Levy time!

[Petrous]

The employer's counsel may refer to IRC 6332(d) and determine which a worse - you or the IRS.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Petrous

The employer's counsel may refer to IRC 6332(d) and determine which a worse - you or the IRS.

No contest as to which is worse, one is a decent man, the other is a foreign gang of extortionists with guns running a criminal organized syndicated "protection" racket.

What is IRC 6332(d)?

[Petrous]

mrg - 6332(d) holds liable the party who refuses to honor the levy and a penalty on top of it.

So, if you owe $500. It appears the section states that your employer would be held liable for $500 too and another $250 as a 50% penalty. That's a quick look.

Can anyone obtain the following case?
8th Judicial District of Nevada, 9/8/1998.
It's the appeal results of the Boulder Dam Credit Union.

[mrg]

The levy or the Notice?

[rottweiler]

A Man had a "problem" with the I.R.S. agency.
He sent every one of the "Papers" and envelopes which he had received from I.R.S., - back to them (He kept photocopies), with a photocopy of the envelopes (each Marked "Return to Sender -.No such Party at this location") attached to the "It Ain't Me" Cover letter.

Next time he checked - certain "Liens" which had previously been "On The Record" were marked discharged.

If you are a Flesh and Blood Man or Woman (of GOD) - DO NOT steal mail which is intended for a corporate fiction. It is against the law to keep mail which does not belong to you.

By keeping mail directed to a corporate fiction you are admitting that you must be (or you represent) that corporate fiction. When you actually Go (voluntarily) into the Court, you remove all doubt that you in fact DO "Represent" that ALL CAPITAL LETTER named fiction.

Commerce is "any promise (future performance) in ink on paper".

Contracts are "Commerce".

"Notes" are "Commerce" (Federal Reserve Notes, etc.).

Corporations, Trusts, Associations, are fictions on paper-Commerce

All Insurance is "Admiralty" and future promise - "Commerce".

All Fictions are commerce.

The Courts have jurisdiction over all fiction entities and all "Commerce".

THEREFORE', you are "subject" to the Admiralty /Commerce /military Court, if you voluntarily show up, after returning All papers of commerce with the "It- Ain't Me" cover letter with copies/exhibits attached to it.

The "It Ain't Me" letter denies and challenges "Personam", "Venue", and "Subject Matter" Primary elements of primary jurisdiction, - which destroys their "Presumption", is "Rebuttable Presumption", and they must reveal their FRAUD in order to refute the Written DENIAL which is what the "It Ain't Me" letter is. They would rather "Drop" or "dismiss" their case against you.
http://www.peoples-rights.com/Freedom.htm

[scottinalaska]

Rot,
I really like this approach. We have all heard of this before, but the simplicity with which you are sharing is great!
Now, Petrous et al:
We should know that although a penalty exists, let's see if a remedy exists too. IRC sec. 6331(d)(2) -
Penalty for violation -"...if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such propery without reasonable cause..."
Anyone catch it?
Therein lies the "employer's" remedy.
Of course, whether it is exercised is strictly dependent upon the fear successfully placed on the person potentially sending in the money.
How about stealing the money?
How about conversion of money?
How about embezzlement of money?
Whoa, now them's fightin' words, partner. But I'd rather fight with you that the IRS as fellow suijurers have so aptly said.
scottinalaska

[rottweiler]

scott,

Why don't you try sending all the letters you have received back to the IRS refused for cause? It can't hurt, can it? Keep copies for a miscellaneous case file.

The Notice of levy is not a Levy, besides that it only applies to government employees.

These enclosed documents were inadvertently received, and opened by mistake. These enclosed document(s), which appear to be________________________________________________ ____, are not understandable, acknowledgeable or recognizable under the penalty of False Personation must be returned.

The enclosure herein contains the aforementioned and misdirected documents; as there is not enough knowledge or information disclosed to form a responsive answer, said documents are being returned forthwith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singular response

print & cut along dotted line

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I inadvertently received the enclosed document(s) which appear to be


__________________________________________________ __
I do not know what this is all about. I do not understand or recognize these document(s).

I do not have enough knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.

So I am returning these document(s),


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions

Immediately Place documents to be returned in a new envelope. Immediately Address new envelope with document sender's address, also use this address as the return address. DO NOT use YOUR name or address on this envelope, Do not use any headings or signature on your response. The object is to return the presentment in the most neutral, non-committal manner possible Immediately. Do not rebut the issue or address anything in their documents. You simply return unwanted presentments. This is simply a misdirected posting being returned to the sender.

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Rot,
I really like this approach. We have all heard of this before, but the simplicity with which you are sharing is great!
Now, Petrous et al:
We should know that although a penalty exists, let's see if a remedy exists too. IRC sec. 6331(d)(2) -
Penalty for violation -"...if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such propery without reasonable cause..."
Anyone catch it?
Therein lies the "employer's" remedy.
Of course, whether it is exercised is strictly dependent upon the fear successfully placed on the person potentially sending in the money.
How about stealing the money?
How about conversion of money?
How about embezzlement of money?
Whoa, now them's fightin' words, partner. But I'd rather fight with you that the IRS as fellow suijurers have so aptly said.
scottinalaska

[Petrous]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Rot,
I really like this approach. We have all heard of this before, but the simplicity with which you are sharing is great!
Now, Petrous et al:
We should know that although a penalty exists, let's see if a remedy exists too. IRC sec. 6331(d)(2) -
Penalty for violation -"...if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such propery without reasonable cause..."
Anyone catch it?
Therein lies the "employer's" remedy.
Of course, whether it is exercised is strictly dependent upon the fear successfully placed on the person potentially sending in the money.
How about stealing the money?
How about conversion of money?
How about embezzlement of money?
Whoa, now them's fightin' words, partner. But I'd rather fight with you that the IRS as fellow suijurers have so aptly said.
scottinalaska

If the gov't says you have their money and you refuse to hand it over, then you stole from the gov't.
If the person says you have their moeny and you hand it over to the gov,t then you say the gov't stole your money.
The employer is in the middle.

[rottweiler]

Yes, it is quite the scam they have going. Ordo Ab Chao.

Originally Posted by Petrous

If the gov't says you have their money and you refuse to hand it over, then you stole from the gov't.
If the person says you have their moeny and you hand it over to the gov,t then you say the gov't stole your money.
The employer is in the middle.