Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell on March 07, 1998 at 14:59:50:
In Reply to: Re: Notice of Levy posted by Ronald C. Mode, The IRS levied my bank acc. without due process. Can i get some help from someone on the matter. 704-538-1551. or write R. C. Mode 3414 Bridges Dairy Rd. Shelby N.C. 28150. on December 10, 1997 at 14:42:56:
:
: : : : I am looking for information on effectively dealing with the 10
: : : : day notice of levy. I would like any information that will keep
: : : : the ball in their court
: : : : thanks
: : : For all of the schmartz we get undue credit for, and for all we would like everyone to think we know about the tax laws, this particular problem still has just about all of us stymied.
: : : First of all, your message is confusing. We have never heard of a "10 day NOTICE OF LEVY." We have heard of a ten day "NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY" and a final "NOTICE OF LEVY." In the former, the IRS gives you ten days in which to respond, but the anti-injunction statute prevents one from getting an injunction to estop the action of collection. In the latter, the "NOTICE OF LEVY" is not the levy, per se, and is send to banks or employers to steal your wages, etc. after 21 days. The action taken by employers and most banks is unlawful. The 21 days on banks is to allow for clearance of outstanding items, but they begin bouncing checks that are presented for collection the day after receipt of the notice. Neither banks nor employers have the brains or sense to call the IRS and ask for the lawful authority for the so-called LEVY that goes with their NOTICE OF LEVY. We don't know about these college educated pukes, but we know the difference between a notice of a thing and the thing itself. Therefore, when the bank or employer sends your hard-earned to the IRS, they do so voluntarily, and the IRS or the U.S. attorney (Justice Dep't.) will not and cann not come to their aid. They should have known the law.
: : : Now fcomes the problem. Most judges are of the class of college educated pukes we think so poorly of, base their decisions on international law (precedence) rather than American or state law (Constitution(s), statutes, & Stare Decisis). They also tend to direct verdicts by controlling the jury instructions in a prejudicial manner. Maybe one could find an honest court, or an honest court of appeals, but it's a crap shoot at best.
: : : We haven't given up the fight, but we continue to take hits. More protective measures and shields have been erected which help some, but the fight, like any war, experiences casualties. Look at the consequences to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
: : : It's a crying shame and a regret that we have no magic, but we wanted to share this little reality with you and every reader. We hope you're able to continue the fight, but if you can't, we won't, and hope others won't, condemn you.
: : : One more litle point. It's that time of year that the IRS goes hyper-active on collections. This has a two-pronged result. 1). It ensures a good christmas for the collector; and, 2). It hits you in the same soft-spot at the worst possible time of the year, thus adding to the intimidation effect. On this score, we can only suggest that the corporate (SIC) christian church pay attention to when the Messiah was born and stop lying to the congregations. We promise, it wasn't in the dead of winter. Try the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Don't believe us? OK. Go to Judaeah and tend sheep in December. You'll be there alone quite soon as your flock dies off or abandons you.
: : : Does that seem irrelevant? OK. Just take notice as to when IRS goes into its most active collection mode, then argue. What we said about x-mas, if taken to heart, would deflate the sails somewhat by moving the sensitive spot.
: : : Notice to IRS agents reading this: Where is your Special Agent's badge located in the U.S. Badge Book? What does the text of 4 USC 72 say and where is your express provision of law?
: :
: : -----------------
: : It is a Notice of Levy, form 668-A under alleged authority of
: : section 6331 (without paragrapgh a) which is suposed to
: : allow the theft of property after 21 days.
Serve upon bank CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND DEMAND
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, including:
(1) court-ordered warrant of distraint
issued in conformance with U.S. v. O'Dell
-and-
(2) competent waiver of your fundamental Right
to due process or law
with reasonable deadline (e.g. 30 days), beyond
which the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence
will prevail. For the proper legal theory,
read up on "Equitable Estoppel". Your account
with the offending bank is governed by rules
of equity, because you have a contract with
that bank to perform fiduciary services for you.
Their contract with you cannot authorize unlawful
conduct on their part -- ever!!
When bank fails to produce both documents,
you must then testify to their default by
preparing and executing an AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT,
executed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
These documents will then provide you with
the essentials to file for relief from your
local county court, pursuant to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, enacted
with explicit reservations by Congress. It is
these Reservations which grant original
jurisdiction over this subject matter to
county courts. Treaties are supreme Law,
pursuant to the supremacy clause.
If the bank tries to introduce either document
AFTER your reasonable deadline, you can use
estoppel to bar admission of either
document into evidence. If the bank requests
an extension of your deadline, be sure to
grant every reasonable request (but not more
than 3 such requests), so as to show good
faith and to cement your case in granite.
Your court action can go with several
procedures, but I would begin with a
petition for ORDER authorizing depositions;
then you will take the depositions of all
people who received your CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
AND DEMAND. You will then ask only questions
to which you already have the answers, e.g.
did you receive such-and-such CONSTRUCTIVE
NOTICE? Did you respond? Etc. Your judge
may want to deny your request for depositions,
and order their testimony at trial instead;
go with such and ORDER, because it doesn't
really make any difference how you obtain
confirmation of their failure to produce
these key documents.
The really smart way to conserve judicial
resources, AND get the result you want, is
to move the court for summary judgment,
right after the court rules in favor of
your estoppel motion barring discovery
of the requested documents after your
deadline.
I presume you are proceeding inside the
state zone.
I hope this helps.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General