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

IS THIS A VALID LIEN? (RE-POST WITH MORE DETAIL)

Expand Messages
  • otoman@bellsouth.net
    The IRS just placed a general lien on my property. Section 6223 indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state the property and its location.
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 14, 2008
      The IRS just placed a "general" lien on my property. Section 6223 indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state "the property and its location." The lien that was filed on my property is not specific to property or location. It states: "there is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property belonging to....."
       
      If the law is as stated, and we are not supposed to have to read between the lines, then it seems to me that the lien placed on my property would not be considered valid since the wording is not specific to what property the lien is being placed on and where the location of that property is.
       
      Has anyone used this effectively as a point when filing a response to a Federal Tax Lien.
       
                                                                                                                Thanks
    • mn_chicago
      ... indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state the property and its location. Here is an example, using section 6331. Glean from it what you
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 14, 2008
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, otoman@... wrote:
        >
        > The IRS just placed a "general" lien on my property. Section 6223
        indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state "the
        property and its location."

        Here is an example, using section 6331. Glean from
        it what you can that may apply to your own situation.
        It cannot be understated enough that the taxing agency
        will do EVERYTHING to mislead, deceive, etc, and let
        anyone make their own interpretation, the equivalent
        to "Welcome to my web," said the taxing agency to the
        unsuspecting recipient.

        What you may discover, in a very careful reading of
        all taxing agency correspondance/damands, is that the
        reader makes all of the assumptions of liability the
        taxing agenct expects one to make.

        "Notice of Levy


        Communications sent from the IRS to businesses
        (and workers) will always be constructed to mislead.
        The most egregious and pernicious example of this is
        the Form 688-W Notice of Levy by which the agency seeks
        to co-opt a company into committing theft-by-conversion
        by sending it part of a workers pay in the absence of a
        court order to do so. This form not only repeatedly
        refers to its target as an "employee", inviting
        agreement by acquiescence, but it includes extended
        excerpts from Section 6331 of the IRC, concerning Levy
        and Distraint, on its back, allowing those excerpts to
        imply authority for the requested seizure. The careful
        observer will notice, however, that the excerpts start
        with subparagraph (b) of that section.

        (b) Seizure and sale of property

        The term ''levy'' as used in this title includes the
        power of distraint and seizure by any means. Except as
        otherwise provided in subsection (e), a levy shall
        extend only to property possessed and obligations
        existing at the time thereof. In any case in which the
        Secretary may levy upon property or rights to property,
        he may seize and sell such property or rights to property
        (whether real or personal, tangible or intangible).



        Here is the subparagraph (a) which is deliberately left
        out:

        (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 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.



        Documents like the Notice of Levy sent to a private-sector
        company end with a "Thank you for your cooperation", and
        they mean it. Without a private-sector company's
        cooperation, in withholding and/or sending other people's
        lawlessly demanded money AND accepting all the legal risk
        for the lawsuit and possible criminal charges, the IRS
        would never see an unprivileged, private-sector dime. And
        let's never forget, congress set them up with their quite
        well-paying jobs (which are financed out of the take) for
        no purpose except to bring in every penny on which they
        can get their hands."

        Cheers!
      • Jake
        ...   Bother to look @ § 6321?      If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 14, 2008
          > The IRS just placed a "general" lien on my property. Section 6223 indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state "the property and its location." The lien that was filed on my property is not specific to property or location. It states: "there is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to property belonging to....."
           
          Bother to look @ § 6321?
           
             "If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, 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."
           
          § 6323 only limits certain things & you got LOTS of homework to do.  Throw the notions out that a lien isn't valid if it's not signed by a judge, that a "notice of lien" isn't enough, etc. & the best place to start is in the law library, FindLaw, etc., looking @ case law to see how the courts in your circuit have decided issues most similar to yours.  Makes no difference what you think the law says or what it ought to say or mean - the only thing that will do you any good is finding out how it's applied.  Read cases both where the party won & where they lost, not only to see what you might use, but also to see what doesn't work so you don't make the same mistakes.
           

        • cliff_bass
          That all sounds reasonable, maybe. First read the laws that pertain to your situation. Then make up your own mind. If I follow court rulings I will definitely
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 14, 2008
            That all sounds reasonable, maybe.

            First read the laws that pertain to your situation. Then make up your
            own mind.

            If I follow court rulings I will definitely be confused by the courts
            who are nothing attorneys (Latin definition: to twist)in black dresses.

            They follow no rule of law.

            They attack that which created them, such as the US Constitution and
            the various state pieces of paper.

            Stick with what you know for sure.

            Read the Constitution for the answers. That is what constitutes the
            different branches of government. Nothing more or less.

            Take the control our states back from control of the central government.


            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
            >
            > > The IRS just placed a "general" lien on my property. Section 6223
            indicates that the lien, in order to be valid, must state "the
            property and its location." The lien that was filed on my property is
            not specific to property or location. It states: "there is a lien in
            favor of the United States on all property and rights to property
            belonging to....."
            >  
            > Bother to look @ § 6321?
            >  
            >    "If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay
            the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional
            amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, 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."
            >  
            > § 6323 only limits certain things & you got LOTS of homework to do. 
            Throw the notions out that a lien isn't valid if it's not signed by a
            judge, that a "notice of lien" isn't enough, etc. & the best place to
            start is in the law library, FindLaw, etc., looking @ case law to see
            how the courts in your circuit have decided issues most similar to
            yours.  Makes no difference what you think the law says or what it
            ought to say or mean - the only thing that will do you any good is
            finding out how it's applied.  Read cases both where the party won &
            where they lost, not only to see what you might use, but also to see
            what doesn't work so you don't make the same mistakes.
            >  
            >
          • Jake
            ... First read the laws that pertain to your situation. Then make up your own mind. If I follow court rulings I will definitely be confused by the courts who
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 14, 2008
              > That all sounds reasonable, maybe.

              First read the laws that pertain to your situation. Then make up your own mind.

              If I follow court rulings I will definitely be confused by the courts who are nothing attorneys (Latin definition: to twist)in black dresses.

              They follow no rule of law.
               
              Actually they do - "legal precedent" (usually) & rules of procedure (always) & the latter is where they get you - unless you know them as well as they do - that sword cuts both ways.   My Dad was a business lawyer for almost 50 years & about 40 years ago he told me, "Son, lawyers don't know law, they just know procedure."  He was right & every case I've ever "won" has been on procedure, not subject matter, even though I was right on that too.
               
              Here's a classic example of how people screw up that I believe Bear is familiar with too - I reviewed over 50 cases brought under 26 U.S.C. § 7433, "Civil damages for certain unauthorized collection actions."  All but one was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) - complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  If you read § 7433(d)(1), which obviously @ least 50 people didn't, you see that you have to exhaust all administrative remedies 1st & that invokes 26 CFR § 301.7433-1.  In the one case, the court denied the Govt's. motion to dismiss because the guy HAD followed 26 CFR § 301.7433-1 & HAD exhausted all his administrative remedies BEFORE filing suit.  Heck, I drug out 5 traffic-related charges for 2 years & by the time the ADA put them back on the calendar, the statute of limitations had expired, so those charges were dismissed.  It's all procedure, procedure, procedure & if you don't want to learn it, don't fight the battle.    
              > Read the Constitution for the answers. That is what constitutes the different branches of government. Nothing more or less.

              Take the control our states back from control of the central government.
               
              You know the saying, wish in one hand & **** in the other & see which one fills up 1st.  That battle was lost 140 years ago & nothing you do today is going to change the fact that the States are merely political subdivisions of the federal Gov't.  I like Constitutional law & legal theory as much as anyone here, but what I care about is what actually works.  And I don't like the procedural rules any better than you do, but I didn't write 'em - they are what they are - deal with it.  Those who do stand a decent chance; those who do not have no chance.  Yes, it's tedious, yes it's boring, but your only realistic shot is to learn how the game is played & play it better than they do. 
              ~ ~ ~

            • Q
              Regarding the previous post on the legality and applicability of a Notice of Levy, here is a letter from a congressman stating clearly that they only apply to
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 15, 2008
                Regarding the previous post on the legality and applicability of a Notice of Levy, here is a letter from a congressman stating clearly that they only apply to government employees, NOT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR!
                 
                Many people have had success suing the County Clerk who "launders" the Notice into an actual lien, without any authority.  Chuck Conces, of Lawman fame, initiated a number of these actions successfully.  He recently passed away, but his information is still out there, go look for it.  You have a viable suit against then County Clerk, and also against the United States for agent(s) exceeding their authority under 26 USC 7433.  In both cases, you need to research the law, and find what applies and more importantly what does not apply.  You learn it best when you have to work for it, so go research it.  If you are totally unable to find anything, contact me directly and I will point you in the right directions, but I won't do your work for you.  This can be done, I have done it, and so have many others.  This is one of the easier battles.
                Q
                 

              • Jake
                ... http://www.losthori zons.com/ tax/taximages/ Shaw6331a. jpg   See how far that gets you.  That argument s been shot down so many times it s a waste of
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 16, 2008
                  > Regarding the previous post on the legality and applicability of a Notice of Levy, here is a letter from a congressman stating clearly that they only apply to government employees, NOT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR!
                   
                  See how far that gets you.  That argument's been shot down so many times it's a waste of time to even consider it.  You can argue legal theory 'till you're blue in the face & I've seen it for going on 17 years - but until the paperwork proving such a "win" is on my desk, file-stamped, duly recorded on the record, etc., I won't believe it.
                   
                  > Many people have had success suing the County Clerk who "launders" the Notice into an actual lien, without any authority.  Chuck Conces, of Lawman fame, initiated a number of these actions successfully.
                   
                  I have yet to see proof of that from anywhere & you'd better check your State's statutes to see if they include the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act. For example, In North Carolina it's Article 11A in Chapter 44 & no action against the county clerk will succeed because they're not required to certify anything:
                   

                  § 44-68.13. Execution of notices and certificates.

                  Certification of notices of liens, certificates, or other notices affecting federal liens by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States or his delegate, or by any official or entity of the United States responsible for filing or certifying of notice of any other lien, entitles them to be filed and no other attestation, certification, or acknowledgement is necessary. (1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1047, s. 1.)

                   

                  Notice that statute has been on the books since 1989 & I guarantee you that a notice of lien or levy that's got even a stamped signature of some IRS or federal officer/agent on it that'll be good enough.  The clerk is not required to verify the authenticity of the lien/levy & if you bring an action claiming that he(she) does, you will lose big-time & bring the State down on you for even filing the action to begin with.

                   

                  ~ ~ ~

                  _,___

                • Scott
                  Jake, I believe your are correct in stating that the clerk does not have to verify the truth in the document however, they are responsible to file it in the
                  Message 8 of 9 , Nov 18, 2008
                    Jake,

                    I believe your are correct in stating that the clerk does not have to verify
                    the truth in the document however, they are responsible to file it in the
                    right place. Intent to Lien is not an actual lien, therefore the clerk has
                    misused her/his position or been negligent in the proper handling of the
                    document filed by IRS, further causing you personal damages. Try putting
                    that suit together you would have better results.

                    Scott Williams

                    Denver, Colorado



                    > Regarding the previous post on the legality and applicability of a Notice
                    of Levy, here is a letter from a congressman stating clearly that they only
                    apply to government employees, NOT TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR!
                  • William M. Greene
                    Perhaps you are aware of it, but in the past couple of weeks my wife and I asked people to P-l-e-a-s-e look at our website at www.greenes.us and that if there
                    Message 9 of 9 , Nov 24, 2008

                      Perhaps you are aware of it, but in the past couple of weeks my wife and I asked people to P-l-e-a-s-e look at our website at www.greenes.us and that if there was anyway you could help to Please Donate.   One of the people who operates one of the legal forums also encouraged others as well and his message was reposted on other forums as well. 

                       

                      His (Mac’s) message is presented below, however I want to say that we were at a point were we were about to lose our phone and internet services, as well as the fact that, well, funds got so low that the last bill from PACER had the bank account overdrawn.  And the way things were going if others didn’t help we wouldn’t be able to continue much longer, let alone be able to pay for the ink and paper to write/print up our briefs, the gas to get them to the court for filing and the money it takes to serve, by Certified Mail, (1) the United States Attorney, (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, and (3) the Internal Revenue Services.

                       

                      Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, I respectfully declare under the penalty of perjury that because of the help we received from many of you we were able to straighten out the bank account to allow free access to PACER, the back Sprint bill of $140.00 was paid so I still have phone and internet, and, well, you gave us the able to pay for the ink and paper to write/print up our briefs, the gas to get them to the court for filing and the money it takes to serve them all.   Today’s filing is not as yet posted to PACER but is attached for your review. 

                       

                      As we explained in the past, the IRS put us out of work back in January and whether or not you agree with the positions we put forth, in this country we are supposed to have a right to work and yet the court has denied the first two motions for injunctive relief and with a hearing date which was supposed to have been July 18th the court has remained silent with respect to our third motion for injunctive relief.  So we’ve been without an income for a very long time.

                       

                      Of course, with the IRS Notice of Levys placed against any existing bank accounts
                      every few months it has been tough and we will forever be indebted to people like
                      Bob Schulz and Judy Schulz who gave us the $455.00 needed to file the Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and LegalBear who pays for our monthly VersusLaw Account.  But, the only reason we’ve been able to hold out so long is that although we are homeless living in a 1985 22-ft camper we didn’t have to pay rent.  The church had been helping us with food and even helped us with some of the propane we used for cooking and heat.  Still, there was a million problem to face like the fact that we had to worry about child protection because we didn’t have the money to re-enroll our son in the home-schooling program he has participated in for the past seven years, and even in that we have been blessed by the fact that the home-school program has allowed us to simply purchase our son’s books and has told us that we can always pay the enrolment fee sometime down the line as long as we are sending them the proof that he has been keeping up with his work.    But, still, we were at our end and then you all helped, and, well, you gave us the able to pay for the ink and paper to write/print up our briefs, the gas to get them to the court for filing and the money it takes to serve them all.   THANK YOU!!! Today’s filing is not as yet posted to PACER but is attached for your review. 

                      Blessings,

                      Bill

                        

                       

                      --- On Mon, 11/17/08 , Macwildstar <macwildstar@...> wrote:

                       

                      From: Macwildstar <macwildstar@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Natlawmandisc] Thank You for making My Day!!!
                      To: Natlawmandisc@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Monday, November 17, 2008 , 5:20 PM

                      As Group Owner of this group, I plead with everyone here, to please make a donation to William. His case is historical. IF he succeeds he will set precedence that the IRS is NOT and never has been an agency of our government and is SUE-ABLE! 

                       

                      The Ramifications of this case will echo for the next 5 decades - The nearly 100 years of terror imposed by the IRS will come to an end, if William is successful.

                       

                      So dig into your wallets.. even 5 bucks helps. We all have an interest in how this case will come out.

                       

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