alpert@nanook.DEC (11/01/84)
*** Things the IRS won't tell you ******************************* #4 ***
NOTE: As the material covered here is purely defensive in nature,
no disclaimer here. This is a new area of research into the
Code, further updates will be reported as I receive them.
Also be aware that there is a lot of ground to cover here.
I have highly condensed the material in this note and it is
still over 360 lines long!
References: The data for this note is drawn primarily from the
Schiff Report, Vol. 2 (1984), nos. 4 and 5. The Schiff Report
is published by Freedom Books, P.O. Box 5303, Hamden, CT
06518.
Some sections of the Code referenced have been abbreviated
to save space.
>>>>>>> FLAME ON! <<<<<<
***** HOW THE IRS ILLEGALLY SEIZES PROPERTY *****
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law...
-- U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment
The above extract from the Constitution clearly demonstrates the
principle that a person's posessions may not be confiscated without
"due process of law", in short, a trial or hearing. Yet, everyone
"knows" that the IRS freely deprives citizens of their homes, property,
bank accounts, and whatever else happens to strike their fancy.
In this note we will examine the actual laws pertaining to the
confiscation of property and the mechanisms the IRS uses to get
away with breaking the law.
Section 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property
to payment of tax.
(a) Filing.
In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay
any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof,
whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his
delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct A CIVIL
ACTION TO BE FILED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO
ENFORCE THE LIEN OF the United States under this title WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH TAX OR LIABILITY or to subject any property,
of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any
right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or
liability...
Section 7401. Authorization.
No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes,
or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced
unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS DELEGATE DIRECTS THAT THE
ACTION BE COMMENCED.
What do the above statutes tell us? That prior to confiscation of
any property the government is required to institute a civil action
in a court of law (specifically, a District Court of the U.S.), and
that such action requires the authorization of the Attorney General
or his delegate! This is perfectly in keeping with the provisions
of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, section 7403(c) goes on to say
that the court shall "proceed to adjudicate all matters" pertaining
to such action and that the disposition of property involved is to
be determined "according to the findings of the court"!
These provisions for "due process" are explicitly placed in the IRS
code so as to make the Code completely in accord with the Constitution.
This is a matter which many people confuse -- it is NOT the tax
laws that are unconstitutional, it is the IRS's violation of these
laws!
So, believe it or not, by both the Constitution and the IRS's own
Code, they are legally REQUIRED to prove in a court of law that you
are liable for unpaid taxes, and it is the COURT'S decision that
determines the disposition of any property in question! So, how
is it that the IRS manages to descend storm-trooper like and confiscate
wages, homes, cars, and anything they can lay their hands on? A large
part of the answer, of course, is the tried and true method of Fear
and use of the Big Lie. Since everyone "knows" the IRS strikes as the
whim suits them, everyone "knows" they must have the legal authority
to do so (not true as we have just seen!). Let us examine more closely
the deceptive mechanisms the agency utilizes to perform these outrages...
The following section of the Code is quite lengthy, so we shall examine
only the salient points:
Code Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint.
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person LIABLE to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay
the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be
lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax...by LEVY...belonging
to such person... LEVY MAY BE MADE UPON THE ACCRUED SALARY OR WAGES
OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL, OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR ANY AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY SERVING A NOTICE OF LEVY
ON THE EMPLOYER...OF SUCH OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL...
(b) Seizure and Sale of Property.
The term "LEVY" as used in this title INCLUDES THE POWER OF DISTRAINT
AND SEIZURE BY ANY MEANS...a LEVY shall extend only to property
posessed and obligations existing at the time thereof.
(d) Requirement of notice before LEVY
(1) In general. LEVY may be made under subsection (a)...only
after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his
intention to make such a LEVY.
In all, section 6331 of the Code makes 23 references to "LEVY" and only
one to "NOTICE OF LEVY". This is an important distinction, as we shall
soon see.
JUST WHAT IS AN IRS "LEVY"?
The public at large, banks, law enforcement officers, and
employers are all under the impression that the word "LEVY" denotes
an act or document resulting from a court order or other legitimate
legal proceeding. As used in the IRS Code, it means no such thing!
The Code never explains the following items: 1) how a "levy" comes
into being, 2) who creates it. As used in the Code, "levy" is not
a noun (i.e., document) at all; it is used as a verb, meaning "to
sieze by any means". There can be no "levy" until the actual seizure
takes place, and the Constitution bars the seizure of property "by
any means". So, while the Code provides for such a "levy", it also
contains statutes that bar the IRS from being able to legally carry
out such actions!
If we examine subsection (b) of section 6502 (not completely reproduced due
to space limitations), we find that it states:
"The date on which a levy on property or right to property
IS MADE shall be the date on which the NOTICE OF SEIZURE...
IS GIVEN"
In other words, THERE CANNOT BE A LAWFUL LEVY UNTIL AFTER A "NOTICE
OF SEIZURE" IS GIVEN. However, section 6335 (f) provides:
"As soon as practicable AFTER SEIZURE OF PROPERTY notice in
writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the
property..."
So, a "Notice of Seizure" cannot be given until AFTER property is
taken, but a "levy" ("seizure by any means") cannot be made until
AFTER a "Notice of Seizure" is given! The Code is basically stating
(giving its use of the word "levy") that property cannot be
seized until AFTER such property is seized!!
Section 6332 (a) further states that:
"...any person in posession of...property or rights to
property subject to levy upon which a levy HAS BEEN MADE
shall...surrender such property..."
Citizens, therefore, are only required to surrender property upon
which levy HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. However, the IRS Code requires
that prior to "levy" being made that the property must have already
been seized!
According to section 6332, it is impossible for the government
to LAWFULLY seize property without a "levy being made".
Because it is impossible to LAWFULLY make a "levy" without first seizing
the property, it is NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO EVER MAKE A "LEVY"!
And, because it is not LEGALLY possible to make a "LEVY", it is not
LEGALLY possible for the IRS to seize property by "any means" (even
ignoring Constitutional considerations).
And since the government cannot LEGALLY seize property, they cannot
LEGALLY issue a "Notice of Seizure" (Section 6335)! And to complete
this ludicrous circle, since the government cannot issue a "Notice
of Seizure", a "LEVY" can NEVER be made persuant to "law".
I know this seems terribly confusing... that's because the Code is
deliberately designed that way! Careful analysis shows that these
interdependent sections of the code are carefully crafted to balance
each other out, giving the APPEARANCE that the IRS has the authority
to perform such seizures, but in reality making them ILLEGAL so as
not to confilict with the Constitution. The laws APPEAR to give the
IRS the right to "levy" property, but NEVER ACTUALLY GIVE THEM THE
POWER TO DO SO.
Because the IRS is rendered powerless both by the Constitution and
its own Code to take property by "levy", a totally illegal scheme
has been devised to allow the use of the "Notice of Levy" rather
than an actual "levy".
THE FRAUDULENT "NOTICE OF LEVY"
The provision creating the document "Notice of Levy" is contained in
Section 6331(a) in a manner that renders it inconspicuous...
"Levy may be made upon the ... wages of any ... officer, employee,
or elected official of the United States ... by serving a NOTICE
OF LEVY on the employer..."
Note that a "Notice of Levy" as used in the Code is completely different
from a "levy" and is limited to persons employed by the Federal government
and can only be served on the Federal government ("the employer") itself!
Also notice that the scope of this "Notice of Levy" is limited to the
"accrued salary or wages" of the Federal employee, and not applicable
to other property. NOWHERE does the Internal Revenue Code authorize the
IRS to use these "Notices of Levy" to take property or wages of non-Federal
employees, take anything BUT the accrued wages of Federal employees, or
to serve such notices on any employer but the Federal government! (After
all, who IS the employer of a Federal employee?)
Any other use of the "Notice of Levy" is blatantly illegal. Yet, in
every case, this document is what the government has used to illegally
seize property. Why?...
First, why does this document apply only to Federal employees? Simple;
if someone works for you and owes you money, you would not have to
"levy" (seize) anything at all; just withhold his/her salary, notifying
the employee of your intention to do so until the debt is paid. There
is no need to "levy" or "seize" that which is already in your posession!
In this situation the government does not even need a court order because
they are not seizing anything that they do not already have! There is
no "levy" in this situation at all!
So, why is this document called "Notice of Levy", if it and an actual
"levy" are completely different beasts? Why not call it "Intention Not
to Pay Wages" instead? Simply, this would draw a distinction between
an actual "levy" and a simple notice of withholding wages to pay a debt
owed one's employer. The document is deliberately named to mislead
the public and judiciary into believing it is the same as a "levy".
Note the wording "serving a notice of levy on the employer" in section
6331. Since the employer in this instance is the government itself, there
is no need for it to serve such a notice on itself, the wording is
deliberately contrived to confuse the distinctions between "levy"
and "Notice of Levy".
All that the "Notice of Levy" really does is give the government the
right to do something they could do anyway... withhold the pay of
its own employees. The Code is worded in a mannner intended to hide
this fact to the extent possible. The Treasury Department then wrote
regulations which misstate "the law" as written and it is this bunko
which the IRS feeds the public.
For example, take Treasury Regulation 301.6331(a)-1. This regulation
is supposed to reflect the IRS's interpretation of of Code section
6331 (this is an important distinction between IRS REGULATIONS and
the tax LAWS). The wording "..levy may be made upon the accrued salary
and wages of any...officer, employee, or elected official of the United
States or the District of Columbia" becomes:
"Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on ANY PERSON
in posession of...property or rights to property INCLUDING
RECEIVABLES, BANK ACCOUNTS, EVIDENCE OF DEBT, SECURITIES,
AND SALARIES, WAGES, COMMISSIONS, OR OTHER COMPENSATION..."
This is not an interpretation! It is an outright lie and a fraud!!
The LAW itself says no such thing; if it did it would be blatantly
unconstitutional!
Through the use of fraudulent regulations the IRS has been able to
bypass the limitations of the actual laws pertaining to "Notices of
Levy" and "levy"; since the "Notice" allows the "levy" to be made
without a notice of seizure and it is the notice of seizure which
prevents the government from making a "levy".
So, this is how the IRS operates:
1) A Code section is deliberately written to authorize the IRS
to act in a proscribed and lawful manner.
2) The forms and paperwork are produced to allow the IRS to act
in the manner proscribed by law.
3) Once the IRS gets the forms, they use them in a manner NOT
proscribed by the Code.
4) Misleading and and fraudulent "regulations" (which are NOT "LAWS"!)
are fabricated which deliberately misstate the law (as in the
example above).
5) With official-looking forms to misuse and official-sounding
"regulations" backing them, the IRS sets out to plunder and
pillage in complete disregard for the law, and almost no one
knows the difference.
This IRS also misuses sections 6332(c) (penalizing those who do not
honor a "levy") and 6332(d) (protecting those who do honor a
"levy"). These are shown to banks and employers to intimidate and
reassure them that they should honor the fraudulent "Notice of Levy".
MEASURES YOU CAN TAKE TO PROTECT YOURSELF
Upon receiving a "Final Notice" (ten-day notice), citizens should
immediately send out two letters, one to all third parties (banks,
employer, etc) and one to the government. The third party letter
should state:
1) That the letter's intent is to prevent the party involved
from illegally turning your property over to the government.
2) Attach a copy of section 6331 of the IRS code pointing out
the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy".
3) Attach a copy of 6332(a) explaining that it requires only
that property be turned over after levy has been made -- NOT
upon receipt of "Notice of Levy".
4) Attach both a "Notice of Levy" and the form which authorizes an
actual "levy" (two separate forms!) and explain the difference
(copies of these forms can most likely be gotten from Freedom Books,
or I can provide photocopies of the documents if anyone *really*
needs them). Explain that they are under no legal obligation to
honor this "notice".
5) Demand that "Notices of Levy" served by the IRS in violation
of Federal law be ignored. Put them on notice that it is
their responsibility to consult with you before handing over
any property to the IRS.
6) Make it clear that you will file civil and criminal charges
if any property is illegally turned over to the government.
Letter to IRS:
1) Inform them that their FINAL NOTICE was sent in error for
the following reasons:
a) Code section 6331 authorizes a "levy" on the property
of one made "liable" to pay any tax.
b) The FINAL NOTICE does not state the type of tax or
the section of the Code that establishes any such
"liability".
c) Refer them to the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy"
they are threatening to serve on your employer, referring
to section 6331.
d) Remind them that section 7401 of the Code provides that
only the Attorney General of the United States can direct
that action be taken to collect "taxes or any fine".
2) Point out that they themselves draw a distinction between
"levy" and "Notice of Levy", as the FINAL NOTICE invariably
will speak of wages, commissions, bank accounts, etc. being
subject to LEVY. Note that they cannot be legally seized
with the "Notice" and that an actual "levy" must be made
persuant to sections 7401, 7402(e), and 7403(c).
3) Put them on notice that they will be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law, as well as having civil suits filed against
them for violating federal statutes.
4) Close the letter stating that if they have any questions to
contact you, otherwise the matter will be considered closed.
As this is a new area of inquiry into the Code, there will undoubtedly
be new discoveries; and more concrete methods of combatting the IRS's
illegal actions will be developed. Stay tuned.
>>>>>>> FLAME OFF! <<<<<<
******* Next time: New evidence that the government is not *******
legally empowered to assess you, plus
sections of the Code that (grudgingly)
admit no one is made "liable" for "income" tax.
Bob Alpert
...!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpertkarn@mouton.UUCP (11/03/84)
If I can protect myself from illegal acts by the IRS by quoting the Constitution, then why can't I protect myself from getting drafted by pointing out that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude?" The draft certainly counts as "involuntary" in my book, and since amendments supersede the Constitution itself, it would seem that the Government's power to "raise armies" is limited by the Thirteenth Amendment. My point is that it doesn't matter what the Constitution might appear to say to YOU in fairly plain language; your interpretation isn't worth shit. Only the Supreme Court's reading matters, and they can do it in any way they like. What's TRULY terrifying is a look at the average age of the Justices, and a realization that Ronnie just might outlive them. The Soviet Union has a similar (but admittedly more serious) problem. Phil
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (11/12/84)
This mostly sounds like garbage to me. It is not clear that the
regulartions of any government body that are as voluminous as the IRS
regulations would be found to be totally consistent on microscopic
examination. Although I suppose such regulations are technically not
laws, the enabling statues typically give then "the force of law". Of
course they can't violate the Constitution but the Constitution is a
document of non-trivial complexity that is also subject to
interpretation. You would be amazed at the things that the Customs and
Immigrations people can do in terms of seizure and arrest and these were
authorized by very eary Congresses, typically contemporaneous with the
adoption of the Bill of Rights, so it is assumed that they knew what the
Constitutional amendments were supposed to mean.
I could cite a number of particular things in this message that
strike me as silly but I don't want to generate a message just as
long as it was.
--
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deekathy@voder.UUCP (Kathy Hale) (11/30/84)
> *** Things the IRS won't tell you ******************************* #4 *** > > NOTE: As the material covered here is purely defensive in nature, > no disclaimer here. This is a new area of research into the > Code, further updates will be reported as I receive them. > Also be aware that there is a lot of ground to cover here. > I have highly condensed the material in this note and it is > still over 360 lines long! > > References: The data for this note is drawn primarily from the > Schiff Report, Vol. 2 (1984), nos. 4 and 5. The Schiff Report > is published by Freedom Books, P.O. Box 5303, Hamden, CT > 06518. > > Some sections of the Code referenced have been abbreviated > to save space. > > > >>>>>>> FLAME ON! <<<<<< > > ***** HOW THE IRS ILLEGALLY SEIZES PROPERTY ***** > > No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, > or property, without due process of law... > > -- U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment > > The above extract from the Constitution clearly demonstrates the > principle that a person's posessions may not be confiscated without > "due process of law", in short, a trial or hearing. Yet, everyone > "knows" that the IRS freely deprives citizens of their homes, property, > bank accounts, and whatever else happens to strike their fancy. Please note: The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, was suspended in 1933 with HJR 192! We were at that time put into Admiralty Jursidiction -- YOU DO OWE THE TAX if you are enfranchised! > In this note we will examine the actual laws pertaining to the > confiscation of property and the mechanisms the IRS uses to get > away with breaking the law. > > > Section 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property > to payment of tax. > (a) Filing. > > In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay > any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, > whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his > delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct A CIVIL > ACTION TO BE FILED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO > ENFORCE THE LIEN OF the United States under this title WITH > RESPECT TO SUCH TAX OR LIABILITY or to subject any property, > of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any > right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or > liability... > > > Section 7401. Authorization. > > No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, > or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced > unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings > AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS DELEGATE DIRECTS THAT THE > ACTION BE COMMENCED. They DO have authority under Admiralty Jurisdiction! > What do the above statutes tell us? That prior to confiscation of > any property the government is required to institute a civil action > in a court of law (specifically, a District Court of the U.S.), and > that such action requires the authorization of the Attorney General > or his delegate! This is perfectly in keeping with the provisions > of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, section 7403(c) goes on to say > that the court shall "proceed to adjudicate all matters" pertaining > to such action and that the disposition of property involved is to > be determined "according to the findings of the court"! > > These provisions for "due process" are explicitly placed in the IRS > code so as to make the Code completely in accord with the Constitution. > This is a matter which many people confuse -- it is NOT the tax > laws that are unconstitutional, it is the IRS's violation of these > laws! This is NOT a guarantee of Constitutional due process -- it is civil and statutory privilege. > So, believe it or not, by both the Constitution and the IRS's own > Code, they are legally REQUIRED to prove in a court of law that you > are liable for unpaid taxes, and it is the COURT'S decision that > determines the disposition of any property in question! So, how WRONG! You're required to prove YOU DON'T OWE the tax. 95% do. > is it that the IRS manages to descend storm-trooper like and confiscate > wages, homes, cars, and anything they can lay their hands on? A large > part of the answer, of course, is the tried and true method of Fear > and use of the Big Lie. Since everyone "knows" the IRS strikes as the > whim suits them, everyone "knows" they must have the legal authority > to do so (not true as we have just seen!). Let us examine more closely > the deceptive mechanisms the agency utilizes to perform these outrages... > > The following section of the Code is quite lengthy, so we shall examine > only the salient points: > > Code Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint. > > (a) Authority of Secretary > If any person LIABLE to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay > the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be > lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax...by LEVY...belonging > to such person... LEVY MAY BE MADE UPON THE ACCRUED SALARY OR WAGES > OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL, OF THE UNITED STATES, > THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR ANY AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE > UNITED STATES OR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY SERVING A NOTICE OF LEVY > ON THE EMPLOYER...OF SUCH OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL... > > (b) Seizure and Sale of Property. > The term "LEVY" as used in this title INCLUDES THE POWER OF DISTRAINT > AND SEIZURE BY ANY MEANS...a LEVY shall extend only to property > posessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. > > (d) Requirement of notice before LEVY > (1) In general. LEVY may be made under subsection (a)...only > after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his > intention to make such a LEVY. > > In all, section 6331 of the Code makes 23 references to "LEVY" and only > one to "NOTICE OF LEVY". This is an important distinction, as we shall > soon see. Levies are legal -- you should read Supreme Court Decisions instead of trying to interpret the law. Agreed, the IRC is a sham and a mish mash and should be challenged constitutionally for vagueness but that's a different issue. > JUST WHAT IS AN IRS "LEVY"? > > The public at large, banks, law enforcement officers, and > employers are all under the impression that the word "LEVY" denotes > an act or document resulting from a court order or other legitimate > legal proceeding. As used in the IRS Code, it means no such thing! > The Code never explains the following items: 1) how a "levy" comes > into being, 2) who creates it. As used in the Code, "levy" is not > a noun (i.e., document) at all; it is used as a verb, meaning "to > sieze by any means". There can be no "levy" until the actual seizure > takes place, and the Constitution bars the seizure of property "by > any means". So, while the Code provides for such a "levy", it also > contains statutes that bar the IRS from being able to legally carry > out such actions! > > If we examine subsection (b) of section 6502 (not completely reproduced due > to space limitations), we find that it states: > > "The date on which a levy on property or right to property > IS MADE shall be the date on which the NOTICE OF SEIZURE... > IS GIVEN" > > In other words, THERE CANNOT BE A LAWFUL LEVY UNTIL AFTER A "NOTICE > OF SEIZURE" IS GIVEN. However, section 6335 (f) provides: > > "As soon as practicable AFTER SEIZURE OF PROPERTY notice in > writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the > property..." > > So, a "Notice of Seizure" cannot be given until AFTER property is > taken, but a "levy" ("seizure by any means") cannot be made until > AFTER a "Notice of Seizure" is given! The Code is basically stating > (giving its use of the word "levy") that property cannot be > seized until AFTER such property is seized!! > > Section 6332 (a) further states that: > > "...any person in posession of...property or rights to > property subject to levy upon which a levy HAS BEEN MADE > shall...surrender such property..." > > Citizens, therefore, are only required to surrender property upon > which levy HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. However, the IRS Code requires > that prior to "levy" being made that the property must have already > been seized! > > According to section 6332, it is impossible for the government > to LAWFULLY seize property without a "levy being made". > > Because it is impossible to LAWFULLY make a "levy" without first seizing > the property, it is NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO EVER MAKE A "LEVY"! > > And, because it is not LEGALLY possible to make a "LEVY", it is not > LEGALLY possible for the IRS to seize property by "any means" (even > ignoring Constitutional considerations). > > And since the government cannot LEGALLY seize property, they cannot > LEGALLY issue a "Notice of Seizure" (Section 6335)! And to complete > this ludicrous circle, since the government cannot issue a "Notice > of Seizure", a "LEVY" can NEVER be made persuant to "law". > > I know this seems terribly confusing... that's because the Code is > deliberately designed that way! Careful analysis shows that these > interdependent sections of the code are carefully crafted to balance > each other out, giving the APPEARANCE that the IRS has the authority > to perform such seizures, but in reality making them ILLEGAL so as > not to confilict with the Constitution. The laws APPEAR to give the > IRS the right to "levy" property, but NEVER ACTUALLY GIVE THEM THE > POWER TO DO SO. > > Because the IRS is rendered powerless both by the Constitution and > its own Code to take property by "levy", a totally illegal scheme > has been devised to allow the use of the "Notice of Levy" rather > than an actual "levy". > > > THE FRAUDULENT "NOTICE OF LEVY" > > The provision creating the document "Notice of Levy" is contained in > Section 6331(a) in a manner that renders it inconspicuous... > > "Levy may be made upon the ... wages of any ... officer, employee, > or elected official of the United States ... by serving a NOTICE > OF LEVY on the employer..." > > Note that a "Notice of Levy" as used in the Code is completely different > from a "levy" and is limited to persons employed by the Federal government > and can only be served on the Federal government ("the employer") itself! > Also notice that the scope of this "Notice of Levy" is limited to the > "accrued salary or wages" of the Federal employee, and not applicable > to other property. NOWHERE does the Internal Revenue Code authorize the > IRS to use these "Notices of Levy" to take property or wages of non-Federal > employees, take anything BUT the accrued wages of Federal employees, or > to serve such notices on any employer but the Federal government! (After > all, who IS the employer of a Federal employee?) > > Any other use of the "Notice of Levy" is blatantly illegal. Yet, in > every case, this document is what the government has used to illegally > seize property. Why?... > > First, why does this document apply only to Federal employees? Simple; > if someone works for you and owes you money, you would not have to > "levy" (seize) anything at all; just withhold his/her salary, notifying > the employee of your intention to do so until the debt is paid. There > is no need to "levy" or "seize" that which is already in your posession! > In this situation the government does not even need a court order because > they are not seizing anything that they do not already have! There is > no "levy" in this situation at all! > > So, why is this document called "Notice of Levy", if it and an actual > "levy" are completely different beasts? Why not call it "Intention Not > to Pay Wages" instead? Simply, this would draw a distinction between > an actual "levy" and a simple notice of withholding wages to pay a debt > owed one's employer. The document is deliberately named to mislead > the public and judiciary into believing it is the same as a "levy". > Note the wording "serving a notice of levy on the employer" in section > 6331. Since the employer in this instance is the government itself, there > is no need for it to serve such a notice on itself, the wording is > deliberately contrived to confuse the distinctions between "levy" > and "Notice of Levy". > > All that the "Notice of Levy" really does is give the government the > right to do something they could do anyway... withhold the pay of > its own employees. The Code is worded in a mannner intended to hide > this fact to the extent possible. The Treasury Department then wrote > regulations which misstate "the law" as written and it is this bunko > which the IRS feeds the public. > > For example, take Treasury Regulation 301.6331(a)-1. This regulation > is supposed to reflect the IRS's interpretation of of Code section > 6331 (this is an important distinction between IRS REGULATIONS and > the tax LAWS). The wording "..levy may be made upon the accrued salary > and wages of any...officer, employee, or elected official of the United > States or the District of Columbia" becomes: > > "Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on ANY PERSON > in posession of...property or rights to property INCLUDING > RECEIVABLES, BANK ACCOUNTS, EVIDENCE OF DEBT, SECURITIES, > AND SALARIES, WAGES, COMMISSIONS, OR OTHER COMPENSATION..." > > This is not an interpretation! It is an outright lie and a fraud!! > The LAW itself says no such thing; if it did it would be blatantly > unconstitutional! It would not be unconstitutional. > Through the use of fraudulent regulations the IRS has been able to > bypass the limitations of the actual laws pertaining to "Notices of > Levy" and "levy"; since the "Notice" allows the "levy" to be made > without a notice of seizure and it is the notice of seizure which > prevents the government from making a "levy". > > So, this is how the IRS operates: > > 1) A Code section is deliberately written to authorize the IRS > to act in a proscribed and lawful manner. > 2) The forms and paperwork are produced to allow the IRS to act > in the manner proscribed by law. > 3) Once the IRS gets the forms, they use them in a manner NOT > proscribed by the Code. > 4) Misleading and and fraudulent "regulations" (which are NOT "LAWS"!) > are fabricated which deliberately misstate the law (as in the > example above). > 5) With official-looking forms to misuse and official-sounding > "regulations" backing them, the IRS sets out to plunder and > pillage in complete disregard for the law, and almost no one > knows the difference. > > This IRS also misuses sections 6332(c) (penalizing those who do not > honor a "levy") and 6332(d) (protecting those who do honor a > "levy"). These are shown to banks and employers to intimidate and > reassure them that they should honor the fraudulent "Notice of Levy". > > > MEASURES YOU CAN TAKE TO PROTECT YOURSELF > > Upon receiving a "Final Notice" (ten-day notice), citizens should > immediately send out two letters, one to all third parties (banks, > employer, etc) and one to the government. The third party letter > should state: > > 1) That the letter's intent is to prevent the party involved > from illegally turning your property over to the government. > 2) Attach a copy of section 6331 of the IRS code pointing out > the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy". > 3) Attach a copy of 6332(a) explaining that it requires only > that property be turned over after levy has been made -- NOT > upon receipt of "Notice of Levy". > 4) Attach both a "Notice of Levy" and the form which authorizes an > actual "levy" (two separate forms!) and explain the difference > (copies of these forms can most likely be gotten from Freedom Books, > or I can provide photocopies of the documents if anyone *really* > needs them). Explain that they are under no legal obligation to > honor this "notice". > 5) Demand that "Notices of Levy" served by the IRS in violation > of Federal law be ignored. Put them on notice that it is > their responsibility to consult with you before handing over > any property to the IRS. > 6) Make it clear that you will file civil and criminal charges > if any property is illegally turned over to the government. > > Letter to IRS: > > 1) Inform them that their FINAL NOTICE was sent in error for > the following reasons: > a) Code section 6331 authorizes a "levy" on the property > of one made "liable" to pay any tax. > b) The FINAL NOTICE does not state the type of tax or > the section of the Code that establishes any such > "liability". This is false reasoning from not understanding the issues. > c) Refer them to the limited scope of the "Notice of Levy" > they are threatening to serve on your employer, referring > to section 6331. > d) Remind them that section 7401 of the Code provides that > only the Attorney General of the United States can direct > that action be taken to collect "taxes or any fine". > 2) Point out that they themselves draw a distinction between > "levy" and "Notice of Levy", as the FINAL NOTICE invariably > will speak of wages, commissions, bank accounts, etc. being > subject to LEVY. Note that they cannot be legally seized > with the "Notice" and that an actual "levy" must be made > persuant to sections 7401, 7402(e), and 7403(c). > 3) Put them on notice that they will be prosecuted to the fullest > extent of the law, as well as having civil suits filed against > them for violating federal statutes. A waste of money and time! > 4) Close the letter stating that if they have any questions to > contact you, otherwise the matter will be considered closed. > > > As this is a new area of inquiry into the Code, there will undoubtedly > be new discoveries; and more concrete methods of combatting the IRS's > illegal actions will be developed. Stay tuned. > > >>>>>>> FLAME OFF! <<<<<< > > > ******* Next time: New evidence that the government is not ******* > legally empowered to assess you, plus > sections of the Code that (grudgingly) > admit no one is made "liable" for "income" tax. > Bob Alpert Balderdash! If you are not at the Common Law, you are LIABLE. > ...!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
kathy@voder.UUCP (Kathy Hale) (11/30/84)
> If I can protect myself from illegal acts by the IRS by quoting > the Constitution, then why can't I protect myself from getting drafted > by pointing out that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits "involuntary > servitude?" The draft certainly counts as "involuntary" in my book, > and since amendments supersede the Constitution itself, it would seem > that the Government's power to "raise armies" is limited by the Thirteenth > Amendment. > > My point is that it doesn't matter what the Constitution might appear to > say to YOU in fairly plain language; your interpretation isn't worth shit. > Only the Supreme Court's reading matters, and they can do it in any way > they like. What's TRULY terrifying is a look at the average age of the > Justices, and a realization that Ronnie just might outlive them. > > The Soviet Union has a similar (but admittedly more serious) problem. > > Phil Phil, I disagree with you -- what you've just said is NOT TRUE! What the Constitution says certainly DOES matter and it is THE basis for all Supreme Court decisions! They do not make decisions that are unconsitutional.