U.S. v. O'Dell

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

But, if it were intended that the whole of the federal income tax fell on federal & DC civil servants, you'd see the income tax laws under Title 5 of the US Code, which deals with civil service, rather than a Title 26. The legislative history of the Tax Code makes very clear that Congress intended from the start that the federal income tax applied to virtually everyone, coast-to-coast, and the 16th Amendment makes clear that the income tax was without regard to the source of income. In fact, Title 26 references several forms of money-making that are simply not part of civil service.

The language of the 16th amendment, Title 26, tax code rules and regulations as well as Supreme Court rulings makes it very clear that it is special administrative code on certain privileged and/or licensed activities.

Ask yourself why numerous IMF files have people's occupations coded incorrectly (often coded as being involved in offshore occupations or occupations falling in the ATF's jurisdiction, such as gun manufacturing).

[rottweiler]

Each Title that has been passed into positive law records and indicates such passage within the Title itself. All persons living under the laws of the United States are bound by the "positive" laws in the Titles of the U.S. Code, whereas those Titles that are not passed into positive law are limited in application to specific classes of persons and places because the Federal governement does not have criminal jurisdiction over all people (sovereigns) or places (States), for ALL matters. Title 26, the Title containing the I.R. Code, has never been passed into Positive Law and therefore does not apply to all people. Who does this Title actually apply to then, if NOT all people?

44 U.S.C. § 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register -

(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
(2) documents or classes of documents that the President may determine from time to time have general applicability and legal effect; and
(3) documents or classes of documents that may be required so to be published by Act of Congress. For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

Basically this section provides that before ANY ACT OF GOVERNMENT becomes binding on ALL PERSONS in the nation, it must first be PUBLISHED in the Federal Register. Title 26 has NEVER been passed into positive law, nor have many of its associated regulations ever been printed in the Federal Register, therefore TITLE 26 CANNOT APPLY TO ANYONE EXCEPT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES as provided for in 44 USC 1505. Are you a Federal Employee ? Would you like to see what has been published in the Federal Register regarding Title 26 Section 1 ? How's this:

[[Federal Register: April 22, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 78)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 17614-17667] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
===DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1, 31, 35a, 301, 502, 503, 509, 513, 514, 516, 517, 520, and 521
[INTL-O62-90; INTL-0032-93; INTL-52-86; INTL-52-94]
RINS 1545-AO27; 1545-AR90; 1545-AL99; 1545-AT00
General Revision of Regulations Relating to Withholding of Tax on Certain U.S. Source Income Paid to Foreign Persons and Related Collection, Refunds, and Credits; Revision of Information Reporting and Backup Withholding Regulations; and Removal of Regulations Under Part 35a and of Certain Regulations Under Income Tax Treaties AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.]

ONLY POSITIVE LAWS have general applicability to everyone in America. ALL positive laws must appear in the Federal Register before it can be deemed that the general public has been placed on notice about a law, according to which they must control their conduct, and under which, they may be subsequently charged.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You're right. I saw DC and Federal. No special explanation for any other civil service.
The explanation was to simplify levy on Federal and DC civil servants (this adopted before DC had home rule), by eliminating doubts and arguments about which official and how high up the levy must be served.

But, if it were intended that the whole of the federal income tax fell on federal & DC civil servants, you'd see the income tax laws under Title 5 of the US Code, which deals with civil service, rather than a Title 26. The legislative history of the Tax Code makes very clear that Congress intended from the start that the federal income tax applied to virtually everyone, coast-to-coast, and the 16th Amendment makes clear that the income tax was without regard to the source of income. In fact, Title 26 references several forms of money-making that are simply not part of civil service.

[cz3000]

The class of people presumed to be "taxpayers"


re-posted from givemeliberty.org:

The Federal Income Tax Act of 1913 contained a sweeping, all-inclusive definition of "income", it being the clear intention of Congress at the time to apply the "income tax" to all American citizens living at home or abroad. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Brushaber substantially affected the government's interpretation of the definition of "income" within the meaning of the fundamental law, and "to whom" and "where" the income tax could apply.

The Brushaber Court specifically concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation. The Brushaber decision prompted Congress to revise the 1913 Act, and via Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916, amended 1917, declared that the "income" subject to the 1913 Act was not the same "income" to be taxed under the 1916 Act. But, what was the purpose of this change in the language, and by extension, the legal effect of the 1916 Act? UNFORTUNATELY, CONGRESS DID NOT EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MEANT BY SECTION 25.

One theory of the meaning of § 25 of the 1916 Act is based on location, that Section 25 removed the application of the
un-apportioned direct "income" tax on salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans living and working at home, leaving the application of the un-apportioned direct "income" tax on salaries, wages and compensation of non-resident aliens and American citizens living and working abroad. This, it is argued is the reason that not a single federal income tax act since 1916 has ever mentioned the imposition of an un-apportioned direct "income" tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of citizens "at home," although the same acts repeatedly mention citizens abroad and particularly those in the insular possessions.

Evidence of this solely external, "locational" application of the un-apportioned direct "income tax" on salaries, wages and compensation is demonstrated in several ways. First, the IRS Commissioner has been delegated via T.D.O.s published in the Federal Register authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation only in the area external to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union. If the Commissioner has been delegated authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation in the area internal to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union, that authority has not been published in the Federal Register and is therefore a secret, so it could not concern American citizens "at home," without violating their due process Rights.

Further, federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency's field structure which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home.

But perhaps the most compelling proof of the "locational" application of the federal income tax in the manner noted above is derived from analysis of the IRS' compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The federal income tax is imposed via § 1 of the IRC. But the "information collection request" applicable to this section is Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income." Further as shown by the OMB control number assigned to 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-3, the specific tax return required to be filed at service centers is Form 1040NR. And a "TIN" can only be obtained by a non-resident alien; see Form W-7.

Another theory of the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Act is that it is based on classifications of people, distinguishing between aliens and citizens, imposing no un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they live and work, but authorizing an un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation on resident aliens working here and on employees of the federal government who voluntarily agreed to labor for the government.

Countering the "location" theory and in support of the "classification" theory is the argument that the fundamental law prohibits the imposition of an un-apportioned tax directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they may be living and working, and there is no Supreme Court ruling that an un-apportioned tax can be imposed directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens living and working abroad.

Most Americans believe that today, the tax scheme of the 1913 act is still in effect, but the truth of the matter is that it is not.
In fact, the present tax scheme is the exact opposite of the 1913 tax scheme, created by the 1916 act amended by the Act of 1917.

[cz3000]

Shoonra, barring exigent circumstances, what makes you think that a 'levy' would be valid if property is seized prior to a judicial determination?


2. If you maintain that the levy would be valid due to X, then when (if any) should judicial review occur?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have been waiting in vain for someone with at least a high school reading level to set you straight, but evidently that's not gonna happen.

The one sentence in sec 6331(a) about govt employees - federal, state, or local - being levied by service upon their "employer" was put there to eliminate any confusion or delay about whether govt employees' salaries have to be levied by service on the governor or the state comptroller or the head of their department or the civil service commission or whatever. This makes it clear and simple. So much for handling the cases of govt employees -- levy on them pretty much the way the rest of humanity (non-civil service) gets levied.

The section did not mean that only civil servants pay taxes. If someone read the case I cited they'd have seen how the section works.

Anyway, subsection (e) which has been studiously avoided, prevents lawsuits against banks and other organizations and people who comply with an IRS levy.

And I notice that nobody has come forward on the issue of the validity of the "Boulder Dam Credit Union" decision.

[Shoonra]

Finally a sensible question.

The seizure by the IRS on the basis of a levy or notice of lien, before any judicial activity, is based on the very grim experience of having tax scofflaws conceal their assets if they get the slightest forewarning. So the IRS seizes first and, usually, it's the taxpayer who has to sue to get it back. The IRS loses these lawsuits occasionally, but not for the nutty arguments I've seen here.

[rottweiler]

The Crown was using the same tactics before and that led to the American Revolution. This time is the last time.

The way it is supposed to work is the IRS seizes property and the admiralty court reviews the seizure to make sure everything was done correctly. If no warrant of distraint is present, the property is returned with costs. If the victim is ignorant and becomes the moving party by filing a action in a jurisdiction other than the admiralty he will find that revenue seizures are not repleviable.

The Crown can not operate here lawfully so they operate unlawfully. Problem is people are getting wise to them.

Shoonra works for the Crown, that's why I look forward to seeing her hang for treason.


[quote=cz3000]
Shoonra, barring exigent circumstances, what makes you think that a 'levy' would be valid if property is seized prior to a judicial determination?


2. If you maintain that the levy would be valid due to X, then when (if any) should judicial review occur?

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Finally a sensible question.

The seizure by the IRS on the basis of a levy or notice of lien, before any judicial activity, is based on the very grim experience of having tax scofflaws conceal their assets if they get the slightest forewarning. So the IRS seizes first and, usually, it's the taxpayer who has to sue to get it back. The IRS loses these lawsuits occasionally, but not for the nutty arguments I've seen here.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Finally a sensible question.

The seizure by the IRS on the basis of a levy or notice of lien, before any judicial activity, is based on the very grim experience of having tax scofflaws conceal their assets if they get the slightest forewarning. So the IRS seizes first and, usually, it's the taxpayer who has to sue to get it back. The IRS loses these lawsuits occasionally, but not for the nutty arguments I've seen here.

Nothing nutty about anything I've said....as a matter of fact you just proved what I said about in rem to be true and you also managed to demonstrate how corrupt and turned around the courts are. Gov't can seize in exigent circumstances, but IF they play by the rules (which IRS almost never does, they hold the opinion the rules only applies to the peons, which Im sure you're in agreement with them!) the "levy" IS INVALID without the warrant. The libelant has the right to demand the LoR hearing and the burden is on GOVERNMENT not the libelant. NO WARRANT... NO VALID LEVY!!! Doesnt matter if Boulder Dam is valid in this instance.....cuz it's in the Supplemental Rules for certain admiralty claims. (I appreciate the info about Boulder Dam tho!)

So now Shoonra, are you gonna tell me that the Huntress is invalid or overturned.....I dont think so!

[rottweiler]

Admiralty law: seizure and forfeiture

By Jim Welch
I would like to bring up a most important point regarding the application of Admiralty Law against the American people.

An example is the below case. Others occur on a daily basis throughout the United States with every seizure of property without the property owner being charged in any crime. Rather they "charge" the property with the crime and seize the property.

Here is the point. The application of Admiralty Law against the People was one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. The Founders were adamant in their opposition to this practice and there was never any provision for this oppression allowed in the Constitution.

Rather, just the opposite is evidenced by three documents. The Declaration of Independence was actually the third Declaration issued by the Founders. The Declaration of Independence culminated the frustrations of the Colonies because Great Britian ignored the pleas to correct the injustices listed in the 2 earlier Declarations. AND BOTH LISTED THE APPLICATION OF ADMIRALTY LAW AGAINST THE PEOPLE AS A GRIEVANCE!

The first Declaration was the, "DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS," October 14,1774.

I wish to underscore the significance of placing this grievance in the FIRST paragraph of this declaration of grievances. In the FIRST paragraph, our Founding Fathers stated:

"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties , but for the trial of causes merely arising within the
body of a county."

NOTES: The "last war" they are referring to is the "French and Indian War." Please notice the Founder's objection to the extension of Courts of Admiralty. These Courts were to operate on the high seas, and to serve as collectors for duties on imported goods or fees associated with ships as well as administering the "Prize Courts" (the seizure of property). These courts, however, were not supposed to be applied on land against the people. On land, the People were to be served by "Common Law." They were never supposed to be used "for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."

Great Britian ignored the first declaration, and so the following year, the Founders went on to again bring up this grievance in the second declaration issued on July 6, 1775. This Declaration is known as, "THE DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES AND NECESSITY OF TAKING UP ARMS."

In this declaration the Founders state:

"These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." (MY NOTE: Please understand the preceeding sentence. Today is a carbon copy repeat of this philosphy of government)

"The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.

Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.

They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable priviledge of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of
government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can of right make laws to bind us in all cases what so ever. What is to defend us against so enormous so unlimited a power?"

Please once again notice the position in their list of grievances where the Founders place this policy of "...extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty ...." They placed this grievance BEFORE objecting to not having a trial by jury, BEFORE the suspension of one of the legislatures of one of the Colonies (equal to suspending the legislature of one of our States), BEFORE their complaint of the central government (Great Britain) changing the very system of our government, and even BEFORE complaining that the central government was "...exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial...!"

Indeed, the Founders strenously objected to applying Admiralty Law against the people! The third proof is found in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; ...."

And the 5th Amendment states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Just what kind of Law does the Constitution refer to, when it speaks of the
people being subjected to?

The 7th Amendment gives that answer.

It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."

Please note it does not leave any wiggle room. The Law we are to be subjected to in any controversy exceeding 20 dollars is the Common Law! NOT ADMIRALTY LAW!

And, YES!, this abridgement of our Liberties is as serious today as it was in 1775!

[Livefire]

rottweiler,

While I agree with your source, I think its become far worse. IRS and DoJ are a lawless bunch and for the most part ignore the rules that govern admiralty proceedings. The bastard/bitch in black allows those agencies to proceed in just about any manner they want. If a defendant steps outta line during their fleecing session in tax court or the USDC.....the so called judge cuts yer gonads off with the use of the legal "F" word (frivolous) and and the threat of rule 11 sanctions. Its real tough to win a fight when you're disarmed and have your hands tied behind your back.

The only chance you might have is to let the IRS do their thing with the levy, then demand the LoR hearing as a matter of right. Otherwise, you have to pay the amount due before you attempt a civil suit in USDC and that make YOU the plaintiff with the burden of proof.

[rottweiler]

Now in reality we all know the Crown Templars will do whatever they damn well please and the constitution and laws be damned. The attornies in the courts can't/won't stop them because they ARE the Templars, same with all the attornies in DC and that means war.
The courts are designed to be a place to hash out differences short of bloodshed. That system is broken down with the weight of the greed and corruption of the purple and scarlet whore. There can be no peace without justice.

Revelation, chapter 17
"1": And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

"2": With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

"3": So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

"4": And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

"5": And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

"6": And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

"7": And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

"8": The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

"9": And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

"10": And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

"11": And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

"12": And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

"13": These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

"14": These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

"15": And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

"16": And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

"17": For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

"18": And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.



TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 163 >

§ 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable.

REPLEVIN - An action to recover personal property said or claimed to be unlawfully taken.

What this means is the IRS seizes in the A/M jurisdiction and the victim of the unlawful seizure is starting a frivolous action when they sue to recover personal property in a different jurisdiction. The only option that theoretically has a ghost of a chance is the LoR.

The reason I say theoretical ghost of a chance is there does not appear to be a judiciary. Now I have no proof of that other then judges being taxpayers themselves.

A Florida magistrate ordered the NFTL on Lucille Offiler to be cancelled. The cancellation was voided but she has petitioned for that order to be voided.

Here is the Progress Docket:

Mar 19, 2007 Osceola FL Circuit Civil Div

8:49 am Progress Docket for CI 04 -OC -001731

LUCILLE JANICE OFFILER vs. EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE, et al

Uniform Case Number: 49 2004 CI 001731

Date Filed: 07/27/04
Title: OFFILER VS EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE

Status : OPEN Judge : JD1

Status Dt.: 07/27/04 Last Active: 03/15/07

MOTION HEARING 12/27/04 10:45 am

NOTICE DISMISS 04/17/06 2:30 pm

MOTION HEARING 09/07/06 3:30 pm

MOTION HEARING 12/13/06 4:15 pm

MOTION HEARING 02/27/07 9:00 am

Jury Reqd? : N Pro Se? : Y Served Y/N/P: Y

Paid to Dt: 487.50

Judge KEST, JOHN MARSHALL Circuit Court

2 COURTHOUSE SQUARE 407-343-2491
KISSIMMEE FL 34741

Plaintiff 1 (P01)

Pty 1 OFFILER, LUCILLE JANICE
Defendant 1 (D01)

Pty 2 EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
ORLANDO LOCAL OFFICE

Defendant 2 (D02)
Pty 3 UNITED STATES,
REPRESENTED BY UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY PAUL PEREZ

Case Actions:
07/27/04 255.00 Assessed .CI CIRCUIT CIVIL FILING
07/27/04 255.00 Total Payment CA CACASH
07/27/04 COMPLAINT TO DISCHARGE LIEN AND REMEDY FOR CA0727 #SUMM:1 PLA FILING A FRAUDULENT LIEN
07/27/04 COMPLAINT (EXHIBIT A)
07/27/04 COMPLAINT (EXHIBIT B)
08/30/04 NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
12/10/04 REQUEST FOR HEARING AS TO COURT'S EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
12/16/04 Notice of Hearing 12/27/04 10:45 AM
12/16/04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
02/06/06 Notice of Intent Dismiss/Failure to Prosecute
04/04/06 MOTION FOR STATUS OF LIENS AND MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF STATE COURT JURISDICTION OF THIS ACTION
04/04/06 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AA0404
06/13/06 Summons Returned, Other Service
06/13/06 NOTICE OF SERVICE ON PARTIES
EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
07/29/04 DATE SERVED
08/07/06 Notice of Hearing 9/7/06 3:30 PM
09/05/06 3.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
09/05/06 3.00 Total Payment CA BWCASH
09/08/06 25.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
09/08/06 25.00 Total Payment CA LPCASH
09/08/06 ORDER OF CANCELLATION
09/08/06 ORDER OF CANCELLATION (REC)
09/08/06 Order of Cancellation (REC)
09/18/06 2.50 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
09/18/06 2.50 Total Payment CA BWCASH
10/17/06 36.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
10/17/06 36.00 Total Payment MO
10/18/06 36.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
10/18/06 36.00 Total Payment MO
10/24/06 36.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
10/24/06 36.00 Total Payment CK
11/08/06 36.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
11/08/06 36.00 Total Payment MO
11/16/06 MOTION FOR JUDGMENTS AND HEARING
11/30/06 5.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
11/30/06 5.00 Total Payment CA LPCASH
12/01/06 2.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
12/01/06 2.00 Total Payment CA LPCASH
12/01/06 NOTICE OF HEARING 12/13/06 4:15PM
12/14/06 Order Rescinding Order of Cancellation of Lien
12/14/06 Order Rescinding Order of Cancellation of
Lien
01/08/07 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO DISCHARGE LIEN AND REMEDY FOR FILING A FRAUDULENT LIEN
01/08/07 7.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
01/08/07 7.00 Total Payment CA SHCASH
01/12/07 11.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
01/12/07 11.00 Total Payment CA SHCASH K
01/26/07 Certificate of Service
01/26/07 Summons Returned, Corporate Service
01/31/07 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT
01/31/07 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY STATUS
01/31/07 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY COURT
02/01/07 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
02/09/07 14.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
02/09/07 14.00 Total Payment CA BWCASH
02/09/07 NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARING 2/27/07 9:00AM
02/12/07 LINE DOCKETED IN ERROR
02/12/07 ORDER STRIKING NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARING AND STAYING STATE COURT ACTION
02/13/07 18.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
02/13/07 18.00 Total Payment MO
02/14/07 1.00 Assessed .CP COPY FEE
02/14/07 1.00 Total Payment CA
03/15/07 PETITION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT/ORDER

Originally Posted by Livefire

rottweiler,

While I agree with your source, I think its become far worse. IRS and DoJ are a lawless bunch and for the most part ignore the rules that govern admiralty proceedings. The bastard/bitch in black allows those agencies to proceed in just about any manner they want. If a defendant steps outta line during their fleecing session in tax court or the USDC.....the so called judge cuts yer gonads off with the use of the legal "F" word (frivolous) and and the threat of rule 11 sanctions. Its real tough to win a fight when you're disarmed and have your hands tied behind your back.

The only chance you might have is to let the IRS do their thing with the levy, then demand the LoR hearing as a matter of right. Otherwise, you have to pay the amount due before you attempt a civil suit in USDC and that make YOU the plaintiff with the burden of proof.