Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)


A Motion in Limine is used to request the court to prevent the presentation of evidence to the jury that may be deemed prejudicial or inflammatory. A sustaining or denial of the motion does not remove the necessity of objecting if the evidence, or improper jury instructions, are being presented, but they do convey some of the legal grounds to the court in advance. Objections are essential to preserve appeal.

Evidence of the filing of tax forms by defendants is a common practice by the IRS/DOJ to claim the defendant was aware of a legal necessity to file. The courts have additionally made presumptions of legal liability upon various claims. Perhaps this motion may be helpful in correcting the practice. This motion should not exclude the filing of a motion to dismiss the indictment as presented in the posting mentioned.

Court caption


The defendant hereby Moves this court to avoid an erroneous presumption of legal liability without the Plaintiff having conclusively evidenced the specific statute that imposes legal responsibility for any tax in question upon the defendant.

Presumptions are well established for issues of fact. There is no presumption permitted for the clear and precise identification of a statutory legal duty within criminal or civil process. Internal Revenue statutes are subject to general rules of statutory construction. US v. Zacks, 375 US 59.

The plaintiff may attempt to claim the defendant's signature on tax forms from prior years is sufficient to presume the defendant knew he was legally responsible for a tax. The defendant does not have qualification to certify or acknowledge legal responsibility. The defendant's signature can only be used as they relate to his first-hand knowledge of numerical values declared on the tax form---as the defendant relied upon government claims of liability via various publications. The defendant's reliance upon government claims at the time of signing cannot be used as a presumption of acceptance of legal liability.

Subsequent research by the defendant has cast doubt upon the government's claim. No clear and convincing authority imposing legal responsibility has been found by the defendant. If the plaintiff is unable to document statutory authority for a legal responsibility, the wide-spread claims by the IRS for many years that appear to be unsupported by statute would evidence a clear case of fraud. The use of fraud vitiates any agreement or document.

Nor should the court assume the existence of an unidentified regulation is sufficient to impose/presume liability for a tax. Not only is it well established that regulations cannot expand the imposition of a tax, but due process clearly mandates a defendant must be confronted with the statutory authority that imposes a tax within the indictment and be permitted to contest the accusation with the burden of proof upon the movant.

Nor should self-serving averments in the movant's process that the defendant is a "taxpayer" be sufficient to authorize the presumption of legal responsibility. "Taxpayer" is a legally defined status within the IRC that is specifically challenged by the defendant and has not been proven by the movant. It is well established that only taxpayers are subject to the provisions of the IRC. Until the movant alleges a clear and definitive statute making the defendant subject to a specific tax, the IRC is inapplicable to the defendant. Statutes that claim "taxpayers must do thus and thus" do not identify who is a required taxpayer.

Nor should the court be misled by a government claim that liability is to be determined by the production of any sought books and records. The potential determination of any liability by values produced by the defendant is a liability of fact that is determined as a result of litigation. A liability by law must be determined prior to litigation is the object of this Motion. The equity power of this court to compel the production of books or records or to issue an injunction exists only after a lawful duty for a tax has been evidenced by statute. Lewyt v. CIR, 349 US 237; Stockwell v. CIR, 736 F2d 1051 (5th. cir. 1984).

It is accepted that there is a presumption of the validity of an identified statute. There is no authority for the presumption of the existence of an unidentified statute. The defendant has a right to be confronted with the specific statute imposing a known legal duty (United States v. Pomponio, 429 US 10; Cheek v. US, 498 US 192) and to have the statute submitted to contestation with the burden of proof upon the movant for any tax being pursued. Civil cases are not relieved of that burden. Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer, 237 US 413, 423-425; Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles, 357 US 545. It is the responsibility of government to prove the existence of a tax being pursued; a citizen is not required to prove the nonexistence of a tax. Spreckles Sugar v. McClain, 192 US 397. "An indictment must include all of the essential elements of the crimes alleged therein… To properly proceed with a prosecution, the government must allege conduct violative of a federal statute." US v. Miller, 471 US 130.

Any reliance by the plaintiff upon IRC #7201 through 7215 to identify the required legal duty is poorly placed. It is well established that Chapter 75, Part 1, of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC Sections 7201 through 7215) does not identify a lawful duty for any specific tax. In Sansone v. United States, 380 US 343, at page 348, the court relied upon the Congressional Record to observe Chapter 75, Part 1 applies to ALL taxes collected by the IRS. Therefore, those statutes cannot be construed to refer to a duty for any specific tax.

As cumulative evidence, Chapter 75, Part 1 has been used by the courts in applications for a multitude of various responsibilities in numerous tax prosecutions.

It is well established the essential substantive issues required in an indictment cannot be supplemented, orally or in writing, by the prosecutor. Nor is a court at liberty to rely upon a statute, nor to add a statute, that has not submitted to contestation within the indictment.

It is specifically moved that any evidence or instructions to the jury that claims or implies Chapter 75, Part 1 of the IRC imposes legal liability upon the defendant be forbidden.

It is further moved that this court forbid the use of any prior tax forms from being presented to the jury for the purpose of implying or evidencing an acceptance or acknowledgment of legal responsibility.

[Several pages of cases other than individual income tax cases are available from the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment RTF file attached at, income tax laws posted HERE

They should be incorporated as desired.

In addition, #7201 has been used to prosecute an evasion of corporate employment taxes. US v. Gonzales, 58 F3d 506 (10th. Cir, 1995).

#7203 has been used to prosecute the non-filing of forms for corporate taxes. US v. Neal, 93 F3d 219 (6th. Cir. 1996).

#7204 and #7206 has been used in prosecuting the submission of false employment forms. Huges v. US, 899 F2d 1495 (6th. Cir. 1970). ]

NOTICE: Unknown author is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers´ DMCA Policy

the site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

If your copyrighted material has been posted on the site, the DVD issue, microSDHC card issue, or work computers, in other than fair use capacity or if links to your copyrighted material are returned through our search engine and you want the material removed, you must provide a written communication that details the information listed in the following section. Please be aware that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys´ fees) if you misrepresent information listed on the site that is allegedly infringing on your alleged copyrights. We suggest that you may want to first contact competent legal assistance on this matter.

The following elements must be included in your copyright infringement claim:

* Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the fully disclosed alleged owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Please notice that we generally do not deal with third parties.
* Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address.
* You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed and including at least one search term under which the material appears in search results.
* A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
* A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed. (Proper ratification of commencement.)

Send the infringement notice via email to the postmaster at

Please allow 1-3 business days for an email response. Note that emailing your complaint to other parties such as our Internet Service Provider (ISP) or server host(s) will not expedite your request and may result in a delayed response due the complaint not being properly being filed.

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2023
All Rights Reserved