Posted by reprint of a Patriot on February 10, 1998 at 16:56:24:
In Reply to: Re: Fed Tax Lien posted by Henry T. Liberty on February 06, 1998 at 18:24:34:
: Send away for an Individual Master File copy as anotated by the Federal Alcohol Administration located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (USC, Title 5, section 552a, FOIA) This file is maintained by an private agency operating on behalf of the first citizen of the UNITED STATES, Known by the initials of IRS.
: Once you decode this IMF, you will probally notice that this is a computer generated file. Computer Fraud, is a criminal act. ( USC Title 18, Start with section 1001) If you are a licensed purveyor by the UNITED STATES in a regulated activity, then you do owe tax, otherwise a deliberate error has been encoded. (Commonly known as Fraud)
:
: You will come to find out that this "Notice of Levy", a "lien" is purusant to the failure of a licensed purveyor of a regulated activity to pay all excise taxes due upon the priviledge licensed in a commerical activity regulated by the Federal Corporation.. (Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms.)
: Ask the "Agency" to produce the "Court Judgement". (A federal court would be a forgien judgement)
: Most likely you are not the PERSON subject to, or liable thereof; you most likely have recieved misdirected mail. Locate all this misdirected correspondence, and send it back. Simply put, "It is not me."
: You have been sent an offer, a Notice of Levy. Reference, Consent, Accept, and Acceptance, Black Law's Fourth Edition. ( used by the private Federal Corporate Courts.)
: The first mistake is failure to seek administrative remedy. (Title 5, United States Code, Federal Administartive Procedures Act)
: Secondly, note that the mark of the beast, known as a SSN number is the trail that led right to your doorstep. (Title 42, chapter 7) This is the nexus. Once you accpeted the SSN number, you are indentured to the Congress Assembled. Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17.
: Question, what is the jurisdiction of the party attempting to lein private property? Is this property within the domain of the Corporate State. Is this property registed with the STATE OF . . . known as a cestui que trust.
: Reference the STATE OF, annotated code, most likelly under the Article with reference to Estates, and Trusts. Then refer to Constructive Trust, Black Law 's Fifth, or Fourth Edition.
: To truely protect private property, it must be in the private domain, not wrapped up in a constructive trust, (registed property with the STATE OF, is an operation of law, a fraud.)
: You must release the fiduicary appointment of the Trustee. (the STATE OF).
: If the agency (reference title 31,section 5313) has attached a "lein", seek administrative proof of the agency's jurisdiction. (Title 5, section 552 a is known as stautory discovery)
: You must challenge jurisdiction of the party attempting to seize assetts. The Agency works under the Napoleonic Code. This actionable code is certainly a forgien jurisdiction.
: The Congress Assembled is a rump Congress administering a Federal Democracy dependent upon the indenture of clients, (citizens, XIV amendement).
: Read the STATE OF, voter registration application.
: Secure the original SS-5 form from the Social Security Administration. (an FOIA request) This contract was not fully disclosed. Chances are you were a minor when this "Contract" was issued. What court will honour an obligation entered into by a minor? Then an affadavit of Revcation of signature. Remeber no master will willingly surrender its "property".
: Fed Tax Lien. I don't file and these jerks are messing with me. Thanks Jack
The lien and levy is a tough nugget, however I have
minimized the damages simply by demonstrating to the levy recipient, (third party such as bank, etc.)
the misapplied nature of the levy, by showing them 26 USC sec 6331(a) and reminding them that it
is my property they intend to give to a stranger with out a court order. (my losses to date =0.00.) The lien is something else. I know of no one who has been successful in getting the county to remove
it, including my own. The best way to deal with this situation to neutralize the damage of this
misapplied document is to file an affidavit of rebuttal with the county recorders office. You definitely
need your IMF and NMF (non-masterfile) to prove the fraud and misapplied tax laws.
Provide a cover
letter for this reminding them they may be liable for damages if they fail to provide a copy of your
rebuttal (affidavit) along with any lien or levy information they supply to an inquiry about you.
REMEMBER; YOUR AFFIDAVIT WINS EVERY TIME OVER UNSUBSTANTIATED
NOTICE OF LIEN or LEVY! (the IRS has forms available to them to prove their position but they
won't use them.There are at least two of them. They are called "Proof of Claim" (one is form # 4490
used for "Internal Revenue taxes" and form # 4491-A and form #6338 used for Bankruptcy cases. I
wonder if the reason they won't use these is because they require a signature under penalty of
perjury???? Yes, Mr.. IRS, a sworn statement.
Upon receiving a letter from the IRS, whether it be regular mail or certified, try this. Mark on it
"Return to sender" "Refused in compliance with Title 18 U.S.C. Sec 1342" "No such entity at this
location"
1. Fed Tax Liens must be certified (most state statutes say so) 2.
Fed Tax Liens are almost never certified 3. The county recorder who has recorded this uncertified
lien is breaking the law (state) 4. County recorder must take it off or open herself up to a suit. I
checked my state statutes out and it is there about Fed Tax Lien must be certified. I looked up
GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFO TO THE EMPLOYER.
paperwork that the levy actualy begins the moment they receve a responce back from whomever
they sent it to.
So!
1- They have no proof that it was ever sent
2- If no one resonds to their junk mail, no levy!
If you want to wake up the employer to the truth, simply show him/her the page inclued with the
notice marked “Levy and Disraint “ the page starts with paragraph “B” not “A”, now why would that
be? Well lets just read paragraph “A”
26 USC section 6331. Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
"If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice
and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax" "LEVY MAY BE MADE
UPON the accrued salary or wages of any OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, or ELECTED OFFICIAL, of
the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia , by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)
of such officer, employee, or elected official."
“ by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)”
26 USC 3401(d) Employer
"for the purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual
performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person
," 26USC 3401(c) Employee.
For the purpose of this chapter (24), the term "employee" an officer, employee, or elected official of
the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia or any
agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a
corporation. (Emphasis added).
26 USC§ 6205. Special rules applicable to certain employment taxes
(a) Adjustment of tax
(1) General rule
If less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 3101, 3111, 3201, 3221, or 3402 is paid
with respect to any payment of wages or compensation, proper adjustments, with respect to both
the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in such manner and at such
times as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
(§3402 IS COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE)
§3402 IS COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE)
(2) United States as employer
For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received from the United States or a
wholly-owned instrumentality thereof during any calendar year, each head of a Federal agency or
instrumentality who makes a return pursuant to section 3122 and each agent, designated by the head
of a Federal agency or instrumentality, who makes a return pursuant to such section shall be deemed
a separate employer.
(3) Guam or American Samoa as employer
For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received during any calendar year from
the Government of Guam, the Government of American Samoa, a political subdivision of either, or
any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly owned thereby, the
Governor of Guam, the Governor of American Samoa, and each agent designated by either who
makes a return pursuant to section 3125 shall be deemed a separate employer.
4) District of Columbia as employer
For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received during any calendar year from
the District of Columbia or any instrumentality which is wholly owned thereby, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and each agent designated by him who makes a return pursuant to section 3125
shall be deemed a separate employer.
(5) States and political subdivisions as employer
For purposes of this subsection, in the case of remuneration received from a State or any political
subdivision thereof (or any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly
owned thereby) during any calendar year, each head of an agency or instrumentality, and each agent
designated by either, who makes a return pursuant to section 3125 shall be deemed a separate
employer
Remember most all of this stuff relates directly to BATF!
COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
26 CFR Section 31.3401(c)-1 Def. Employee
(a) The term employee includes every individual performing services if the relationship between him
and the person for whom he performs such services is the legal relationship of employer and
employee. The term includes officers and employees, WHETHER ELECTED or APPOINTED, of
the united states, a state, Territory, puerto Rico, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing
27 CFR part 70.161 (4) Certain types of compensation.-(1)
the term "employer" means:
(a) The officer or employee of the United States, the District of Columbia, or of the agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, who has control of the payment of
the wages, or
(b)Any other officer or employee designated by the head of the branch, department, or agency, or
instrumentality of the United States or of the District of Columbia as the party upon whom service of
the notice of levy may be made.
27 CFR part 70.161 (4) Certain types of compensation.-(1) Federal employees.
Levy may be made upon the salary or wages of any officer or [and] employee (including members of
the Armed Forces), or elected or appointed official, of the United States, the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality of either, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of the
delinquent taxpayer. as used in this paragraph,
GOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ??????????????????????????????????
1939 Internal Revenue Code
Part II - Computation of Net Income
§ 21 Net Income (a) Definition. - “Net income” means the gross income computed under section
22, less the deductions allowed by section 23.
§ 22. GROSS INCOME.
(a) General Definition. - “Gross income” includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries,
wages, or compensation for personal service, of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from
professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real
or personal, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH
PROPERTY; also from interest, rent dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried
on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever....
APPLIED TO THE LAW!:
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens,
because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into
waiving their rights due to ignorance." - U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Minker,
350 US 179 at 187...