- 15 -
petitioners’ life and property, but also a right to a
portion of that property.
Petitioners have the right to collaterally attack
all so-called “evidence” against them. * * * that
includes all so-called “facts” frivolous legal
conclusions; conclusions such as the absurd claim that
petitioners are subject to so-called “FEDERAL LAW” with
no further requirements.
___________
2 There is no “entity” commonly called “GOVERNMENT.”
What is referred to as “GOVERNMENT” is nothing more
than individuals. These individuals use various
“titles” appended to their names as if that gives them
legitimate authority over the lives and property of
other people.
In the response, petitioners also claim, with respect to
respondent’s counsel, Paul Webb, that he is a liar. They state:
In his [Webb’s] last pleading he outright lied1 about
the Zimmerman case in Fresno.[3] * * *
___________
3 Apparently, petitioners are referring to respondent’s
response to petitioners’ motions for protective order, in which
respondent states, among other things:
Petitioners’ counsel has already argued these same
frivolous legal positions before the United States
District Court in an unrelated summons enforcement
case. The District Court, in an unpublished opinion,
summarily rejected these arguments. See Zimmerman, et
al. v. United States, 85 AFTR 2d 2000-1091; 2000-1 USTC
par. 50,295 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (Zimmermans argued that
they are not subject to federal taxation because "they
are neither citizens or residents" of the United
States, they have no political relationship to the
United States and owe no allegiance to the United
States and the United States is under no duty to
protect the Zimmermans; the responsibility to pay tax
is based on a reciprocal agreement for the United
States to protect the Zimmermans).
We see no inaccuracy in respondent’s statements about the
Zimmerman case, which we further discuss infra in sec. III.B.3.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011