The 4^th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly requires a signed court order or warrant for the Government to seize property or conduct a search.

IRS blatantly disregards the 4^th Amendment in direct violation of the Constitution by administratively sending pieces of paper with titles like "Notice of Levy" (and such) to third parties (such as employers and banks) that do NOT have the legal authority of a court order.

	Watch the Video Testimony		Read the Transcript
	Section Summary
	Question & Evidence Overview
	Findings & Conclusions
Questions 400 - 417

Understanding the Incomprehensible

400. Admit that 26 U.S.C. §6331 is the authority by which distraint in the collection of Subtitle A income taxes against individuals is instituted.
     
     See 26 U.S.C. §6331
     Exhibit 400
     
     
401. Admit that 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) identifies the only entities against whom distraint may be instituted.
     
     See 26 U.S.C. §6331(a)
     Exhibit 401
     
     
402. Admit that 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) identifies that levy may be made against only the following individuals:

(a)...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.

See 26 U.S.C. §6331(a)
Exhibit 401

403. Admit that 26 CFR §31.3401(c ) identifies the definition of "employee" as:

 "...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico or any political subdivision, thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation."

See 26 CFR §31.3401(c )
Exhibit 402

404. Admit that the IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO) is the Notice of Levy form routinely delivered to private, nongovernmental employers by the IRS to institute distraint against their employees.
     
     See IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO)
     Exhibit 403
     
     
405. Admit that the reverse side of IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO) shows 26 U.S.C. §6331 but has paragraph (a) removed.
     
     
     See IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO)
     Exhibit 403

406. Admit that the removal of 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) from the reverse side of IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO) could lead private employers who do not employ federal "employees" to incorrectly honor a Notice of Levy.
     
     
407. Admit that inclusion of 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) on the reverse side of the IRS Form 668-A(c)(DO) would make it less likely to cause private employers to misinterpret or misapply the law in processing an IRS Notice of Levy.
     
     
408. Admit that the Fourth Amendment requires that all seizures of property by the U.S. government must be preceded by service of a warrant upon the party whose property is to be seized. (See 4th Amendment below)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

409. Admit that the Fourth Amendment requires that the person who signs or issues the warrant authorizing seizure must be a neutral magistrate as indicated in the annotated Fourth Amendment:

Issuance by Neutral Magistrate:  In numerous cases, the Court has referred to the necessity that warrants be issued by a ''judicial officer'' or a ''magistrate.'' [1] ''The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.'' [2] These cases do not mean that only a judge or an official who is a lawyer may issue warrants, but they do stand for two tests of the validity of the power of the issuing party to so act. ''He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.'' [3] The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities, [4] but the Court has not required that an issuing party have that independence of tenure and guarantee of salary which characterizes federal judges. [5] And in passing on the second test, the Court has been essentially pragmatic in assessing whether the issuing party possesses the capacity to determine probable cause. [6]

See 4th Amendment annotations
Exhibit 404

410. Admit that the IRS routinely seizes property from citizens without first litigating to obtain a warrant from a neutral magistrate.

Intimidation and Fraud - What's That In Your Pocket

411. Admit that the Supreme Court said that persons are entitled to a due process hearing prior to the seizing of property as follows: "The right to a prior hearing has long been recognized by this Court [Supreme Court] under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments…[T]he court has traditionally insisted that, whatever its form, opportunity for that hearing must be provided before the deprivation at issue takes place."

See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 551.
See Exhibits 405,406,407,408

412. Admit that the due process hearing prior to seizure must occur at the point where the seizure of property can be prevented as follows:

"If the right to notice and a hearing is to serve its full purpose, it is clear that it must be granted at a time when the deprivation can still be prevented. At a later hearing, an individual's possessions can be returned to him if they were unfairly or mistakenly taken in the first place. Damages may even be awarded him for wrongful deprivation. But no later hearing and no damage award can undo the fact that the arbitrary taking that was subject to the right of due process has already occurred. This Court [the Supreme Court] has not embraced the general proposition that a wrong may be done if it can be undone."

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 647, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 556,.Ct. 1208 (1972)
Exhibit 410

413. Admit that 26 U.S.C. §7805(a) authorizes and empowers the Secretary of the Treasury as follows: Sec. 7805. - Rules and regulations (a) Authorization Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.
     
     See 26 U.S.C. §7805(a)
     Exhibit 411
     
     
414. Admit that there are no implementing regulations applicable to Part 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations which authorize assessment of the tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 or 26 U.S.C. §871 by other than the taxpayer filling out the form.
     
     See 26 U.S.C. §1 or 26 U.S.C. §871
     Exhibit 414
     
     
415. Admit that there are no implementing regulations applicable to Part 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations which require record keeping for the tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 or 26 U.S.C. §871 by other than the taxpayer filling out the form.
     
     
416. Admit that there are no implementing regulations applicable to Part 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations which authorize IRS collection of the tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 or 26 U.S.C. §871.
     
     
417. Admit that there are no implementing regulations applicable to Part 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations which authorize imposition by the government of penalties or interest for nonpayment of the tax imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 or 26 U.S.C. §871.

Joe Bannister Watch Out for Jagulars
Ms. Jackson "That's So Wrong"