Your insight please

NotWithoutAFight · #1 03-18-2006, 08:45 PM

Hello all,

New to the forum, but not to the information.

I'm a little at a loss as to how to handle a tax situation. My mother in law is retired from a job with the fed. government, and has for some time been receiving love letters from the IRS. Now they have decided to go ahead and take a large sum of her retirement check on a regular basis. She received this check directly from the Dept of Tres.

This makes my blood boil and I intend to get that garnishment and lein removed. What I had in mind was to write the OMB (or whomever is directly related with her retirement funds) and inform them that she is aware that per the Williamson v. Boulder Dam Credit Union ruling, they cannot take her property without a correct lien issued by a federal court filed in the county.

I'm very new to drafting and writing these types of letters, and would like some input. Is this the correct ruling to cite? Should I imply that we will take legal action (sue) should they not correct it?

Your thoughts please?

charlesa6 · #2 03-18-2006, 08:55 PM

NotwithoutAfight, welcome to the forum!

mrg · #3 03-19-2006, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotWithoutAFight

Hello all,

New to the forum, but not to the information.

I'm a little at a loss as to how to handle a tax situation. My mother in law is retired from a job with the fed. government, and has for some time been receiving love letters from the IRS. Now they have decided to go ahead and take a large sum of her retirement check on a regular basis. She received this check directly from the Dept of Tres.

This makes my blood boil and I intend to get that garnishment and lein removed. What I had in mind was to write the OMB (or whomever is directly related with her retirement funds) and inform them that she is aware that per the Williamson v. Boulder Dam Credit Union ruling, they cannot take her property without a correct lien issued by a federal court filed in the county.

I'm very new to drafting and writing these types of letters, and would like some input. Is this the correct ruling to cite? Should I imply that we will take legal action (sue) should they not correct it?

Your thoughts please?

I do not know if this will help but maybe it will get you going.

On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a court order.

The courts have consisitently ruled that a Notice of Levy/Lien is the same as a Summons for assets and/or money.

Schultz v. IRS, Case Number 04-0196-cv
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:... nt=firefox-a

http://www.scamsandscandals.com/070705_newsbreak.htm

Was there a Notice of Lien/Levy?
Was there a court order?

Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, case number 04-0196-cv), “...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order…[a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing.”

Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere “requests.”

The court went on to say that the federal courts are there to protect taxpayers from an “overreaching” IRS, and that the IRS must go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS.

In addition, the Court held, in effect, that the enforcement language of Section 7604 of the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional. In plain language, Section 7604 directs federal District Court judges to issue orders, merely upon a request by the IRS, for the immediate arrest and incarceration of a tax payer “for contempt” for not complying with the demands of an IRS administrative summons/request.

Prior to the 2nd Circuit’s recent landmark decision, the common practice of compliant federal judges was to issue such orders, often without an evidentiary hearing or allowing the taxpayer, in an Article III Federal Court, to challenge IRS claims before being subjected to formal enforcement proceedings (liens, levies, wage garnishments, searches, property seizures, etc.). The result has been widespread and egregious abuse of its lawful authority by the IRS, and substantial injury to millions of tax payers.

BOBT12 · #4 03-19-2006, 02:02 AM

Welcome to the forum NotWithoutAFight.

Regarding, Williamson v. Boulder Dam Credit Union, please note, this ruling appears to be overturned. I don't know the details as to why, being that the case seems to correctly identify the problems connected with IRS' improper seizure, without due process.

Quote:

Schultz v. IRS, Case Number 04-0196-cv
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:... nt=firefox-a

This is a great case.

I have used it in connection with my dealings with the IRS, so far, so good.

Livefire · #5 03-19-2006, 08:08 AM

This should give some helpful info.....

http://www.freedomsite.net/levy.pdf

This next link comes from David Merill and idneitfies the nature of tax cases and what is necessary to enforce any type of tax lien.....( warrant of distraint)

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...uLostAtSea.pdf

#6 05-02-2006, 06:51 AM

Hi all, just joined up so this is my first post.
Just so you know as stated by BobT12, there was an appeal on this case which affected it's outcome, I just recieved the entire case yesterday and am still reading it (about 3 inches thick, it's quite a read) so far, it appears that what the appeals court has said is that as long as the "bank" (credit union) followed IRS rules regarding levy, it is immune from suit. As I get into it more, I will pass on what I find.
You can get the case from the Justice Township yourself if you want it, it costs 40.00 and takes a few weeks for them to get it out.
Also, thanks for the link to the Shultz case BobT12, if anyone has knowledge of any more recent cases of this kind, please let me know. I also have about 14 years worth of research of my own regarding the income tax system, if anyone needs some info.

charlesa6 · #7 05-02-2006, 07:11 AM

kurtw, welcome to the forum.

#8 05-02-2006, 07:20 AM

In the download section, under taxation, IRS there is a
pamphlet called "Oath of a Freeman" that may be helpful.

Had it not been for an honorable and patriotic Internal Revenue Service, Inc. employee who confided to me about the internal workings of the IRS some twenty-five years ago, this pamphlet could not have been written. While she would not tell me everything, she did put me on the right track such that I have been able to maintain my Freeman, Sui Juris status, and in a perfectly legal manner, have not been a person required to file any income tax forms for the past twenty-five years. Perhaps I should have written this pamphlet years ago, but I gave my word to my informant friend that I would never do so while she was still living.

I don't know if these have been overuled or not:

"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to I.R.S. Agents." U.S. v. ****erson, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 413 F.2d. 1111 (1969)

A person cannot be forced to submit records for inspection. See: United States of America, and FredJ. Rosauer, special agent IRS v.Johanna Vam Poperin, U.S. DistrictCourt, District of Minn, 4thDivision, 4-71 Civil 635.

David Merrill · #9 05-02-2006, 08:09 AM

This fellow has defeated three strong actions by the IMF in the past and is currently doing that with a current action; one of seven supposedly viable actions but only Pete has been served a summons so far (last I heard):

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm

Attachment too.

Having no SSN myself, therefore no Taxpayer ID #, I probably cannot relate to your situation as well as Peter Eric.

Welcome to the forum,

David Merrill.

P.S. Upon mrg's approach:

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/upload...nt/suitors.zip

BOBT12 · #10 05-02-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurtw

Hi all, just joined up so this is my first post.
Just so you know as stated by BobT12, there was an appeal on this case which affected it's outcome, I just recieved the entire case yesterday and am still reading it (about 3 inches thick, it's quite a read) so far, it appears that what the appeals court has said is that as long as the "bank" (credit union) followed IRS rules regarding levy, it is immune from suit. As I get into it more, I will pass on what I find.
You can get the case from the Justice Township yourself if you want it, it costs 40.00 and takes a few weeks for them to get it out.
Also, thanks for the link to the Shultz case BobT12, if anyone has knowledge of any more recent cases of this kind, please let me know. I also have about 14 years worth of research of my own regarding the income tax system, if anyone needs some info.

Welcome to the forum.

I am happy to be of some help. I look forward to hearing more on your findings regarding the Williamson v. Boulder Dam Credit Union case.

BOBT