Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!pesnta!hplabs!nsc!voder!kathy
From: kathy@voder.UUCP (Kathy Hale)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: Things IRS Won't Tell You #4
Message-ID: <537@voder.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 13:25:33 EST
Article-I.D.: voder.537
Posted: Fri Nov 30 13:25:33 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 04:39:58 EST
References: The data for this note is drawn primarily from the <4072@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 390

> *** 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 ***