"The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" ~ Ludwig von Mises
Another Bad Joke from Legal Land
To anyone who takes lawyers seriously, I have to ask, WHY? What's worse are those who believe the lawyer infested legal "system" can provide justice of any degree. The "system" is such a sham I doubt anyone, excepting of course the insane and idiots of society, would voluntarily participate. That is why most people must be coerced into participating. Even jury duty is compulsory. And no, I am not implying the "system" is bad because it's swarming with lawyers, the system itself is the problem and creates lawyers. That ALONE is reason enough why the "system" should be forever extinct.
I want to share another adventure in legal land. This time involving three lawyers pretending to be a court of justice, the ever popular Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or more precisely, three guys named O'Scannlain, Callahan, and Bea. These guys probably parade around as "honorable" and get quite the respect from their fellow hacks. Among other reasons, it's probably because decisions like the one I quote below never see the light of day.
The case involves the IRS . Ms. Chadwell, an IRS agent, was supposed to provide a hearing as required by 26 USC section 6330. If you read section 6330, you'll see challenges to underlying liability are proper issues for such hearings: "The person may also raise at the hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period . . ." (Emphasis mine).
At the so-called "hearing," Ms. Chadwell refused to answer questions or discuss underlying liability or the facts to prove an obligation was created. Even the Tax Court judge agreed to this fact:
". . . petitioner and a 'friend' whom he had brought to the hearing pressed Ms. Chadwell to discuss whether petitioner had an 'obligation' to file a return and pay tax. When petitioner and his friend refused to discuss collection alternatives, Ms. Chadwell terminated the hearing." ~ US Tax Court judge Marvel.
Marvel later wrote no facts were submitted. I can't imagine why he'd do that. Oh that's right, he'd then be obligated to construe those facts against the IRS and favorably to the man challenging the IRS . So if you ever want to see utter contempt for "law," there's no need to go further than a pretended "court of law" and watch a judge in action. This is especially true when a government agency is involved.
As if not "hearing challenges to the existence . . . of the underlying tax liability" was not enough of an insult, Ms. Chadwell also admitted to not knowing HOW to conduct a hearing; she had never done one. Despite this, IRS lawyers, including the Tax Court judge, insisted Ms. Chadwell provided a proper hearing in accordance with every applicable legal requirement. This is why the following was written into the brief:
"If this court believes a hearing conducted by an individual who doesn't know the procedure is somehow not a denial of justice or due process, then they should write that explicitly in their opinion. They should then explain HOW that is even possible. If so, then I wonder if the panel would have as much confidence having surgery performed on them by a doctor who says, 'I'm not sure what the procedure is'?"
It's no surprise O'Scannlain, Callahan, and Bea refused to review this case.
Let's see who the doofus is here. Maybe I just don't understand what a "hearing" is supposed to be. Of course, I'll use the "legal" definition of a hearing:
"hearing: The presentation of a case or defense before an administrative agency, with opportunity to introduce evidence in chief and on rebuttal, and to cross-examine witnesses, as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. 2 Am J2d Admin L 397." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 553.
Sounds pretty good, do you agree with this definition? The issue on appeal was whether or not the required hearing was conducted. Remember, the "law" requires a hearing to be provided. The actual questions from the brief are:
1. Does a hearing consist of sitting down with an agent and only discussing collection alternatives?
2. Is it a hearing when you cannot ask questions regarding the facts or have them presented?
3. Can one receive a hearing from an individual who does not know how to conduct a hearing?
4. Does a judge have discretion to construe questions as arguments?
Any literate person would answer each question "no." However, the three stooges, O'Scannlain, Callahan, and Bea, decided they would not answer them at all. Cowards tend to avoid tough issues and questions. Their "decision" consisted of:
"A review of the record and the opening brief indicates the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as to not require further argument."
Really? Do you think these questions are "insubstantial"? If so, re-read the four questions and ask yourself what the purpose of trial and appeal. These lawyers wrote in plain English it's "insubstantial" if a judge or hearing officer knows what he/she is doing. I guess they're finally agreeing with me; any idiot can work for the IRS or be a judge.
What O'Scannlain, Callahan, and Bea don't realize is most of these "insubstantial" questions were paraphrased from the United States Supreme Court and "insubstantial" Constitution. Apparently, having to present evidence at a hearing is now "insubstantial." And don't forget: If you have a trial and no evidence is presented or you are not permitted to cross-examine (ask questions of) the witnesses against you, then don't complain, your sacred "Fifth Amendment" and other "traditional safeguards" are "insubstantial."
Keep this decision in mind next time you hear the Pledge of Allegiance or someone ranting about how this is the "greatest system of justice in the world." And hope and pray your life is never in the hands of O'Scannlain, Callahan, and Bea.