Levy time!

[scottinalaska]

PP,
so a restricted signature would look like....?
That way all of us stuck in the "you must obey" kind of job might rectify our W4's.
s

[scottinalaska]

Still looking for what a restricted signature would like if you care to show an example. Is it as simple as "All rights reserved" or more?

Now for an update:
The wife and I met with the School Superintendent and the two accounting ladies yesterday.
I had prepared an almost six page letter I read to them listing all sorts of great evidences that the "Notice of Levy" was just that: A Notice. And not a Levy. I used IRC, Court cases, and law.
At the end of my reading, almost ten minutes interspersed with comments to keep it personal, and each had their own transcript, the Superintendent stated that he had already submitted the Notice to the District's counsel and counsel told them they had to honor and obey the computer printout titled "Notice of Levy" by mailing in my wife's money until they got a "release of Levy."
We have about a week before her first month's paycheck goes out. And the superintendent said he would fax our presentation over to the counsel right away.
I struck a proposal that they keep my wife's pay for another month(two months pay at that point) until which time the IRS sends a lawful levy. The Superintendent went quickly back to, "Our counsel says...." and "This is between you and the IRS."
My letter gave strong implication that the District would be liable if they started mailing away money. Also, I told him I would like it to be between ONLY us and the IRS. But if they send the money, it will cease to be between ONLY the IRS and us. Surely they got the hint!
Well, just an update.
scottinalaska

[mrg]

I signed last year's W-4

"Without Prejudice UCC 1-308"

underneath the signature.

[charlesa6]

Yea, that's a good thing. You get to make a habit to sign it all the time in all your docs.

[James]

"Our counsel says...."

District's Counsel has a vested interest to defraud.

Attorneys are among those required to file a return, or else they lose the privilege to interpret the statutes and code, to wit:
Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) under Attorneys:

"We will not seek to create an exception or attempt to distinguish a failure-to-file-income-tax-returns proceeding on the question of moral turpitude. Rather, we hold that the failure to file income tax returns represents a violation of a lawyer's oath of office and further represents a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that it will be the subject of disciplinary proceedings." Application for Discipline in re James E. Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 199 N.W.2d 628.

"By his conduct, Adams has violated several of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates ... (2) failure to pay federal income taxes, or filed late tax returns for 1989, 1990, and 1991, and failure to file federal tax returns for 1994; 1995, and 1996; ... and Rule 8.4 (all subsections of misconduct)." Matter of Godbold, 336 S.C. 568, 521 S.E.2d 160 (1999)

"The term "serious crime" shall include any felony and any lesser crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime, involves improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of Justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious crime." In re Weisensee, 1975, S.D., 224 N.W.2d 830

"We are compelled to conclude that failure to file a federal income tax return, which is a misdemeanor, but which violation in reality turns out to be a second violation and also a violation of a condition of his probation, and the wrongful claiming of ineligible dependents, constitute actions involving moral turpitude for which a suspension from the practice of law is warranted." Matter of Fosaaen, 234 N.W.2d 867, 869 (N.D. 1975)

"The intentional violation of the tax laws is also a violation of Canon 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. Governments cannot operate effectively unless their revenue laws are obeyed. Such a violation of the tax laws by an attorney is a matter of serious concern because he necessarily must advise clients with respect to their obeyance of such laws. Furthermore, the legal profession is one which is peculiarly charged with the administration of our laws and therefore it is incumbent upon lawyers to set an example for others in observing the law. The intentional failure to file income tax returns evinces an attitude on the part of the attorney of placing himself above the law. Such an attitude does not befit a lawyer." STATE WISCONSIN v. ROLLAND R. ROGGENSACK, 19 Wis. 2d 38, 119 N.W.2d 412

"Convictions for willful failure to file income tax returns have received diverse treatment by this Court and have resulted in a variety of sanctions. The question concerning such convictions usually centers on whether moral turpitude or dishonesty or fraud is involved. In cases where the attorney's failure to file was motivated by a desire to deprive the government of income to which it was rightfully entitled we have held that deceit and moral turpitude were involved and ordered disbarment." See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barnes, 286 Md. 474, 408 A.2d 719 (1979); Rheb v. Bar Ass'n of Baltimore, 186 Md. 200, 46 A.2d 289 (1946).

"The evidence shows that respondent has been fully co-operating with those in charge of the Internal Revenue Service in an endeavor to ascertain the correct amount of tax he owes for the years involved and that he intends to pay the full amount thereof, together with penalties and interest assessed against him, when that amount has been established. There is no evidence before us that respondent has ever breached his duty as a lawyer nor is there any evidence that he has ever been guilty of any other wrongdoing as a private citizen. In view of the facts herein set forth, and all the circumstances disclosed by the record relating thereto, we think the ends of justice will be properly served by suspending respondent from the further practice of law, . . "State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Fitzgerald, 165 Neb. 212, 219, 85 N. W. (2d) 323 (1957)

[scottinalaska]

Wow, James! You pulled that one out of the hat!
I suppose I am pinning my hopes(false as most would say) on maybe, just maybe, the attorney won't be advising that they disregard the Notice, only that they delay mailing away her paycheck while the employee gets her sh!t together with the IRS. It could be considered a "courtesy." I did propose that.
Yeah right. But maybe....
I just hate that line, "It is really between you and the IRS" all the while WE'll be mailing your pay to them because WE'RE good citizens.
scottinalaska

[scottinalaska]

I was encouraged to update by norwester, but not with encouraging news. The following might help someone with a more reasonable boss, so I'll post it. I sent the following email with a "Constructive Notice"(I intend to sue kind of paper) and with a challenge to the IRS letter.

Dear Dr. Elliot, Lorene, and Rene,
This email would only go to Dr. Elliot, but considering he is out of State and your job is directly related to this, I am CC’ing it to both of you. We are not attempting to bully, harass, or intimidate you. Dr. Elliot stated plainly in our phone conversation this morning that we must do what we feel is right. This is what we are doing.
The purpose of this letter is to give you hesitation in sending off [my wife's] pay today. We are NOT asking you to NOT send it. But hold it only until you receive verification of the “Notice of Levy’s” legitimacy.

If you had read our letter from a couple weeks ago, you might have reason to doubt the validity of the “Notice of Levy,” but you are counting on the advice of your counsel. Since that time, I have met with Dr. Elliot and he assured me that [my wife's] check would be held until the 15th of March. I have learned from him this morning that I may have misheard, as it sounds like you are attempting to get the check there BY the 15th of March and therefore mailing it today.

We were hoping to have one more audience with Dr. Elliot to give him a simple letter for the agent of the IRS to sign under penalty of perjury. This letter (attached here) has a simple check box and place to sign that the Notice of Levy is indeed a lawful levy, THUS indemnifying the District from a successful lawsuit. This puts the legal determination not on me, the District, District Staff, or even your counsel. It places it directly on the IRS itself.
[the above I thought would be the gem]
I am hoping to convince you that in order to relieve the District from liability, the IRS must send a verified Levy with a signature of who would be responsible if it were not lawful. Dr. Elliot stated to me this morning that without a “court order from a court of competent jurisdiction” he felt he could not even take money from us as a good faith gesture to cover any perceived impending penalty. This statement evidences a certain knowledge of the law by Dr. Elliot. The lacking court order with the “Notice of Levy” is quite evidencing as well.

Thus the urgency of this letter. Attached is a copy of the coming Constructive Notice, that we are now compelled to send electronically so you can act accordingly and in a timely fashion. Dr. Elliot’s willingness to send a verification letter to the agent who sent the Notice is appreciated, but it will damage us financially if it is preceded by sending in [my wife's] pay first.
As mentioned above, we have also attached the simple letter that the agent from the IRS need sign.

Thank you for your time.
I understand that you need to send this on to counsel and would encourage that you do so before committing the District to possibly much more than a penalty if you delayed a day or two to make this decision. This penalty, by the way, is nonexistent under the IRC 6331(d) (2) if a reasonable cause has been presented. I think a potential lawsuit qualifies as reasonable cause if the IRC’s own codes, court cases, and the law is not sufficient.

As it turns out, he has chosen to put it in his drawer and not even send it to counsel! Saying that they will rely on their advice from month ago.
I am surprised that the Constructive Notice could so flippantly be ignored. It's almost as if it were the lesser of two evils: IRS vs. Criminal Complaint. Most would pick the IRS as the more evil of the two. If I were a school board member, I’d be pissed. Let’s see. You get an unsigned computer printout that only requests that you do something and does not seek to damage you and you ask counsel about it. A couple weeks later you get an original letter, notarized, signed, with threat to sue, and you put in your drawer!?!!??

That's the update. I am pursuing the CTC method(Pete Hendrixson) in hopes of getting some money back and maybe getting the magical compuer printout, unsigned that says, "Release of levy".
In the meantime, we still eat caribou and moose!
scottinalaska

[rottweiler]

The IRS and the third parties that honor the Notice of Levy are protected by sovereign immunity. That is why Dr. Elliot and his evil cohorts are safe in the fact they are disregarding your threat to hold them personally responsible.

Try this instead.
http://freedivorceforms.net/armor/

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

I was encouraged to update by norwester, but not with encouraging news. The following might help someone with a more reasonable boss, so I'll post it. I sent the following email with a "Constructive Notice"(I intend to sue kind of paper) and with a challenge to the IRS letter.

Dear Dr. Elliot, Lorene, and Rene,
This email would only go to Dr. Elliot, but considering he is out of State and your job is directly related to this, I am CC’ing it to both of you. We are not attempting to bully, harass, or intimidate you. Dr. Elliot stated plainly in our phone conversation this morning that we must do what we feel is right. This is what we are doing.
The purpose of this letter is to give you hesitation in sending off [my wife's] pay today. We are NOT asking you to NOT send it. But hold it only until you receive verification of the “Notice of Levy’s” legitimacy.

If you had read our letter from a couple weeks ago, you might have reason to doubt the validity of the “Notice of Levy,” but you are counting on the advice of your counsel. Since that time, I have met with Dr. Elliot and he assured me that [my wife's] check would be held until the 15th of March. I have learned from him this morning that I may have misheard, as it sounds like you are attempting to get the check there BY the 15th of March and therefore mailing it today.

We were hoping to have one more audience with Dr. Elliot to give him a simple letter for the agent of the IRS to sign under penalty of perjury. This letter (attached here) has a simple check box and place to sign that the Notice of Levy is indeed a lawful levy, THUS indemnifying the District from a successful lawsuit. This puts the legal determination not on me, the District, District Staff, or even your counsel. It places it directly on the IRS itself.
[the above I thought would be the gem]
I am hoping to convince you that in order to relieve the District from liability, the IRS must send a verified Levy with a signature of who would be responsible if it were not lawful. Dr. Elliot stated to me this morning that without a “court order from a court of competent jurisdiction” he felt he could not even take money from us as a good faith gesture to cover any perceived impending penalty. This statement evidences a certain knowledge of the law by Dr. Elliot. The lacking court order with the “Notice of Levy” is quite evidencing as well.

Thus the urgency of this letter. Attached is a copy of the coming Constructive Notice, that we are now compelled to send electronically so you can act accordingly and in a timely fashion. Dr. Elliot’s willingness to send a verification letter to the agent who sent the Notice is appreciated, but it will damage us financially if it is preceded by sending in [my wife's] pay first.
As mentioned above, we have also attached the simple letter that the agent from the IRS need sign.

Thank you for your time.
I understand that you need to send this on to counsel and would encourage that you do so before committing the District to possibly much more than a penalty if you delayed a day or two to make this decision. This penalty, by the way, is nonexistent under the IRC 6331(d) (2) if a reasonable cause has been presented. I think a potential lawsuit qualifies as reasonable cause if the IRC’s own codes, court cases, and the law is not sufficient.

As it turns out, he has chosen to put it in his drawer and not even send it to counsel! Saying that they will rely on their advice from month ago.
I am surprised that the Constructive Notice could so flippantly be ignored. It's almost as if it were the lesser of two evils: IRS vs. Criminal Complaint. Most would pick the IRS as the more evil of the two. If I were a school board member, I’d be pissed. Let’s see. You get an unsigned computer printout that only requests that you do something and does not seek to damage you and you ask counsel about it. A couple weeks later you get an original letter, notarized, signed, with threat to sue, and you put in your drawer!?!!??

That's the update. I am pursuing the CTC method(Pete Hendrixson) in hopes of getting some money back and maybe getting the magical compuer printout, unsigned that says, "Release of levy".
In the meantime, we still eat caribou and moose!
scottinalaska

[scottinalaska]

Sovereign Immunity?
What, they can claim that and be indemnified? I think I'll claim that next time some person with a fine hat or robe thinks I should "pay" for my offense.
That sounds crazy, Rot.
At what point in time did either party obtain this SI?
scottinalaska

[rottweiler]

You can claim immunity also.
http://www.peoples-rights.com/Freedom.htm

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Sovereign Immunity?
What, they can claim that and be indemnified? I think I'll claim that next time some person with a fine hat or robe thinks I should "pay" for my offense.
That sounds crazy, Rot.
At what point in time did either party obtain this SI?
scottinalaska