--- Begin Message ---
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List update: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=FEAR-list-update
Swap to digest: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=digest
[From time to time we get letters requesting help from victims of IRS
forfeitures. Unfortunately, we have not covered that field of forfeiture
very well but we hope to do better in the future (as well as cover the
state forfeiture actions). There is only so much we can cover with our very
small staff. Any volunteers?]
Vin Suprynowicz's latest article may be of some help to victims of IRS
abuse. Strangely, it appears that most of the shenanigans of the IRS,
including their very existence, is not very well covered in law. It is a
great controversy -- strangely, totally ignored by the government and most
of the courts. Here are some extracts from the article which appears at
<http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-25-Sun-2001/opinion/17508765.html>
(I am quoting from the email version which is longer):
====================
Las Vegas resident Irwin Schiff contends the Internal Revenue Service
(whatever that is -- no record can be found that the U.S. Congress ever
authorized the creation of any such agency, as even the IRS admits) doesn't
even adhere to its own codebook of rules and procedures, instead depending
on the inappropriate application of the law as they struggle to keep
America's workers and employers buffaloed into paying an "income tax"
(actually a wage withholding tax) which is mandatory only for aliens
working on these shores and Americans working overseas.
Most members of the burgeoning truth-about-taxation movement contend that
when various IRS commissioners have said the flow of tax revenues is
dependent on "voluntary compliance," they meant just that -- we all
"volunteer" to take part in a government Ponzi scheme promising us various
benefits when we sign a W-4 form, requesting our employers to withhold from
our paychecks ... and are thus equally free to "not volunteer," is we so
choose.
Individual IRS employees seems to look at this a bit differently, of
course, occasionally charging folks with "failure to file," while
demonstrating a puzzling reluctance to point to the individual statute that
makes it mandatory for any individual American, earning wages on these
shores, to do so.
They'll even send your bank a "Notice of Intent to Levy," which any bank
employee calling the IRS will be told means they're supposed to bundle up
your money and send it to the IRS, because you "failed to pay your taxes."
But that's not true. All such a bank employee has to do is ask why
"paragraph A" of the legal code citation is always deleted from the
"authorizing" fine print on the back of the IRS' standard
"seize-his-paycheck" Form 668W. The reason the citation instead starts with
"paragraph B" is that paragraph A specifies that said law authorizes the
use of such onerous methods only against employees of the federal government.
("Sec. 6331. Levy and distraint. TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 64,
Subchapter D, Sec. 6331, STATUTE: (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 (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses
of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such
property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on
which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.
(start ital)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 the
District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as
defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.
..."(end ital)
(See the web site www.getawarrant.com -- which contains a citation from
Clark County (Nevada) Magistrate Victor Miller's historic opinion on this
matter in the case Williams vs. Boulder Dam Credit Union.)
Furthermore, in its wise decision in Gould vs. Gould, 245 US 151,
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=151),
t he U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "In the interpretation of statutes
levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by
implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge
their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In
case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and
in favor of the citizen."
Thus, the paragraph above means paycheck and bank account levies can be
made (start ital)only(end ital) against "any officer, employee, or elected
official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia."
(more at
<http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-25-Sun-2001/opinion/17508765.html>)
=======================
If you want a copy of the emailed version, drop me a line and I will email
it to you.
Leon Felkins, FEAR Exec. Dir.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************************************
FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
List unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe
Swap to digest: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=digest
******************************************************
--- End Message ---
