Accept For Value or Commercial Lien during IRS Audit

Hi Rottweiler,

You mentioned that Schiff et al are always trying to prove a negative and that's what gets them in trouble. Albeit I know it is impossible to prove a negative, what is it exactly they were or are trying to prove? Can you give me an example?

Thank you.

[rottweiler]

How do you intend to use all that for a remedy? Who will give it? A court? A agent? The IRS may give you a due process hearing and at that hearing they will simply state that everything they are doing is correct and if you don't like it to file in US TAX COURT. You will have the burden of proof that the Tax Code was not followed. If you go there and lose you will be told to file in US DISTRICT COURT. You will have to deposit the amount in question and will still have the burden of proof. Very few win there.

I have a question for you. Have you read AreYouLostAt"C" yet? Do you understand it? I think it will answer all your questions if you would read it.

Originally Posted by BabaHump

Hello Rottweiler

Up to this point I've not made any argument with the agent. I merely ask them to answer my questions point for point. My questions are regarding several items in IRC, Social Security Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, Privacy Act, Tax Payer's Bill of Right among a few others which the agent did not follow during this whole "audit" process.

Although I did not accuse him of "breaking" rules or laws, but my questions were to ask him to present to me if he or the IRS are exempt from those codes I sited. This was all done in an affidavit format ("I am not in possession of...") If he can show me, then I will agree with his audit process.

Of course, he can't and he is presenting me with the "Changes" unsigned. I think I am simply going to continue to ask him to present the same material especially on the fact that perhaps he is not required to follow the IRC. If he can show me that he is not required to follow IRC then I will accept his audit result. If he is required to follow the IRC then he needs to sign under penalty of purjury that he and managers have followed the IRS and all the statutes and codes passed by Congress regarding. I think I might state that if he does not sign then he is at default and is presumed to agree.

My point is to simply stay and stick to the original point of showing me that he/IRS has followed the rules (IRC etc) instead reacting to each new opportunity for argument they may present. They may not like the truth, they may "yell" at the truth, but eventually the truth will be self-evident even in court as long as I do not stray from the truth - I hope!

I don't know if I should also mention that if he agrees to sign that he has followed all IRC and other relevant codes just as he expected me to (otherwise why would he audit the 1040's I filed?) if I should mention that he agrees to be personally liable for damages done if he did in fact NOT follow the IRC.

What do you think? Suggestions and constructive criticism requested (please dont just tell me I'll end up in Jail... not helpful. )

Thanks!

Hello Rottweiler,

Thanks for the challenge.

Perhaps I am just naive, but I don't have a problem with the agent or other IRS employees telling me that they are following all the codes and statutes required... as long as they are willing to sign under purjury and show me the proof that they did point-for-point. For example, show me that the IRS is exempt from the Social Security Act since they freely distributed to quite a few parties not privy to that info and with out my consent.

If they determin that they have followed all the codes then they shouldn't have problem signing a very simple statement saying that fact, and that they have satisfied my simple inquries, and that the signing agent would be personally responsible if his statement is false - right? So if we end up at CDPH and they insist that they followed all the codes including the ones in question, so just show me and sign a statement.

Your question of who will provide the remedy... well... that's why I came here in the first place... the one thing that always bothers me is that the IRS or courts can simply bull-doze over anyone they wanted to. So at the CDPH (which I've never been to one) could they not simply end the hearing and determine whatever they want? It's like those people who go to CDPH determined to have the agent show them where it is said that they are required to pay income tax. Sure, the agents gets frustrated and may call the hearing to an end, but that does not mean they will not pursue it with liens or levy...

So... this is where I am stuck... what does it matter what we ask or present? Could they not simply ignore you (as the California Franchise tax board is very good at doing) and simply run you over?

Please show me the way.

By the way, I really don't want a CDPH or initiate any court hearig. I don't want to be the plaintif. However, I also don't see what would possess the IRS to file suit instead. All they have to do is to lien and levy - end of story, job done.

Tell me i am wrong

[rottweiler]

IRS needs to follow their laws when they seize your property.

They almost never do.

They need a court order to seize your property if they are challenged properly.

They almost never get one.

IRS agents always believe they are doing the right thing.

This belief gives you very little chance for a agent to throw out the assessment at the Due Process Hearing.

They will inform you that you have 90 days or whatever to petition US TAX COURT. You will ask a former IRS attorney in a fake court called "THE JUDGE" to allow you to prove that the IRS did not follow the law. In this "court" you will have the burden of proof that the IRS did not follow the law. Your odds are slim. Why? You have assumed the burden of proof. Your arguments will be considered "frivolous" and the seizure shall continue.

They will advise you to go to US DISTRICT COURT. You will have the burden of proof and the judge will not let you prove diddly squat. Your case shall be called "frivolous" and the seizure shall continue.

If you continue to resist with "frivolous arguments" you are what is called a Tax Protestor. This is what Schiff advocates, consequently, he is in a cage now and his property is bye-bye.

Why would anyone try to prove something did not happen with a hostile "judge" that has a conflict of interest?

Originally Posted by BabaHump

Hi Rottweiler,

You mentioned that Schiff et al are always trying to prove a negative and that's what gets them in trouble. Albeit I know it is impossible to prove a negative, what is it exactly they were or are trying to prove? Can you give me an example?

Thank you.

[rottweiler]

IRS will not file suit. If they did they would have to sue in the name of the real party at interest in the A/M. How would that look if the International Monetary Fund sued some poor slob for income tax? It would expose the fraud that's how it would look.. A conman never wants to smarten a sucker now does he?

Instead the IMF gets the IRS to use it's quasi stupid agents and other government entities like banks, employers, vendors, etc. to send them your property.
They then trick you into doing things that are totally ineffective for a remedy. Ignorance of the law=concrete shoes while swimming.

Originally Posted by BabaHump

By the way, I really don't want a CDPH or initiate any court hearig. I don't want to be the plaintif. However, I also don't see what would possess the IRS to file suit instead. All they have to do is to lien and levy - end of story, job done.

Tell me i am wrong

My point and fear exactly. We can say that Irwin Schiff's belief does not work. We can say Redmeption is crap. But given a system that will win simply because it could, how can anyone learn and apply any information even the stuff in the AReYouLostAtSea or all the books sold on this website help anyone win? I am reading AreYouLostAtSee again. It is telling me what is wrong with "Al Smith" and the authors seem to suggest the remedy is at the court (I am guessing right now as I am still trying to digets the info). But what is to stop the court from operating like the IRS, ie ignore all codes and statutes, albeit more artfully?

Thanks again

Originally Posted by rottweiler

IRS needs to follow their laws when they seize your property.

They almost never do.

They need a court order to seize your property if they are challenged properly.

They almost never get one.

IRS agents always believe they are doing the right thing.

This belief gives you very little chance for a agent to throw out the assessment at the Due Process Hearing.

They will inform you that you have 90 days or whatever to petition US TAX COURT. You will ask a former IRS attorney in a fake court called "THE JUDGE" to allow you to prove that the IRS did not follow the law. In this "court" you will have the burden of proof that the IRS did not follow the law. Your odds are slim. Why? You have assumed the burden of proof. Your arguments will be considered "frivolous" and the seizure shall continue.

They will advise you to go to US DISTRICT COURT. You will have the burden of proof and the judge will not let you prove diddly squat. Your case shall be called "frivolous" and the seizure shall continue.

If you continue to resist with "frivolous arguments" you are what is called a Tax Protestor. This is what Schiff advocates, consequently, he is in a cage now and his property is bye-bye.

Why would anyone try to prove something did not happen with a hostile "judge" that has a conflict of interest?

[rottweiler]

A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
9. The libel is the first proceeding in a suit in admiralty in the courts of the United States. 3 Mason, R., 504. It is also used in some other courts. Vide, generally, Dunl. Adm. Pr. ch. 3; Bett's Adm. Pr. s. 3; Shelf. on. M. & D. 606; Hall's Adm. Pr. Index, h. t.; 3 Bl. Com. 100; Ayl. Par. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Admiralty, E; 2 Roll. &b. 298.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
LIBELLANT. The party who fires a libel in a chancery or admiralty case, correspondes to the plaintiff in actions in the common law courts, is called the libellant.

LIBELLEE. A party against whom a libel has been filed in chancery proceedings, or in admiralty, corresponding to the defendant in a common law suit.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Revenue causes are in the A/M juridiction.

The IRS has fired a cannon shot at your ship, it is the Libellant.

Your ship is the Libellee.

IRS has the burden of proof as long as you stay in the Admiralty otherwise you are being frivolous.

What you may want to do is ask a judge to review the IRS shot to see if was done properly. That is called a libel of review.

The judge will sea that there is no court order so the seizure is null.

THE IRS DOES NOT NEED COURT ORDERS AGAINST FRIVOLOUS TAX PROTESTORS(terrorists).

Originally Posted by BabaHump

Hello Rottweiler,

Thanks for the challenge.

Perhaps I am just naive, but I don't have a problem with the agent or other IRS employees telling me that they are following all the codes and statutes required... as long as they are willing to sign under purjury and show me the proof that they did point-for-point. For example, show me that the IRS is exempt from the Social Security Act since they freely distributed to quite a few parties not privy to that info and with out my consent.

If they determin that they have followed all the codes then they shouldn't have problem signing a very simple statement saying that fact, and that they have satisfied my simple inquries, and that the signing agent would be personally responsible if his statement is false - right? So if we end up at CDPH and they insist that they followed all the codes including the ones in question, so just show me and sign a statement.

Your question of who will provide the remedy... well... that's why I came here in the first place... the one thing that always bothers me is that the IRS or courts can simply bull-doze over anyone they wanted to. So at the CDPH (which I've never been to one) could they not simply end the hearing and determine whatever they want? It's like those people who go to CDPH determined to have the agent show them where it is said that they are required to pay income tax. Sure, the agents gets frustrated and may call the hearing to an end, but that does not mean they will not pursue it with liens or levy...

So... this is where I am stuck... what does it matter what we ask or present? Could they not simply ignore you (as the California Franchise tax board is very good at doing) and simply run you over?

Please show me the way.

'Hola,

You know, in all these years I've been trying to un-educate myself this (what you've described) is where I always ended up stuck at. I will come to the same conclusion as you have described and don't know what the real solution is. Sure, I can stay in honor forever, but if there is no remedy, what does that matter?

Let me know what you've discovered, learned, or experienced which may get me over this hump.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

IRS will not file suit. If they did they would have to sue in the name of the real party at interest in the A/M. How would that look if the International Monetary Fund sued some poor slob for income tax? It would expose the fraud that's how it would look.. A conman never wants to smarten a sucker now does he?

Instead the IMF gets the IRS to use it's quasi stupid agents and other government entities like banks, employers, vendors, etc. to send them your property.
They then trick you into doing things that are totally ineffective for a remedy. Ignorance of the law=concrete shoes while swimming.

Hey, I like your analogy. So easy to understand. One should quote that for posterity.

I think what you are proposing is the same as the "AreULostAtSea". Now, why didn't they simply use your analogy and I've have understood it quicker.

I am re-reading it so I might PM you to ask for clarification.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
9. The libel is the first proceeding in a suit in admiralty in the courts of the United States. 3 Mason, R., 504. It is also used in some other courts. Vide, generally, Dunl. Adm. Pr. ch. 3; Bett's Adm. Pr. s. 3; Shelf. on. M. & D. 606; Hall's Adm. Pr. Index, h. t.; 3 Bl. Com. 100; Ayl. Par. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Admiralty, E; 2 Roll. &b. 298.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
LIBELLANT. The party who fires a libel in a chancery or admiralty case, correspondes to the plaintiff in actions in the common law courts, is called the libellant.

LIBELLEE. A party against whom a libel has been filed in chancery proceedings, or in admiralty, corresponding to the defendant in a common law suit.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Revenue causes are in the A/M juridiction.

The IRS has fired a cannon shot at your ship, it is the Libellant.

Your ship is the Libellee.

IRS has the burden of proof as long as you stay in the Admiralty otherwise you are being frivolous.

What you may want to do is ask a judge to review the IRS shot to see if was done properly. That is called a libel of review.

The judge will sea that there is no court order so the seizure is null.

THE IRS DOES NOT NEED COURT ORDERS AGAINST FRIVOLOUS TAX PROTESTORS(terrorists).