Posted on 03/06/2002 7:46:33 PM PST by one2many
I do not know who made the press release. I am posting this simply for the FYI of all reading the thread. In deference to the geezer and others I have removed the "pitch" info which appeared at the end of the press release. If anyone asks, I will post the "contact info" for those who would like more information on this matter. Thank you MissAmericanPie for telling it like it is! (Above)
"Fight the Balrog; free your kids"
Judge Refuses to Dismiss Tax Payer
Lawsuit Against Bank of America
Irwin Schiff who is regarded by many as being the Nation's leading authority on the income tax is suing the Bank of America for triple damages for turning over approximately $8,000 of his money to the IRS in response to a Notice a Levy. Third parties, such as banks and employers, that turn over bank accounts and wages to the IRS in response to IRS Notices of Levy are used to having suits brought against them for doing so summarily dismissed. That was not the case on November 13, 2001 in Clark County District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada. All:
I do not know who made the press release. I am posting simply for the FYI of all reading the thread. In deference to the geezer and others I have removed the "pitch" info which appeared at the end of the press release.
Judge Earl refused to grant the Bank of America's motion to dismiss this lawsuit. In his lawsuit, Schiff claimed that James Gritis the IRS agent who sent the Notice of Levy had no authority to do so. Schiff pointed out, to the surprise of the Court, that federal law does not give the IRS authority to seize property in payment of income taxes.
Holding up the Internal Revenue Code to the bench, Schiff said. "If you can show me in this Internal Revenue Code where it gives the IRS any authority to seize property, I'll withdraw my lawsuit." Judge Earl declined Schiff's offer. Schiff claimed that by turning over his money pursuant to a Notice of Levy - the Bank of America violated both federal and Nevada law.
The money at issue is based on traditional returns Schiff was coerced into filing during a 1990 probation hearing and has nothing to do with years in which he has filed his popular "zero" return - as explained in his latest book, The Federal Mafia: How the Government Illegally Imposes and Collect Income Taxes. The "zero" return allows taxpayers to file 1040's, reporting "zero" income (regardless of how much money they might have earned for that year) and even claim a refund of all the income taxes they might have paid in that year.
Schiff believes that by winning this lawsuit and collecting triple damages as a result of the Bank's negligence, he will put an end to the IRS' ability to extort billions from the American public with these fraudulent notices. "The only reason that the IRS has been able to get away with it, is because of the culpability of America's lawyers, who allow the IRS to do it." While Schiff is not a lawyer, he has over 500,000 books in circulation on the income tax and related subject.
Numerous students of Mr. Schiff filled the Courtroom, including some who came from out of State to witness the proceedings. Case No. A- 440323. Irwin Schiff v. Bank of America. Clark County District Court. Department 19. 200 South Third Street. Las Vegas, NV. 89101
"Americans are forcibly and illegally being kept from their God-given right to liberty; what are you doing to correct this situation? Oh I know, you don't have the time to get involved because you are working so hard to make enough money to support your family in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, and you wouldn't do anything that might upset that lifestyle, right?!” -—Brent Johnson
I can only imagine the surprise of the court in its reaction.
Just because the judge is giving Mr. Schiff his day in court doesn't mean he has a case. The IRS and the bank is still required to follow certain procedures and MR. Schiff certainly has his rights under the law to contest this.
Clark County District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada.
A suit against the Bank from the looks of it, probably for not exercising due investigation into the Schiff's claims as a fiduciary duty to the account holder.
The bank will contest, if it loses it may just quit and pay damages and not appeal as too costly to fight further.
It would be interesting to see a bank lose at County Court, and carry through to the Federal appellate level, arguing federal rulings such as:
295 U.S. 247 (1935)
- " A serious and difficult issue is raised by the claim that the same receipt has been made the basis of both income and estate tax, although the item cannot in the circumstances be both income and corpus; and that the alternative prayer of the petition required the court to render a judgment which would redress the illegality and injustice resulting from the erroneous inclusion of the sum in the gross estate for estate tax. The respondent presents two arguments in opposition, one addressed to the merits and the other to the bar of the statute of limitations."
- ", the usual procedure for the recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment precedes defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the sovereign."
regarding federal tax law which apply to the issue by the supremecy clause, not the local views of commercial distraint and levy procedures.
In anycase such is not a victory over the IRS, it is a question of a Bank's due diligence at the County Court's level.
This kind of case is one of Erwin Schiff's stock in trade. Unfortunately Doesn't do a thing to get anyone out of paying federal taxes, in fact may provide the fodder for federal willful failure to pay charges in Federal Courts.
Here it is again: BULL v. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 247 (1935)
- " A serious and difficult issue is raised by the claim that the same receipt has been made the basis of both income and estate tax, although the item cannot in the circumstances be both income and corpus; and that the alternative prayer of the petition required the court to render a judgment which would redress the illegality and injustice resulting from the erroneous inclusion of the sum in the gross estate for estate tax. The respondent presents two arguments in opposition, one addressed to the merits and the other to the bar of the statute of limitations."
- ", the usual procedure for the recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment precedes defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the sovereign."
Here it is again: BULL v. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 247 (1935)
- " A serious and difficult issue is raised by the claim that the same receipt has been made the basis of both income and estate tax, although the item cannot in the circumstances be both income and corpus; and that the alternative prayer of the petition required the court to render a judgment which would redress the illegality and injustice resulting from the erroneous inclusion of the sum in the gross estate for estate tax. The respondent presents two arguments in opposition, one addressed to the merits and the other to the bar of the statute of limitations."
- ", the usual procedure for the recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment precedes defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the sovereign."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.