admonish you to be careful, - Don't talk too much. A master does not have to "ratchet his jaw" to his servant. Keep your statements simple. If they disagree, the burden will be theirs to rebut. Weigh your admission statements against George Gordon's three fundamental rules of legal survival which are: (1) Keep your mouth shut (2) Don't say anything and (3) SHUT UP!!.
(4) QUESTION - You want to always shift the burden of proof back upon your accuser and there is no better way than to make inquiry. Personally, I like to request hard copy documents such as a copy of the determination that states I am a "taxpayer" or I am a "person liable" or I have been classified within a "taxable class". I want the documents of fact which substantiate that determination. I want the documents that identify the law on which those facts were based. I want their specific delegation of authority document to make those determinations. I want copies of all Notices sent or served upon me prior to the making of those determinations.
(5) ESTABLISH YOUR INTENT - What is your intent? Is your intent to obey all laws that apply to you? Is your action being done in "good faith?" You can establish this with a simple statement such as, "I want to obey all laws that apply to me. But I don't want to volunteer, waive my fundamental rights, and incur an obligation that otherwise would not exist." This is a good time to establish your reliance on a Supreme Court decision. In the case of U.S. v. MASON, ADMINISTRATOR, 412 U.S. 391 (1973), the Supreme Court said:
"And if the doctrine of "stare decisis" has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance."
By establishing this reliance you can bring into the court room the basis of law which you relied upon and it can be presented to the jury as a matter of fact.
Another excellent reliance case is GUARDIAN T & D CO. v. FISHER, 26 S.Ct. 186 (1906), where the court said at page 188:
"An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it."
Also, I want to express to the agent, and to the jury who may have final scrutiny, that I don't want to waive my rights to be secure in my papers and effects and my right to privacy. I don't want to volunteer into an obligation that otherwise would not exist, but, I don't want to disobey any law that applies to me. (That should be a reasonable position even to a dummy.)
(6) MAKE YOUR DEMAND - Tell them what you want them to do. You could say, "If you agree with my determination, I respectfully make this timely demand that you ABATE your claim and notify me of the actions you have taken to correct your error." Remember: a "request" is made by authority of statutory privilege; a "demand" is made as a matter of right. For the benefit of the jury, the demand should always be respectful.
(7) STATE YOUR AUTHORITY - As a master, your authority is claimed as a matter of right. You can further support your position by reliance on a Supreme Court decision. That court has stated that it is your responsibility to determine whether the agent or agency is within the bounds of his/their authority when the court stated:
"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority....and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION V. MERRILL, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947)
So if an agent writes to you and tells you he wants to see your personal records, it is your responsibility to ask him how authority was originated to him personally in reference to you. If you voluntarily submit, you may waive your right to the security of your papers and effects. Based on the mootness doctrine, your voluntary submission may moot any challenge as to how the information can be used.
(8) SET A TIME LIMIT - Don't give them any blank checks. If they give you 10 days, be a nice guy and give them 30 days, but always set a deadline. Many times they won't respond. Don't get upset. Remember, what you get from the IRS is not as important as what you don't get. Once you have fulfilled your responsibility to make inquiry as to their authority, the burden shifts to them. "No response" on their part enhances your position, not theirs. It establishes the presumption that the documents you requested on inquiry do not exist and that they are proceeding on unsubstantiated presumptions.
Many things are accomplished when utilizing this eight point format, such as:
(1) You don't have to reinvent the wheel for every inquiry that comes your way.
(2) You keep the issues simple and easy to understand even by an uneducated jury.
(3) You make a minimal number of admissions.
(4) You put the burden of proof back on the government.
(5) You establish a hard copy physical evidentiary foundation that is set in stone for the future.
(6) You undermine the government's presumption.
(7) You establish your own presumption.
(8) You establish your good faith intent by reliance on Supreme Court decisions.
(9) With each additional response where you have shifted the burden and where the government fails to respond to your inquiry, your shield of protection is continuously strengthened.
(10) You gain personal knowledge and personal confidence in your ability to relate your position.
(11) Each letter of inquiry can be used as a tool by yourself or an attorney in the judicial arena if you come under attack.Consistency and perseverance are very important to any long term plan of action. Any start is better than nothing at all, but the stronger the foundation, the better. The bottom line is YOU!! A series of inquiry letters will, in themselves, be a powerful statement before any jury.
I want to interject a couple of admonitions, suggestions, and personal opinions before I lay out an example letter which incorporates these eight points. If we disagree on some point don't get upset and reject the whole premise. The fundamental concept of always responding, always denying false claims against you, and always shifting the burden to your opponent can be adapted to any theory in reference to any opponent. These are my thoughts:
(1) BE CONSISTENT AND PERSEVERE - Remember, you're laying the foundation for the long term. Stick with it. Don't get discouraged and quit because you don't get a response to your inquiry or the opponent's computer keeps spiting out another unsigned form letter. Consider them as opportunities to put another nail in their coffin, or another rung in your ladder they have to climb.
(2) DON'T GET COCKY - And for heaven sake don't threaten anybody. Your letters should be very professional and business like. They are the servant, you are the master. Act like it. A master never needs to be obnoxious, overbearing, snotty, crude, arrogant or threatening. A master needs to be in control. A good master will be courteous and inquiring, but firm and in command.
(3) DON'T APPEAR TO BE SMARTER THAN YOU ARE - Most of us aren't experts, and when we open up our mouth we prove it. Be observant of the inquiry made of you, but keep your requests simple. For example, I've seen a number of IRS computer spit outs entitled "Statement of Change to your Account" and "Notice of Intent to Levy". With those forms, a reply envelope is usually included. On the envelope is a code to assist them in delivery of your response to the office or branch for that particular processing. Most "individuals" receive an envelope coded "BMF-TDB". Now, my research tells me that means "Business Master File - Taxpayer Delinquency Branch". But I won't tell them that, instead I'll ask for the document that identifies what that "code" means. If they respond, fine. I'll make demand for an abatement or a copy of the determination to classify me as a business. If they don't respond and they want to push the levy, I'll be making the accusation of error in the court room and put the pressure on them through the discovery process or with a Subpoena Duces Tecum (a subpoena for documents).
With a little thought the "Statement of Change to your Account" has a lot of other possible inquiries. Who opened that account? What is the number of that account? Who authorized a change in the account? Who granted authority to make the change in that account? Was I notified before that account was changed? How was I notified?
These are the type of inquiries that would be made by a reasonable man. The more reasonable you come across the better your chance of success before a jury. Also, the better your success will be they won't even push the issue. These people who prosecute "tax patriots" are not dumb. They know the opponent they have to conquer and in this scenario it is not you, it is the jury. They must keep the jury convinced you are a criminal.
In the last three criminal tax trials I've attended, the prosecutor on his final closing statement told the jury to use "common sense because everybody knows you have to file a tax return by April 15th." The jury couldn't distinguish between "common sense" and "conditioning". If they had lived in the year 1492, they wouldn't have even tried to walk off the edge of the earth, because "common sense" would have told them that the earth was flat.
If you ask the right questions before they threaten prosecution, and you let the IRS know that you will create a doubt in the jurors conception of "common sense", they will be hesitant to push the issue. Their strength is their weakness. With the IRS's present success rate of 19 victories out of 20, nobody wants to be the jerk who loses. If the case isn't airtight or at least 95% winnable, they will seldom prosecute.
There are exceptions which include patriots like Franklin Sanders or Vern Holland or Dave Mauldin. These men are such a threat to the IRS fraud, the government will use a criminal trial to impugn the patriot's integrity in the public's eye, or try to break them financially. With today's courts, you can bet that if the government gets an indictment in a criminal case, they figure they have almost a 100% chance of winning. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys are promoted on their victories, not on their losses. You should take it personal if you are indicted. They consider you a pushover.
(4) DEFENSE AND FALL BACK STRATEGY - Although I'm sometimes chastised for not being a purist, I like the strategy of the "defense in depth and fall back position". Example: "I am not one who is liable or was made liable or has a legal duty, but even if I was, you didn't issue a proper "Notice of Deficiency" or make a proper "Assessment" or issue a timely "Notice and Demand" as per your own Code. I believe the hard core "not liable" issue is correct but it is not an issue "well taken" before today's courts, where as the soft core "procedural" argument is "well taken". I believe in playing the hand that you are dealt. In time, if we pound hard enough, the issue will be well taken just as the "earth is round theory" is now well taken.
(5) THEORIES - Although you can believe any theory you want and if you maintain a good faith belief in that theory you should not be found guilty. However, some theories are so wild and far out that they are so incomprehensible or so incredulous to a jury that the odds of your success are almost zero. The odds will be much greater in your favor if you relied on more conventional theories. I don't want to tell you what to believe, but whatever it is you better be prepared to defend it with the vigor and conviction of a zealot. Don't expect to win unless you are prepared to take the stand and give the jury something to hang their hat on.
(6) POSITION LETTERS & AFFIDAVITS I am not high on position letters or affidavits. A master doesn't have to prove his position. A master merely needs to make denial and shift the burden back on the accuser.
The position letters I've seen are prepared by someone else and generally incorporate statements beyond the new non-filer's expertise.
My additional fear of "position letters" is that you make too many admissions and thereby give the opponent too many tools to stuff back in your ear during a cross examination. What makes the most sense to me is issuing your personal response to any inquiries and keeping a record of their failure to respond.
(7)LEGAL OPINION LETTERS - Reliance letters, where you rely on the opinion of an attorney or accountant or tax consultant, are great. I highly endorse them. You get a letter from an attorney saying you are not liable to file, that is big step in gutting any attempt to prosecute you criminally. Those attorneys issuing opinion letters have done much study into tax law and the IRS Code. They are able to give competent evaluations as to your personal status in those areas based on their research. They can accurately assess your position. If you have been advised by a competent professional that you are not a person required to file an income tax return, you would not be wilfully disobeying a law if that law does not apply to you. You may choose to rely on that professional's advice.
(8) GOVERNMENT RESPONSES - About 80% of the time you won't get a response. Generally when the IRS plugs in their computer to operate on auto pilot, you can expect unsigned computer spit outs using the same unsubstantiated presumptions. About 15% of the time, a fancy titled IRS flunky will write to tell you it is IRS policy not to respond to a letter such as yours. You need to respond. Ask for a copy of that policy and the determination which includes your letter within that policy. And then about 5% of the time, an "I think I'm a real smart" agent, who believes he knows the statutes which makes you liable, will write and throw out sections of the Code that he thinks make you liable. Definitely, that letter needs your research and articulate response. Look up those sections and address them chronologically and systematically. Don't let this slip by you. Remember the wise adage, HE WHO WRITES LAST, WINS!!
At this point, let's take a look at two example letters. The longer of the two incorporates all eight points and is as close to a position letter as we are comfortable. The shorter one is what we call the "busy man's response" and just hits the high points.
Short Letter
Longer LetterAny response is better than no response, so strike a happy medium according to your tastes and your needs. A winner will find the most time and cost efficient method to accomplish his objective in his personal situation. You don't want to shoot a rabbit with an elephant gun but neither do you want to hunt a lion with a sling shot.
*******************************************************************
The views presented herein are the views of the author and not necessarily the views of the publisher. The views presented are for educational and thought stimulation only and are not to be construed as "legal advice". Competent legal counsel should be consulted.
Bob Minarik - Club Leader
PATRIOTS FOR LIBERTY
5288 N. 1000 W. Rochester, Indiana 46975e-mail: rlmpfl9065@earthlink.net
ph. 574-542-9065