—– Original Message —–
From: “Vin Suprynowicz” Vin_Suprynowicz@l…
To: vinsends@e…
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: Jan. 8 column — Mass. shootings, part 2

>
> FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 8, 2001
> THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
> The questions that are never asked, Part II
>
>
> Last time, we were asking whether the bookkeepers at Edgewater
> Technology in Wakefield, Mass. — who had informed co-worker Michael
> McDermott they intended to start sending his paycheck to the IRS this
week
> based on receipt of a government “Notice of Intent to Levy,” and many
of
> whom subsequently paid a tragic price for their ignorance when said
> 42-year-old misfit quite wrongfully shot and killed them in their
workplace
> the day after Christmas — were aware that IRS “notices of intent” to
> seize paychecks or bank accounts are not legally binding unless
accompanied
> by a court order signed by a judge.
>
> Did those now-deceased bookkeepers bother to ask why “paragraph A”
of the
> legal code citation is always deleted from the “authorizing” fine
print on
> the back of the IRS’ standard “seize-his-paycheck” Form 668W (it
starts
> with “paragraph B”) — the reason being that paragraph A specifies
that
> said law authorizes the use of such onerous methods only against
employees
> of the federal government?
>
> Here it that carefully deleted paragraph: “Levy and distraint. TITLE
26,
> Subtitle F, CHAPTER 64, Subchapter D, Sec. 6331
>
> “STATUTE: (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 (and such further sum as shall be
sufficient
> to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and
rights to
> property … belonging to such person or on which there is a lien
provided
> in this chapter for the payment of such tax. (Start ital)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. …”(end ital))
>
> (See web site www.getawarrant.com — which contains a citation from
Clark
> County, Nevada Magistrate Victor Miller’s historic opinion in
“Williams vs.
> Boulder Dam Credit Union.”)
>
> Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1917 alimony decision in
Gould
> vs. Gould, 245 US 151,
>
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol
=151
> ) ruled: “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the
> established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond
the
> clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as
to
> embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they
are
> construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the
> citizen.”
>
> This means that, for instance, the word “includes” in a tax law is a
> “term of limitation” — it means “includes (start ital)only(end
ital).”
>
> Thus, the paragraph above means paycheck and bank account levies can
be
> made (start ital)only(end ital) against “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.”
>
> Furthermore, under Title 26, United States Code, the Social Security
tax
> is imposed in chapter 21, subtitle C, in which Section 3121 defines
> “employment” as “any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an
> EMPLOYEE for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship
or
> residence of either, (I) WITHIN THE UNITED STATES” … and then
continues
> in Section 3121(e)(2) to declare that, for purposes of this specific
> statute, “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense
> includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and
> American Samoa.”
>
> “Includes only.”
>
> How can this be?
>
> “The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax
on
> individuals,” responds Gordon Phillips of the tax education group
Inform
> America (www.informamerica.com.) “To be constitutional, any direct tax
on
> individuals must be imposed by law (start ital)only outside(end ital)
the
> 50 states of the Union: i.e., only in the four island possessions …
> despite the IRS’ deception of the public into falsely believing the
tax
> applies (start ital)within(end ital) the 50 states of the union.”
>
> So, under the bizarre definition of “United States” adopted to
purposely
> mislead us in this part of the Internal Revenue code, it would appear
> neither Michael McDermott, nor most of the rest of us, live in “the
United
> States” as defined for this section — or thus fall under its
requirements.
>
> In addition to which, Mr. Phillips points out, the tax regulations
to
> enforce the aforementioned paycheck seizure statute — applying only
to
> federal employees — are not promulgated under 26 CFR (the Code of
Federal
> Regulations for Title 26 “Internal Revenue Code”), but instead appear
in 27
> CFR (“Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms”), meaning the provision “applies
only
> to taxes due on those excise taxable products, anyway.”
>
> “None of us in the tax education division of the constitutional
revival
> movement have ever heard of any recrimination or retribution
whatsoever
> befalling the plucky participating employer” (who voluntarily applied
for
> and chooses to use use an Employer Identification Number) “who
dishonors –
> that is to say, refuses — a ‘Notice Of Intent To Levy’ based on the
IRS’
> failure to include the Warrant of Distraint — the court order as
required
> by law before the government can take the property of a citizen,”
Phillips
> goes on.
>
> But, “Ninety-nine percent of all American employers are, as are most
> loyal Americans, deeply chicken …” Phillips continues. “Upon
receiving
> the bogus ‘levy,’ they drop their pants to their ankles, snap briskly
to
> attention, smartly salute the IRS and, fearing that (start
ital)they(end
> ital) may be audited for failure to comply, begin shoveling the
hapless
> worker’s daily bread to the government as fast as their busy little
fingers
> can cut the checks to the IRS. Can you spell ‘due process’?”
>
> Yet is any reporter calling the IRS today, asking them “How do you
feel
> about the outcome of your purposeful misapplication of the tax laws in
the
> case of Michael McDermott of Wakefield, Mass.? Is it true that the
suspect
> Mr. McDermott was under (start ital)no legal obligation(end ital) to
apply
> for a Social Security number or fill out a so-called ‘W-4′ form, in
order
> to take a job in one of the 50 states, in the first place? That he may
well
> have been self-assessing himself for the income tax in error?
>
> “When the employer’s bookkeeper called and asked you what to do
about
> your seize-the-paycheck notice — the notice you sent out which led
> directly to these seven deaths, without telling them you’re only
authorized
> under that statute to seize paychecks of federal employees — did you
point
> out to them it’s not valid or binding without a signed (start
ital)court
> order(end ital)? Do you have that court order and could you show it to
us,
> today?”
>
> Of course not. Questions like these are never asked.
>
>
> Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
> Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (952-895-8757.)
His
> book, “Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement,
> 1993-1998,” is available by dialing 800-244-2224, or via web site
> www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
>
> ***
>
>
> Vin Suprynowicz, vin@l…
>
> “When great changes occur in history, when great principles are
involved,
> as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right.” — Eugene
V.
> Debs (1855-1926)
>
> “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed — and
> thus clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless
series
> of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken
>
> *
>
>
> ———————————————————————-
———
> If you have subscribed to vinsends@e… and you wish to
unsubscribe,
> send a message to vinsends-request@e…, from your OLD address,
including
> the word “unsubscribe” (with no quotation marks) in the “Subject”
line.
>
> To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@e…, from your
> NEW address, including the word “subscribe” (with no quotation marks)
> in the “Subject” line.
>
> All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my
columns
> until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each,
and
> that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their
> entirety, preserving the original attribution.
>
> The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be
> reached directly at alan@e…. The web sites for the Suprynowicz
> column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
> http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael
Voth
> in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@i….
>
>