Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS "systemic error department"
- I am not sure why George Luniv thinks we should all know that 26 USC 1402 is not positive law. Of course NONE of 26 USC is positive law, but it is prima facie evidence of positive law. The source references to 26 USC 1402 are:
Source(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 353; Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1206, title II, § 201(a)–(c), 68 Stat. 1087; Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 836, title II, § 201(e)(2), (3), (f), (g), (i), 70 Stat. 840–842; Pub. L. 85–239, §§ 1(a), (b), 2, 5 (b), Aug. 30, 1957, 71 Stat. 521–523; Pub. L. 85–840, title IV, §§ 402(a), 403 (a), Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 1042, 1043; Pub. L. 86–778, title I, §§ 101(a)–(c), 103(k), (l), 105(c)(1), 106(b), Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 926, 927, 938, 944, 945; Pub. L. 87–64, title II, § 202(a), June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 141; Pub. L. 88–272, title II, § 227(b)(6), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 98; Pub. L. 88–650, § 2(a), (b), Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1076, 1077; Pub. L. 89–97, title III, §§ 311(b)(1)–(3), 312(b), 319(a), (c), 320(b)(1), 331(a), 341(a), (b), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 381, 390, 391, 393, 401, 411; Pub. L. 89–368, title I, § 102(c), Mar. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 64; Pub. L. 90–248, title I, §§ 108(b)(1), 115 (b), 118 (a), 122 (b), title V, §§ 501(a), 502 (b)(1), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 835, 839, 841, 843, 933, 934; Pub. L. 92–5, title II, § 203(b)(1), Mar. 17, 1971, 85 Stat. 10; Pub. L. 92–336, title II, § 203(b)(1), July 1, 1972, 86 Stat. 418; Pub. L. 92–603, title I, §§ 121(b), 124 (b), 140 (b), Oct. 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 1353, 1357, 1366; Pub. L. 93–66, title II, § 203(b)(1), July 9, 1973, 87 Stat. 153; Pub. L. 93–233, § 5(b)(1), Dec. 31, 1973, 87 Stat. 954; Pub. L. 93–368, § 10(b), Aug. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 422; Pub. L. 94–92, title II, § 203(a), Aug. 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 465; Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1207(e)(1)(B), title XIX, §§ 1901(a)(155), (b)(1)(I)(iii), (X), 1906 (b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1707, 1789, 1791, 1792, 1834; Pub. L. 95–216, title III, § 313(b), Dec. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 1536; Pub. L. 95–600, title VII, § 703(j)(8), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2941; Pub. L. 95–615, § 202(g)(5), formerly § 202(f)(5), Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3100, renumbered § 202(g)(5), Pub. L. 96–222, title I, § 108(a)(1)(A), Apr. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 223; Pub. L. 97–34, title I, § 111(b)(3), (5), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 194; Pub. L. 97–248, title II, § 278(a)(2), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 559; Pub. L. 98–21, title I, § 124(c)(2), title III, §§ 321(e)(3), 322 (b)(2), 323 (b)(1), Apr. 20, 1983, 97 Stat. 90, 120, 121; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, § 102(c)(1), div. B, title VI, §§ 2603(c)(2), (d)(2), 2663 (j)(5)(B), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 622, 1129, 1130, 1171; Pub. L. 99–272, title XIII, § 13205(a)(2)(B), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 315; Pub. L. 99–509, title IX, § 9002(b)(1)(B), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1971; Pub. L. 99–514, title III, § 301(b)(12), title XII, § 1272(d)(8), (9), title XVII, § 1704(a)(1), (2), title XVIII, §§ 1882(a), (b)(1), 1883 (a)(11)(A), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2218, 2594, 2779, 2914, 2916; Pub. L. 100–203, title IX, § 9022(b), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–295; Pub. L. 100–647, title III, § 3043(c)(1), title VIII, § 8007(c), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3642, 3783; Pub. L. 101–239, title X, § 10204(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2474; Pub. L. 101–508, title V, §§ 5123(a)(3), 5130 (a)(2), title XI, § 11331(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–284, 1388–289, 1388–467; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, § 13207(b), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 468; Pub. L. 103–296, title I, § 108(h)(1), title III, § 319(a)(4), Aug. 15, 1994, 108 Stat. 1487, 1534; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1456(a), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1818; Pub. L. 105–34, title IX, § 922(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 879; Pub. L. 108–203, title IV, § 425(b), Mar. 2, 2004, 118 Stat. 536; Pub. L. 108–357, title I, § 102(d)(7), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1429; Pub. L. 110–28, title VIII, § 8215(b)(1), May 25, 2007, 121 Stat. 193; Pub. L. 110–234, title XV, §§ 15301(a), 15352 (a), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1501, 1525; Pub. L. 110–246, § 4(a), title XV, §§ 15301(a), 15352 (a), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2263, 2287.)
Notice that the sources from which 1402 is derived are statutes, which ARE positive law.
What Mr. Luniv refers to as "Sec. 1.1402" I take to mean 26 CFR 1.1402 (which exists in several parts lettered 1.1402(a)-1 through 1.1402(h)-1 (with several additional sub-parts. Only one of these parts is a substantive regulation. It is Section 1.1402 (e)–5T which is issued under 26 U.S.C. 1402(e)(1) and (2) (in addition to under 26 USC 7805, which is a catch-all for interpretive regulations which may be issued by the Secretary). Consequently Mr. Luniv has no basis whatever for stating that "Sec 1.1402" is positive law. No regulation is positive law.
Anyway, questioning positive law and fifty cents will get you a cheap cup of coffee. So long as sections of 26 USC are clearly based on Statutes at Large, they are just as good legally as the statutes themselves. If there is any variance between the code and the statutes, then the statutes prevail. That can happen, but it is rare.
==================================================On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:45 AM, GEORGE LUNIW <alomega789@...> wrote:Hey Legal Bear,
Well as you all know that Sect. 1402 is NOT positive law, and that made me confused. Why was it published and available for reading as a section under USC Title 26?
To make a long story short, they continued to correspond with me, offer me the assistance of Tax Payer Advocate that only voices the IRS's opinions and are not really the "My voice in the IRS" (LOL). They would not stand up for me, because they literally told me " I (agent's name) work for the government."
I felt frustrated until I submitted a form through the "systemic error department" and told them that I was standing on SEC.1402. But if they needed a Positive Law reference then to look at Sec. 1.1402. That sames the same thing, but it is "POSITIVE LAW".
- Legalbear shared:
It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state
> official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforceIt helps to tell these people in the IMOC that you already know this and
> a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional.
that you are ready to prove it to them. Usually that's the last they
want to do with you. The game is over. Share the news! We (who know)
- Re: "but as we find out the IRS's job is "to collect" and "not assist in
Correct: The IRS's stated mission is "to bring people back in compliance and
keep them there."
If you are NOT in compliance, the IRS is only about collecting money..flat
out. According to what they told me, "We keep people in collections UNLESS
we have an indication of fraud. For fraud it's a short trip thru the CI
division and onto the DOJ who then decides what happens."
Hey Legal Bear,
Just want to give an update to the group. I've been under pressure for the
IRS for the last 3.5 years concerning unpaid taxes,(someone in the IRS
filled out a form 1040 on 2006 and put a lien on me in the tune of $56,000)
for trading stock
> P.S. Does anyone know a good Defense Lawyer who will go after them forI take it you mean an Offense lawyer for a civil law suit where you are a plaintiff, not a defendant? Having been involved with the IRS for over 10 years and 10 times the amount you are dealing with, here are a few observations. Every licensed attorney I approached,literally, fled in the opposite direction. Many of them identified themselves as patriot attorneys who could give a good speech on how they love our constitution and they would fight for it etc.
> depriving me of earning an income for 4 years and following wreckless
> procedures, on a contingency basis and for 25%?
My case was fully documented with good law, complimented with filed felony criminal complaints and would have been an ideal lawsuit against ANYONE, except the IRS. It is like an "unwritten" rule an attorney can criminally defend a client within bounds but you NEVER,EVER cross the line into civil litigation against the IRS without paying the consequence.
I personally talked with a nationally known attorney who criminally defended a client from the IRS and filed a civil RICO action for the IRS raid that was conducted against the man and his business. He was immediately notified his law practice and tax returns were under full audit. The big IRS attorney who he sued told him by doing that he had now made it "PERSONAL". That IRS attorney with one phone call was able to start an audit on his "enemy".
So looking for an attorney for "on a contingency basis and for 25%?" Throw in his license to practice law and the destruction of his credit based upon possible future liens and levies and you will now have a clearer picture for what you ask.
- Maybe Larry or Tommy Cryer? Google "Minns IRS" but most of the time he won't respond.
After having talked to many so-called IRS attorney's I can tell you this is how it goes:
Me: They violated this and this and this in the collection process;so its ripe for a civil suit.
Them: You want to file all your past tax returns.
Me: But what about this and this?
Them: We will file all your past tax returns for $1k apiece.
Me: Haven't you been listening?
Them: You want to negotiate with the IRS.not take them on. You're sounding like a tax protestor and the IRS seeks retribution on tax protestors. Now, do you want us to file all your past tax returns?
FOLKS: The IRS says LAWYERS and CPA's are its stated PARTNERS in the administration, enforcement and collection of income and income tax laws.
FOLKS2: An IRS manager flat out told me, "Mr XXX, the courts are on OUR side."
- Monday 18 April 2011
Life is not fair... Most people accept that.
The IRS is not fair. It still amazes so many.
One cannot have it both ways with the
defacto puppet government and the IMF's
much stronger collection arm.
Get out of the system.
"But that is not easy!"
Fighting the IRS is easier? [Rhetorical]
Create alternative ways of exchanging
labor outside of tax forms, and stop
creating a signed contract with the
"But that would require a whole change
of life style!"
Then remain a 14th Amendment citizen
and stop complaining.
Complaining is a waste of time. Do
something about it or move on.
- On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:57:21 -0400, "dave" <dwissel@...> wrote:
> Maybe Larry or Tommy Cryer? Google "Minns IRS" but most of the time heYou are wasting your time with that bunch. The only solution in their mind
> won't respond.
In the mean time wait until you are criminally indicted and contact them
for your criminal
defense rate schedule.
> Them: You want to negotiate with the IRS.not take them on. You're
> like a tax protestor and the IRS seeks retribution on tax protestors.Now,
> do you want us to file all your past tax returns?This why they run from me when they read my felony criminal complaint.
They won't even recognize having
received it let alone discuss the merits of it.
Once they have been put on NOTICE of the criminal nature of the IRS, they
can no longer ethically recommend you
file your returns since that would make them "accessories after the fact"
to criminal activity.
- Re:From: dave <dwissel@...>"Maybe Larry or Tommy Cryer? Google "Minns IRS" but most of the time he won't respond."They won't help you. You have to do it on your own. I recommend studying the materials available at www.1215.org. Videos of a seminar giving by the author of that site are available on YouTube. You may also learn a thing or two about the aforementioned attorneys and a few other "gurus"."Them: You want to negotiate with the IRS.not take them on. You're sounding like a tax protestor and the IRS seeks retribution on tax protestors (sic)."Yes, in violation of Pub. L. 105-206, Title III, Sec. 3707, July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 778."FOLKS2: An IRS manager flat out told me, 'Mr XXX, the courts are on OUR side.'"This is true in light of 5 USC § 556 Administrative Review. Read this carefully and understand the implications relating to § 553. If understanding the implications of § 553 are not enough, I recommend studying the materials available at http://www.supremelaw.org/ (thanks, frog farmer) regarding the jurisdiction and Summary Judgement in District Courts.Understanding Dr. Edwardo Rivera's arguments will help you understand District Courts as well. See: http://www.edrivera.com/. You don't need to pay for his course in order to study his concepts. The Organic Law is available at the GPO. You can get it for free. There are also audio recordings of his interview on a radio show on another site.You can fight while gathering evidence of the fraud and file a Complaint. You can file an Appeal for Review de novo, pursuant to 5 USC §§ 702-706.I recommend Jurisdictionary to help you learn to write your Pleadings.Participating in this fight is not for the weak at heart. Expect to loose sleep and study a lot. I hope you have a lot of time available for your studies and you like to read law. Remember anything you say can be used against you. The same concept applies to the other side. Can you get the other side to make commitments in writing? If not, what are you going to use as evidence?Other than that, have fun with it and put on a good show (these are actors, you know).MichaelNotice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
Daniel Quackenbush wrote without support or authority, in apparent opposition to my quote from Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 159-60 (1908), and in a seeming attempt to discredit me, wrote, “This is not how the law is interpreted nowadays. We have absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors, and qualified immunity of police (and in some instances, prosecutors only have qualified immunity).” I asked, “Daniel: In support for your allegation, please cite a Supreme Court decision defining qualified immunity and post that definition here. Thank you, Bear” to which so far he has not replied. So, since Daniel has not replied, I spent 2 minutes finding these quotes, which seem to say that Daniel does not understand what “qualified immunity” is or how it works:
“Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . ." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 815 - Supreme Court 1982.
“We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 815, 818 - Supreme Court 1982.
To my way of thinking, this is saying that qualified immunity works the same way as described in the quote I posted from Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123, 159-60 (1908).
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
> "Characteristically the Court has defined these elements byI used to carry preprinted constructive notices that I used to inform
> identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be
> available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we
> have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official
> "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within
> his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional
> rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious
> intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other
> injury . . . ." Harlow v. Fitzgerald
the people that I used to believe were public servants. They worked a
couple of times to get them to leave me alone. Once one got one after
helping me push a stalled unregistered car I had been traveling in (with
no DL) out of an intersection. He had begun to ask for the Big Three
but got it shoved in his face before he could finish. He handed it back
with a "have a nice day!" and he drove away.
> "We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionaryReasonable people can't avoid knowing when you give them Constructive
> functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages
> insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
> statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
> have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Notice in writing.