|
Briefs Show Why IRS Was Wrong to Try to Make Boston Internet firm turnover Michael McDermott's Earnings "...ordered
to help the IRS..." - ABC
News, 12/27 This is what I heard on newscasts concerning the Boston IRS shootings. Equivocation like "ordered to help" and "requested". The government has set banks and employers up for suits on the contract by the employee, and intimidation and possible suit by the IRS if it does not "help" without the required warrant. This tragedy happened because the law requires the IRS to GET A WARRANT to seize Michael McDermott's wages, and they did not. Don't expect the traditional media to tell the truth. The attached briefs tell the tale. I had intended to rewrite and improve these briefs, which I drafted nine months ago, into a treatise, incorporating additions to the research. Due to the Boston rampage, I am placing them on the site now, so that others may understand the gross injustice that was done to McDermott - his wages were being withheld without proper legal process - a warrant. The IRS did not have a warrant to seize his wages, and the law requires the IRS to have a warrant to seize wages for taxes. Further, because people are so completely dependent on wages, the Supreme Court has accorded them a special status in the area of seizure. This is not to excuse McDermott, but the government was obligated to get a warrant. I hope the families of the dead get a good and courageous lawyer(s) who will sue the government and the corporation - interested attorneys may call me for ideas, research assistance. The IRS "notice of levy" should be held to be an unconstitutional search in violation of McDermott's rights, even though no valid seizure was probably effected. There is no search authority under 26 USC 6331. "The fact that the Government has not compelled a private party to perform a search does not, by itself, establish that the search is a private one. If the motivation of the search is provided by the government, the intrusion may not be made other than in conformity with the 4th Amendment." Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n., 489 US 602 (1989). The government's behavior in these matters is unconscionable. Here are just a few notes of addition:
Please share these with freedom-minded attorneys you know. The car "levies" in GM Leasing are probably explained by the "open fields" exception to the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court cases on that are Hester and Oliver. The cars were therefore not within the scope of the 4th Amendment definition of "seizure" as the Supreme Court currently defines it - although the Oliver dissents strongly question the continuing viability of the open fields doctrine. There is additional case law supporting the due process requirements elucidated here which I plan to add in the future. Congress removed the authority of the Secretary to issue executive branch warrants after the decision in GM Leasing. This means the IRS must generally rely on lien foreclosure suits to properly enforce any valid tax debts. One cannot be compelled to pay a direct tax without apportionment. Whether one is or is not a "taxpayer," which is a question of statutory interpretation, is not essential to determining that point, but the Service has created a "blackhole" in its administrative process on terms such as these. I write about these issues in more detail in my Netletter, to which you may subscribe by sending us your e-mail address. Virginia Cropsey |