- 16 -
1 WEBB should be sanctioned for his outrageous lie.
The response is signed by Ms. Sluyter.
Motions for Reconsideration
On June 5, 2000, by one consolidated motion, made in each of
these cases, petitioners moved for reconsideration of (1) our
denial of the motions for protective order and (2) the April 25
order (motions for reconsideration). Among the arguments
advanced by petitioners in the motions for reconsideration is
that the existence of the Internal Revenue Code is not evidence
that the Code is binding on petitioners. Petitioners explain
that respondent’s counsel:
still refuses to provide any evidence that the
petitioners are subject to the so-called “CONGRESS.”
That is all so-called “FEDERAL LAW” is. It’s the
written will of individuals referred to as
“CONGRESSMEN.” It demands no reverence, no allegiance
and no compliance. * * *
Until there is evidence that Petitioners are
subject to the will of these individuals, then what the
so-called “IRC” says is wholly irrelevant because there
is no evidence that it is binding first. What is
frivolous2 is maintaining that the petitioners are
subject to so-called “FEDERAL LAW” while refusing to
produce evidence that Petitioners are subject to the
written will of individuals referred to as
“CONGRESSMEN.”
The filing of a so-called “RETURN” is no evidence
that Petitioners are subject to the will of individuals
referred to as “CONGRESSMEN.” * * *
* * * * * * *
Just because the petitioners filed so-called
“RETURNS” out of fear is no evidence that a legitimate
obligation to do so exists. * * *
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011