Notice of Levy / Levy

cz3000 · #1 09-02-2006, 01:04 PM

Does anyone know if an IRS Lien / NOFTL is required PRIOR to the issuance of an IRS "Notice of Levy"

OR

what are the preocedural requirements in order that the IRS may legally Levy?

thx

ezrhythm · #2 09-02-2006, 02:53 PM

They must win a court judgement first!

David Merrill · #3 09-02-2006, 03:47 PM

ezyrhythm is correct;

There is work being done, successfully in parts to re-index the Notices of liens and levys under Notices instead of Liens at the local clerk and recorders offices.

However at the same time the IRS is writing private letters to employers, bankers and brokers so even that last bastion of common law notice and grace is being ignored.

It may take me some time to sanitize the extensive paperwork to compel the clerk to perform so be patient please. I will publish an article about it soon and link it from this post.

Regards,

David Merrill.

charlesa6 · #4 09-02-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

They must win a court judgement first!

Absolutely right!

cz3000 · #5 09-03-2006, 01:09 AM

that is my understanding as well.
Court Judgement Required
1. Anyone know if the O'Dell case has been overturned?
cuz' I can't find any amendment to the Const. pursuant to Art V which would give authority to just the 'IRS' to seize property without proper judicial/due process.

2. Specifically - is an IRS Lien/NOFTL req. PRIOR to an IRS Levy?

It is my understanding that according to their procedure, a Notice and Demand is req. and a Notice of Seizure, however, I am unclear regarding the Lien/NOFTL issue being req. as well for LEVIES.

(irrespective of the fact that so far - I cannot find any lawful reason for Levy absent a Court Order )

David Merrill · #6 09-03-2006, 07:15 AM

http://www.wegous.com/rod/tape/OhioS...onferenceA.wav

It is lengthy but skip around if you like. You should get the gist pretty quick that the county clerk and recorder is the heart of common law jural society. That is what the fight is about. They talk about their common law and are fighting against the encroachment of some wierd new form of common law. There is only one common law; it is a matter of clerical processes that substantiate authority in court decisions. That is the county clerk and recorder. That is what people fight for control over - their local bastion of common law where marriage licenses and warranty deeds are published and made commonly known to the entire county. On a national level it is the Secretary of State and internationally it is the US State Department.

This is the reason for controlling the indexing. During a proceeding the other day, a jury of about sixteen men and women somebody brought up the question, "If average Joe Blow with a private (mechanic's) lien goes into the county clerk and recorder with a Notice of Lien, how is that recorded compared to the way a Notice of Lien from the Treasury is recorded?"

Very scientific. However that is irrelevant to improperly indexing Notice of Liens in Liens instead of Notices. It however applies quite well to the fact that the Treasury gets better treatment as a person, influencing bankers, brokers and employers by finding simple notices indexed in Liens when a court order by statute must accompany a Notice of Lien for it to actually be a bona fide lien.

I have not heard that a notice of lien is required before a levy on wages can occur. Typically (recently anyway) because of the struggle over the county clerk, the IRS will not even send a Notice of Levy to the employer anymore. That Notice form can be traced to BATF or US Territorial activity by the OMB# on related Information Requests like the 1040 Form. So the IRS will just send one's employer a private letter saying you owe taxes and there you go. No chance to respond to any notice Refusal for Cause. Just a large percentage of the paychecks diverted to a third party because they sent a letter and titled it Levy.

But take a careful look through this attachment. This is only one small segment of a much larger project in the works. And to be honest, this is not my work. There are things, interpretations of common law that I disagree with. However these folks are doing this anyway and I will help them perfect processes according to law the best I know how.

My interpretation is that by curing a Notice at the county clerk and recorder, one has perfected a lien. However that is only when there is no diversity of citizenship. Agents of a foreign principal must file their claim in the district courts of the United States and get judgment there prior to moving forward.

Quote:

"Place for filing notice; form. Place for filing. The notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be filed -- with the clerk of the district court. In the office of the clerk of the United States district court for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated..." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323.

Of course citizens of the US are held in receivership by that same foreign principal, the IMF/UN. There is no diversity to claim once chattel. And of course if you have been applying by endorsement for private credit on your paychecks, you have been obligated to perform and supply the Federal Reserve with an honest Return every April 15. Deal in public money instead... non-endorse:

Quote:

Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of equal value.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...rve_System.mp3
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...lic-money.html

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...g?d=1154817615
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/attach...g?d=1154817615

Note the highlighted areas of the Staff Directory:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...ighlight=staff

Regards,

David Merrill.

cz3000 · #7 09-03-2006, 09:30 AM

thx for the info.

David Merrill · #8 09-03-2006, 09:33 AM

Anytime....

More later after sanitizing. I do not like Quatloser meddling in currently active projects and it is too bad the Readers here have to suffer for that. It would be good to clear up the county clerks all over the nation, win them back so to speak.

cz3000 · #9 09-03-2006, 09:59 AM

just came across this on a prior post by Weis.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...y-notices.html

A. IRM 9.7.13.2.1 notes the 2 PRIMARY statutes (26USC7301& 7302) under which property can be seized under the Internal Revenue Code (26USC).

B. Notice under 9.7.13..2.1 that 7301 obviously cannot relate to my wages because it is not property that can logically used in the manner described.

C. The next section IRM 9.7.13.2.2 CLEARLY STATES THAT 7302 , "cannot be used as a substitute to the collection of taxes"

XIV. Upon researching 26USC7301 &7302 in the Parallel Table of Authorities, (Exhibit 17) it can be shown that 7301 has no regulation in the CFR to either apply it or interpret it & 7302 is implemented in CFR27 which, again, deals with liquor, tobacco, & firearms taxes.

SUMMARY OF POINTS XII-XIV

THE 2 PRIMARY STATUTES UNDER TITLE 26 AUTHORIZING SEIZURES BOTH CANNOT RELATE TO ME AS AN ACCOUNT HOLDER OR PROVIDE FOR SEIZING MY ASSETS FOR COLLECTING TAXES AS THEY TRIED TO IMPLY IN THE PREVIOUS EXHIBITS 18 & 19 EXPLAINED BEFORE.

The legal basis for the U.S. government to collect a debt from a citizen is delineated in these final exhibits. Title 28 is Judicial Administration. Chapter 176 of 28USC is Federal Debt Collection Procedures which defines the processes involved in LAWFULLY collecting a debt from a citizen

The Federal Debt Collection Procedures/ Chapter 176 28USC

XV. 28USC 3001 (Exhibit 18) sets forth the "exclusive civil procedures for the United States....to recover judgment on a debt...." The word "exclusive" means what it says & says what it means regarding debt collection from civilians who are not involved in criminal activity.

XVI. 28USC3002 (Exhibit 19) has numerous definitions of the word "debt" among them being the words, "penalty" & "tax". Piecing the language of 28USC3001 with 28USC3002 in relation to my issue could read,<BLOCKQUOTE>" The Federal Debt Collection Procedure provides the exclusive civil procedures for the United States to recover judgment on a penalty or a tax"</blockquote>

XVII Exhibit 20 (A- F)

A. 28USC3102(a) instructs that "any property except earnings may be attached(seized) pursuant to a writ of attachment..."

B. 28USC 3102(b) says , "a court shall issue a writ authorizing the United States to attach property... in an action to recover a fine, penalty, or tax."

C. 28USC 3102(c) says, " a writ of attachment shall be issued directing the UNITED STATES MARSHAL OF THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PROPERTY....."

D. 28USC 3102(d)(5) says, "The United States Marshal shall file a copy of the notice of levy on the person who has possession of the property subject to the writ."

E. 28USC 3102(f)(1) deals with the "Satisfaction of Lien" by stating that in order for there to be a levy, it must be under a writ of attachment first then a lien is created.

F. 28USC 3104(a) & (b)(1)(A)state TWICE that earnings cannot be garnished even with a writ of garnishment.

SUMMARY OF XV-XVII

â€¢ ANY PROPERTY EXCEPT EARNINGS CAN BE SEIZED BY A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

â€¢ ONLY BY A COURT ORDER CAN A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT BE ISSUED IN COLLECTING A PENALTY OR TAX.

â€¢ ONLY A U.S. MARSHALL CAN SIEZE PROPERTY BY MEANS OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

â€¢ THE U.S. MARSHALL ALSO MUST FILE A NOTICE OF LEVY ON THE PERSON(S) IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (such as a bank) WHICH FIRST MUST BE SUBJECT TO A WRIT BEFORE THE MARSHALL CAN EVEN TAKE ACTION.

â€¢ THE COMBINATION OF 3102(a), 3104(a), &3104(b)(1)(A) TOTALS THREE TIMES THAT EARNINGS CANNOT BE GARNISHED BY EITHER A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT.

ezrhythm · #10 09-07-2006, 10:33 PM

At 28 USC § 2463: All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002463----000-.html