Misc RM 16    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!


Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.




Letter To Employer   Rebutting Notice Of Levy


Name removed for Privacy
C/o xxxx
Xxxxxxx   St .                                                                        August 14, 2007                                                      Bxxxxxx, Mxxxxxx [Zip xxxxx]


Employer Name

City State Zip




Dear Ms. xxxxxxxx,


      You may receive  a Form 668-A/W, 668-W(c) NOTICE OF LEVY, in the near future from the Internal Revenue Service. This letter is to educate you to the letter of the law and also your rights and responsibilities, as well as mine. The NOTICE OF LEVY carries no legal authority and has no standing in law whatsoever as it is being applied here. You will notice that it contains Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6331 on the back of the form. The NOTICE OF LEVY in this instant case has "no more force and effect than an obituary notice to collect a benefit".     Blank copy of 668-A/W attached.


1.   However, it begins with paragraph (b); paragraph (a) is strangely absent. That is because paragraph (a) conveys the scope and authority of Section 6331, and that authority clearly does not apply here, as I will explain to you as we dissect the paragraph, the complete text contained on a separate sheet. 1. "...within 10 days after notice and demand", "accompanying this letter is my sworn statement that I have never received a properly executed Notice and Demand as required by IRC §6303, neither have I received a properly executed assessment pursuant to IRC §6203.


2. "...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)).."   Obviously, I am not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or  instrumentality, nor are you an employer as defined by IRC §3401(d), which is a federal employer. This clause clearly delineates exactly who is liable for levy, and in no way does it apply to you or me IRC Section 6331(a) attached.


3…."...Signature/Title of Service Representative

The NOTICE OF LEVY is signed by _______________, with a title of________, and (*) such person is not lawfully authorized to issue such a document pursuant to IRC §7608. Paragraph (a) of §7608 authorizes ANY agent or officer of the IRS to make seizures for taxes due under subtitle E and other laws pertaining to alcohol, tobacco or firearms.


4.   However paragraph (b) outlines the enforcement authority for laws relating to internal revenue OTHER than subtitle E. Only a Criminal Investigator of the Intelligence Division or of the Internal Security Division is charged with enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the Code. Not only is this NOTICE OF LEVY not signed by an authorized officer, a levy is a civil action, not a criminal one. Which states that only such an officer as listed in IRC 7608(b) can make seizures and then only in relation to felony offenses under the law.. Re: Withholding and/or diverting any part of an employee's wages without a lawful court order, See:   Schultz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv                                            

Furthermore, IRC §7401 prohibits any civil action for collection unless the Secretary authorizes it and the Attorney General directs that the action be commenced, which also has not been done in this case.


5. Final proof that none of this applies to me. As Title 26, United States Code has not been enacted into positive law, implementing or enabling regulations are necessary to confer the force of law ("For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern". Dodd v. U.S., 223 F Supp 785) Many of the IRC Sections are enacted into law through being implemented by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The above named sections are ALL implemented by CFR Title 27 Part 70, as listed in the CFR Parallel Table of Authorities. .


CFR Index, which deals exclusively with taxation of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. Those regulations define the scope and authority of the above IRC sections, and again put the NOTICE OF LEVY and all other collection activities outside the jurisdiction in which it is attempted to be employed in this case. The IRS has received numerous notices signed under penalty of perjury that I have never been involved in "anything" remotely connected to "BATF". All Enforcement Regulations are under 27 CFR Part 70 (Section 6331) Exhibit-A Index attached.


You will notice that IR Code Section (b) states: Date when levy is considered made. The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335(a) is given. You did not provide a copy of the Notice of Seizure, that is mandatory for the Notice of Levy you honored dated 7/14/2004, $44,299.95. Copy attached.


It is your responsibility to ascertain that you are within the law and not exposing yourself to liability, for CFR Title 26 Part 301.6332-1 (c) directs that "..any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to property not properly subject to levy is NOT relieved from liability to a third party who owns the property...". Therefore if you improperly surrender any of my property in the form of salary or wages, you can and will be sued for the damages, and the foregoing IRC sections are just a small percentage of the actual statutes and regulations which further confirm that the NOTICE OF LEVY does not apply in any case not related to alcohol, tobacco or firearms, and are more than sufficient to cause at the very least a reasonable doubt as to its validity.


Should you receive and honor a Notice of Levy that is not applicable to a private sector Citizen, you will be lawfully required to turn over all remuneration in the form of salary, wages fringe benefits, sick pay, vacation pay or any other compensation that is owed me for honoring a "Notice" to take my assets/money or face civil and criminal prosecution. If you wish to protect yourself from punitive and intimidating harassment from the IRS, merely write to them stating that in the reading of their paperwork, there seems to be a discrepancy between what they are stating and your understanding of the law.


Provide them with a copy of the checklist and ask them to show documented compliance with each section of it otherwise you cannot release any property or information regarding the subject of their inquiry. To do otherwise without full legal documentation showing compliance, you are exposed to liability for actual and punitive damages. It is the responsibility of them as demandant to guarantee that all laws are being obeyed, or to relieve you of liability by formally assuming liability themselves. Anything less which does not offer you full protection is unacceptable and cannot be honored.


Past history has shown, in EVERY case, that you will not receive any response to your letter, but neither will you hear any further demands to comply with any levy or seizure action. This has shown itself to be conclusive proof that the foregoing positions of law are valid; otherwise they would comply and therefore relegate the argument to the legal scrap heap.


1.  [ (*) Alternate #4 when NOTICE bears no actual ink signature. Replace this section with existing first line.]


2.  The NOTICE OF LEVY bears no valid signature, but rather is typed/rubber stamped with the name of the agent issuing the NOTICE. In all areas of law (common, statutory, commercial, admiralty, etc.) any document intended to convey legal authority or command is REQUIRED to be personally signed, in ink, by the individual issuing the document. As this NOTICE OF LEVY will carry no original personal signature, it is therefore not valid and can carry no lawful authority. However, even if it was personally signed by the issuing agent, ... (continue with remainder of #4 beginning with "such person...")


3.  Attached is the Notice of Levy dated 7/14/2004 honored by St. John/Providence Hospital with the listed amount of money $44, 299.95 taken without a court order, or notice of seizure pursuant to: Section 6502 (b) section 6335(a)  Exhibit-J.


4.  The attached excerpts are from the more comprehensive Notice to the IRS that addresses the misapplication of the alleged "valid" Notice of Levy and statements by Congressman Dennis Hertel and more recently Congressman Clay Shaw re: the alleged validity of the Notice of Levy, and its "misleading" application.


5.  The Undersigned has not received the "Mandatory " (10) day"   Notice and Demand" that can only be made after a Proper Lawful Assessment. You will notice "no form" Form 23C signed by an appointed Assessment Officer, or its equivalent was made, RACS daily summary report is not sufficient or acceptable, or as equivalent to Form 23C or its equivalent See: IRM






INSTRUCTIONS: Do not proceed beyond each step unless the answer to each question is YES. If the answer to ANY question is NO, the levy is not valid. Inform the IRS that you are unable to honor the levy until ALL legal requirements are met.

[   ] Is there a copy of the Proper Lawful Assessment Form 23C Summary Record of Assessment?


[ ] Is there a copy of the court ordered Warrant of Distraint and Notice of Lien included with the Notice of Levy? (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure #69)


[ ] Does the tax that the IRS claims is owed arise from taxable activities subject to miscellaneous excise taxes under Title 26 USC subtitle E, or those that would pertain to the enabling regulations of Title 27 CFR Part 70 (alcohol, tobacco and firearms), or are you a federal employer as defined in section 3401(d)(in one of the U.S. territories and responsible for administering provisions under 26 USC subtitle C)?


[ ] Was a valid Notice and Demand sent to the individual whose property is the target of the levy? (IRC §6331(a))


[ ] Has a valid Notice of Lien been filed with the appropriate court at least 10 days after the Notice and Demand was received and has the court issued a warrant of distraint pursuant to IRC §7403?


[ ] Has the IRS sent at least three notices to the individual asking for payment and has the individual refused to pay? (IRC §6303)


[ ] Has the IRS sent a Notice of Intent to Levy to the individual at least 30 days prior to the date on the Notice of Levy you received? (IRC §6331(d))


[ ] Is the Notice of Levy signed by a Criminal Investigator of either the Intelligence Division or the Internal Security Division of the IRS and is there a delegation order in existence giving that particular agent the authority to issue a Notice of Levy? (IRC §7608(b))


[ ]  Is there a Notice of Seizure Section 6502 (b)? The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335 (a) is given?


[ ]  Is it lawful/legal to honor this Notice of levy despite the statements of the 2 congressman, that "it" does not apply to private sector American Citizens. ?  


[   ]   If honored could this be "Fraudulent Conversion"?


[   ]   Is Form 668-B  LEVY a valid levy ?


[  ]   Is subsection (e) Effect of Honoring Levy  on reverse of the Notice of Levy 668-A (c) with the missing paragraph (a) ? "…shall be discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer" as "valid" as the same subsection (e) Effect of Honoring Levy on Form 668-B Levy.


[ ]  Are the assessment amounts listed on the Notice of Federal Tax Lien   No. 3713114707/Letter 1058 dated July 19, 2007 in accordance with Account 6110 Tax Assessments   IRM 3(17)(14).1 23C- Assessment Certificate-Summary Record of Assessments? Exhibit-M.   


If all of the above conditions have been satisfied, the levy could be valid. However, if you turn over property in response to an improper levy, the individual who owns the property can sue you personally for punitive as well as actual damages.                                  (26 CFR 301.6332-1I)











The attached IR Code section of Section 6331 (a) is attached to examine and compare with the Notice of Levy (668-W(c) / 668-A(c) (DO) and when you examine the reverse of 668-B LEVY you will notice it contains Paragraph (a)………..


You are receiving the various excerpts from the more comprehensive notice to the IRS and the Congressman statements. Regarding the Notice of Levy that has only one use and that is "3rd Parties"


You will notice Exhibit-E. The brief description of the IRS agents arrest and threat of audit, Court cite (for details). However, when you consider the brief information on Pages 5, 6, 7 and the 2 letters from the Congressman, the fraudulent assessments, the Substitute For Returns "dummy returns" Tax Court ruling, to generate a false and presumed tax liability, there is   room for reasonable doubt, its unlikely some  of the "subordinates" would on their own be involved in "Mischief/Dirty Hands Doctrine" and decide to ignore the Rule of Law and attempt to create a liability where no liability previously existed.


Regarding the excerpt pages 5, 6, and 7 referencing the notice to the IRS regarding Entrapment/Computer Fraud November 9, 1998. In 9 years the IRS never refuted/or denied the accuracy of the intentional misclassification of our true tax status, the very fact that our Individual Master File, decoded by an "Expert" in the field was completely ignored by the Internal Revenue Service. However, if your legal department would like a copy, I will be pleased to send it upon request, it is to large to include in such a short space of time.


Otherwise, it is part of the Notice you are included in as part of the Party at Interest list.   




This is lawful notification: Pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and   requires your written response to me in ten days (10) from the date of this Notice or the date of any Notice of Levy you receive and honor, specific to the subject matter contained in this Notice, your failure to respond, as stipulated, to refute, rebut or deny, with   particularity, everything in this Notice with which you disagree and support  your disagreement with fact evidence, Constitutionally based law, case law or Sections from the IR Code/or IR Manual.

Consequently your failure to respond will be your agreement with each and every statement and your public admission to the fact that a fault exists, UCC 1-201(16) creating fraud through material misrepresentation that vitiates all forms, contracts, testimony, agreements, etc. expressed or implied, from the beginning, UCC 3-103 and is your irrevocable admission   and binding agreement, attesting to this, that by your silence you have acquiescence that everything in this Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you in any court of competent jurisdiction in America, without your protest or objection or that of the IRS. See: Connally v. General Construction Co. 269
U.S. 385 391 Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law", See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2nd 297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."





"All Rights Reserved"

UCC 1-308

As the Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America without the "United States" (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true, correct, to the best of My current knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28USC(1). See the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional Authority                                                                                                                                 


Name removed for Privacy, Secured Party




For your convenience a copy of this Notice with Exhibits and Attachments is being sent to the Internal Revenue Service  

Employer Name

City State Zip

Express Mail: EB xxxxxxxxxxUS- Via Return Receipt


Department of the Treasury –Internal Revenue Service

ACS SUPPORT-STOP 5050 – P.O. Box 219236 Kansas City , MO 64121-9236

Express Mail: EB xxxxxxxxxx US –Via Return Receipt


Department of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 145585  Stop 8420G – Cincinnati , Ohio 45250-5585

Express Mail: EB xxxxxxxxxx US-Via Return Receipt


J. Russell George-Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administrator

1125 15th St. NW Suite 700A

"Complaint Management C-200001872"

Washington , D.C.   20005

Express Mail: EB xxxxxxxxxx US –Via Return Receipt


Kevin M. Brown-Internal Revenue Service-Division Counsel

1111 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington , D.C.    20224

Express Mail: EBxxxxxxxxxx US-Via Return Receipt



Attn: Mara Ernhardt, Technical Support Manager,

Thomas d. Mathews and Dennis Parizek

Internal Revenue Service

1973 N. Rulon White Blvd.

Ogden , Utah 84201

Express Mail: EB xxxxxxxxxx US-Via Return Receipt






UCC-1 Financing Statement for:

Name Removed for Pricacy


Exhibit-A   27 CFR-BATF


Exhibit-E    Agents Violations of 7214/1203


Exhibit-J    Notice of Levy Honored -2004


Exhibit-K   Account 6110 Tax Assessments


Exhibit-L   Congressman's letters Lien/-Levy


Exhibit-M   Excerpts Pages 5, 6, 7 IMF aka BMF






Money  Congress Abrogated The Gold Clause Without Authority   Overview


© 2003

There is a void in the law because the US Congress abrogated the gold clause without authority. It is up to the US Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but Congress also has the authority to borrow on the full faith and credit of the United States. On the other hand, the states are prohibited from issuing bills of credit and making anything other than gold and silver coin a legal tender. When all the gold and silver coinage was removed from circulation by Presidential edict and legislative fiat (beginning in 1933 and aided and abetted by series of legislative enactments culminating in 1976 or '77), the states could not function as de jure states of the United States because they could not lawfully collect taxes; they were insolvent; they had a serious cash flow problem caused by omissions of the US Congress. This vacuum created a void in the law. When there is a vacuum or void in nature, or in the law, something is going to rush in and fill the vacuum. When a void occurs in the law, equity will rush in and fill the void, because if the law cannot provide a remedy, equity will.


With substantive money steadily disappearing from circulation at an alarming rate, (until it disappeared altogether by 1977 and is today as extinct as the dodo, all that remains of "the money" are a few fossilized remnants of the coinage hanging on charm bracelets or exclusively circulating among collectors and speculators without parity) the US Congress chose to borrow credit from a private bank of its own creation (Federal Reserve Bank) for the loan of credit to the United States which would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States (the property within the jurisdiction of the United States and future uncollected taxes generated within the jurisdiction in the US). But, the jurisdiction of the United States was limited to the District of Colombia and the territories and the property in this limited jurisdiction was insufficient to back the tremendous amount of credit needed to fill the needs of commerce in the US and several states. So, President Roosevelt called the governors of the states to Washington and invited them to participate in this scheme and the governors agreed by pledging the faith and credit of the states for the debts of the United States, but even this was not enough collateral; the Fed wanted every property, person, place and thing in the entire country collateralized or hypothecated in its favor and so the federal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction of the United State was extended to include the several states. To get around the Constitutional impediment of the gold clause, New Federal States (referred to in the statutes as "this state") were created by operation of law to displace the de jure states. Nature and Necessity demanded that something fill the void. These de facto New Federal States arose by operation of law as resulting trusts to fill the void.


There were no Constitutional restrictions on the New States. These New States and the United States doing business as a federal corporation, do business entirely in the equity of commerce and exclusively with commercial paper. They never pay for anything, they just promise to pay with someone else's collateral. The New Federal States are also designated as "THE STATE OF DELAWARE," etc., as opposed to the de jure " Delaware state." The de jure republic states still exist, they are just dormant and cannot act or do business in commerce because, having no gold or silver coinage and no apparent prospect of getting any, they are insolvent. But now since the New States and the United States Inc. do business exclusively with "bills of credit" and other forms of commercial paper, they have put themselves under the Clearfield Doctrine and forfeited their sovereignty when conducting business in commerce with commercial paper, which is probably about 95% of their acts.


These New States and the United States Inc., needing ever more collateral to finance the debt obligations of the United States, began to resort more and more to various schemes and artifices to induce the people into accepting "trust benefits" offered by the New States and further extend the jurisdiction of the United States. They ever need more and more collateral to run their socialist benefits programs because the Federal Reserve Bank is not a charitable organization. Like any other corporation, the Fed has but one purpose, and that purpose is to generate a profit for the stockholders. And the board of directors of the Fed, like any other bank, is not going to make a loan to the United States unless the United States puts up a sufficient amount of collateral to cover the loan.


Over time, the United States , acting in concert with the NEW STATES offered more and more inducements to the people to get them to waive their property rights and liberty and enter into the trust. Once a man was induced to accept a trust benefit, the legislature had him hooked into the jurisdiction of the resulting trust which equates with "within the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The benefits offered range from social security benefits, student loans, subsidized or federally insured house loans, farm programs, bank loans, ad infinitum, to the benefit of discharging one's debts with trust money of account, a.k.a., Federal Reserve Notes, instead of extinguishing debt with lawful coinage of the Republic. Once the real flesh and blood man actually accepted trust benefits, the law requires that the trustee of the resulting trust hold the legal title of the man's property in common with everyone else's property "in trust" for the benefit of all the beneficiaries to prevent one man from unjustly enriching himself in relation to the other beneficiaries.


So, since there is no money of the Republic circulating, the presumption must arise as a matter of law that everyone has donated their property to the trust STATE to be held for their own benefit and the benefit of all the other beneficiaries or the trust STATE OF DELAWARE , NEW FEDERAL STATE, or this State. Thus, the beneficiaries can enjoy the use of the trust money of account and re-insure everyone else's debt in a scheme of maritime limited liability. The FRNs are money of the trust account and the PERSONS or beneficiaries do not and can never possess legal title to the FRNs; they can only acquire an equitable title to the trust funds or money of the trust account. In other words, the commercial PERSONS who are beneficiaries of the resulting trust don 't own their own money. They only have the use of it. When FRNs or trust money of account is used by the commercial PERSON or beneficiary to purchase goods and services, the PERSON can only acquire an equitable title because the trust is already holding the legal title.


The trustee is the legislature of "this STATE" and the legislature is continually modifying the trust instrument, the color of law statutes, that controls the benefits paid out and attempts to control the conduct of the beneficiaries through the imposition of "penal" provisions written into the trust instrument, for instance the STATE penal code, which holds the real man liable for the conduct of his commercial person in the ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME, hence all crimes are commercial crimes, see: 27 CFR Part 72.11. And, to make bad matters worse, the real man, does not even control his labor, because, if his commercial PERSON, is accepting benefits, everything produced by the labors of the real man automatically becomes trust property by operation of law, other wise he is unjustly enriching himself. So, when the real man sends his commercial PERSON into commerce by the use of FRNs he enters into the trust by his PERSON's acceptance of benefits, or even by the presumed acceptance of benefits, real liabilities are incurred on the real man because the real man is presumed to have intended to have conveyed his legal title to his property and labor to the trust to be held in common for the benefit of all and by the new resulting relationship with his PERSON. What do you call that theory of government where the government holds all the property in common for the common good and use? -------Hmmmmmm, -------- It's call communism, isn't it?


To state this another way, John Doe, the real living man was separated from his commercial person JOHN DOE at the time he was presumed to have granted his property to the res of the resulting trust, or this New Federal STATE OF DELAWARE. Thus, John Doe, the living man, is the presumed settlor of the trust res; JOHN DOE, the commercial person, is the presumed beneficiary and THE STATE OF DELAWARE is the presumed name of the trust, with the legislature of this State being the trustee, all of this arising by operation of law and based on the presumed intent and actual conduct of John Doe, the real man, to create a cestui que trust and appoint this State or the STATE OF DELAWARE as trustee. Since John Doe is presumed to have had the intent to donate or grant all his property to the res of the resulting trust, this presumption arising from his use of FRNs and other conduct, he has not only separated his self from his commercial PERSON, he has also separated the legal title of the property that he thinks that he owns lock, stock and barrel from the equitable title of his property.


John Doe is presumed to have donated the legal title, and in some cases, as in the matter of his "motor vehicle," or any thing that has been issued a certificate of title, has in fact donated the legal title of his property to the resulting trust and is left with only the equitable title, the intent of the transfer is prima facie evident on the face of his certificate of title, and he is left with only ownership, or right of possession and use of the motor vehicle. Since "this state" now holds the legal title to John's motor vehicle, this State can dictate when, where, and how fast John can operate the motor vehicle and compel John to indemnify this State from liability in case John does something stupid with "this state's" motor vehicle, in other words, John can be compelled to insure the car. John can be compelled to wear his seat belt. The trust instrument – the color of law traffic code demands it because if John is driving "this state's" car without insurance, is not wearing his seat belt and is at fault in a wreck, and for some reason cannot or will not "personally" pay for the damages, he would be shifting his liability of the damage caused by the wreck onto the other beneficiaries of the trust because "this state" is the legal owner and ultimately liable for any damages caused; in other words, this State is going to have to pick up the tab for the damages, which will in turn be passed on to the other beneficiaries through higher taxes. John Doe the man, is presumed to have had the intent to create a cestui que trust having himself as the settlor, or donor for the benefit of the commercial person, JOHN DOE with the legislature of this State the trustee appointed by operation of law.


The state congressmen and senators that are the true trustees and are very busy people. They are continually running for office, begging for contributions and passing favors for their campaigns. They don't have time to ADMINISTER the trust. So being trustees, they have the power to appoint trust agents to act on their behalf. This is why all the states enacted State Bar Acts in the '30's. Isn't it amazing that the country muddled along without having state bar associations until the 1930's! When the BAR's were created and organized, the legislators then had an immense pool of prospective trust agents which could make claims for enforcement of the trust and collect for injuries and damages caused to the trust or res of the trust. This does not necessarily mean that every attorney is a trust agent, but every attorney, upon admission to the bar is put in the position (or has the "capacity") that he is able to accept the benefit of being a trust agent. The attorney's general of the US and the "this states" are the "boss" trust agents and make policy for the control all the lesser trust agents, like the local county attorney and district attorney, the bankruptcy trustees, court appointed guardian ad litems, public defenders, etc., but they are all under the control and direction of "this state's" supreme court.


Since administrating and enforcing the trust could be a nasty business on occasion, the Bar appointed trust agents need some muscle. So, again, beginning in the mid to late '30's we had the sudden appearance of the ominous STATE POLICE who were commissioned by acts of the legislature of "this state" much like U.S. Military officers are commissioned by act of the US Congress. The STATE POLICE are "law enforcement agents." By law enforcement agents, I think what the legislature really means is "TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS." The common law "peace officers" have pretty much gone the way of the dodo and the lawful coinage. It makes one wonder how did the country get along without the STATE POLICE from the time the first English settlers arrived in the early 17th century until the 1930's without suffering total anarchy! And over time, the constitutional "peace officer" like the local sheriffs and constables became "TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS" and, by statute, were put under the authority of the "STATE POLICE." No, Virginia, the sheriff is not the highest authority in the county anymore. The STATE POLICE are, by whatever name they are called in your state.


The jurisdiction of the local sheriff, STATE POLICE or TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS extends only to the beneficiaries of the trust. If your person is not a beneficiary they can't legally touch you. In fact, if your PERSON is not a beneficiary, you are as foreign to the TRUST ENFORCEMENT AGENTS and "this state" as the Klingon Empire is to Capt. James T. Kirk. If you are not a beneficiary of the trust and if they mess with you and cause you and injury, or even use your person's NAME, they will be liable under the law for a common law trespass, libel, or both. But beware, the presumption is that everyone is a beneficiary.


When a resulting trust is presumed to have been created, the trustee of the trust has no duties or obligations, excepting that he must return the legal title to the cestui que trust when it is demanded by the cestui que trust. And interestingly enough, it takes extraordinary evidence to prove the existence of a resulting trust. Extraordinary evidence evidently means evidence sufficient to convict in a criminal case, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it take very minimal evidence to put the existence of a resulting trust into question. A denial of intent to create the cestui que trust by the presumed donor of the res under oath would probably be sufficient. Likewise, a denial under oath by the beneficial PERSON of his intent to accept the benefit or of his intent to reject and waive the benefit would probably be sufficient.


Now, if you have been paying attention while reading this drivel, the question foremost in your mind should be, how am I going to regain control of my commercial PERSON and reunite equitable title with the legal title? You are probably thinking, how the hell am I going to truthfully deny that I use Federal Reserve Notes? Well you probably can't. But, the use of FRNs is a compelled benefit because there ain't no other money to be had. As a matter of law under the Compelled Benefits Doctrine, a man cannot be held liable for benefits that he is compelled to accept, especially if it is a compelled economic benefit. See: Maynard Mehl V. John H. Norton, No. 31,338, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 201 Minn. 203; 275 N.W. 843; 1937 Minn.


So, it is really quite simple, just enter evidence into the record that proves that neither you nor your commercial PERSON had intent to create a cestui que trust, resulting trust, or any other kind of trust or had intent to accept benefits offered by the trust and put a verified claim in Admiralty on the trustee or appropriate trust agent or agents for the legal title to your property. Make a political decision to exit the experiment of social Democracy/American communism and re-enter the land of the Republic. Get your snout out of the public feed trough and stand on your own two feet and be self sufficient and independent as were your forefathers. In other words, grow some backbone and stop nursing Uncle Sam's sugar tit. BUST THE TRUST!!


Some think the republic is a goner, dead, kaput, buried and memorialized. NOT SO!! The legislature cannot destroy the Constitution by their own acts and omissions, neither can the President destroy it by Executive Order, nor the judiciary by [mis]interpretation of law. The people created it and only the people can change it or abolish it. It would take another Constitutional Convention by de jure state Citizens to get rid of it. As long as there is one man left on the planet that is an heir of the Constitution and has not reduced himself to the status of a 14th Amendment emancipated slave citizen of the United States within the jurisdiction of the United States , the Republic is alive and well. The Congress, the President, and the Judiciary will protect him and his guaranteed Republican Form of Government from all foreign powers including the foreign "this State" of trust.


There is really quite a bit more to it than this, but you should get the idea by now and I am going to quit because I am getting tired of writing about this crap, it really gives me a headache when I think about it too much. Bust the trust! You don't want to keep on being a communist, do you?





Notice of Levy for Employer 




Internal Revenue Service




We have received a notice of levy dated (date of NOL), naming our employee, (name).   Frankly, we are confused.   IRC sec 6331(a) (which is not included on the backside of the Levy) states on part that:

"Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia... "


(Your name) works for us, not for the Federal Government so he is not even defined as being leviable.


IRC sec. 6332(a) refers to a government employee who has a fiduciary responsibility to collect moneys from other government employees.   It states in part:


Requirement - Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the Secretary, surrender such property or fights..."


Since our company is not part of the Federal Government or under its jurisdiction, we do not fit the "Person Defined" in IRC 6332(d):

"Person Defined - ...the term 'person,' includes the officer or employee of the United States, of the District of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality who is under a duty to discharge the obligation.


Sir, neither our company, nor any of our officers work for the United States and therefore are not persons who are liable to send Mr. Shilling's property to you.   In fact, we could be held liable if we did surrender moneys or property to you.  As section 301.6632(c) says in part:

... Any person who mistakenly surrenders the United States property or rights to property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from liability to a third party who owns the property..."


Should you desire to persist in this request, we will need a court order according to 26 IRC, Section 7401.

AUTHORIZATION - No civil action for the collection of recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary [of the Treasury] authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate [court order] directs that the action be commenced.


We have to assume that the levy has no validity unless accompanied by a court order.   We must insist that any and all levies on any of our employees be accompanied with:

1.     Certified and signed copies of Delegation of Authority Orders from the Secretary of the Treasury right down to the agent who signed the levy.

2.     Proof that the signature on the levy belongs to an agent who has been given that authority. (See DOA 196 and DOA 191).

3.     A court order by a duly constituted civil authority who has jurisdiction in this locality.




(Name of Employer and signature)


Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".



The following web pages will provide much more information:

RM 01    RM 02    RM 03    RM 04    RM 05    RM 06    RM 07    RM 08    RM 09    RM 10    RM 11    RM 12    RM 13    RM 14    RM 15    RM 16    RM 17    RM 18    RM 19    RM 20    RM 21    RM 22    RM 23    RM 24    RM 25    RM 26    RM 39    RM 40   
We appreciate and thank all those people who contributed this information
and made it available to all who will take the time to review it and possibly use it.

We make no quarantees and no assurances as to any of its viability.
It is placed here for educational, reference, and information purposes only.