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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS Levy

Expand Messages
  • Larry Barron
    Hi,      I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,
           I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

      Many thanks
      Larry Barron
       
      When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
      --Audre Lorde

      Medicine did this to me!
      Whats your excuse?
    • E Junker
      1)   Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a cruel master. -- Pres. George Washington Accepting SSI and SSDI makes you a definition of a
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        1)  "Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a cruel master." -- Pres. George Washington
        Accepting SSI and SSDI makes you a definition of a dependent, that is NOT sovereign. 

        2)   Make a standard letter to the Student Loan folks listing your circumstance, ie disabled and such.  Attach a statement from your physician attesting to the facts.
        Set the letter up so that all you need change is the date for submitting it to whom it may concern.  Make lots of good copies of the Physicians Statement for attaching to the standard letter. (Always save the original to make copies from...)
        Each time you get a demand from these blasted student loan people, change the date on the standard letter, staple a copy of the Phys. Statement  and pop it in the mail.

        3)   Stop making deals with the US Government.



        From: Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...>
        To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:59 PM
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS Levy

         
        Hi,
             I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

        Many thanks
        Larry Barron
         
        When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
        --Audre Lorde

        Medicine did this to me!
        Whats your excuse?


      • Coalbunny
        Larry you have to fill out a form to have the student loans forgiven based on permanent disability. Along with that form you need a medical doctor to diagnose
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Larry you have to fill out a form to have the student loans forgiven based on permanent disability.  Along with that form you need a medical doctor to diagnose you are permanently disabled.  The process can take a couple months to complete, and then anywhere from 2-5 years as the trial period in which you are not billed.  At the end of the trial period they will decide if you are too disabled to work or not.
          Hope that helps,
          Carl


          On 3/6/2012 7:59 PM, Larry Barron wrote:
          Hi,
               I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

          Many thanks
          Larry Barron
           
          When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
          --Audre Lorde

          Medicine did this to me!
          Whats your excuse?
        • lg900df@rock.com
          Re: Become sovereign and SSI and SSDIAnswer:  No need to become what you already are--just simply declare your independence and cite the 1st law of the USA as
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: Become sovereign and SSI and SSDI
            Answer:  No need to become what you already are--just simply declare your independence and cite the 1st law of the USA as authority. Oh...you don't know what the first law of the USA is? Well....google "Organic Laws of the USA" and find the House of Representatives website and start reading. FYI: Loose the term sovereign please....its been trashed by those in the movement who proclaim "sovereign citizen"...an OXYMORON...for ALL citizenship entails ALLEGIANCE  and if you have alligience, then obviously you aren't sovereign. 

            Re: Any way to get rid of Student loan people.
            Answer: Yes....stop talking to them on the phone. Get a PO BOX or UPS Store Mailbox, jerk your mailbox out of the ground, refuse all that type of mail. Don't place a forwarder at the PO. Anything you get in the mail that is garbage,cross out your address,  mark "No such Addressee/Return To sender" and drop back in a mailbox--hopefully in the town just over from your town. Now NOTICE CAREFULLY....all debt collectors fall under federal law when they send you stuff marked: "This is from a debt collector". A debt collector to invoke the jurisdiction in federal law must either find you where you signed the original contract or where you reside. Here is a clue: Only YOU yes YOU can claim a residence. So....if YOU don't claim a residence and offer no strong evidence thereof, you make it very difficult for them to PLACE you there. They simply don't have that power. 

            --

            rock.com

          • stalwart1776
            26USC6331 does not apply to people not employed by the government. The Code Federal Regulations for 26USC6331 is 26CFR301.6331. The 301 regulation are referred
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              26USC6331 does not apply to people not employed by the government. The Code Federal Regulations for 26USC6331 is 26CFR301.6331. The 301 regulation are referred to as "housekeeping" regulations per U.S. Supreme Court Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). "Housekeeping" regulations are for government only.

              United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 83Rd Congress - Second Session 1954, Volume 3 Legislative History Regulations, page 5225 and 5226 reads as follows: §6331. Levy and distraint - This section corresponds to that of the Bill except the revisions noted below and a clerical change.

              The section continues in effect the provision s of existing law relating to distraint and levy (see section 3690 and 3692 of the present Internal Revenue Code).

              Your committee has clarified the provisions of the House bill by expressly providing that accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee or election official of the United States or the District of Columbia, or of any agency or instrumentality may be levied upon serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in sec. 3401(d) of such officer, or elected official. The change in this section makes unnecessary the change from existing law in the definition of person in section 6332(c) of the House bill, and accordingly that section has been amended to restore the definition or person contained in section 3710(c) of the 1939 code. The provisions as to levy on salaries of Government employees are the same as the applicable to any other delinquent taxpayer.

              The section retains the rule of present law which permits seizure immediately after notice and demand in the case of jeopardy, and in cases not involving jeopardy permits seizure only after the expiration of the 10 day period following the issuance of notice and demand. However, existing law provides for immediate seizure only with respect to taxes other than income estate and gift taxes. The section changes present law with respect to jeopardy cases by permitting seizure immediately after notice and demand in the case of all taxes, including income, estate and gift taxes.

              Who is trying to collect on the student loans?



              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi,
              >
              >      I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.
              >
              > Many thanks
              > Larry Barron
              >  
              >
              > When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
              > --Audre Lorde
              >
              >
              > Medicine did this to me!
              > Whats your excuse?
              >
            • paraclete45@gmail.com
              Hello tips, IRS code section 6331 also applies to instrumentalities of the United States. An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: IRS Levy Hello tips,

                  IRS code section 6331 also applies to "instrumentalities of the United States." 
                An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything that is created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an instrument.
                Title 28 USC section 3002(15) defines the United States.
                Because your Social Security Card is an instrument, and you are obligated on it and by it, then it follows that Title 26 section 6331 applies to you.
                The remedy is not to go into a state of denial, but to exercise "rescission of contract" and "release of powers of appointment," which effectively divorce you from 26 USC 6331.  To remain divorced, one may never, EVER, use that SSN again for any reason that may involve receiving any sort of government benefit.

                May you be richly blessed!
                Bernie
                 Paraclete45                          
                mailto:paraclete45@...
                Phones from the USA:
                cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
                BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
                land line:  011-507-771-4948
              • lg900df@rock.com
                A VERY nice summary below. Very nicely stated! I know from experience though that when confronting employers with this, that they will IMMEDIATELY call the IRS
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 10, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  A VERY nice summary below. Very nicely stated!
                  I know from experience though that when confronting employers with this,
                  that they will IMMEDIATELY call the IRS agent and for some, their own
                  attorneys. All Levy notices conveniently plaster the IRS agent phone
                  number on the form EXPECTING employers to call them where they can get
                  them to literally do ANYTHING they ask. 
                  Yes, even though you remind employers that courts rule the IRS is not
                  responsible for advice and YES even though you remind them that the IRS
                  is under the Dept of Treasury and the Dept of Treasury is executive and
                  that branch does not make or interpret law. They ignore and call them
                  anyway. [That is what SHEEPEOPLE do--i.e. call their enslaver's with the
                  pretty badge and ridiculously ask, 'does this mean someone is free?"
                  Seriously, what answer WOULD they expect?]
                   The attorneys will advise "it is an interesting interpretation and maybe
                  has legal merit worth pursuing for your employee.....but frankly, do what
                  the IRS tells you too." And the IRS will tell the employer that "The
                  employee took the law section out of context." Further, they tell the
                  employer that the law section was made brief and certain sections WEREN'T
                   included on the back of the levy notice specifically for that purpose:
                  i.e. that it would CONFUSE by indicating to the employer/employee that
                  the levy notice applied only to govt. employees. i.e. that a reading of
                  that plain English is not how the IRS interprets that section of law. 
                  Been there and DONE that. Incredible isn't it?
                • lg900df@rock.com
                  One of the best summaries on IRS Lien s and Levy s was done by the late Robert Clarkson of the Patriot Network. Robert was a veteran and real hero patriot
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment

                    One of the best summaries on IRS Lien's and Levy's was done by the late Robert Clarkson of the Patriot Network. Robert was a veteran and real hero 'patriot' offering many people help. You'll find it a very useful read.

                    You will find his information here by scrolling down the left side under "Removing Lien and Levy":


                    --

                    rock.com

                  • stalwart1776
                    in·stru·men·tal·i·ty (nstr-mn-tl-t) n. pl. in·stru·men·tal·i·ties 1. The state or quality of being instrumental. 2. A means; an agency. 3. A
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      in·stru·men·tal·i·ty (nstr-mn-tl-t)
                      n. pl. in·stru·men·tal·i·ties
                      1. The state or quality of being instrumental.
                      2. A means; an agency.
                      3. A subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or policies are carried out.

                      26 USC § 3308 - Instrumentalities of the United States

                      Notwithstanding any other provision of law (whether enacted before or after the enactment of this section) which grants to any instrumentality of the United States an exemption from taxation, such instrumentality shall not be exempt from the tax imposed by section 3301 unless such other provision of law grants a specific exemption, by reference to section 3301 (or the corresponding section of prior law), from the tax imposed by such section.

                      Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law (see 5USC553 (b), (c) and (d)). Benefits are exempted, which Social Security is, under 5USC553 (a)(2).

                      Chrysler v Brown states that the 301 (26CFR301.6331) regulations are strictly for government. Enforcement is by substantive regulations. The 301 regulations are not substantive.

                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, paraclete45@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello tips,
                      >
                      > IRS code section 6331 also applies to "instrumentalities of the United States."
                      > An instrumentality could include, but not be limited by, anything that is created by an instrument, bound by an instrument, or obligated on the face of an instrument.
                      > Title 28 USC section 3002(15) defines the United States.
                      > Because your Social Security Card is an instrument, and you are obligated on it and by it, then it follows that Title 26 section 6331 applies to you.
                      > The remedy is not to go into a state of denial, but to exercise "rescission of contract" and "release of powers of appointment," which effectively divorce you from 26 USC 6331. To remain divorced, one may never, EVER, use that SSN again for any reason that may involve receiving any sort of government benefit.
                      >
                      > May you be richly blessed!
                      > Bernie
                      > Paraclete45 mailto:paraclete45@...
                      > Phones from the USA:
                      > cell phone: 011-507-6590-5441
                      > BlackBerry: 011-507-6426-6845
                      > land line: 011-507-771-4948
                      >
                    • lg900df@rock.com
                      Good point on instrumentality...excellent point. However we need to promulgate no myth regarding contracts--even though you might find in your life certain
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 12, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Good point on instrumentality...excellent point.

                        However we need to promulgate no myth regarding contracts--even though you might find in your life certain adversarial parties might "try to fling &hit at the wall and hope it sticks." In other words don't give the adversary ammunition even he doesn't have.

                        Fact:
                        • Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related: THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. [although one could argue govt. workers and those under oath might be 'stuck'] Adhesion is is defeated on face value. If adhesion contracts existed, no one could be bound by a new contract--e.g. they would be stuck to all that silliness people claim from birth certificate 'adhesion' and hence devoid of free will to contract. Yes, that book by Mercier is a JOKE and even laughed at by judges and attorneys. Yes, that bunk about bank disclosure cards adhering you is MORE bunk. [Look at the card]
                        • "Four Corners Rules on Contracts": Not disclosed within 4 corners of document, it isn't valid.
                        • You APPLY for SSA [and SSN's], you do not CONTRACT for either. Otherwise SS would be mandatory on government and certainly they don't want that. How do you know its an application? Answer: What does it say on the top?  http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf  Was anything promised in return on the 4 corners? Did SSA sign the document? Whose property is the SSN? What did you commit too? Answer: Probably that the application was truthful. [Easy to fix any inaccuracies with attachment. For example redefine US Citizen as simply "in possession of birth certificate indicating birth in XYZ" {not state of xyz}].



                        --

                        rock.com

                      • BOB GREGORY
                        * Stalwart: You wrote: Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law. In effect, you have written The U.S. law is not the
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 13, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          * Stalwart:

                          You wrote: "Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law."

                          In effect, you have written "The U.S. law is not the law." The only reason for the existence of the United States Code is to break down the statutes passed by Congress into organized titles, subtitles, chapters, etc. for ease of reference. The code does not contain anything (other than chapter headings and cross references, etc.) that are NOT law.

                          The regulations are, of course, different as you have pointed out. Only those substantive regulations issued by secretaries or other agency heads (with the authorization of Congress in the law itself) have the force and effect of law. Other regulations are administrative or interpretive and do not have the force and effect of law. Some judges refuse to make that proper distinction. *
                        • paraclete45@gmail.com
                          Hello all of you great Tipsters!!! The poster of the message identified by a designation, dave.wissel mentions several, unrelated issues, but most of the
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 14, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Re: IRS Levy Hello all of you great Tipsters!!!
                            The poster of the message identified by a designation, "dave.wissel" mentions several, unrelated issues, but most of the comments do not seem to merit any comment.  They  have as much validity as his allegation that no adhesion contracts are valid.

                            The comment was made that
                            " * Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related:  THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. "

                            I do not agree with the above assumption that it is a FACT that no adhesion contracts are valid.  I base my disagreement on the plain wording of the last court decision cited in the definition for "Adhesion contract" in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 38,  which I quote in full;

                            "Adhesion contract. Standardized contract form offered
                            to consumers of goods and services on essentially
                            "take it or leave it" basis without affording consumer
                            realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions
                            that consumer cannot obtain desired product or
                            services except by acquiescing in form contract. Distinctive
                            feature of adhesion contract is that weaker
                            party has no realistic choice as to its terms. Wheeler
                            v. St. Joseph Hospital, Cal.App., 63 Cal.App.3d 345,
                            1 33 Cal.Rptr. 775, 783; Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v.
                            Perkins, C.A.Or., 347 F.2d 379, 383. Not every such
                            contract is unconscionable.
                             Lechmere Tire and Sales
                            Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
                            503
                            ."
                              
                            Nowhere do the court cases question the validity of any adhesion contracts, much less ALL adhesion contracts.

                            "dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
                            Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.

                            Life is more peaceful when one learns the law, then sticks to it.

                            May you be richly blessed!
                            Bernie
                             Paraclete45                          
                            mailto:paraclete45@...
                            Phones from the USA:
                            cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
                            BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
                            land line:  011-507-771-4948
                          • lg900df@rock.com
                            Reply:Re:Not every suchcontract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d 503. Answer:  Here is the
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 17, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Reply:
                              Re:Not every such
                              contract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales
                              Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
                              503
                              ."

                              Answer: 

                              Here is the court case I found. 

                              It was a case of a fellow applying for a credit card and agreeing to be bound by the agreement:

                              "(I) We agree to surrender credit plate on request and to be responsible for all purchases through its use until surrendered or until the company has been notified of its loss or theft in writing." After he had signed this application...."

                              [Hint: Sounds like he agreed in writing eh?? Sounds like 4 corners to me???]

                              Here is the EXACT findings regarding "unconscionable"....

                              We do not regard the agreement as having been so unconscionable as to require that it be not enforced (cf. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F. 2d 445 [D.C. Cir.]). We merely hold that all doubts as to its interpretation and as to the meaning of the card itself are to be resolved in favor of the applicant for the card.
                              There is every reason of public policy for protecting consumers from contractual provisions, not brought home to them, which are or may be unconscionable. See Corbin, Contracts, Section 1376; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.) Section 68; Williston, Contracts (2d ed.) Section 1751B

                              {Hint: Sounds like the court is ALMOST finding the contract unconscionable simply because the consumer is at a slight disadvantage.....yet he clearly was not FORCED to sign the contract....it was just a credit card application.]


                              By reference to the word "every" in Black's, obviously this Mass. Court found a few valid. Of course the Supreme Court of the US found Negro's and Japanese unequal to others at one time--so relying upon the courts will ONLY and I repeat ONLY yield you an OPINION. 

                              The definition for which Black's draws is one of the courts--namely that one party is generally at a disadvantage to the other and unable to modify the terms as in "take it or leave it." So thus THIS definition of 'adhesion contract" is a different one in that simply one is being offered a "take it or leave it contract" with the party at a clear disadvantage. I sincerely doubt anyone is so "forced" as to that he MUST accept the terms of the credit card contract. Next understand that the reference in the PAYTRIDIOT movement of "adhesion contracts" is taken out of context compared to this court definition. They assume it binds beyond the terms which aren't even spelled out.

                              Re: "dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
                              Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.
                              Answer: Only an IDIOT doesn't understand this. I use this method all the time to correct government documents: "Signature is invalid without attachment". However the idiots in the paytriot movement assume applications with NO REFERENCE in their 4 corners to something external somehow BINDS someone as do CONTRACTS. First they are APPLICATIONS and NOT contracts.Secondarily without a reference spelled out clearly, how can they bind? Next the idiots in the paytriot movement assume Birth Certificates bind the person as some kind of chattel. Huh? Another crazy notion NOT worth planting in the heads of adversaries. 
                              You didn't mention it but the Constitution might be a legal document but on its face without more, is not a contract.





                              --

                              rock.com

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