The gentleman continued to very artfully (very similar to how Marshall Applewhite convinced the Heaven's Gate Cult to take their own lives; I will make a post on that as it is something we are all vulnerable to) present a theory of law without any caselaw supporting his theory of law. Proving with caselaw is one of our rules and I try not to be ultra-strict about it, but this was too much. All of us need to focus and do what the winners do and avoid what the losers did. I've completed verification research on the theories being promoted. EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL CIRCUIT has explicitly rejected these theories as "patently frivolous." VERIFIED FACTS: - United States v. Benabe (7th Cir.): "These theories should be rejected summarily" - United States v. Mundt (6th Cir.): "completely without merit and patently frivolous" - Henry v. Fernandez Rundle (11th Cir.): "no arguable legal basis" REAL CONSEQUENCES: - Court sanctions: $5,000+ penalties - Criminal prosecution for tax theories - Destruction of legitimate legal cases - Contempt of court charges NO FEDERAL COURT has EVER accepted: - "Strawman" theories - Article IV § 3 "status correction" - "Equity citizenship" claims - "Dual jurisdiction" theories These theories have a documented 100% FAILURE RATE. If someone cannot provide a published federal court decision (or state court) supporting their claims, DO NOT FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE. DO NOT FOLLOW MY ADVICE, as I am not an attorney; I only try to educate so you can make decisions for yourself like an adult. Caselaw trailing gift: US v Mundt (29 F.3d 233) On the merits, defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any “federal zone” and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous. To put the argument to rest, we quote the following from a Tenth Circuit opinion in which the court was responding to an identical tax-protester argument.