How to get my

[LPC]

But let me ask this..... Does an unrebuted affidavit stand as fact?

No. That's a common sovrun fallacy. To illustrate: if I filed an affidavit, in some court case, saying that I had the power of Apparation (as in the Harry Potter books), and no one rebutted my affidavit, it would NOT mean that anyone was acknowledging that I had that power.

Is it now?

An Affidavit unrebutted stands as Truth.

No.

Outside of the area of pleadings, an affidavit is nothing but a substitute for testimony (assuming that it is admissible despite the hearsay rule), and so it can be disregarded as untrustworthy just like any other testimony can be disregarded or discounted by a trier of fact.

[notorial dissent]

Thanks, I plan to decode my IMF and then send an affidavit to my district director to tell him of my findings, of course if I am wrong then he will rebut my affidavit.

Why should the DD, a position that no longer exists by the way, or anyone else for that matter, give a rat's ass about your silly affidavit? It has exactly no effect on anything.

But let me ask this..... Does an unrebuted affidavit stand as fact?

Nope, more of your silly fantasies. Only limitedly applies in court, and that is all, in the real world, no one cares, and it has no effect on anything, except possibly to show what a git you are.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Thanks, I plan to decode my IMF and then send an affidavit to my district director to tell him of my findings, of course if I am wrong then he will rebut my affidavit.

Why should the DD, a position that no longer exists by the way, or anyone else for that matter, give a rat's ass about your silly affidavit? It has exactly no effect on anything.

But let me ask this..... Does an unrebuted affidavit stand as fact?

Nope, more of your silly fantasies. Only limitedly applies in court, and that is all, in the real world, no one cares, and it has no effect on anything, except possibly to show what a git you are.

So those case were false and the commercial law books from west publishing are wrong and your right?

Any proof or just your amazing brain?

[Famspear]

...Um it [an affidavit] is a statement of facts under penalty of perjury.....

Wrong. An affidavit is a written sworn statement -- a written statement under oath.

A statement made under penalties of perjury may or may not be an affidavit. For example, a U.S. federal income tax return, properly executed, is (or at least contains) one or more statements made "under penalties of perjury." However, such a tax return is not an "affidavit."

Affidavits and "statements made under penalties of perjury" are similar, but they are not the same. The legal consequences of intentionally and knowingly making a material false statement in an affidavit and the legal consequences of doing the same in a statement made "under penalties of perjury" might also be similar (depending on the fact pattern), but the two "things" are not the same.

And, as others have explained, the mere fact that a statement stands unrebutted (whether it be an affidavit or a statement under penalties of perjury or a scrawling on the back of a restaurant menu) does not necessarily mean that the "facts" asserted in the statement are afforded any legal weight.

Patriotdiscussions, you have been reading tax protester nonsense. (Am I starting to repeat myself?) And you're still carving out quotes from legal materials without understanding how to use the materials.

[JamesVincent]

Patriotdiscussions, you have been reading tax protester nonsense. (Am I starting to repeat myself?) And you're still carving out quotes from legal materials without understanding how to use the materials.

And could have been much better served by perusing Dan Evans' FAQs instead of piling on more "research".

[Famspear]

So those case were false and the commercial law books from west publishing are wrong and your [sic] right?

Any proof or just your amazing brain?

Other people here don't need "proof." The concept of "proof" applies to establishing whether a factual statement is true or not. We are explaining LAW to you. With a few exceptions not material to this discussion, you do not "prove" that something is the law.

We are not here to prove things to you or to persuade you that the law is what we say it is. We are here to teach you, and to teach others who read these posts.

[Dr. Caligari]

Am I reading the cases wrong there?

I would bet 50 cents you haven't read those cases at all, just purported quotes from them that you cut and pasted from some tax protestor website. As we showed you on the other thread, those websites are often unreliable and many of their quotes are either taken out of context or outright fabricated.

In some types of court proceedings-- most commonly a motion for summary judgment-- an unrebutted affidavit will be accepted as true. In other types of court proceedings, an affidavit will not even be admitted into evidence, much less accepted as true. (At a trial, for example, witnesses must testify in person and be subject to cross-examination; an affidavit is inadmissible hearsay at trial.)

And outside of court, an unrebutted affidavit is generally meaningless. If I mail you an affidavit saying that you owe me a billion dollars, you don't have to rebut it-- you can throw it in the trash and still not owe me the billion dollars.

I have a couple of commercial law books that state the same thing.

Color me dubious.

What about an affidavit sent as part of the admin procedure act?

What provision of the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes filing of affidavits?

[VinnyZ]

Are you taking advice from Chris Hansen at Family Guardian?

Good luck with that.

[chronistra]

So those case were false and the commercial law books from west publishing are wrong and your right?

Those cases (assuming the quotes are even real) are discussing unrebutted affidavits in particular sets of circumstances, such as in support of a motion for summary judgement. If you are not in that particular set of circumstances, then those decisions may not be applicable to the circumstances you are actually in. Mailing unrequested affidavits to random IRS officials out of the blue is not the same thing as being in the summary judgement stage of an active case.

"Prima Facie Evidence in the Case" [emphasis added] refers to a specific case, an actual legal proceeding. If affidavits are filed in a specific case, then the other side (depending on exact details) may have the obligation to rebut the affidavit or lose the argument, and that is settled law. If you are not in the middle of an actual case, then generally nobody has any obligation to respond, and a failure to respond does NOT establish truth or lack thereof.

[notorial dissent]

So those case were false and the commercial law books from west publishing are wrong and your right?

And just which cases might those be. You've been proven wrong on your quotes and cites so far, why should this be any different.

[Gregg]

Am I reading the cases wrong there? I have a couple of commercial law books that state the same thing. What about an affidavit sent as part of the admin procedure act?

Yes, you are reading the cases wrong. As a hint on that, your commercial law books first assume that you are not filing affidavits saying you have the power of apparition or to escape taxes by magic equally as real.

[Famspear]

This loony idea -- that a particular document can magically, unilaterally impose, on another person, a legal duty to "rebut" a statement in the document or respond to the statement -- is something the Quatloos regulars seen many times.

I recall that when John J. Bulten was a frequent poster at losthorizons dot com, he came up with a form letter to be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, demanding that the IRS provide certain documents within a certain number of days. He apparently believed that he could legally "force" the IRS into making legally binding admissions if the IRS did not comply. Here's an excerpt from his "magical" letter:

Failure to provide either of document categories (1)-(2) for any given year by the completion date shall constitute admission that neither a valid assessment nor a summary record of assessment (on any of Forms 4340, 23C, or RACS-006) exists for the given year that satisfies 26 CFR 301.6203-1 (which requires that a summary record of assessment be signed by an assessment officer). Failure to provide document category (3) for any given assessment and year by the completion date shall constitute admission that no notice of assessment amount exists for the given assessment and year that satisfies 26 CFR 301.6303-1 [ . . . ]

See:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3337

These people think like small children.

[JamesVincent]

affidavit uncontested unrebutted unanswered [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 1982]

“Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982]

See, this is the main problem with not actually reading the cases or the holdings. First of all the first quote is incorrect, the second is correct, if incomplete. HOWEVER, the case involves with the IRS needing to meet the burden of proof to prove that a taxpayer has an obligation to pay OR that there is more, necessary actions to prove that obligation. The court ruled that since the defendant refused to answer a summons and the IRS is forced to take legal action during their investigation their burden of proof is minimal, only that of the need of more information to complete their investigation and, since it is a summary judgement, their affidavits meet that burden. It is then up to the defendant to disprove the allegations and to prove that there is no valid collection effort.

‘‘disprove the actual existence of a valid civil tax determination or collection purpose’’

United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298,316 (1978)

This is what the second quote should actually be:

‘‘No more than [such affidavits are] necessary to make the prima facie case’’

Kis,658 F.2d at 536

Funny thing is, found most of the references to Kis under United States v. Judicial Watch. None of the arguments worked for Klayman either.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

Thanks, I plan to decode my IMF and then send an affidavit to my district director to tell him of my findings, of course if I am wrong then he will rebut my affidavit.

Why would he or she?

Your "findings" aren't relevant. The file is what it is. An affidavit is meaningless in this context.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
But let me ask this..... Does an unrebuted affidavit stand as fact?

You really have no grasp of context, do you?

In a trial setting the answer is maybe. There are any number of situations wherein the judge will not even allow it to be admitted into evidence, i.e., if it is baldly incompetent.

In any other setting it's meaningless.

[Arthur Rubin]

But let me ask this..... Does an unrebuted affidavit stand as fact?

In case no one else has already answered this -- no. If an alleged statement of fact is submitted to the Court with notice to the other party, and it is not rebutted, then it may be "fact" for the purpose of summary judgement in that court case. Filling directly with the other party, without notice to the Court, has no effect, except possibly uncontrollable laughter on the part of the other party.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

[JennyD]

I'm starting to see where this guy is coming from and it's not the typical Sovvie stuff, it's the Magical HeatherSpeak OPPT/IUV stuff.. Remember everyone Heather claimed her gibberish affidavits were standing as fact because noone rebutted them, even though in legality since they were fallacy to begin with noone needed to, and under the UCC regulations they were deemed frivolous and removed..

This I think is where Patriotdissertation is getting their info from...

So I will end with the customary legal verbiage..


NUNC PRO DORC, PIZZA PIZZA, ALL RIGHTS RE-GURGITATED

[Famspear]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

I don't know what you mean by a "notary protest."

There is a law called the Administrative Procedure Act.

Edit: PS: Neither you nor anyone else here had previously mentioned the term "notary protest" in this thread. Please try to be specific.

edit 2: You might be thinking of UCC section 3-508.

edit 3: This is current Texas UCC 3.505:

Sec. 3.505. EVIDENCE OF DISHONOR. (a) The following are admissible as evidence and create a presumption of dishonor and of any notice of dishonor stated:

(1) a document regular in form as provided in Subsection (b) that purports to be a protest;

(2) a purported stamp or writing of the drawee, payor bank, or presenting bank on or accompanying the instrument stating that acceptance or payment has been refused unless reasons for the refusal are stated and the reasons are not consistent with dishonor;

(3) a book or record of the drawee, payor bank, or collecting bank that is kept in the usual course of business and that shows dishonor, even if there is no evidence of who made the entry.

(b) A protest is a certificate of dishonor made by a United States consul or vice consul, or a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths by the law of the place where dishonor occurs. It may be made on information satisfactory to that person. The protest must identify the instrument and certify either that presentment has been made or, if not made, the reason why it was not made, and that the instrument has been dishonored by nonacceptance or nonpayment. The protest may also certify that notice of dishonor has been given to some or all parties.

I think this what used to be UCC 3-508, but I'm rusty on this stuff.

[Dr. Caligari]

So there is no such thing as the admin procedure act or notary protest either I take it?

There is a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. It doesn't say anything about unrebutted affidavits, though.

There is-- or at least used to be, I haven't heard of it much in recent times-- something called a "notarial protest," but it has to do with promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, not with taxes.