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

Re: letters from government making demands

Expand Messages
  • Clair
    And here is our similar situation (actually my wife s.) We moved to Australia 16 months ago. I need counsel on where to find the number to FAX in my CDP
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      And here is our similar situation (actually my wife's.) We moved to Australia 16 months ago. I need counsel on where to find the number to FAX in my CDP Hearing request after searching various levy documents online for hours and not finding one, and the IRS Manager I called to get it from won't give it. He is trying to play hardball, saying that we are already past the CDP hearing phase and into Collections appeal phase already! Unbeknownst to us they already filed the taxes for 04 and 05 on behalf of my wife!

      But the very first we even knew about a levy or even any taxes owing or any correspondence for 04 and 05 was when we noticed a hold at the bank in the US and we finally got a copy from the bank they sent by regular post to us here in Australia.

      The IRS had been sending the letters to a VERY OLD address - Post office was no longer forwarding mail to us from that address anymore. We received the credit union's copy of its notice of Levy along with its letter after being in the mail for almost two weeks, getting here to where we live in Australia. The bank is going to send in over $4000 on THIS MONDAY which it has put a 21-day hold on the entire amount in a bank account back in the States.

      There is no time to even send a letter by certified overnight mail now and the Manager had the gall to say that he is 100% certain we will never win an appeal because "we (the IRS) did everything right -- we do NOT need to send it to the last known address according to the US Postal service, only to the last known address we have in our records for you (my wife.) That does NOT sound right. I got his name and ID number.

      Not according to the statutes I cited but I need to find a way to fax it in within the next half day, and we really don't want to keep TALKING with them, but establishing a good paper trail - and fast!

      -C and C.A. in Canberra

      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Richard B." <ohb0y2k4@...> wrote:
      >
      > The exact same thing happened to me when I got the "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" I got the notice 30 days before I got my final notice that they were going to issue the Lien. Also I must have written to them several times stating that the address and number to contact me has changed and they still send it to my old address. My take on that is they want the time frame to respond to be shortened due to the mail routing. The things we need to do to be free!!!
      > Sent from from Somewhere Else!
      >
    • Michael
      Friday 16 October 2009 The proverbial rock and a hard place, typical IRS style. They will not cooperate, so I would go after the bank. Send a letter to the
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Friday 16 October 2009

        The proverbial rock and a hard place, typical IRS style.
        They will not cooperate, so I would go after the bank.
        Send a letter to the bank that the IRS is making an
        unlawful demand that the IRS refuses to substantiate, and
        if the bank freezes your account or sends in money, you
        will hold the bank, and manger liable for the unlawful
        action. Fax something along those lines as a "NOTICE
        AND DEMAND," in bold letters above the body of your letter
        to the bank manager, cc IRS.

        Under the NOTICE AND DEMAND, [12 point type of more], type
        in 8 point size, all caps, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO
        AGENT; NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.

        Banks are not used to receiving that kind of demand.

        State to the bank that your due process rights are being
        violated, and if the bank and manager, now informed by
        you, chooses to knowingly andwillingly comply with the IRS
        against your expressed demands, the bank and manager can be
        subject to a federal suit per 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights.

        Tell the bank that the IRS has sent notices to the wrong
        adderss, on purpose, and the IRS has been noticed of their
        error, and so, too, the bank. [Keep it to the point but in
        a strong manner.]

        It is a scare tactic, but banks being cowards that they
        are about breaking rules and ramifications, it may serve
        you better than dealing with the IRS for the immediate need.

        For the IRS, send in a NOTICE AND DEMAND as to who authorized
        the filing of tax returns for your wife without her permission
        or consent? I do not have the info handy, but the IRS filed
        taxes for a friend of mine several years ago, and I
        challenged their authority to do so. Paper tigers that they
        are, when they know you know, they back down, and nothing was
        ever done by them since.

        Be assertive, or at least sound like you are.

        mn
      • B Burgess
        I sympathize with you, as many businesses and banks get those Notices and tend to act on them out of fear and ignorance instead of knowledge of Federal and
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I sympathize with you, as many businesses and banks get those Notices and tend to act on them out of fear and ignorance instead of knowledge of Federal and their own State's laws regarding proper procedures for garnishments within the State jurisdiction that they are operating in. Of course there are other issues associated with both Lien and Levy that very few understand, but that is no excuse for violating the laws within the jurisdiction that the garnishment is taking place. "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".

          It appears that perhaps many folks are merely barking at the moon. The cat is not the Federal Government standing on the (light) side of the moon or the IRS standing on the (dark) side of the moon, but rather the fiduciary over your property standing right here on earth in the same yard a few paces away. 

          In fact the Government, via their third party collection agent the IRS may have an interest in your property assuming all Regulations were followed and you are in fact the subject of that particular governments taxing jurisdiction. However, the Government or their third party collection agency the IRS interest in your property, either for the purposes of lien or levy, does not attach to or encumber rights , title or interest until the appropriate JUDICIAL action is initiated. This was articulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (March 18, 2002) in United States of America v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, California, no. 00-16772. Also see United States v. Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111 (1993).

          The in rem action is against the thing, the res, where so-called civil actions are against the party who is allegedly liable. The Internal Revenue Code segregates the two forms of action at 26 U.S.C. §§ 7323 & 7404:

          Sec. 7323. Judicial action to enforce forfeiture.

          (a) Nature and venue.

          The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem in the United States District Court for the district (are you in a U.S. District?) where such seizure is made.

          ____________________________________________________________

          Sec. 7402. Jurisdiction of district courts.

          (a) To issue orders, process, and judgments.

          The district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat republica, orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. …

          The two sections cited above specify the two forms of judicial action the federal government has available when and if there is an act or omission contrary to internal revenue laws of the United States. Even though any given Code section may give rise to an interest, the interest isn’t perfected until there is a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction (that's where the property is located). The interest is perfected via the judgment, but it dates to the act or omission that gave rise to the interest. Side note: If your property is not in a Federal District what court should be issuing the judgment? Why that's the jurisdiction/court where the property is located.

          Internal Revenue Code § 6321 is the primary section that gives rise to statutory liens where there is a failure to perform, and the date of lien existence is determined by the date of non-performance, but only after there is a judgment for a delinquent tax debt (Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3201). The lien is choate, or perfected, after judgment; it is inchoate or unperfected prior to judgment. Definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, are again useful:

          Choate lien. Lien which is perfected so that nothing more need be done to make it enforcible. Identity of lienor, property subject to lien and amount of lien are all established. Walker v. Paramount Engineering Co., C.A.Mich., 353 F.2d 445, 449; U.S. v. City of New Britain, Conn., 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.C. 367, 369, 98 L.Ed. 520. The lien must be definite and not merely ascertainable in the future by taking further steps. Gower v. State Tax Commission, 207 Or. 288, 295 P.2d 162.

          __________________________________________

          Inchoate. Imperfect; partial; unfinished; begun, but not completed; as a contract not executed by all the parties. State ex rel. McCubbin v. McMillian, Mo.App., 349 S.W.2d 453, 462.

          A federal tax lien, i.e., a “notice of lien,” that is issued prior to there being a judgment to perfect the lien is at best inchoate. It is incomplete, imperfect:

          Under the law of California as declared in Puissegur v. Yarbrough, 29 CAL. 2D 409, 412, 175 P.2D 830, 831-832, an attaching creditor obtains "only a potential right or a contingent lien” until a judgment perfecting the lien is rendered, and that meanwhile, the lien is contingent or inchoate – merely a lis pendens notice that a right to perfect a lien exists. Id, At 50. United States v. R.F. Ball Construction Co, Inc. 355 U.S. 587

           The United States Attorney’s Manual confirms this same principle with respect to notices of lien issued by the Internal Revenue Service. The notice must include the abstract of judgment on the back of the Form 668-Y used as the notice of federal tax lien:

          3-10.200 Civil Postjudgment Financial Litigation Activity – Perfecting the Judgment

          Immediately following expiration of the 10-day automatic stay after entry of the judgment (whether by default, stipulation, court determination, or by the referral of a judgment from another district), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), immediate action shall be taken to perfect the judgment as a lien in accordance with the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 3201.

          Special care should be taken to ensure that the judgment is perfected as a lien by filing a certified copy of the abstract of the judgment in the manner in which a notice of tax lien would be filed under paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 6323(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. A lien should be filed in accordance with state law filing requirements and should be filed in any state where the debtor owns real property.

          ________________________________________________________

          6-8.000 POST-JUDGMENT COLLECTION MATTERS

          6-8.400 Differences Between Tax Judgments and Other Civil Judgments – Collection Procedures

          The Tax Division's Judgment Collection Manual should be consulted for an in depth discussion of special procedures for the collection of tax judgments that are not available for, or are different from, the procedures for collecting other judgments in favor of the United States. For example, an IRS levy can be used to collect a tax judgment; the state exemption statutes are inapplicable to tax judgments; federal tax liens have special characteristics; and post-judgment interest on tax judgments accrues at a different rate than the normal judgment rate and is compounded daily. [Underscore added for emphasis]

          Although it is rarely if ever completed, the Form 668-Y notice of lien has a designated space on the back for the abstract of judgment. The purpose of the abstract is to enable interested parties to locate the judgment so they can review particulars. Unless the notice has the abstract on the back, the paper trail necessary to verify that there is a judgment and the nature, amount and object of the judgment is incomplete. If the document is incomplete with respect to essential elements, or includes vague or misleading information, it is an uttered instrument.

          Since promulgation of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Form 668-B Levy has been the proper form for legitimate levies. The “notice of levy” merely conveys information and is supposed to provide notice to the party a levy is executed against, not third parties. The notice of levy, which is commonly sent to third-party custodians of financial assets, is not an enforceable levy instrument. The Form 668-B Levy must be accompanied by the applicable writ issued from a court of competent jurisdiction in order for it to be enforceable – third-party custodians are supposed to receive the actual levy and writ (So does the bank or company you work for that takes your property under the guise of a levy garnishment have the Form 668-B Levy and writ from the court of competent jurisdiction where the property they are encumbering is located?).

          The only way the Internal Revenue Service or any other administrative office or agency may administratively enforce collection instruments without a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is when the target of the collection action knowingly and intentionally waives his or her substantive rights and thereby consents to administrative collection (Did you knowingly and intentionally wave even to say goodbye?). This principle is fundamental to the so-called republican form of government. Legislative, administrative and judicial departments are co-equal branches and one may not perform functions vested in the other. Where the administrative branch has exclusive responsibility for administering laws enacted by Congress, only the judicial may authorize anything beyond voluntary compliance when issues of fact and law are contested or compliance isn’t otherwise voluntary.

          If an “employee”, as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), voluntarily submits to wage garnishment for satisfaction of a tax debt, the Internal Revenue Service officer or agent responsible for executing the garnishment under the Treasury Offset Program must provide the government employer with a Form 2159 voluntary garnishment agreement signed by the employee and the officer or agent simultaneous with a notice of levy. See § 4075.50 of Volume I, Part 3 of the Treasury Financial Manual (Revised under Transmittal letter No. 590 of March 10, 2000). Unless specified otherwise by the employee/payee, the maximum garnishment under the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act is 15% of net pay. See Treasury Financial Management Service Fact Sheet, “Continuous Federal Tax Levy Program”, updated February 4, 2002.

          Two erroneous perceptions contribute to misunderstanding of federal tax administration and enforcement. The first, and possibly most serious, is that the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) is organized in such a fashion that administration follows the order of Code sections. The second is that the Internal Revenue Code contains all federal law relating to federal tax administration and enforcement. Neither is the case.

          So far as Internal Revenue Code section and other arrangement is concerned, the matter is addressed by 26 U.S.C. § 7806(b):

          (b) Arrangement and classification.

          No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

          The United States Code is a classification system for laws of the United States. Annual session laws are published sequentially in the Statutes at Large; each section in any given statute Congress enacts is then codified in one or more titles of the United States Code. In order to determine legislative construction of any given Code section (it’s proper application), it is necessary to go to the section genesis in original legislation. Just because one Internal Revenue Code section follows another, or one categorical subtitle or chapter follows another, does not mean that the two sections, chapters, subtitles or whatever have more than passing relationship to each other unless there is internal reference that establishes the link.

          Lien and levy authority (26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 & 6331) are in Subtitle F, Chapter 64 of the Internal Revenue Code. Crimes, seizures and forfeitures, and the judicial authority for seizures (§ 7323), are in Chapter 74. Proceedings for judicial action (civil action; § 7402) are in Chapter 75. If these sections were interpreted to be applicable in numerical sequence, it would appear that the Internal Revenue Service has unilateral authority to issue notices of lien and levy without judgments from courts of competent jurisdiction. However, judicial process must be antecedent to encumbering and converting privately owned assets on behalf of the government. This is the reason § 7806(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and comparable disclaimers for each of the other titles, withholds implications of legislative construction.

          Analogously, the United States Code is somewhat like a library card catalog organized by subject. At least ten titles in addition to Title 26 have sections and sometimes complete chapters relating to administration and enforcement of internal revenue laws. For example, administration of Subtitle E (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) of the Internal Revenue Code crosses over to Title 27. Section 7327 of the Internal Revenue Code acknowledges another expanded application crossover:

          Sec. 7327. Customs laws applicable.

          The provisions of law applicable to the remission or mitigation by the Secretary of forfeitures under the customs laws shall apply to forfeitures incurred or alleged to have been incurred under the internal revenue laws.

          Unfortunately, the links between titles may work in the inverse and may not be as conspicuous as the two examples above. This is the case for Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act in Chapter 176 of Title 28, which contains federal judicial procedure and rules. At 28 U.S.C. § 3001, application is prescribed:

          Sec. 3001. Applicability of chapter

          (a) In general. – Except as provided in subsection (b), the chapter provides the exclusive civil procedures for the United States –

          (1) to recover a judgment on a debt; or

          (2) to obtain, before judgment on a claim for a debt, a remedy in connection with such claim.

          (b) Limitation. – To the extent that another Federal law specifies procedures for recovering on a claim or a judgment for a debt arising under such law, those procedures shall apply to such claim or judgment to the extent those procedures are inconsistent with this chapter.

          Are delinquent taxes classified as debts? According to definitions applicable to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, they are:

          Sec. 3002. Definitions

          As used in this chapter:

          (3) “Debt” means –

          (B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, over-payment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States. . . [Underscore added for emphasis]

          Per § 3001, Federal Debt Collection Procedure in Chapter 176 of Title 28 provides exclusive civil procedure (judicial process) for the United States to collect debts “to the extent that another Federal law” doesn’t provide alternative procedure. Section 3002(3)(B) defines tax “owing to the United States” as a “debt” for purposes of Federal Debt Collection Procedure prescribed in Chapter 176 of Title 28. While there are technical exceptions for enforcement of tax law at 28 U.S.C. § 3003(b), the only alternative jurisdictional authority for judicial action to collect delinquent tax obligations is the admiralty/maritime in rem action accounted for at 26 U.S.C. § 7323 – jurisdiction of courts of the United States fall under the “arising under” clause or the admiralty/maritime clause. In either jurisdiction, whenever an alleged liability is contested, the matter must be adjudicated.

          In either forum, the claim must be verified by a witness competent as a matter of law to make a complaint. Where the civil action is concerned, the requirement for a claim to be supported by affidavit is at 28 U.S.C. § 3006:[7]

          Any affidavit required of the United States by this chapter may be made on information and belief, if reliable and reasonably necessary, establishing with particularity, to the court’s satisfaction, facts supporting the claim of the United States.[8]

          In the event the United States secures a favorable judgment on the claim, it may be filed as a lien, per 28 U.S.C. § 3201:

          (a) Creation. – A Judgment in a civil action shall create a lien on all real property of a judgment debtor on filing a certified copy of the abstract of the judgment in the manner in which a notice of tax lien would be filed under paragraph (1) and (2) of section 6323(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. A lien created under this paragraph is for the amount necessary to satisfy the judgment, including costs and interest.

          Enforcement, execution and other particulars are prescribed by §§ 3202, etc., and garnishment by § 3205. These are all post-judgment remedies. The alternative administrative collection process preserved by 28 U.S.C. § 3003(b) vests the “delegate” of the Secretary of the Treasury (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A)) with pre-judgment and post-judgment collection authority within internal revenue districts established in compliance with requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 and Executive Order #10289, as amended. The U.S. Marshal for the judicial district would otherwise be responsible for execution.

          That should be enough for you to understand that the party that is a fault is the fiduciary over your property who has fail in their fiduciary duty to request the proper instruments be provided for the so called garnishment. Of course if Macy's or Sear's sent them a form letter requesting your property they would request the court judgment order prior to sending your property.  So why don't they ask for the same required court judgment order for the so called IRS request? FEAR perhaps. But that does not let them off the hook for CONVERSION of your property in violation of your State Rights, if you have any... 


          Berkeley S. Burgess






          From: Clair <clair.hochstetler@...>
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 7:40:58 AM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letters from government making demands

           

          And here is our similar situation (actually my wife's.) We moved to Australia 16 months ago. I need counsel on where to find the number to FAX in my CDP Hearing request after searching various levy documents online for hours and not finding one, and the IRS Manager I called to get it from won't give it. He is trying to play hardball, saying that we are already past the CDP hearing phase and into Collections appeal phase already! Unbeknownst to us they already filed the taxes for 04 and 05 on behalf of my wife!

          But the very first we even knew about a levy or even any taxes owing or any correspondence for 04 and 05 was when we noticed a hold at the bank in the US and we finally got a copy from the bank they sent by regular post to us here in Australia.

          The IRS had been sending the letters to a VERY OLD address - Post office was no longer forwarding mail to us from that address anymore. We received the credit union's copy of its notice of Levy along with its letter after being in the mail for almost two weeks, getting here to where we live in Australia. The bank is going to send in over $4000 on THIS MONDAY which it has put a 21-day hold on the entire amount in a bank account back in the States.

          There is no time to even send a letter by certified overnight mail now and the Manager had the gall to say that he is 100% certain we will never win an appeal because "we (the IRS) did everything right -- we do NOT need to send it to the last known address according to the US Postal service, only to the last known address we have in our records for you (my wife.) That does NOT sound right. I got his name and ID number.

          Not according to the statutes I cited but I need to find a way to fax it in within the next half day, and we really don't want to keep TALKING with them, but establishing a good paper trail - and fast!

          -C and C.A. in Canberra

          --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, "Richard B." <ohb0y2k4@.. .> wrote:
          >
          > The exact same thing happened to me when I got the "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" I got the notice 30 days before I got my final notice that they were going to issue the Lien. Also I must have written to them several times stating that the address and number to contact me has changed and they still send it to my old address. My take on that is they want the time frame to respond to be shortened due to the mail routing. The things we need to do to be free!!!
          > Sent from from Somewhere Else!
          >


        • Greg Knapp
          BTW, isn t that the section that proves that 14th Amendment citizens (freed slaves) have the same rights as the original class of (state) citizens? .State to
          Message 4 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
          • 0 Attachment

            BTW, isn't that the section that proves that 14th Amendment citizens (freed slaves) have the same rights as the original class of (state) citizens?

             



            State to the bank that your due process rights are being
            violated, and if the bank and manager, now informed by
            you, chooses to knowingly andwillingly comply with the IRS
            against your expressed demands, the bank and manager can be
            subject to a federal suit per 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights….

            __

          • John Hill
            Following are two links to levy letters that have fill in the blanks for your own name, etc. I recommend the first to be used with a bank or employer. If you
            Message 5 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Following are two links to levy letters that have fill in the blanks for your own name, etc. I recommend the first to be used with a bank or employer. If you are self employed and attempts  are being made to steal your payments from third party payers then use the second letter as a cover letter with the first, which MUST be notarized. If dealing with a bank, have your bank branch fax to their legal dept., then mail it for you. Ask them the phone number to where they faxed it to and follow up with a phone call in a few days. KNOW your stuff before calling them. You will be more effective if they sense you know your stuff and that you are not going to back down from this and that you are going to hold the person you are talking to personally accountable if any money is given to the IRS based on a 668 levy notice. This notice has no judicial enforcement and if the bank gives the IRS your money based on the simple REQUEST of a 668 they will be accountable. If the levy is court ordered, send the judge the first letter but use common sense and delete obvious parts that would not apply to him. A judge would not appreciate it if you told him to get legal counsel!!! Obviously you would also have to modify the letter somewhat and this letter is part of your request that the judge withdraw his ordered levy. Of course all this only applies if you are NOT subject to the levy.
               
               
               
               
            • enilak666@yahoo.com
              There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the
              Message 6 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on. There are also court decisions on the Web that clearly state US citizens have less access to constitutional protections than do original white Citizens. As a creation of congress, residents who are subjects of congress, do not share the same rights as state citizens. The naturalized US citizen was not in a favorable position as were the white people mentioned in the Constitution, according to this article. The entire subject of one's political status could bear some investigation, I believe.
                 
                Bill 

                --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Greg Knapp <gknapp@...> wrote:

                From: Greg Knapp <gknapp@...>
                Subject: RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: letters from government making demands
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 7:50 PM

                 

                BTW, isn't that the section that proves that 14th Amendment citizens (freed slaves) have the same rights as the original class of (state) citizens?

                 



                State to the bank that your due process rights are being
                violated, and if the bank and manager, now informed by
                you, chooses to knowingly andwillingly comply with the IRS
                against your expressed demands, the bank and manager can be
                subject to a federal suit per 42 USC 1983, deprivation of rights….

                __


              • jerry bell
                Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
                Message 7 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.
                   
                  By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
                   
                  Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.
                  By spurious, non-representative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published, and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
                   
                  So was the 14 amendment forced upon us by military power?


                  There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on.
                • Jim Stiner
                  The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens. Citizenship was sold to the gullible public
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who
                    embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens.



                    Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit.



                    But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States,
                    which is an impossibility, and you must agree to be subject to their
                    jurisdiction.



                    You cannot be born in an artificial entity. You were born on the land, but
                    not the U.S., and what action did you take to make yourself subject to?



                    If you came here from a foreign country, you pledged to be a citizen and
                    renounced your previous citizenship, but not so with inhabitants.



                    Jim



                    _____


                    Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully
                    for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
                    Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the
                    military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
                  • hobot
                    ... Those are the harsh facts to be found in public record, which narrows down who can qualify for as dejure State Citizenship or Freeman. May upset some folks
                    Message 9 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      enilak666@... wrote:
                      > There was a recent article on the Net that talked about the 14th Amendment and how the freed slaves were not given the same rights as white people. Since the Constitution forbade blacks from ever having the same citizenship as white people, they were given "privileges" instead. The article went on to say while they could enter contracts, own property, etc., they were not given all political rights such as voting. That would come later, over time as the blacks became more educated and were better able to understand the issues being voted on. There are also court decisions on the Web that clearly state US citizens have less access to constitutional protections than do original white Citizens. As a creation of congress, residents who are subjects of congress, do not share the same rights as state citizens. The naturalized US citizen was not in a favorable position as were the white people mentioned in the Constitution, according to this article. The
                      > entire subject of one's political status could bear some investigation, I believe.
                      >
                      > Bill
                      >
                      Those are the harsh facts to be found in public record, which narrows
                      down who
                      can qualify for as dejure State Citizenship or Freeman. May upset some
                      folks that can't
                      qualify.

                      There still remains some actual useful recognitions of what you summarize.
                      I guarantee that banks and US State Department understands and provides for
                      this vital 'subtle' difference. For instance. Patriot Act II does not
                      apply to me because
                      of this, much to my un-taxed or un-tracked delight, photo ID passport
                      included.

                      You may get flack about what you found as everyone would want to enjoy
                      dejure standing.
                      Every state Constitution begins by naming 'dejure' men/women/people as
                      the class
                      of Citizens creating the Const. and everything following the list of
                      unalienable rights,
                      states its taboo for anything ever following in the Const. to have any
                      affect on
                      these people and rights, so only applies to Persons that can be classed
                      in same list with
                      Corporations.

                      You may get attitudes - Americans were just too lazy, ignorant or stupid
                      to know better.
                      They are either misleading you on purpose or simply don't know the
                      facts of history.
                      First place to start to see what happens when intelligent brave 'free'
                      men got over whelmed
                      by force from Federal Gov't is the Whiskey Rebellion. Slaver-sugar-rum
                      cartel bankster
                      families got their way to kill competition via Georgie Washington.

                      14 th red amendment did more than just give freed slaves a defacto
                      legal standing - it also
                      cut out the dejure people to participate in any official Gov't affairs
                      or to file court suits
                      or have standing in courts or be protected by Constitution.or hold
                      office as prior to Lincoln's War.
                      Troops with guns and bayonets were required to get state legislatures to
                      sign and often
                      enough it was freed slaves hustled in to fill seats of those not taking
                      oath or pledge to Federal
                      Union. Its was not lazy uncaring un-informed or fearful men forced and
                      written around
                      the current 'law' and policy. In not a US citizen it says its because
                      you are a rebellious
                      criminal to the courts and Federal Gov't so Lincoln's regime
                      Constitution does not apply.

                      How sad many will forget how long and harsh some southern states were
                      punished
                      economically because they were mostly white State and County level people.
                      Hillbillies making do with what ever they could is one of those effects.
                      Talk to some
                      of the real ones, they know exactly what happened by stories handed down.

                      hobot
                    • Dave
                      C & CA -- I am truly sorry to say this, but you might be out your $4000. The IRS agent is correct that the last address known to the Post Office is not the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 17, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        C & CA --

                        I am truly sorry to say this, but you might be out your $4000.

                        The IRS agent is correct that the last address known to the Post Office is not the concern of the IRS. The IRS Re-Structuring Act of 1998 allows the IRS to presume its records are accurate. This means the IRS agent involved in legal action (which included liens and levies) does not have to contact the local Post Office to check on any address changes. Even worse, you can inform the IRS many times of your new address and the records may not get updated. Ever. Some of the many BENEFITS our wonderful Congress gave us in the Act of 1998, which it DISHONESTLY claimed was an attempt to make the IRS more user-friendly.

                        And the IRS will almost always file tax returns for those who do not themselves file. It usually takes the IRS about 22 months to get it done. The process involves at least one "internal hearing" and often two, and at least one agent hot to impress someone. The process results in a "Substitute for Return" and is signified in the IMF as "SFR 150" but it includes a series of documents, often as many as 80 or more pages, in order to get it done. The most important page in that file is the Form 13496 "Section 6020(b) Certification" wherein the agent swears that because of Delegation Order 182, he, that particular agent, has the authority to complete a return for you. If you check D.O. 182, you see that certain members of the IRS are indeed authorized to complete certain returns, but all the returns listed are business returns. And you will also find on further exploration that the particular agent who competed your return was not authorized by D.O. 182 or any other D.O. to complete any return at all. Still more research and you will find that no one in the IRS is authorized to complete any Form 1040 for anyone other than certain US Virgin Island residents.

                        So the entire levy process was illegal from the very root issue of no one had any authority to complete a return in your name in order to complete an assessment in your name in order to create a tax bill owed to the IRS in order to create a levy to collect that tax bill.

                        You will never be successful fighting the levy because it is the 4th step in a process that is totally LEGAL AS LONG AS THE FIRST STEP IS LEGAL. The only way to fight the levy is to start at the beginning.

                        If you correctly fight the Form 14396, the levy has to go away because without the Form 14396, the levy is a fraudulent and unwarranted confiscation of funds. This is fact that the IRS cannot challenge and it will have to refund the money WITH punitive damages (assuming the individual has done all this properly!)

                        The problem for you is that all this will take months and maybe more than a year. Plus it will be more complicated because you are outside the States. But it can be done, you can win it, and you can get a refund of your funds, plus possible damages.

                        Yours in financial freedom,

                        Dave Miner
                        www.IRx-Solutions.com


                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Clair" <clair.hochstetler@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > And here is our similar situation (actually my wife's.) We moved to Australia 16 months ago. I need counsel on where to find the number to FAX in my CDP Hearing request after searching various levy documents online for hours and not finding one, and the IRS Manager I called to get it from won't give it. He is trying to play hardball, saying that we are already past the CDP hearing phase and into Collections appeal phase already! Unbeknownst to us they already filed the taxes for 04 and 05 on behalf of my wife!
                        >
                        > But the very first we even knew about a levy or even any taxes owing or any correspondence for 04 and 05 was when we noticed a hold at the bank in the US and we finally got a copy from the bank they sent by regular post to us here in Australia.
                        >
                        > The IRS had been sending the letters to a VERY OLD address - Post office was no longer forwarding mail to us from that address anymore. We received the credit union's copy of its notice of Levy along with its letter after being in the mail for almost two weeks, getting here to where we live in Australia. The bank is going to send in over $4000 on THIS MONDAY which it has put a 21-day hold on the entire amount in a bank account back in the States.
                        >
                        > Not according to the statutes I cited but I need to find a way to fax it in within the next half day, and we really don't want to keep TALKING with them, but establishing a good paper trail - and fast!
                        >
                        > -C and C.A. in Canberra
                        >
                      • Jim Stiner
                        ... Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit. But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States, which is an
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 18, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully
                          >for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth
                          >Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the
                          >military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
                          >The 14th amd was not forced on us, it was forced on those people who
                          >embraced the idea of wanting to be citizens.

                          Citizenship was sold to the gullible public as a benefit.
                          But in order for you to embrace it, you must be born in the United States,
                          which is an impossibility, and you must agree to be subject to their
                          jurisdiction.

                          You cannot be born in an artificial entity. You were born on the land, but
                          not the U.S., and what action did you take to make yourself subject to?
                          If you came here from a foreign country, you pledged to be a citizen and
                          renounced your previous citizenship, but not so with inhabitants.

                          Jim

                          _____




                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: 10/17/09
                          13:08:00
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.