The Deceptive Tactics of Banks and Lawyers:Attorneys at Law:Officers of the Court A Breakdown of Common Legal Evasions

The Deceptive Tactics of Banks and Lawyers/Attorneys at Law: A Breakdown of Common Legal Evasions

In legal disputes, parties who lack a strong position or valid counterarguments often resort to deceptive tactics to deflect, discredit, or distract from substantive issues. These strategies rely on dismissive rhetoric, vague assertions, and avoidance of direct engagement with evidence or law. Such tactics not only undermine the integrity of the legal process but can also serve as implicit admissions of a weak or untenable position. Below is a comprehensive list of common deceptive tactics used to avoid addressing legal arguments effectively:

  1. Argument by Assertion: Repeatedly labeling claims as “baseless” or “meritless” without offering any supporting evidence or legal reasoning. This tactic relies on empty repetition to create a false appearance of invalidation.
  2. Failure to Rebut: Ignoring the specific laws, facts, or evidence presented, effectively leaving the argument unrebutted. Under the principle of unrebutted evidence, this silence can be interpreted as tacit agreement.
  3. Ad Hominem Diversion: Attacking the credibility of the opposing party by using dismissive or insulting language rather than addressing the actual merits of their argument.
  4. Red Herring Fallacy: Distracting from the core legal points by introducing irrelevant claims or using dismissive remarks to divert attention from the issues at hand.
  5. Lack of Substantive Response: Failing to engage with the evidence or citations provided, which demonstrates an inability to offer a legitimate defense.
  6. Appeal to Authority Without Authority: Using vague and unsupported terms like “frivolous” or “meritless” to create an illusion of authority without providing any legal basis to substantiate the claim.
  7. Evasion Through Vagueness: Using non-specific or ambiguous language to avoid addressing the specific details of the legal argument, thereby sidestepping the central issues.
  8. Burden-Shifting Fallacy: Attempting to place the burden of proof on the opposing party, even when they have already presented substantial evidence to support their claims.
  9. Empty Rhetoric: Responding with conclusory or emotionally charged statements that lack evidence, reasoning, or legal references, relying solely on rhetoric to undermine the argument.
  10. Conclusive Dismissal: Dismissing claims outright as invalid without providing any analysis, facts, or counterarguments to support the dismissal.
  11. Strawman Tactic: Mischaracterizing the opposing party’s argument in vague or exaggerated terms, making it easier to dismiss without addressing its actual substance.
  12. Bad Faith Response: Demonstrating a lack of good faith by refusing to engage with the argument in a meaningful or fair manner, relying instead on dismissive tactics to avoid accountability.
  13. Selective Omission: Deliberately ignoring key points, evidence, or legal references presented by the opposing party, hoping that the omissions go unnoticed or unaddressed. This tactic relies on the assumption that partial engagement can suffice to weaken the argument without having to confront it in its entirety

These tactics are often used as a shield to mask the lack of a strong legal foundation. Identifying and pointing out these behaviors can help refocus attention on the substantive issues at stake and highlight the weaknesses in the opposing party’s position.

Original article read on Realworldfare.

Leave your vote

335911 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Screen Shot 2025 02 14 at 6.28.53 PM

Riverside, California Billion Dollar Judicial Misconduct Exposed? Fraud, Docket Manipulation in Kevin Walker Estate vs Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company

Central to the Plaintiffs’ claims are five (5) unrebutted affidavits submitted in compliance with UCC § 3-505, which explicitly establish the Defendants’ dishonor and tacit admission to all claims outlined therein. These affidavits, accompanied by an Affidavit Certificate of Non-Response, stand as irrefutable evidence in commerce. Under binding legal principles, such as stare decisis, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, the facts contained in the affidavits are now deemed conclusively established and uncontested. Despite United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking records confirming that the filings were successfully delivered twice—once via Registered Mail and once via Express Mail—the documents are not reflected on the court docket. Additionally, one (1) critical notice sent to the court has gone missing entirely, with USPS failing to mark it as delivered or account for its whereabouts.This disappearance of properly filed documents raises serious concerns about potential malicious interference, fraud upon the court, and obstruction of justice.

Screen Shot 2025 02 15 at 2.26.29 PM

A Verified Complaint as a Negotiable Debt Instrument and Special Deposit: Legal and Financial Implications Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, 2045, 12 U.S.C. § 1813, and 31 U.S.C. §§ 1321 & 3302 – Application of IRS Forms 1099-OID, 1099-A, and 1099-B

A verified complaint submitted to the court functions not only as a legal pleading but also as a negotiable debt instrument and a special deposit, as established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042, and 2045. Additionally, it is classified as a financial asset governed by 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(62), and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. Courts operate as depository institutions, responsible for receiving, managing, and investing funds, with all case-related deposits held in trust by the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1275, a verified complaint qualifies as an Original Issue Discount (OID) security, mandating proper financial reporting. Every legal case is effectively a commercial transaction, in which funds, securities, and judgments are recorded and managed within the court’s custodial accounts. Understanding a verified complaint as a financial obligation allows for proper accounting and the reclamation of funds through the use of IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-OID, thereby ensuring transparency and compliance with federal financial regulations.

Using IRS Forms 3949-A and 211 to Expose Organized Crime, Corrupt Judges, Clerks, Courts, and Financial Misconduct

Using IRS Forms 3949-A and 211 to Expose Organized Crime, Corrupt Judges, Clerks, Courts, and Financial Misconduct

Corruption within the judicial system, including fraudulent accounting, improper banking practices, and organized crime, poses a severe threat to justice and financial stability. Fortunately, whistleblowers have powerful tools at their disposal to report such misconduct to the Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Two of the most effective mechanisms for exposing financial fraud involving corrupt courts, clerks, judges, and officials are IRS Form 3949-A (Information Referral) and IRS Form 211 (Application for Award for Original Information).

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!