Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Good authority on IRS liens and levies

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    IRS Liens and Levies (Author Un-Known) Many of us are only too familiar with the story of a friend or family member who went to an ATM machine to take out some
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      IRS Liens and Levies (Author Un-Known)

       

      Many of us are only too familiar with the story of a friend or family member who went to

      an ATM machine to take out some cash only to discover that their balance had somehow

      dropped to "$0.00". The IRS, without warning, had emptied their bank account. Others

      may have had their weekly paycheck "attached" by the IRS. Such individuals, in

      describing their intense feelings of anger and frustration over the apparent outright theft of

      their personal property, speak of having been "robbed," yet seemingly have no legal

      recourse. In fact, there is recourse under the law for those Americans willing to pursue

      their legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the heard-earned fruits of their

      labor. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is the body of law that contains the legal

      authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions pertaining to the

      collection of income taxes. It is, however, not unusual for the Service to cite the Internal

      Revenue Manual as their legal authority for various aspects of a collection procedure. At

      least six Courts have now ruled that the Manual is only "directory" in nature and that it

      does not convey any such legal authority. The following article which appeared in a recent

      issue of "Reasonable Action", the membership newsletter of the Save-A-Patriot

      Fellowship, will demonstrate how devastating such rulings are to the IRS. It will also relate

      the specific effect that this will have on agency employees who fail to recognize the limited

      nature of their authority and other provisions pertaining to, for example, liens and levies.

       

      THE LEVY It goes without saying that one of the most dreaded forms that any person

      can receive from the IRS is the Form 668-W. This form is the "Notice of Levy" that is

      sent to third parties for the purpose of collecting taxes that are allegedly owed. The legal

      authority for its use is extremely limited, but since the general public is unaware of the

      statutory provisions for "levying" upon the wages, accrued salary, or other property of an

      individual, the legal impotence of the IRS is unknown to them. The reason is: when the

      form was designed, the cite of authority that would reveal its limited application was

      conveniently omitted - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice. But, then again, if

      the IRS actually cited the authority for the levy on the form, it is doubtful they could

      coerce people into honoring the levy. The individual who actually receives the "Notice of

      Levy" is, of course, a third party [i.e., a bank manager]. But rarely, if ever, does that third

      party realize the responsibility for correctly determining that the validity of the levy is

      theirs. Nor do they fully realize the importance of making a correct legal determination,

      since an incorrect determination can lead to a personal liability. Even worse, it could lead

      to a criminal charge called "conversion of property." The majority of people have little or

      no understanding of the law and so they are not cognizant of the requisite statutory

      authority or its limitations. As far as the "Notice of Levy" is concerned, most people

      assume that the responsibility for these determinations rests with the IRS. It naturally

      follows, in their mind, that the IRS is then legally responsible for that "determination."

      What they fail to consider, is that, since they are in possession of the property, it is they

      who are ultimately responsible for any determination having to do with its disposition, not

      the IRS. The agent who sends a levy is merely acting on the "presumption" that the

      authority may be valid. If the agent was knowledgeable, it might be considered unethical,

      but unless the agent had full knowledge of all of the circumstances and the actual

      limitation of the authority in question, his or her actions could be considered to be within

      the law. It is easy for someone who is cognizant of the limitations to jump to conclusions

      and assume that such action is illegal. Maybe it is, but did the IRS agent ever suggest that

      the authority for the levy was valid or applicable? Probably not! Nor did he or she

      necessarily suggest that the property of the individual that was under the control of the

      third party was "subject to levy." For that matter, the agent was probably as ignorant of

      the law as the third party who received the levy! It was not the agent's responsibility to tell

      the third party that the levy was invalid without the necessary court order, and more than

      likely, the agent didn't even know that himself. Rather, because the third party is in control

      of the property, it is their responsibility to know the law and act in accordance with the

      law, or, if unfamiliar with the law, to seek competent legal advice (assuming any can be

      found). The bottom line is, were it not for the many parties involved and the various legal

      aspects that seem to confuse the average attorney, it would be impossible for the IRS to

      seize property under the guise of collecting taxes. The question that most people ask is:

      who is to blame? Is the agent at fault because his or her training was incomplete? Was it

      their instructor's fault, or was the instructor only doing what he or she was told? To a

      large degree the "misperceptions" we've discussed result from ignorance that has been

      perpetuated as much by natural processes as by any design, and it has gone on for such a

      long time that no one is willing to admit that they really can not explain why certain actions

      and procedural anomalies (for which they may be responsible) seem to conflict with the

      law. The best that any IRS employee can hope to do, is pretend that they know what

      they're doing and hope that they can convince everyone else that what they have been

      doing is proper and lawful. Is the third party to blame? Perhaps, but then, how can

      anyone expect the average person to understand these limitations when the agents

      themselves do not understand? The lawyers that are called upon to give legal advice

      concerning levies have virtually no experience in tax law and end up calling the very agents

      that were just mentioned because they don't know either. Ironically, everyone seems to

      have a sincere desire to obey the law, even many of the agents. They just refuse to believe

      that what they've been doing for years is outside the law -- surely there must be some

      other law that would permit them to continue doing things the way they were told! Like the

      children's' fairy tale about the emperor who had no clothes, the people involved just can't

      believe their own eyes. The lower level agents believe their supervisors wouldn't lie to

      them, and the supervisors believe that what they have been told is correct and on up the

      ladder it goes. In the case of the fairy tale emperor, the people just couldn't believe that

      the emperor was really as naked as their eyes would seem to suggest. After all, there must

      be some other explanation. Surely he (or in this case the average IRS agent) wasn't that

      gullible! The real problem is that none of the authorities involved are willing to admit the

      possibility that they are wrong. That would be dangerously close to admitting that they

      had been needlessly destroying the lives of their fellow countryman, and the more

      evidence that surfaces to prove or disprove the various points in contention, the more

      obsessive the bureaucrats desire to blindly, and without basis, insist otherwise. The funny

      thing about a lie, is that, the more a person repeats it, the greater the tendency there is to

      believe it. For some, the misapplication of the income tax has been a nightmare, not a fairy

      tale, but it has been perpetuated by what in some cases seem to be well meaning, yes,

      bureaucrats. Consider former Commissioner Shirley Peterson's recent speech at Southern

      Methodist University. She blasted the income tax and said that it must be done away with,

      echoing none other than former President Jimmy Carter's own words when he said "the

      income tax is a disgrace to the human race." It was once difficult for us to believe that

      officials as high as Ms. Peterson were capable of such gross ignorance of the law, but in a

      recent court ordered interrogatory, she stated that "wages" and "salaries" were clearly

      includable in "section 61(a)" (gross income). We pointed out to the present commissioner

      that not only were "wages" and "salaries" not mentioned in the text of section 61, which is

      Subtitle A, but that they were by definition, strictly limited to Subtitle C. Moreover, a

      person cannot even have what is legally defined as a "wage" unless he has applied to

      participate in the entitlement programs. We added that: knowing she would not

      deliberately lie to the court, her statements could only result from gross ignorance of the

      law. That being the case, it may be that even the highest level officials within the IRS may

      be under the false impression that they are in compliance with the law (as hard as that may

      be for some to believe). In the fairy tale, you may recall, it was the innocent admission of

      a young boy who pointed to the emperor and asked where his clothes were. The boy was

      unconcerned with any potential fear of reprisal and his candid observation "exposed" the

      bare truth for all to see. Of course, everyone already knew that the royal rascal was buck

      naked because they could see it with their own eyes. They were just unwilling to admit it

      because they were afraid of what the emperor might do. Everyone was astounded by the

      youngster's honesty and when everyone began to admit the truth, the emperor had no

      choice but to realize he had been rather foolish. The binding psychological principle that

      is at work here is not dissimilar with the authority, the misapplication, and the subsequent

      "I'm just doing what I was told" response that is usually received when government

      employees are confronted with the facts in question. Pride, fear, and confusion do not

      allow the ego-driven authoritarian (i.e. in this case, the professional bureaucrat) to admit

      that they are wrong. To do so, would be to subject themselves to the embarrassment and

      ridicule that would deflate the ego-trip that is the driving force behind this type of

      individual, and to admit to such utter negligence or ignorance is simply unthinkable. But

      just like in the fairy tale, when everyone was forced to confront the naked truth, the

      emperor had no recourse but to admit that he had been the fool. So just how naked is the

      emperor?

       

      THE AUTHORITY FOR THE LEVY The authority to levy is restricted to and contained

      within Section 6331(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint. (a)

      Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the

      same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect

      such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by

      levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under

      section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter

      for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any

      officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or

      any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving

      a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer,

      employee, or elected official). If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such

      tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by

      the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall

      be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section. [Emphasis Added]

       

      Section 6331 is the only authority in the entire IR Code that provides for the levy of

      wages and salaries etc., and the "limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious

      since it pertains ONLY to certain officers, employees, and elected officials of the

      government and of course, their employer, the government.

       

      MORAL RESPONSIBILITY VS. LEGAL OBLIGATION It could be said that the IRS

      has a moral responsibility, however, in reality, there is a difference between a moral

      responsibility, and a legal obligation. Therefore, ethical questions may be reduced to the

      actual "intent" or the "frame of mind" of any given agent who mistakenly exercises such

      authority. Certainly, the IRS agent has a moral responsibility to refrain from misusing

      authority, but if he or she is unaware of the limitations of that authority, then technically,

      the actual legal obligation to make a correct determination and accept that authority (if

      appropriate) or not accept that authority (if inappropriate) remains that of the third party.

      It is equally important to understand that despite this ethical "loop hole" which would

      seem to exonerate and provide an escape for an agent errantly exercising a "presumed"

      authority</

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

    • Tally Eddings
      Bear, This is all true and sounds WONDERFUL but the fact is, NO ONE has ever taken the THIRD PARTY (Irwin Schiff vs. The Bank of America, for example) to court
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Bear,
         
        This is all true and sounds WONDERFUL but the fact is, NO ONE has ever taken the THIRD PARTY (Irwin Schiff vs. The Bank of America, for example) to court and won except for one case decided for a small amount by a magistrate.  NO ONE (that I can find) has ever been successful in suing an IRS Agent for serving the Levy and it is impossible to prove any wrong doing, at least, to date to my knowledge.  Suits against the IRS and Department of Treasury filed in a State Court to have the Levy/Lien removed (John Jennings' method, successful in 13 cases in Florida, where I live, but later over turned and remanded to the USDC as instructed by the US Attorney's office) are now illegally turned over to the Federal District Courts where upon request by the U.S. Attorney, are dismissed without a hearing. 
         
        Liability can not be established.  Paul Andrew Mitchell prepared a SUBPONEA for me in the DCUS (not the USDC) which was served on the then Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, the details of which, with links, can be found here: http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm 
         
        Personally, I now have a case prepared against a THIRD PARTY, an Investment Firm, Raymond, James Financial, Inc., which surrendered my funds on a Notice of Lien without a Court Order as required by law or a Judge's signature.  I have not filed this case because of the futility of the battle.  I used the letters and information found at http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/banklevy/index.htm  These letters CLEARLY lay out the law and establish liability;  however, with the Courts on the side of the IRS, the law is broken with impunity.
         
        Further, I sent this same information to my Insurance Carrier last year to AVOID the IRS illegal actions, hopefully, without Due Process.  It did no good.  Even knowing the facts BEFORE surrendering the money to the IRS on a Notice of a Federal Tax Lien, the Insurance Company, New England, faithfully obeyed the IRS and this past month sold my stock and sent the money to the IRS only notifying me AFTER the fact.
         
        Why does the IRS do this?  Because they can.  They have gotten away with acting illegally and since NO ONE has or can stop them, they continue. 
         
        Why do THIRD PARTIES comply with the IRS when they are fully cognizant of the law and proper procedures?  Because of the fear and intimidation of the IRS and faith in the knowledge that the Courts will protect them no matter what the law says.
         
        There is NO law when it comes to the Fraudulent IRS.  There is no successful recourse against Third Parties who comply with the IRS. 
         
        Please fly these facts by your legal gurus and see if there are facts with which they are aware which would be helpful in combating the IRS under these circumstances.  That the IRS is now "bowing out" does not help me or others in similar circumstances at all.
         
        Tally Eddings
        Orlando, Florida  
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Legalbear
        Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:26 PM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Good authority on IRS liens and levies

        IRS Liens and Levies (Author Un-Known)

         

        Many of us are only too familiar with the story of a friend or family member who went to

        an ATM machine to take out some cash only to discover that their balance had somehow

        dropped to "$0.00". The IRS, without warning, had emptied their bank account. Others

        may have had their weekly paycheck "attached" by the IRS. Such individuals, in

        describing their intense feelings of anger and frustration over the apparent outright theft of

        their personal property, speak of having been "robbed," yet seemingly have no legal

        recourse. In fact, there is recourse under the law for those Americans willing to pursue

        their legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the heard-earned fruits of their

        labor. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is the body of law that contains the legal

        authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions pertaining to the

        collection of income taxes. It is, however, not unusual for the Service to cite the Internal

        Revenue Manual as their legal authority for various aspects of a collection procedure. At

        least six Courts have now ruled that the Manual is only "directory" in nature and that it

        does not convey any such legal authority. The following article which appeared in a recent

        issue of "Reasonable Action", the membership newsletter of the Save-A-Patriot

        Fellowship, will demonstrate how devastating such rulings are to the IRS. It will also relate

        the specific effect that this will have on agency employees who fail to recognize the limited

        nature of their authority and other provisions pertaining to, for example, liens and levies.

         

        THE LEVY It goes without saying that one of the most dreaded forms that any person

        can receive from the IRS is the Form 668-W. This form is the "Notice of Levy" that is

        sent to third parties for the purpose of collecting taxes that are allegedly owed. The legal

        authority for its use is extremely limited, but since the general public is unaware of the

        statutory provisions for "levying" upon the wages, accrued salary, or other property of an

        individual, the legal impotence of the IRS is unknown to them. The reason is: when the

        form was designed, the cite of authority that would reveal its limited application was

        conveniently omitted - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice. But, then again, if

        the IRS actually cited the authority for the levy on the form, it is doubtful they could

        coerce people into honoring the levy. The individual who actually receives the "Notice of

        Levy" is, of course, a third party [i.e., a bank manager]. But rarely, if ever, does that third

        party realize the responsibility for correctly determining that the validity of the levy is

        theirs. Nor do they fully realize the importance of making a correct legal determination,

        since an incorrect determination can lead to a personal liability. Even worse, it could lead

        to a criminal charge called "conversion of property." The majority of people have little or

        no understanding of the law and so they are not cognizant of the requisite statutory

        authority or its limitations. As far as the "Notice of Levy" is concerned, most people

        assume that the responsibility for these determinations rests with the IRS. It naturally

        follows, in their mind, that the IRS is then legally responsible for that "determination."

        What they fail to consider, is that, since they are in possession of the property, it is they

        who are ultimately responsible for any determination having to do with its disposition, not

        the IRS. The agent who sends a levy is merely acting on the "presumption" that the

        authority may be valid. If the agent was knowledgeable, it might be considered unethical,

        but unless the agent had full knowledge of all of the circumstances and the actual

        limitation of the authority in question, his or her actions could be considered to be within

        the law. It is easy for someone who is cognizant of the limitations to jump to conclusions

        and assume that such action is illegal. Maybe it is, but did the IRS agent ever suggest that

        the authority for the levy was valid or applicable? Probably not! Nor did he or she

        necessarily suggest that the property of the individual that was under the control of the

        third party was "subject to levy." For that matter, the agent was probably as ignorant of

        the law as the third party who received the levy! It was not the agent's responsibility to tell

        the third party that the levy was invalid without the necessary court order, and more than

        likely, the agent didn't even know that himself. Rather, because the third party is in control

        of the property, it is their responsibility to know the law and act in accordance with the

        law, or, if unfamiliar with the law, to seek competent legal advice (assuming any can be

        found). The bottom line is, were it not for the many parties involved and the various legal

        aspects that seem to confuse the average attorney, it would be impossible for the IRS to

        seize property under the guise of collecting taxes. The question that most people ask is:

        who is to blame? Is the agent at fault because his or her training was incomplete? Was it

        their instructor's fault, or was the instructor only doing what he or she was told? To a

        large degree the "misperceptions" we've discussed result from ignorance that has been

        perpetuated as much by natural processes as by any design, and it has gone on for such a

        long time that no one is willing to admit that they really can not explain why certain actions

        and procedural anomalies (for which they may be responsible) seem to conflict with the

        law. The best that any IRS employee can hope to do, is pretend that they know what

        they're doing and hope that they can convince everyone else that what they have been

        doing is proper and lawful. Is the third party to blame? Perhaps, but then, how can

        anyone expect the average person to understand these limitations when the agents

        themselves do not understand? The lawyers that are called upon to give legal advice

        concerning levies have virtually no experience in tax law and end up calling the very agents

        that were just mentioned because they don't know either. Ironically, everyone seems to

        have a sincere desire to obey the law, even many of the agents. They just refuse to believe

        that what they've been doing for years is outside the law -- surely there must be some

        other law that would permit them to continue doing things the way they were told! Like the

        children's' fairy tale about the emperor who had no clothes, the people involved just can't

        believe their own eyes. The lower level agents believe their supervisors wouldn't lie to

        them, and the supervisors believe that what they have been told is correct and on up the

        ladder it goes. In the case of the fairy tale emperor, the people just couldn't believe that

        the emperor was really as naked as their eyes would seem to suggest. After all, there must

        be some other explanation. Surely he (or in this case the average IRS agent) wasn't that

        gullible! The real problem is that none of the authorities involved are willing to admit the

        possibility that they are wrong. That would be dangerously close to admitting that they

        had been needlessly destroying the lives of their fellow countryman, and the more

        evidence that surfaces to prove or disprove the various points in contention, the more

        obsessive the bureaucrats desire to blindly, and without basis, insist otherwise. The funny

        thing about a lie, is that, the more a person repeats it, the greater the tendency there is to

        believe it. For some, the misapplication of the income tax has been a nightmare, not a fairy

        tale, but it has been perpetuated by what in some cases seem to be well meaning, yes,

        bureaucrats. Consider former Commissioner Shirley Peterson's recent speech at Southern

        Methodist University. She blasted the income tax and said that it must be done away with,

        echoing none other than former President Jimmy Carter's own words when he said "the

        income tax is a disgrace to the human race." It was once difficult for us to believe that

        officials as high as Ms. Peterson were capable of such gross ignorance of the law, but in a

        recent court ordered interrogatory, she stated that "wages" and "salaries" were clearly

        includable in "section 61(a)" (gross income). We pointed out to the present commissioner

        that not only were "wages" and "salaries" not mentioned in the text of section 61, which is

        Subtitle A, but that they were by definition, strictly limited to Subtitle C. Moreover, a

        person cannot even have what is legally defined as a "wage" unless he has applied to

        participate in the entitlement programs. We added that: knowing she would not

        deliberately lie to the court, her statements could only result from gross ignorance of the

        law. That being the case, it may be that even the highest level officials within the IRS may

        be under the false impression that they are in compliance with the law (as hard as that may

        be for some to believe). In the fairy tale, you may recall, it was the innocent admission of

        a young boy who pointed to the emperor and asked where his clothes were. The boy was

        unconcerned with any potential fear of reprisal and his candid observation "exposed" the

        bare truth for all to see. Of course, everyone already knew that the royal rascal was buck

        naked because they could see it with their own eyes. They were just unwilling to admit it

        because they were afraid of what the emperor might do. Everyone was astounded by the

        youngster's honesty and when everyone began to admit the truth, the emperor had no

        choice but to realize he had been rather foolish. The binding psychological principle that

        is at work here is not dissimilar with the authority, the misapplication, and the subsequent

        "I'm just doing what I was told" response that is usually received when government

        employees are confronted with the facts in question. Pride, fear, and confusion do not

        allow the ego-driven authoritarian (i.e. in this case, the professional bureaucrat) to admit

        that they are wrong. To do so, would be to subject themselves to the embarrassment and

        ridicule that would deflate the ego-trip that is the driving force behind this type of

        individual, and to admit to such utter negligence or ignorance is simply unthinkable. But

        just like in the fairy tale, when everyone was forced to confront the naked truth, the

        emperor had no recourse but to admit that he had been the fool. So just how naked is the

        emperor?

         

        THE AUTHORITY FOR THE LEVY The authority to levy is restricted to and contained

        within Section 6331(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint. (a)

        Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the

        same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect

        such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by

        levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under

        section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter

        for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any

        officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or

        any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • Legalbear
        Bear, This is all true and sounds WONDERFUL but the fact is, NO ONE has ever taken the THIRD PARTY (Irwin Schiff vs. The Bank of America, for example) to court
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment

          Bear,

           

          This is all true and sounds WONDERFUL but the fact is, NO ONE has ever taken the THIRD PARTY (Irwin Schiff vs. The Bank of America, for example) to court and won except for one case decided for a small amount by a magistrate.  NO ONE (that I can find) has ever been successful in suing an IRS Agent for serving the Levy and it is impossible to prove any wrong doing, at least, to date to my knowledge.  Suits against the IRS and Department of Treasury filed in a State Court to have the Levy/Lien removed (John Jennings' method, successful in 13 cases in Florida, where I live, but later over turned and remanded to the USDC as instructed by the US Attorney's office) are now illegally turned over to the Federal District Courts where upon request by the U.S. Attorney, are dismissed without a hearing. 

           

          Liability can not be established.  Paul Andrew Mitchell prepared a SUBPONEA for me in the DCUS (not the USDC) which was served on the then Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, the details of which, with links, can be found here: http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm 

           

          Personally, I now have a case prepared against a THIRD PARTY, an Investment Firm, Raymond, James Financial, Inc., which surrendered my funds on a Notice of Lien without a Court Order as required by law or a Judge's signature.  I have not filed this case because of the futility of the battle.  I used the letters and information found at http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/banklevy/index.htm  These letters CLEARLY lay out the law and establish liability;  however, with the Courts on the side of the IRS, the law is broken with impunity.

           

          Further, I sent this same information to my Insurance Carrier last year to AVOID the IRS illegal actions, hopefully, without Due Process.  It did no good.  Even knowing the facts BEFORE surrendering the money to the IRS on a Notice of a Federal Tax Lien, the Insurance Company, New England, faithfully obeyed the IRS and this past month sold my stock and sent the money to the IRS only notifying me AFTER the fact.

           

          Why does the IRS do this?  Because they can.  They have gotten away with acting illegally and since NO ONE has or can stop them, they continue. 

           

          Why do THIRD PARTIES comply with the IRS when they are fully cognizant of the law and proper procedures?  Because of the fear and intimidation of the IRS and faith in the knowledge that the Courts will protect them no matter what the law says.

           

          There is NO law when it comes to the Fraudulent IRS.  There is no successful recourse against Third Parties who comply with the IRS. 

           

          Please fly these facts by your legal gurus and see if there are facts with which they are aware which would be helpful in combating the IRS under these circumstances.  That the IRS is now "bowing out" does not help me or others in similar circumstances at all.

           

          Tally Eddings

          Orlando, Florida   

           

          Tally:  I agree with you totally.  I think the naïve’ need to be warned, so, I’m posting this to the lists I participate in.  I think the situation calls for some boxing tactics.  When a boxer is in the ring with a powerful puncher known for knocking out opponents with a single blow, the most successful boxer against such a foe is going to be the one that can avoid the blow through stealth or slipping the punch.  Here are punch slipping tactics:

           

          1)      Don’t own anything in your name.  The Bible affirms this:

           

          Matthew 5:5 (J.B. Phillips) Happy are those who claim nothing, for the whole earth shall belong to them.

           

          Your mindset and approach should be, why would you want to lien that property, it’s not mine.

           

          A thought; if you claimed an interest deduction for the house you live in on a return you filed with the IRS, and then transfer that house into a trust that is revocable or on which you are named as a trustee or beneficiary, and then still live in that house; it will be very easy for the IRS to have your trust deemed a sham or alter ego and help themselves to it.  That interest deduction on the prior return will lead the IRS right to it.  You’re going to have your name, and your children’s names, completely off that trust.  You’re going to have to move too!   Does that sound like work?  Well, how much equity is in your house?  Maybe it’s worth it.

          2)      Never use a Social Security Number. Treat anyone who wants that number as an enemy.  The government is blind if they can’t get you to tell them that number.  That’s their bar code on you. 

          3)      Don’t do business with banks.  They are the other end of the IRS.  They are federal instrumentalities.  The US Supreme Court has held that the records of the money that flowed through your account are not your records subject to the seizure protections of the 4th Amendment, but rather, are the records of the bank, a federal instrumentality, created by federal statutes.  How convenient.

          4)      Get out of debt!  All of your creditors are reporting to the credit reporting agencies.  If the IRS looks in there and sees that you are current on a $500 a month payment on your Mercedes and a $1500 a month payment on your house; they know you’re getting money from somewhere.  Your credit report will tell them where.

          5)      Don’t have any sources of income that can be diverted to the IRS by any single entity like an employer, securities broker or bank. 

          6)      Stop relying on credit reporting agencies for anything.  The IRS accesses those records and will use it to track down your assets.  You need to turn that record off in its totality. 

          7)      You simply cannot continue to maintain a checking account on any account that you’ve ever paid the IRS with.  They keep those account numbers for future reference so they know where your accounts are.  In fact, Bill Drexler suggests we do our banking across the border in Canada.  He says they process on the Federal Reserve using US FRNs and yet would not be subject to bogus IRS notices of levy being outside the US.  Maybe what he means it will be more difficult.  I’m working on this now.

          8)      Stop getting mail delivered at an address.  In the sample letter that comes with my Suits For Unlawful Tax Collection Activities one of the best issues is that they never provided proper notices as provided by federal statute at the address requested by the person being levied and therefore were unable to move forward on the collections process.  They have the hardest time with general delivery.  If you’re transient they can’t show you’re a resident of the US.  Also, you aren’t receiving the benefit of the US Postal Service mail delivery.

           

          I tend to think of this whole thing as a martial arts fight.  I’m not a martial artist, but, I think I know this about it; you use your opponent’s momentum against him.  Applied to law, this would mean that if you suspect you may go to court against the IRS, or end up there, you know in advance that the judge is owned by the IRS and is going to rule against you no matter how much research you do, how much authority you put before the court, or, how much the facts of the case are for you; you’ve got to anticipate the oppression.  The momentum for the opponent in the instance of an IRS fight in court is the bias of the judge in favor of the IRS.  He’s scared of them.  He cooperates with them by filing a return.  He works for the same government.  My educated guess would be that there is a stack of case law unrelated to IRS issues out there where federal courts have held that a judge with an interest in the case or afraid of one of the parties may not sit on the case and must recuse.  The federal courts put all that precedent on the books trying to give the appearance of justice when the IRS wasn’t a party.  I’d line all that authority up in a brief or motion and say it long, loud, and often, “We can’t talk about anything else until we address the prejudice of the judge!”  Also, I’d be ready to pursue that same issue respecting the jury; where’s my impartial jury?  How can they be impartial when they are all filing returns?  We’re talking Jahshuah’s parable of the unjust judge:

           

          Luke 18
          1ALSO [Jahshuwah] told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not to [1] turn coward (faint, lose heart, and give up).
          2He said, In a certain city there was a judge who neither reverenced and feared God nor respected or considered man.
          3And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, Protect and defend and give me justice against my adversary.
          4And for a time he would not; but later he said to himself, Though I have neither reverence or fear for God nor respect or consideration for man,
          5Yet because this widow continues to bother me, I will defend and protect and avenge her, lest she give me [2] intolerable annoyance and wear me out by her continual coming or [3] at the last she come and rail on me or [4] assault me or [5] strangle me.
          6Then the Lord said, Listen to what the unjust judge says!
          7And will not [our just] Jah defend and protect and avenge His elect (His chosen ones), who cry to Him day and night? Will He [6] defer them and [7] delay help on their behalf?
          8I tell you, He will defend and protect and avenge them speedily. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find [[8] persistence in] faith on the earth?

           

          That widow woman keeps coming back until the judge gets tired of hearing from her.  I helped win a federal wire fraud case by taking just this approach.  The judge appointed counsel for the defendant.  The defendant fired the public defender and then got on the all caps name isn’t me issue.  The judge was trying to get him to waive counsel.  The defendant kept going back to, why do I need to do anything, I’m not a party to the case; that’s not my name.  The judge says, “We can’t stay here all day.”  The prosecutor felt sorry for the judge and suggested that maybe he could solve the problem.  The defendant and the prosecutor went out in the hall.  The prosecutor asked the defendant a couple questions about priors; the defendant answered to his liking, and the prosecutor dismissed him out as a defendant!  This was a win simply on persistence.

           

          As I re-read the parable of the unjust judge two things occurred to me: 

          1)      This parable is about persistence in prayer.

          2)      Prayer should be the first line of defense against an unjust judge instead of a last resort!

           

          You know what?  You’re prayers aren’t going to work with Jah unless you’re on the right side of the issue.  If you’re trying to get out of paying taxes you can have more money for yourself, your prayers aren’t going to work.  On the other hand, you are refusing to pay taxes because it violates the principle of full disclosure set out in Isaiah:

           

          Isaiah 39
          1   At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of
          Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.
          2   And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.
          3   Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, even from
          Babylon.
          4   Then said he, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.
          5   Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD of hosts:
          6   Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

           

           

          The concept is that filling out and filing a tax return is this same full disclosure that got Hezekiah in trouble with the prophet and Jahweh.  Another Biblical principle you could stand on comes from Matthew 22:

           

          16   And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
          17   Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
          18   But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
          19   Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
          20   And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
          21   They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto Jah the things that are Jah's.
          22   When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

           

          Where you believe that everything you have is Jah’s and that therefore there is nothing left for Caesar; then, you’re prayers will be heard.  Jah will then become an enemy of your enemies (IRS) and they’ll have more trouble than they can deal with.  Jah’s not going to bless or hear the prayers of people that operate in the “pride of life,” “lust of the eyes,” or the “lust of the flesh.”  See 1 John 2:16.  Those things are of this world and the people that participate in them owe a tax.  Bear

          For mailing use:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln., Greeley, CO  80634-7849; 970-330-3883 fax 810-958-6113
          www.legal-research-video.com
          www.legalbears.com
          www.freedivorceforms.net
          http://www.stores.ebay.com/bearscomputersandlawresearch
          To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

          From: Legalbear

          Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:26 PM

          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Good authority on IRS liens and levies

           

          IRS Liens and Levies (Author Un-Known)

           

          Many of us are only too familiar with the story of a friend or family member who went to

          an ATM machine to take out some cash only to discover that their balance had somehow

          dropped to "$0.00". The IRS, without warning, had emptied their bank account. Others

          may have had their weekly paycheck "attached" by the IRS. Such individuals, in

          describing their intense feelings of anger and frustration over the apparent outright theft of

          their personal property, speak of having been "robbed," yet seemingly have no legal

          recourse. In fact, there is recourse under the law for those Americans willing to pursue

          their legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the heard-earned fruits of their

          labor. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is the body of law that contains the legal

           

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.