Stevens County, Wash., alters lien language

[Logan]

From the June 1999 Idaho Observer:
Stevens County, Wash., alters lien language
Auditor tax lien list becomes "notice" to feds

COLVILLE-On March 30, 1999, Jim Shaver and a group of constitutionally-concerned Stevens County residents presented testimony before the county's board of commissioners in an effort to change the language of the county's list of more than 2,000 IRS liens. The Stevens County Commissioners responded May 11, 1999, by advising Shaver by letter that, "The Board and the Auditor have read the materials you submitted and consulted with the County's legal advisor. It is our joint decision to change the current Tax Lien Index to a Notice of Lien index. This change has been implemented."

Stevens is a county of 38,000 people. The IRS has placed liens on properties that would affect the lives of at least 19 percent of county residents.
"The largest business in the world today makes Microsoft look like a lemonade stand. The largest business in the world today is the pillage and plunder of the American people," Shaver explained to his commissioners.

Shaver went on to explain how the IRS, an agency that has been proven to be illegal, unconstitutional and incessantly terrorizes innocent people in a manner that is totally lawless and discompassionate, has transferred liability for its illegal property seizures to county governments across the country. The liability has been placed particularly upon the shoulders of the county auditor and the sheriff because, according to Shaver, the liens constitute unprosecuted securities frauds.
Shaver, who has been studying the IRS' use of this mechanism since the early 1990s, explained how the federal collection agency uses the ignorance of county officials to create a seemingly "negotiable" instrument out of thin air.

The IRS uses the county to obey a state statute (RCW 60.68) that compels a county auditor to file a "notice" of lien in an alphabetical tax lien list. The IRS will contact the county auditor and direct him to add a name to the county's lien index. Once an alleged lien has been added to the lien index, "the next day the IRS agent can come in and say 'give me a certified copy of the lien index.' Then he has proof of a spendable instrument to go out and pillage and plunder property," explained Shaver.
According to Shaver, such an arrangement constitutes a securities fraud. The IRS is guilty of nothing because all it did was secure a certified copy of something that was obviously accomplished by the county auditor under state law when the lien was recorded, probably with a phone call.

From the certified copy of the lien index, the IRS then creates a (fraudulently derived) Notice of Levy that is presented to the local sheriff. The local sheriff is then told to seize the people's property and the sheriff then, dutifully, seizes the property and arranges to put the property up for auction. "What the sheriff doesn't realize is that he is working from a notice. He is working from an unperfected instrument. He is working from a securities fraud," Shaver said.

Shaver is committed to shutting the fraud down. To prove to the county commissioners that IRS tactics are indeed borne in fraud, he explained how county officials should address IRS agents. "OK, Mr. IRS agent...in the past you have induced us into fraud that we won't be a part of any more. Now, first we'll need your delegation of authority from the secretary of the treasury of the United States of America to perform the assessment in the first place. Then we want your affidavit, signed and true, correct and complete, under penalties of perjury, that this person owes something and whatever that amount might be.

"I don't think that they will be around because the whole thing is a giant scam," said Shaver.
Shaver also explained that the affidavit is important because you positively ID the IRS agent and get his home address and business address in case you need to serve him.

After Shaver's presentation, the commissioners asked several very good questions that were answered by Shaver with the authority of somebody that knows what he is talking about.

The information presented to the county commissioners was apparently compelling enough to convince them that if IRS agents are going to use the county to create instruments whereby citizens are to have their property taken, then the IRS agent will just have to place his own freedom and his own assets on the line by submitting an affidavit.

Ev Kytonen, one of the concerned Americans who supports Shaver's work and hopes that fairness and lawfulness will someday return to our embattled nation, said that this is just the first in a series of steps that shall be taken to educate Stevens County government as to its rights and responsibilities as the most powerful unit of government within our Constitutional Republic.
This is a very important step in the process to educate county officials as to their true rights and responsibilities, under law, to protect the interests of its citizens from the tyrannical intentions of lawless federal agencies. People from across the country who are interested in making a similar presentation to their own county commissioners are encouraged to contact The Idaho Observer at (208) 687-9441 so that we can put you in contact with Shaver.

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

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 1353
Rathdrum, Idaho 83858-1353
Phone: 208-687-9441
Email: observer@dmi.net
Web: http://proliberty.com/observer/

Yes, Stevens County did change the recording of notices of liens as you say, however, you should also be aware that the precept Mr. Shaver was working under took a blow when the Williams v Boulder Dam Credit Union case was overturned in district court. Not that the issue being addressed on the appeal had anything much to do with the "Notice" issue, it was overturned on other grounds, namely that the "bank" (credit union) was immune from suit via the tax code. (Sorry, I don't have the cites handy just now)

But, if I remember correctly, the way Stevens County lists these notices now keeps them off your credit report, since they are no longer recorded as an actual lien. I will have to check that out for sure, but that is how I remember it works. (We live in Stevens County, Wash., so all I need to do is contact the recorders office to find out, and I will as soon as I can to verify that) Washington state has a law that states that any federal notices has to be filed regardless of any argument the target of the notice has. It in effect negates anything one can do to argue the action with the auditors office, they merely state this code section and then ignore you. I know this first hand since the IRS so kindly filed a Notice of Lein on me when we lived in a neigboring county.

I am not sure if Mr. Shaver still lives in the area or not, but you can find some of his work on the internet still, and I think I have some of his stuff on my computer, if I can find it, I will post it here.

[Logan]

Thanks for that reply Kurtw. This helps my understanding of this matter.

Can you verify perhaps if the wording of a "notice" of lein has had any effect on regulating unlawful presentations of actions and "liens" under color of law by private enforcement agents of the Infernal Revenue Service?

If I understand you right, you are asking if a "notice" of lien works the same as a real lien?
If so, then the answer is yes, if you don't fight them, then they proceed with taking your property. In my case, they have not yet gone to that point, but I think they are getting close, which is why I am preparing a case for US district court to compel them to produce the statute which they think makes me liable for an income or any other tax. They proceed with the "notice" even though it has not been adjuticated that you actually owe anything, they rely on a certain code section, I don't have it in front of me just now, which they claim gives them the right to lein and levy without court approval, even though the courts have said otherwise. Here in Washington, they use the same premise in the building codes, it says that building officials have a right of entry onto your land without a search warrant, contrary to what the constitution says. They claim that the statute takes precedent over what the constitution states. If that is so, then why do we even have a constitution?

If you are asking if the way Stevens county has it set up for recording these "notices", if that affects the lien, then I don't know, but I can get in touch with Stevens county and get what info I can and I will be happy to pass it on.

Originally Posted by Logan

Thanks for that reply Kurtw. This helps my understanding of this matter.

Can you verify perhaps if the wording of a "notice" of lein has had any effect on regulating unlawful presentations of actions and "liens" under color of law by private enforcement agents of the Infernal Revenue Service?

[Logan]

Have you researched the latest from the "We The People Foundation"? It is my understanding that in Shultz vs IRS, the judge found that the IRS had no administrative enforcement powers outside of a Federal warrant. This, it seems, would help to clarify the unlawfulness of action used under a "notice of lien", assuming that the sheriff or bank manager understood that they would be an accomplice to a federal crime if they volunteered to help these banksters and crooks.

Here is the link:http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-01-29.htm

[PANICPASS]

Why was my post deleted from this thread?

I wish there was a delete post feature for the members so they could delete there own posts. Im going to go back and delete all of my posts.

Interesting, I wonder why someone would delete your post, please post it again, I am interested in what you have to say.

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Why was my post deleted from this thread?

I wish there was a delete post feature for the members so they could delete there own posts. Im going to go back and delete all of my posts.

This is VERY interesting Logan, I will have to look up that court case and read it.
I find that I am doubtful of most of the things that Mr. Schultz has to say, some of them are just too fringe for me to understand, but the court case you referenced would be a big help to me, thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by Logan

Have you researched the latest from the "We The People Foundation"? It is my understanding that in Shultz vs IRS, the judge found that the IRS had no administrative enforcement powers outside of a Federal warrant. This, it seems, would help to clarify the unlawfulness of action used under a "notice of lien", assuming that the sheriff or bank manager understood that they would be an accomplice to a federal crime if they volunteered to help these banksters and crooks.

Here is the link:http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-01-29.htm

After reading the case, (a small one, and not a proper copy, but the one from the WTP web site) I think some of what Mr. Schultz claims appears to be untrue.

The following from the WTP website concerning this:

Quote[Queensbury, NY – 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 federal court order.

Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 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.” ]

This from the court documents on the same web site:

Quote [See Reisman, 375 U.S. at 446 (“[O]nly a refusal to comply with an20order of the district judge subjects the witness to contempt proceedings.”). Any lesser protections would expose taxpayers to consequences derived directly from IRS summonses,1raising an immediate controversy upon their issuance.

and:

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. In addition, we hold that if the IRS seeks enforcement of a summons through the courts, those subject to the proposed order must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the government’s request.]

The gist I got from the case is that the IRS had issued an "administrative summons" wanting information form Mr. Schultz, Mr. Schults refused and initiated an action to quash that summons. The court determined that no controversy existed as the "administrative summons" had no legal effect, absent a court order. The statement above from the WTP website about it concerning personal property is a little of a stretch as the summons was for paper and records, property to be sure, but the issue was not about anything other than that.

I would think that this would be an interesting angle to apply to the "Notice of federal tax lien" as the same argument could apply in that instance, there was no court order accompanying or authorizing the "notice of federal tax lien".

I think I will write a letter to the county that recorded the one they sent about me and ask them where the court order is that authorized that to be filed as if it were a lien.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Logan

Have you researched the latest from the "We The People Foundation"? It is my understanding that in Shultz vs IRS, the judge found that the IRS had no administrative enforcement powers outside of a Federal warrant. This, it seems, would help to clarify the unlawfulness of action used under a "notice of lien", assuming that the sheriff or bank manager understood that they would be an accomplice to a federal crime if they volunteered to help these banksters and crooks.

Here is the link:http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-01-29.htm

Yes but in the verbiage the appeals court made no mention of other administrative processes than summonses.

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

However that is why the notation not to cite the case. It applies to other administrative, non-judicial processes like Notice of Lien and Levy - so long as the notice is properly Refused for Cause timely. Otherwise comments about a notice curing into a proper lien are correct.


Regards,

David Merrill.