Love for Life

Law Court Process

Law-Court process, IRS, Employer rebuttal.doc
From: We The People for Independent Texas

Court Shall Not Deny For Want Of Form - "As Any Reasonable People Understand"

[Original copy of PDF File (8 x A4 Pages) is located at bottom of this page]

Law-Court process, IRS, Employer rebuttal.doc From:

We The People for Independent Texas

26th May 2008

COURT SHALL NOT DENY FOR WANT OF FORM - "AS ANY REASONABLE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND"

KEEP THIS AND USE IT

This language should be included in the papers you write Sui Juris to the court. The court will say anything to refuse to act or to dismiss your cases. One of their favorite ruses is "denied for want of form".

This language, from the First Congress in 1789, clearly outlines the intent of what a court is to be and that the court is the one who is "deemed to know the law" and must assist sovereign people in our courts to plead our cases before a jury of our peers as we see fit to plead our cases, with counsel of our own choice.

The court works for us, and has NO discretion to refuse to hear cases of deprivation of rights and criminal injury. They know it; they just get away with it as long as we let them. Use this language to shove it back in front of them and make them tell you this is NOT the law.

Then ask what jurisdiction they have you in if this does not apply.

This IS the law and this stands.

The Writ SHALL not be dismissed for lack of form or failure of process. All the pleadings must be is as any reasonable man/woman would understand. Clearly written, affidavits of facts and law. Use this under "jurisdiction" in the Complaints you write.

"And be it further enacted. That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof. And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe

(a)" Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342, FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20, 1789

§ 219. Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign principals 18 USCS § 219

(a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to the employment of any agent of a foreign principal as a special Government employee in any case in which the head of the employing agency certifies that such employment is required in the national interest. A copy of any certification under this paragraph shall be forwarded by the head of such agency to the Attorney General who shall cause the same to be filed with the registration statement and other documents filed by such agent, and made available for public inspection in accordance with section 6 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 USCS § 616], as amended.

(c) For the purpose of this section "public official" means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government.

(Added July 4, 1966, P. L. 89-486, § 8(b), 80 Stat. 249; Oct. 12, 1984, P. L. 98473, Title II, Ch XI, Part J, § 1116, 98 Stat. 2149; Nov. 10, 1986, P. L. 99-646, § 30, 100 Stat. 3598; Nov. 29, 1990, P. L. 101-647, Title XXXV, § 3511, 104 Stat. 4922.)

HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES

References in text:

"The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1939", referred to in subsec. (a), is Act June 8, 1938, ch 327, 52 Stat. 631, which appears generally as 22 USCS § 611 et seq. For full classification of this Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Explanatory notes:

A prior § 219 was redesignated as 18 USCS § 214 by Act Oct. 23, 1962, P. L. 87-849, § 1(d), 76 Stat. 1125.

Effective date of section:
Act July 4, 1966, P.L. 89-486, § 9, 80 Stat. 249, provides that this section shall become effective 90 days after its enactment on July 4, 1966; see 22 USCS § 611 note.

Amendments:

1984. Act Oct. 12, 1984, in the first undesignated para., substituted "a public official" for "an officer or employee"; and added the third undesignated para.

1986. Act Nov. 10, 1986 designated the first undesignated para. as subsec. (a), and substituted such subsec. for one which read: "Whoever, being a public official of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government or in any agency of the United States, including the District of Columbia, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."; designated the second and third undesignated paras. as subsecs. (b) and (c) respectively, and in subsec. (c), as so designated, substituted "Delegate" for "the Delegate from the District of Columbia", and deleted ", or a juror" preceding the concluding period.

1990. Act Nov. 29, 1990, in subsec. (c), substituted "Government" for "Governments" preceding "thereof, including".

For anyone wishing to get rid of their SS#.

1-Fill out two copies of the withdrawal Form. http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-521.pdf

2- Take them to a SS office or mail Certified and get a clerk to stamp as received. They will try everything to talk you out of this. Don't let them. Leave one Copy for them.

3- Make two copies of the stamped received copy and make you an Affidavit of what you have done to this point.

4- Take two original Affidavits with attached SS withdrawal form to your County Recorders office and get both stamped as recorded into the County Records.

5- Send one copy to the Secretary of State or PERSON over the UNITED STATES SS Department and request your Recorded Documents be recorded into their records. Send this Registered Mail with Signature required.

6- After 30 days your unrebutted Recordings are now law and will stand where ever you need them.

7- Then if they or anyone claims you can't quit Charge them criminally with political rights violations and involuntary servitude.

republic of Texas, T. R. C. P. Rule 53
Commercial state of Texas
county of Dallas

signed and sealed

NON-NEGOTIABLE DECLARATION OF A FACT BY AFFIDAVIT

Know all other Sovereigns, and men, women, and persons, principals and agents,

"I, ( Your title AKA NAME), Declarant, I, Me, a Citizen/sovereign, Kemper v. State, 138 S. W. 1025, page 1043, declare that Declarant is a man, with life, over the age of twenty-one years, is a Sovereign man upon the land contained within the outer borders of the de jure republic of Texas, maintains a lawful domicile within the outer borders of the county of Dallas, is competent for declaring, has first-hand knowledge of the facts related herein, and the facts are true.

"I, ( Your title AKA NAME), Declarant, declare that the attached document entitled 'REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION, FORM SSA-521' is a true copy of the original document I filed into the Social Security Administration office located at the corner of Masters Street and Lake June Road in Dallas, Texas at approximately 1400 hours on October 1, 20xx, and said original was properly received and file marked by supervisor X. Xxxxxx. Said filing confirms the cancellation of Social Security Number by affidavit which I sent to the Social Security Administration in 20xx.

"I, ( Your title AKA NAME), Declarant, declare that I am not now, nor have I ever willingly and knowingly been a member of the National Socialist Democracy, and I am not a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and further, I have always been a Citizen/sovereign, one of the People, in either (State) beginning on my date of nativity, Month xx, 19xx, and now, having accrued the privileges and immunities of citizenship in Texas, I am one of the People, Citizens/sovereign in the land of the republic of Texas ab initio and nunc pro tunc, Month xx, 19xx."

Declared, signed, executed, and sealed on October 1, 20xx, under penalty of perjury without the UNITED STATES, Title 28 USC 3002(15), Title 28 USC 1746(1), and the Texas Government Code 602.004.

L. S. _________________________________________________
( Your title AKA NAME), a man, Citizen/sovereign, Declarant

VERIFICATION

COMMERCIAL STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

Signed and Sealed

On October 1, 20xx, (Your title AKA NAME), a man from the county of Dallas, appeared before me, a notary public for the STATE OF TEXAS, and after I administered the oath to him, he did declare that he has read the forgoing and that the foregoing is true.

____________________________
Notary Public,

VESSEL NAME IN CAPS

If the proceeding is in personam and no remedy is sought against the vessel herself, the case is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, but courts administering common_law remedies have concurrent jurisdiction under the saving clause.[FN5] The saving to suitors clause also extends jurisdiction of the common_law courts to actions in personam which involve an attachment or sequestration of a vessel or other property.[FN6]

THIS IS WHERE THE CAPITAL NAME COMES IN. IT IS THE VESSEL - WAKE UP!

Corpus Juris Secundum
Admiralty
Excerpts …..

Admiralty is a separate field of law.[FN1] It is a unique body of law particularly appropriate to the regulation and settlement of the special problems arising out of sea navigation and commerce.[FN2] The maritime law was developed for "men who go down to the sea in ships" and for the merchants who use the waterways of the world as highways.[FN3]

In one sense maritime law is federal law,[FN4] not state law,[FN5] as the entire subject of maritime law, including its substantive as well as its procedural features, is under national control.[FN6] It is within the orbit of federal concern by constitutional directive[FN7] and, in this sense, it is the law which has been developed and declared by the Supreme Court and other federal courts, sitting in admiralty or in the exercise of their maritime jurisdiction, as modified from time to time by congressional enactments.[FN8] The ultimate expositor of general maritime law is the United States Supreme Court.[FN9] However, in a different sense, maritime law or maritime jurisprudence is part of the law of nations[FN10] and, thus, the law of the sea is, in a peculiar sense, a part of international law.[FN11]

The rules of maritime law have been developed by the commercial nations of the world over a period of many centuries,[FN1] and they remain in continuous development.[FN2] Since the necessities of international trade and commerce dictate that this development should be along rather uniform lines in the several maritime nations, in a very real sense a body of general maritime law has developed internationally.[FN3] Thus, maritime law is the general law of nations, rather than the law of any particular country.[FN4]

International maritime law has the force of law, not from the extraterritorial reach of national laws, nor from an abdication of its sovereign power by any nation, but from an acceptance by the common consent of civilized communities of rules designed to foster amicable and workable commercial relations.[FN5] However, international maritime law does not purport to restrict any nation from making and altering its laws to govern its own shipping and territory,[FN6] and, in each nation, maritime law is operative only insofar as it is adopted by the law and usage of that nation, and with such modifications as are deemed proper.[FN7]

The national government, acting under constitutional and statutory authorization, took over the rules of maritime law, but only to the extent that courts invested with admiralty jurisdiction accept and apply them; maritime law is not a complete and all_inclusive body of law, and principles of the common law may, but do not necessarily, have a part in it.

Maritime law is not a complete and perfect system,[FN8] and its development shows that it was never created as a definite all_inclusive body of law.[FN9] It is not codified, existing only as a species of judge_made federal common law.[FN10] It draws on a number of sources,[FN11] including the international law merchant,[FN12] congressional enactments,[FN13] and a considerable body of municipal law,[FN14] as well as both civil law[FN15] and common law.[FN16] In the absence of clear precedents in the law of the sea, judges look to the law prevailing on the land.[FN17] On the other hand, in deciding cases in admiralty, courts are not bound by common_law rules[FN18] or inappropriate common_law concepts.[FN19] It is a federal question as to how far principles developed at common law or in equity find a place in the amalgam of general maritime law.[FN20]

When a case is brought in a state court and the maritime law would be applicable had the admiralty jurisdiction of a federal court been invoked, it is likely that the state court will adopt and apply the rules of the maritime law as the law of the state.

U.S.—Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Limited, 147 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. Cal. 1956), judgment aff'd, 254 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1958).

The maritime law of the United States is very closely related to the commerce power vested in Congress by the commerce clause,[FN9] and it is interpreted in the same manner as the commerce clause.[FN10] However, congressional control over maritime matters derives from those provisions of the Constitution conferring general power to legislate and from the provisions dealing specifically with admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and not from the commerce clause.[FN11] The powers under the admiralty clause and the commerce clause are distinct, with neither limiting the other.[FN12]

The power of Congress to legislate concerning rights and liabilities within federal maritime jurisdiction and as to remedies for their enforcement cannot be delegated to the states.[FN13]

Under the constitutional provision conferring on United States courts all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,[FN1] exclusive admiralty jurisdiction is vested in the federal courts,[FN2] and it may not be exercised by legislative courts or tribunals or by any executive official.[FN3] The admiralty clause does not permit either the Congress or the states to deprive the federal courts of admiralty jurisdiction,[FN4] but Congress has implied power to confer admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court[FN5] and, in the exercise of this power, Congress has given federal district courts original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, in all civil cases in admiralty or maritime jurisdiction,[FN6] as a separate and distinct category of federal jurisdiction. [FN7] Federal court jurisdiction over cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction has never been entirely exclusive,[FN8] but congressional action is required to overturn it.[FN9]

A court which takes jurisdiction of an action which is of a maritime nature may dispose of it completely without the necessity of any other suit in the same or any other court.[FN10] Furthermore, when the nature and subject matter of two transactions are the same as they relate to maritime commerce, if admiralty jurisdiction extends to one, it must extend to the other.[FN11] On the other hand, where admiralty enforces a right given by statute, it must take the right subject to statutory limitations. [FN12]

Since admiralty is a limited jurisdiction, one who seeks to invoke this jurisdiction has the burden of affirmatively establishing a right to it.[FN13] Admiralty jurisdiction cannot be acquired by conceding for a time the facts which establish that it does not exist.[FN14] Where the face of a complaint shows admiralty jurisdiction, but the evidence at trial shows that the complaint conceded jurisdictional facts and that there is no admiralty jurisdiction, a prior ruling made on the strength of the complaint does not confer jurisdiction where none in fact existed.[FN15] Where a complaint makes a case which is prima facie one of admiralty jurisdiction, however, this jurisdiction is not lost until the established relation or status is clearly changed.[FN16]

Primary purpose to protect maritime commerce

Jurisdiction of maritime causes of action against the United States is vested exclusively in the district courts and may not be exercised by the Court of Claims.

A two_part test is used to determine maritime jurisdiction, based on the event's potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and its substantial relation to traditional maritime activity.

The test of admiralty jurisdiction lies in the subject matter of the contract or controversy involved.[FN1] In determining the existence of a district court's admiralty jurisdiction, inquiry does not turn on the actual effects on maritime commerce of the incident giving rise to the suit, but rather on the general character of the incident involved.[FN2] The court must assess the general features and the type of incident involved to determine whether such an incident is likely to disrupt commercial activity and whether it is substantially related to traditional maritime activity.[FN3] Thus, a two_part test is used to determine maritime jurisdiction: first, the event's potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, and second, the general conduct surrounding the incident must be substantially related to traditional maritime activity.[FN4]

Application of admiralty jurisdiction is appropriate if the event giving rise to the suit occurs on navigable water and a potential hazard to maritime commerce arises from an activity that bears substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.[FN5] Activities significantly related to traditional maritime activity are not limited to navigation, but extend at least to any other activity traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial.[FN6] Focusing on the status of the claimant to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction exists is inappropriate.[FN7]

The court should determine the potential impact of a given type of incident by examining its general character and assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether it is likely to disrupt commercial activity.[FN8] The court must consider a description of the incident at an intermediate level of possible generality,[FN9] not by subjecting the minutia of a case to the "potential hazard to maritime commerce" and "substantial relation to traditional maritime activity" tests but relating the "general" aspects of the case to those two prongs.[FN10]

A "potential hazard" to maritime commerce need not include an actual hazard in the case at hand, but can be hypothetical, though not fantastical, and a "traditional maritime activity" may include any maritime_related activity, not just marine navigation.

The maritime law of the United States is to be uniform throughout the entire country, although absolute uniformity is not essential.

The requirement of uniformity in federal maritime law is not absolute.[FN4] Absolute or perfect uniformity is not necessary in all cases,[FN5] the facts determining whether uniformity is required.[FN6] Uniformity is required only when the essential features of exclusive federal jurisdiction are involved.[FN7]

A court which is properly exercising admiralty jurisdiction may proceed on or apply equitable principles and grant equitable relief.

To: ABC Employer
From: Joe Soveriegn

Date: 3/16/20xx

I received a "Notice of Levy on wages, salary, and other Income" from your office. For the record, I grant no consent for ABC EMPLOYER, a private sector organization NOT connected with the Federal government to collect wages on behalf of the IRS. I am NOT a federal government employee and ABC EMPLOYER is not a federal government employer.

Until this matter is resolved, I would strongly suggest that you hold the wages in question in an escrow account and not forward them to the IRS. The ability to contract for money in exchange for labor is a right of a free people. The obligation to pay for the labor exchanged cannot be circumvented on the basis of mere Notice operating under the color of law. (See fair-labor law) Merely shrugging the obligation to pay will not relieve you of that burden—even if the shrugging is on the basis of federal law of dubious applicability for persons and entities not in Federal territory (After all, Congress is prevented from making law for the People). It is not the duty of free citizens to ask government for property seized unlawfully by third parties; the obligation rests with the seizing party.

The questions you must ask relate to the core ABC EMPLOYERS policy of honesty and responsibility:

(1) Did you receive a valid signed court order with the seal of the court on the document?

(2) Does a mere Notice arise to the level of a legal duty compelling you, as a non-governmental employer, to do something? (Or is it merely a form of consent given by a government employee attempting to gain your consent for doing THEIR job?)

(3) Can you establish that I am, as the form states, a statutory one-word creation of government called a "TAXPAYER"? {Notice the form does not use the non-statutory two-word TAX PAYER} For the record I am a Non-filer; I can establish proof of this.

(4) Be aware, by acknowledging the levy on the reverse side of Form 668-W, you are stating that I am a statutory-created entity called a "TAXPAYER". (Remember: The IRS is very clever at getting innocent private-sector employees to establish what the IRS is prevented from doing by law.) Per its mission statement, the IRS only serves TAXPAYERS. The burden of proof now shifts to you to prove this TAXPAYER status in any court of law.

I am having counsel compose a letter to the IRS challenging this Notice. You will receive a copy of this letter. The letter will ask the IRS to verify this Notice as given to you. The letter will be sent with an affidavit of service and will ask them to verify to you the basis of their levy. It will give then 10 days to respond. If they don't respond in a probative, substantial and reliable fashion, you have no obligation to "do the work of government".

Kind Regards, Joe Sovereign

Attachments:

EMPLOYER RIGHTS AND DUTIES #9
Dealing with IRS "Notices" of Lien and Levy

I thought I would share this piece in my ongoing education of people as to their true power in this country. Sadly most of us treat our government as our master and allow it to do things beyond the God-given edicts declared in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We even allow it to take wide liberty at interpreting constitutional power in its favor when in reality, the people are sovereign (supreme power holder) and retain all political power. A Christian person would say that we have not fulfilled our stewardship role over government within the God-inspired realm of unalienable rights and self-evident truths. The recent passages of Patriot Acts, National ID cards, near mandatory Mark of the Beast (aka SSN), nationalization of driver's licenses, nationalization of state voter registration cards, endorsed torture on federal territory, unlimited government debt, the unprecedented one in 75 men in prison, and the recent incidents in the Terri Schiavo case all bear witness to this lack of stewardship. Sadly, as Hosea 4:6.6 will reveal, our ignorance will be shown no mercy by our perceived captors.

You might have received a Notice of Levy from the IRS and delivered to your non-federal employee via you, as a non-federal employer. (Amazing how the IRS expects the non-federal employer to be its servant-postal-service isn't it?) I'm going to use this as an opportunity for education. I promised you some more information on this and I thought I would share this piece forwarded to me by an attorney that he said was "revealingly correct."

I have attached a copy of Money News, a publication of the rather large organization known as the United Methodist Federal Credit Union. Read the last paragraph closely as it reveals something most people find startling.

Undoubtedly many people treat a mere Notice--such as a Notice of Levy--as something arising to the level of a "legal duty" on their behalf. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the attachment alludes to, one sees just how the IRS wants you to do something it is incapable of doing on its own: Seizing property under mere color of law. This supposedly is your servant government in action.

As you can tell, how many people see the first page of the levy and neglect to read the instructions on the reverse side? How many people surrender something of another to the IRS under the assumption they are doing the correct legal thing? Lacking a valid Judicial-branch court order, do they realize this is treated as equivalent to theft? Lacking a valid court order, any document you receive purporting to have a claim is only valid against federal employees on behalf of federal employers.
Don't feel badly: This deception happens at thousands of employers. (In fact one county recorders office refused to record these spam notices when it was revealed that something like 65% of the town's population had a Notice of Lien/Levy filed on them.). For your education a valid Judicial-branch court order is easy to distinguish by the following: (a) the seal of the court (b) a judge's signature (c) the name of the court (d) the title of the judge. [Hint: See any of those on a mere Notice?]

In the ultimate deception your friends at the IRS do nothing to dispel this myth of improper Levy. Without proper and true signed Judicial-branch process they are operating outside the law for people, inside only the law for government, and in favor of the IRS's threat of intimidation. If you consent to their intimidation, you loose. But there is an ultimate irony in this: Your new-found friends will refuse to back-up your position! That's correct! If you voluntarily surrender money based on one of these notices the IRS will: (a) refuse to give it back making you liable to a potential local-action suit and (b) refuse to back up your position when you claim it was the IRS that initiated the action. Friends that expect you to do their "dirty work" and then refuse to back you up are friends you don't need.

Now this article is revealing for another reason. I want you to note the last statement and the difference between the words Administrative and Judicial. An administrative function applies to the employees of government—only. The Notice of Levy is an administrative form intended for governmental employers. When you think administrative, think government business and government employees; this is separate from anyone outside of government.

Our government is famous for gaining consent using government forms that are administrative ONLY but look as if they apply to people in the private sector. Examples of these abound such as W4, W2, I9 forms etc. They are famous for withholding wages on private sector people when the withholding authority only applies to government employees—unless you consent. Per the Constitution only Congress can lay and COLLECT taxes. Congress is the Legislative branch of the government.

The IRS is the executive branch of the government and is actually prevented via separation of powers from collecting taxes unless the taxes are voluntarily given. Our government is famous for using definitions outside their intended purpose and using law for government against the people. The classic example is "employer" and "employee". Mostly when they use these terms in law, they are referring to government employers and employees. Gotcha! The way they do so was ironically revealed by President Clinton when he said, "It depends on your definition of is". Law is full of definitions meant to give you the impression of one thing but actually say something quite different. It is important that you distance yourself and in the words of one attorney, "stop seeing yourself within the law."

Does it surprise you that law is for government? A little reflection on this question will provide the revelation. "Well who needs governing? The people--or as this recent Money News illustrates--does government need governing?"

It's a revelation isn't it?

Kind regards, Dave Wissel

Dave Wissel is a lawful researcher and author who provides newsletters on behalf of non-federal employers and non-federal employees. In the service of fellowship, these newsletters are free to be distributed--providing information is not taken out of context. Please consult with an attorney on all legal matters requiring legal advice.

Affidavit of Authority
I am an authorized representative of the Internal Revenue Service. I acknowledge that my legitimate authority comes from the Constitution of the United States. My authority by title, granted by statute, to issue summons for your records (name of person) ________________________ under subtitle A and C, are under IRC section 7608 or section ________. My delegation orders from the Secretary to issue a summons order for an individual's records under Title 26 and Subtitle A and C are listed in delegation order number(s) ________________. I am authorized to issue a summons order for records of persons, without the constitutional requirements of Apportionment, who are not corporate entities and who do not fall under Subtitle E of the IRC and who have not received taxable income under the definition of "income" in the 16th Amendment as stated by US Supreme Court rulings. My lawful authority to issue a summons for the records from you is the Internal Revenue Code, section _______, paragraph(s) ________ and regulation number ___________, paragraph ________ of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26. I certify that the demand for the production of records is not a violation of your protections under the US Constitution. The Internal Revenue Service agrees to hold you harmless in the event that the production of records violates your Constitutional protections. I further certify that the IRS is acting under all lawful and correct collection procedures.

I declare under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed _______________________________ Date: ___________________

Printed Name of Agent __________________________________________

Agent's Employee Number ______________________

Agent's Title ________________________

Agent's IRS Division Name _______________________________

Witness Signature and Printed Name _______________________________

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".