After reading the case, (a small one, and not a proper copy, but the one from the WTP web site) I think some of what Mr. Schultz claims appears to be untrue.

The following from the WTP website concerning this:

Quote[Queensbury, NY – On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.

Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),

“...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order…[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing.”

Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere “requests.” ]

This from the court documents on the same web site:

Quote [See Reisman, 375 U.S. at 446 (“[O]nly a refusal to comply with an20order of the district judge subjects the witness to contempt proceedings.”). Any lesser protections would expose taxpayers to consequences derived directly from IRS summonses,1raising an immediate controversy upon their issuance.

and:

IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers,and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order. In addition, we hold that if the IRS seeks enforcement of a summons through the courts, those subject to the proposed order must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the government’s request.]

The gist I got from the case is that the IRS had issued an "administrative summons" wanting information form Mr. Schultz, Mr. Schults refused and initiated an action to quash that summons. The court determined that no controversy existed as the "administrative summons" had no legal effect, absent a court order. The statement above from the WTP website about it concerning personal property is a little of a stretch as the summons was for paper and records, property to be sure, but the issue was not about anything other than that.

I would think that this would be an interesting angle to apply to the "Notice of federal tax lien" as the same argument could apply in that instance, there was no court order accompanying or authorizing the "notice of federal tax lien".

I think I will write a letter to the county that recorded the one they sent about me and ask them where the court order is that authorized that to be filed as if it were a lien.