---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Hey realjethro
If you are going to attempt to quash a third party summons you will need
to prove that the IRS failed to meet the Powell test.
	 Don't waste your time on any thing other legal theories. But,
for sure file an "affidavit of material fact" with your motion. This
affidavit should be specific to your account. Have you done any FOIA's
and researched your file. You will need to do that before you your case
is handed over to the U.S. Attorney. If that happens you may not be able
to get the document you need to defend yourself.

Search "Powell test" on the web. If you can't find anything useful or if
you need to research your file you can contact me. Send me an e-mail off
the group and I will give you my ph#.

InFreedom

Larry







Yahoo! Groups Links

   From: "John Searcy" <jsearcy@...>
Subject: Need help!

All,
    I have just received a letter from the I.R.S. claiming that I owe $5,389.26 for a "civil penalty" for the tax year 1990. I am not very vulnerable to levies or liens, however, I do maintain a joint bank account with my elderly father. The only funds deposited in this joint bank account are my father's monthly Social Security benefits. Is this joint bank account vulnerable to levy? How does the I.R.S. handle a joint bank account? Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Does anyone have a "example"on how to fill out a promissiary bond? If
so, can you forward it? And is it possiable (when the bond mature's)
that, you could tell the 3 credit bureau's of your "new found" money
(through commerical paper)?

   I know, I can do it through a corporation, but if i'm able to
exstiablish such a record would, the credit buearu's post it as
a "gain" or anything that could show "good faith" by the poster (county
recorder, secrtary of state's office, ect... ect.. .) after, I register
it within the 30 days? I would like to start a "prefect" credit profile
under a assumed corporation.


Thanks,
Phil

I know there is no law stating that one must fill out a W-4 for a company.
But what do I do when the company says they will not put me on the payroll
unless I fill out a W-4?  I have showed them pertinent cases etc. and the
WTP forms.  I guess I will just press the issue.  They would have to pay me
eventually, correct?

And what about the SS #?  I am not certain how to go about this.  My last
employers had no problem when I turned in the alternate W-4's, protected
individual, etc.

- Kenny
******** ******** ******** ********
"We shall no longer hang on to the tails of public opinion or to a non-
existent authority on matters utterly unknown and strange. We shall
gradually become experts ourselves in the mastery of the knowledge of the
Future."

~Wilhelm Reich

If you can pull that off.........well you are doing better than 99.9% of the
folk in this arena!
Doc
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Digest Number 1025



> Message: 1
>   Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:31:29 -0500
>   From: "Kenny Rudzinski" <skennybird@...>
> Subject: W-4
>
> I know there is no law stating that one must fill out a W-4 for a company.

In 1999 my wife left our marital home and took our child with her.
About four months after she left she went to the Superior Court and
filed for child support, custody and visitation with regard to our
child by claiming that our child was born out of wedlock and that I
was an absent parent rather than a husband and father. I was never
given a copy of the complaint that she filed, nor were the procedural
steps that were required to be executed as provided by court
procedures implemented properly in order to move the action and
schedule it for a hearing before a hearing officer,(not a judge). I
was simply supplied with a notice to appear which stated that if I
didnot appear I would be arrested and a default judgement would be
entered for the record declaring me the father. The issue that I have
is as follows:
1. My wife left me and our home and took our child with her
2. I do not believe that a husband has any duty to support a fleeing
spouse
3. My wife at the time raised an issue of paternity as her reason for
filing for child support when it was already known previously to her
and I that we were our child's father and mother (birth certificate
of our child containing both of our names as well as our marriage
certificate evidencing that our child couldnot possibly hold the
condition of a child born out of wedlock).
4. Our marriage was still intact at the time when this was carried
out by my wife and there was no prior action for divorce going on at
the time.
5. I believe that such issues as relating to "clean
hands", "fundamental fairness", "civil due process", "fruad"
and "perjury", and "unjust enrichment" have been employed against me
and that the officers of the "family court" acted in concert by not
verifying that the information that they received was true (supported
on oath or affidavit and with supporting documents to prove what my
wife was stating).
does anyone have any worth while suggestions regarding courses of
action that I may employ in order to have the record corrected,
judgement set aside or vacted and to bring action (legal) against all
parties who acted in concert in order to perpetrate this fraud? Your
comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot from
this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States
v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is
illigaly compling with it.I came across this while gathering info to
prove to them they need a court order.Any help would grate.Please put
in the Subject line that your responding from this group so I don't
deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

 http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/odell/

Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot from 
this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States
v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is
illigaly compling with it.I came across this while gathering info to
prove to them they need a court order.Any help would grate.Please put
in the Subject line that your responding from this group so I don't
deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck







SPONSORED LINKS
Government law Law

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.
•  
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
•  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
•  
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Chuck --

You might download a copy of the brief I wrote a couple years ago called "A
Notice of Levy is Not a Levy."  You can get it on my website on the
Documents page.  Also, if you want O'Dell, I have a copy of it.  Request it
and I will forward it to you.

Yours in financial freedom,

Dave Miner
www.IRx-Solutions.com


-----Original Message-----
From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of usmc63cag
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:08 PM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Notice of Levy

Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot from this
group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States v.O'Dell).The
company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is illigaly compling with
it.I came across this while gathering info to prove to them they need a
court order.Any help would grate.Please put in the Subject line that your
responding from this group so I don't deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair
play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/aQSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:48 AM, realjethro wrote:

> We've seen this "quazi-criminal" crap, as well.  In our observations,
> what they're doing is
> allowing a municipality to proceed *civilly* for *criminal* charges,
> thereby bypassing the
> defendant's criminal rights (grand jury indictment, right not to
> testify against oneself, etc.)
> This is blatantly unconstitutioinal - there are no constitutional
> provisions (either state or
> federal) for "quazi-criminal" - or as they also call it, "hybrid
> civil/criminal" - cases.
>
> Anyone up for joining us to challenge the constitutionality of this
> one?

The way to beat this is to not go along with it, and thereby grant it
legitimacy.  But people tend to choose it when offered the alternative,
which is to insist on a criminal prosecution with all attendant rights,
that is, if you are foolish enough to insist (or even ask) that anyone
do anything.  I like to disqualify everybody so there's nobody left to
do anything.  But a lot of people want to be prosecuted so they can try
out some new theory, and so they grant jurisdiction for one reason or
another.  Go figure.  I don't see any reason to join anyone to
challenge the constitutionality of it.  It's voluntary participation
here in California.  They call "quasi-criminal" cases "infractions",
and they have two separate processes, one for them, and one for purely
criminal prosecutions where you have all your rights. You have to read
the law and demand one of those, otherwise you'll be treated as a
normal incompetent. People choose the former, with all the attendant
rights waivers, for convenience and expedience.

I don't know about any other state, but here a reading of the law makes
it plain.  It's just that nobody reads it, and nobody has a duty to
hand-select parts they think you ought to know about!  "It's ALLLLLLL
Goooood"!

> --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Advancepum@a... wrote:
>> Traffic Tickets are "Quazi-Criminal"  Which is realy not defined, in
>> Illinois
>> law at least

I had to leave Illinois because it was too much of a police state for
me (and too flat).  I used to deliver pizza in the NW Chicago suburbs,
and pairs of detective cars would try to follow me on deliveries.
Between trips, and whenever I lost them, they came in to eat pizza, but
when I got up to go, so did they.  We all had fun.  Once I took them 90
miles away and lost them.   Beat them home by hours.   One unusual day
I was traffic stopped a total of 13 times, but was not ticketed.  That
was long before I knew anything about law.

180F2d304  US v O Dell

Notes:



Page 304

A "levy" requires that property be brought into legal
custody through seizure, actual or constructive, levy
being an abso­lute appropriation in law of the
property levied on, and mere notice is insufficient.



Page 304

The method for accomplishing a levy on a bank account
is the issuing of war­rants of distraint, the making
of the bank a party, and the serving with notice of
levy, copy of the warrants of distraint, and notice of
lien.



Page 307

[2] This paragraph describes a mere statement or
notice of claim.  Nothing al­leged to have been done
amounts to a levy, which requires that the property be
brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or
constructive, levy being "an absolute appropriation in
law of the property levied upon."





180 F.2d 304  UNITED STATES v. O'DELL.





UNITED STATES v. O'DELL.

NO. 10188.



Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 10, 1947.



1.  United States 76

Statute giving the United States pri­ority rights in
insolvent estates does not create a lien, but
establishes a priority. 31 U.S.C.A. § 191.



2.  Internal revenue 1781

A "levy" requires that property be brought into legal
custody through seizure, actual or constructive, levy
being an abso­lute appropriation in law of the
property levied on, and mere notice is insufficient.



See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for all
other definitions of “Levy”



3.  Internal revenue 1781

The method for accomplishing a levy on a bank account
is the issuing of war­rants of distraint, the making
of the bank a party, and the serving with notice of
levy, copy of the warrants of distraint, and notice of
lien.



(Page 305)

4.  Internal revenue 1784


Where no levy was made by the gov­ernment on funds
deposited in bank by trustee for benefit of creditors
of corpora­tion which owed social security taxes,
stat­ute imposing a penalty on any person in
possession of properties subject to distraint, who
fails or refuses to surrender property to the United
States, was not applicable, and therefore government's
action against successor trustee, who failed or
refused to turn over to the government part of the
deposit, to recover penalty in amount of excises due,
was properly dismissed. 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev. Code, §
3710; 31 U.S.C. A. § 191.



Appeal from the District Court of the United States
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division; Frank A. Picard, judge.



Action by the United States of America against LeRoy
E. O'Dell to collect social security taxes assessed
against the Howie Company for which the defendant
became trustee in bankruptcy.  From a decree for the
defendant, 61 F. Supp. 966, the United States of
America appeals.

Affirmed.



Lee A. Jackson, of Washington, D. C. (Sewall Key, A,
F. Prescott, and Lee A. Jackson, all of Washington, D.
C., an John C. Lehr and Morris Zwerdling, both of
Detroit, Mich.., on the brief), for ap­pellant.



John Sklar, of Detroit, Mich. (Meyers & Keys and John
Sklar, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for
appellee.



Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MILLER, Circuit judges.



ALLEN, Circuit judge.

This is an action instituted by the Government under
section 3710 , I.R.C., 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev. Code, §
3710, to collect from' a trustee for benefit of
creditors of the Howie Company, an insolvent Michigan
corporation, certain unpaid excise taxes which had
theretofore been assessed against the Howie Company.
The District Court dismissed the complaint, and this -
appeal was prosecuted.



The facts are stipulated, and show that on June 2,
1939, the Howie Company de­livered to one William G.
Starr, as trustee for the benefit of creditors, a
trust chattel mortgage, together with all of its
assets.  The appellee, successor trustee, was later
given possession and control of the assets, liquidated
them, and placed the proceeds, $2,933.66, on deposit
in a Detroit bank.  On September 15, 1941, the
Collector of In­ternal Revenue made demand in writing
upon the appellee for payment of past due social
security taxes amounting to $1,336.­84. Four of the
assessment lists for the various items of taxes
claimed by the Col­lector, aggregating $386.11, had
been re­ceived by him prior to the delivery of the
trust mortgage.  Three other items aggre­gating
$711.98 were received by the Col­lector subsequent to
the delivery of the mortgage.  On September 9, 1941,
the total taxes due the City of Detroit, the County of
Wayne, and the State of Michigan, amounted to
$3,858.45, and under sections 7.81, 7.91 and 7.44,
Mich. Stat. Ann., and the charter of the City of
Detroit, sections 1, 4a, 8 and 26, had become a lien
upon the property of the taxpayer.



Section 3710, I.R.C., 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev. Code, §
3710, and other pertinent statutes are printed in the
margin. 1



(Page 306)

The Government asserts that under sec­tion,3466, R.S.,
31 U.S.C. § 19.1, 31 U.S. C.A. § 191, the excise taxes
due must first be satisfied.  Section 3466 applies
here, for the Howie Company, is indebted to the
Uni­ted States, and its estate is insufficient to pay
all of its debts.  The District Court held that the
statutes did not authorize re­covery because the fund
was the property not of the taxpayer, but of the
trustee, and also, relying upon In re Dissolution of
Ever Krisp Food Products Co., 307 Mich. 182, 11 N.W.2d
852, held that the local liens were specific and
perfected and prior to the federal tax claims.  The
Government contends that the Supreme Court of the
United States, in United States v. Waddill, Holland &
Flynn, 323 U. S. 353, 65 S-Ct­304, 89 L.Ed. 294, a
case involving facts similar to those of the Ever
Krisp case, held the federal lien to have priority,
and that the judgment herein is therefore clear­ly
erroneous.  The Waddill case declared that a federal
question was presented as to whether a state or local
lien was specific and perfected, and the judgment of
the Supreme Court of Virginia upholding a landlord's
lien as, against a: federal claim for taxes was
reversed.  The Supreme Court of the United States in
that case de­cided that the landlord's lien was not
specific nor perfected, but the question of the
ap­plicability of section 3466, R.S., to prior
spe­cific and determined liens was reserved, as it had
also been reserved in previous deci­sions.  United
States v. State of Texas, 314 U.S. 480, 62 S.Ct. 350,
86 I-Ed. 356.  The Waddill case has recently been
followed and applied in People of Illinois ex rel.
Gordon v.                Campbell, Collector, 67 S.Ct.
340.



[1] Section 3466 does not create a lien, but
establishes a priority.  Beaston v. Farm­ers' Bank of
Delaware, 37 U. S. 102, 9 L. Ed. 1017; United States
v. Fisher, 6 U. S. 358, 2 Cranch 358, 2 L.Ed. 304.
Section 3670, however, does create a lien in favor of
the Government which arises at the date when the
assessment list is received by the Collector.  Section
3671.  As to the first four excise tax items listed in
the stipulation, the assessment lists were received
before the date of the delivery of the mortgage, and
the lien of the Government as to $386.11

is clearly prior to possession of the assets (Page
307) by the trustee, although not prior to attachment
of a majority of the liens for local taxes, under
Michigan law.  But un­der this record the question of
priority is not conclusive.  The judgment was correct,
not for the reasons stated by the District Court, but
because of the failure of the Government to comply
with the statutory requirements.



Section 3710 requires the surrender of property or
rights to property (1) subject to distraint; (2) upon
which a levy has been made; (3) unless such property
is subject to an attachment or execution under
judicial process.  This section is new, hav­ing been
enacted in 1926, Act of Feb. 26, 1926, section 1114(e)
and (f), 44 Stat. 117; but the provision authorizing
the Collector after failure or refusal of the taxpayer
to pay taxes due, to levy upon his property or
property rights (section 3692) dates from 1866.  As
pointed out in United States v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
  Co., 2 Cir., 130 F. 2d 149, 151, the procedure for
distraint au­thorized under section 28 of the Revenue
Act of 1864, 13 Stat. page 233, was in sub­stance like
that of Section 3692 except that nothing was said
about a levy.  In 1866, 14 Stat. 107, § 9, Congress,
among other changes, provided that a: levy was
required to be made "upon all property and rights to
property ***              belonging to" the taxpayer.
The provision authorizing levy is unchanged in the
statute applicable here (section 3692).  Thus Congress
enacted section 3710 with knowledge that for some
sixty years levy had been authorized in these cases.
In section 3710, which pro­vides a method of forcing a
third person to surrender property of the taxpayer for
the payment of the taxes due, Congress not only
required that the property surrendered should have
been levied upon, but empha­sized this provision by
making the allow­ance for costs and interest contained
in subsection (b) run "from the date of such .levy."
The property involved here falls within the classes of
property subject to distraint, section 3690, and is
not subject to an attachment or execution; but the
record fails to show that levy has been made.



The stipulation covering levy 'is as follows:  "That
one Giles Kavanagh; the duly appointed, qualified
and.. acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the.
District of Mich­igan, on September 8, 1941, as said
Collec­tor, gave written notice to the defendant LeRoy
E. O'Dell that the tax assessment . . . totaling
$1,336.84,. including in­terest thereon, were unpaid
and due and further notified the defendant that all
prop­erty, rights to property, moneys, credits and/or
bank deposits then in his possession or under his
control and belonging to said Howie Company, and all
sums of money owing from the defendant to said Howie
Company, were seized and levied upon for the payment
of said taxes, together with penalties and interest,
and demand was then made upon the defendant for the
sum of $1,336.84, or such lesser sum as he was then
indebted to said Howie Company, to be applied in
payment of said tax liabilities."



[2] This paragraph describes a mere statement or
notice of claim.  Nothing al­leged to have been done
amounts to a levy, which requires that the property be
brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or
constructive, levy being "an absolute appropriation in
law of the property levied upon." Rio Grande R. Co. v.
Gomila, 132 U. S. 478, 10 S.Ct. 155, 33 L.Ed. 400; In
re Weinger, Bergman & Co., D. C., 126 F. 875, 877;
Smith v. Packard, 7 Cir., 98 F. 793.  Levy is not
effected by mere notice. Hollister v. Goodale, 8 Conn
332, 21 Am.  Dec. 674; Meyer v. Missouri Glass Co., 65
Ark. 286, 45 S.W. 1062, 67 Am.St.Rep. 927; Jones v.
Howard, 99 Ga. 451, 27 S.E. 765. 59 Am.St.Rep. 231.



[3] Section 3692 does not prescribe any procedure for
accomplishing a levy upon a bank account.  The method
followed in the cases is that of issuing warrants of
dis­traint, making the bank a party, and serv­ing with
the notice of levy copy of the warrants of distraint
and notice of lien.  Cf. Commonwealth Bank v. United
States, 6 Cir., 115 F.2d 327; United States v. Bank of
United States, D. C., 5 F.Supp. 942, 944.  No warrants
of distraint were issued here.



The cases relied on by the Government as supporting
recovery under section 3710 (Page 308)  arise in the
main out of situations where a bank has been sued, or
joined as a party to an. action claiming a. bank
deposit.  No such procedure was followed in this case.
  Moreover, it does not appear, that notice and demand
were served upon the person liable to pay the takes,
namely, the Howie Company, in accordance. with
sections 3670 and 3690.                 This being the
case, query, whether the property or rights to
property were within the meaning of section 3710
"subject to distraint," for under section 3690 the
right to collect the taxes by dis­traint and sale
arises only after notice and demand.



[4] It would seem to require not much exposition to
demonstrate that when the sovereign establishes any
priority in its fa­vor, and imposes certain conditions
upon the enforcement of that right, it is required to
comply with the conditions which it has laid down.
Since no levy was made upon the funds involved, one of
the jurisdiction­al prerequisites for the application
of sec­tion 3710 is lacking, and the complaint was
rightly dismissed.  Cf.  United States v. ,Etna Life
Ins.  Co. of Hartford, Conn., 1).  C., 46 F. Supp. 30,
37.

The judgment is affirmed.









1,Section 3710, I. R. C.

" (a) * * * Any person in posses­sion of property, or
rights to property, subject to distraint, upon which a
levy has been made, shall, upon demand by the
collector or deputy collector making such levy,
surrender such property or rights to such collector or
deputy, unless such property or right is, at the time
of such demand, subject to an attachment or execution
under any judicial process.

"(b) * * * Any person who fails or refuses to so
surrender any of such property or rights shall be
liable in his

own person and estate to the United States in a sum
equal to the value of the property or rights not so
surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of the
tax­es (including penalties and interest) for the
collection of which such levy has been made, together
with costs and interest from the date of such levy."



Section 3670, I. R. C.

"If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or
refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount
(including any inter­est, penalty, additional amount,
or addi­tion to such tax. together with any costs that
may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in
favor of the United States upon all property and
rights to property, whether real or personal,
belonging to such person."



Section 3671, I. R. C.

"Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the
lien shall arise at the time the assessment list was
received by the collector and shall continue until the
liability for such amount is satisfied or becomes
unenforceable by reason of lapse of time."



Section 3672, I. R. C.

"(a) * * * Such lien shall not be valid as against any
mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor
until no­tice thereof has been filed by the
collec­tor-* * *."



Section 3690, I. R.C.

"If any person liable to pay any taxes neglects or
refuses to pay the same with­in ten days after notice
and demand, it shall be lawful for the collector or
his deputy                to. collect the said taxes,
with such                interest and other additional
amounts as are required by law, by distraint and sale,
in the manner Provided in this subchapter, of the
goods, chattels, or effects, including stocks,
securities, bank accounts, and evidences of debt, of
the person delinquent as aforesaid." '



Section 3692, 1. R- C.

"In case of neglect or refusal 'under see, in 3690,
the collector may levy, or by warrant may authorize a
deputy col­lector to levy, upon all property abd
rights to property, except such as -ire exempt by the
preceding section, belong­ing to such person, or on
which the lieu provided in section 3670 exists, for
the payment of the sum due, with interests and penalty
for nonpayment, and also of such further sum as shall
be sufficient for the fees, costs, and expenses of
such levy".



Section 3466, R.S., 31 U.S.C. § 191, 31 U.S.C.A. §
191.

"Whenever any person indebted to the United States is
insolvent, or whenever the estate of any deceased
debtor, in the hands of the executors or
administrators, is insufficient to pay all the debts
due from the deceased, the debts due to the United
States shall be first satisfied; and the priority
established shall extend as well to cases in which a
debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his
debts, makes a voluntary assignment thereof, or in
which the estate and effects of an absconding,
concealed, or ab­sent debtor are attached by process
of law, as to cases. in which an act of bank­ruptcy is
committed."







Back to Carl's Corner

--- usmc63cag <usmc63cag@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to
learning alot from
this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case (
United States
v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of
levy & is
illigaly compling with it.I came across this while
gathering info to
prove to them they need a court order.Any help would
grate.Please put
in the Subject line that your responding from this
group so I don't
deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck







---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "tips_and_tricks" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


---------------------------------

I suggest that you all check out http://www.losthorizons.com  people are
getting their _entire _refunds back including So So Security and medicare.

Here are some MP3 links that you might be interested in loading into
your MP3 players and listening to while you're out and about or
listening from your computer while your surfing the net.  They come
from  http://www.rbnlive.com

Right click and 'save link as' to download and save to your computer or
left click on the link to listen to the streaming source from the server.

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0510/20051005_Wed_Greg.mp3

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0510/20051006_Thu_Stadtmiller1.mp3
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0510/20051006_Thu_Stadtmiller2.mp3

It's important to know who we really are and why the powers that be
continue to ignore us and steam roll over the top of us.

To some this may seem like being smacked in the head with a 4 x 4
because it will be totally outside the belief box we grew up in and
against everything that you've been taught in the public fool system ...
to others you may already know a lot this information but this explains
it with the facts to back it up.  Hopefully this will clear up a lot of
confusion for everyone.

Hope you enjoy ...

Tom L

usmc63cag wrote:

> Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot from
> this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States
> v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is
> illigaly compling with it.I came across this while gathering info to
> prove to them they need a court order.Any help would grate.Please put
> in the Subject line that your responding from this group so I don't
> deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "tips_and_tricks
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>

Chuck,
After you review u.s. v. o'dell...Go to givemeliberty.org.
Bob shultz case also states there has to be a federal court order
for any levy.

  Â"...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court,
IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence
whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise
does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by
a federal court orderÂ…[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt,
arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply
with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or
lack of reasons for so refusing.Â"


--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "usmc63cag" <usmc63cag@c...>
wrote:
>
> Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot
from
> this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States
> v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is
> illigaly compling with it.I came across this while gathering info
to
> prove to them they need a court order.Any help would grate.Please
put
> in the Subject line that your responding from this group so I
don't
> deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck
>

Morning Everyone,

When you get a chance, stop by the website (www.ncsingleparent.com)
and listen to the interview with Steve (a local family law
attorney).  In the interview, Steve tells us (from his experience)
what are the "Top Mistakes Divorcing Couples Make".

http://ncsingleparent.com/top_mistakes.htm

Steve is also the moderator of the "Ask An Attorney" forum.  On the
forum he answers questions for free as a service to single parents
in the area.  The forums are at:

http://ncsingleparent.com/phpbb2/index.php

Hopefully, this will be helpful.

Thanks,
Montie
Publisher -- NCSingleParent.com
montie@...

I have come to the conclusion that what I read in these groups is
correct.  All of the family law suits are about money.  See, they
say seeing is believing but when the people assigned to your case
aren't doing anything by the book or even outside the book, they are
doing nothing, you tend to believe that the system is corrupt and
the childrens wants and needs are not important.

In my case, I pray for an "Erin Brockovich", someone who is willing
to take the time to get to know my kids, to know the events that
took place, and what in the heck is happening now.  There doesn't
seem to be anyone but me who cares one bit about my children and now
they are suffering because in the jucicial world money equals
love....

Sorry for the complaining.  I think you all understand where I am
coming from when I ask "when did being poor become a crime and when
did it mean that you didn't love your children"?????

Thank you for letting me vent again....

Susan

Biggest piece of advice - go pull the case at the law library.  Anything you
get onlin(Findlaw, etc...) may or may not be complete.


----- Original Message -----
From: "usmc63cag" <usmc63cag@...>
To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:08 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Notice of Levy


> Hello to all,I'm new to the group & look forward to learning alot from
> this group.I'm looking for a citation for a case ( United States
> v.O'Dell).The company I work for recived a notice of  levy & is
> illigaly compling with it.I came across this while gathering info to
> prove to them they need a court order.Any help would grate.Please put
> in the Subject line that your responding from this group so I don't
> deelet it by mistake. Thank You Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, pireleif88@a... wrote:
>
> This depiction of a worse case scenario, sounds all but to familar,
it being
> almost the identical same thing which occured by it happening to me
in 1999,
> with my newborn son  named matthew. Is this mere coincidence or is
someone
> pulling on my leg?
> S G
>
No, not pulling your leg...this really did happen to me here in new
jersey. If you have any informative courses pf action that could be
taken to remedy this please let me know via. e-mail or post in group
message board. Thank you in advance.

" I like to disqualify everybody so there's nobody left to
do anything. "  Frog Farmer

I'm the same way, Froggy.  Let them use their own energy against themselves,
and when they're tangled up enough, watch them try to wriggle out.

Much less tiring for us, and it almost ranks as entertainment!  ;-)

--- In Legal_Self_Representation@yahoogroups.com, "law_self_help"
<law_self_help@y...> wrote:

Shah v Wilco
---------------
Shah and Barrett are reaching a point where they must have expert
legal
help. They need a lawyer with passion that understands nonimmigrant
visas
and their impact on both Americans and guest workers. If there are any
lawyers that would care to help Shah and Barrett I will put you in
touch
with them. Help is needed ASAP.

The lawsuit filed by Sona Shah and Kai Barrett is still progressing
through
the courts. It's a landmark case that could break the logjam that so
many
others have had when trying to sue based on national origin and other
types
of discrimination caused by nonimmigrant work visas.

Sona Shah, an American citizen, and Kai Barrett, a British national,
claim
that Wilco discriminates based on national origin in three ways:

1 - Wilco pays less than prevailing salaries to non U.S. citizens.

2 - Wilco gives training and the best job opportunities to their
nonimmigrant work visa workers.

3 - Wilco routinely replaces American workers with Indian nationals,
and
they show contempt for U.S. citizens. Shah alleges that Wilco
management
said that American workers don't make quality workers, they're
stupid, and
they're too expensive and difficult to control.

This lawsuit started in 2003 and has been ongoing since. Shah and
Barrett
recently defeated Wilco's Motion for Summary Judgment as well as a
Re-Argument of that same motion. They have spent the past year putting
together solid document discovery and are moving forward with their
case.
It's rough going because they have done most of the work with minimal
legal
help. Sona told me that it's very difficult to find lawyers that have
heard
of H-1B visa, and even tougher to find one that is interested in
taking on a case
involving discrimination based on national origin.

Shah and Barrett are reaching a point where they must have expert
legal
help. They need a lawyer with passion that understands nonimmigrant
visas
and their impact on both Americans and guest workers. If there are any
lawyers that would care to help Shah and Barrett I will put you in
touch
with them. Help is needed ASAP.

For those of you who want to research their legal documents, I have
Sona
Shah's permission to post them online.

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Legal/Shah_vs_Wilco.htm
Shah vs. Wilco

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Legal/Shah_4thComplaint.htm
Class Action Complaint by Shah and Barrett vs. Wilco

To view other court cases go to this page. I'll be adding more soon.

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library.htm


*** More on Wilco ***

Wilco is a bodyshop that contracts workers to large financial
clients. They
use domestic workers and import foreign workers by using H1, J1, F1,
L1 and
B visas. One tactic they use if they need to get a quick visa for
programmers is to use a 90 day visa waiver or "B" visa. Typically
they tell the
foreign computer programmer etc that they will be sponsored for an H1
or L1 visa before
the B visa expires. In the meantime, the programmer is put to work.

If Wilco decides to hire the programmer on the B visa longer than 90
days,
they send the him/her back to their country of origin for a nominal
period
until the H1 or L1 visa is issued. Another option employed is to
simply
bring the programmer back on another 90 day B visa. George Fishman -
Chief
Counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration said that this practice is
called "B visa chaining" and it's technically illegal. As with most
immigration laws it's rarely enforced.

Initially Wilco's foreign workers came mostly from Britain and Hong
Kong.
They brought people from China through the port of Hong Kong. When
Hong Kong
was handed over to the Chinese in 1997, Wilco turned to India because
they
preferred dealing with countries that were democracies.


To learn more about Wilco's discriminatory employment practices go to
this
page:

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/sha020404.htm
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-0128

Testimony to the Committee on International Relations
Sona Shah, Former Programmer Analyst
Wilco Systems, NY, NY
February 4, 2004

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

--- End forwarded message ---

Friends:

A couple of my daughter's friends had their purses stolen a couple days
ago.  Main items lost were their drivers license and credit card.
They have done the usual precautions,  reported it to the police, banks
and credit card companies.  I advised them to contact the big htree
credit reporting agencies and put an alert on their ssn.
Does anyone have anything else to advise them about what to do in this
matter?
Thanks.  Tom

Hi i'm from illinois and i'm wondering, if my wife moves out of our
house or Abandoned me and our home does she get 1/2 of what the house
is worth if I sell the house or not. Or do I have to sell it for her to
get 1/2 of what I sell it for

Re: "A "levy" requires that property be brought into
legal
custody through seizure, actual or constructive", what
is "constructive seizure"?

----- Original Message -----

From: JOHN INGRESS

Re: "A "levy" requires that property be brought into
legal custody through seizure, actual or constructive", what
is "constructive seizure"?