-Caveat Lector-

Legal Scholars Say Government Regs. Led to Boston Shootings
By Sierra Times - Posted: 12.29.00

Government’s Warrantless Search & Attempted Warrantless
Seizure Leads to Shooting Rampage; Boston Again the Scene of
Tax Revolt; Legal Scholar Says Government Evasion of
Constitutional Requirements for Tax Searches and Seizures Led to
Killings

Reports indicate an employee of a Boston Internet consulting firm
shot and killed seven co-workers who apparently participated in
plans to honor warrantless government searches for and seizures
of the employee’s earnings, accrued and future.

The law, constitutional and statutory, requires a Fourth Amendment
warrant, executive or judicial, for tax searches and seizures, but the
IRS has routinely operated without them, provoking an outcry,
producing litigation, and fomenting office stress that has now
resulted in violence. "Without a valid warrant, no legally valid proof
of a tax debt exists," said Virginia L. Cropsey, J.D., a graduate of
Wayne State University School of Law and the University of
Michigan, and author of an Internet newsletter and new website
that expose the legal insufficiency of IRS notices of levy.

"The Fourth Amendment accords protection to a person’s "effects,"
Cropsey says, "and that includes a person’s accounts receivable."
The Fourth Amendment was inspired by the 1761 speech in
Boston against the writs of assistance by James Otis, an attorney
engaged by the merchants of Boston. British issuance of the writs
of assistance, which are similar to the current IRS "process" led to
the Revolutionary War. A young John Adams, later second
President of the United States, heard the Otis speech and was
inspired to draft a provision, Article XIV, for the 1780
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which later became the
basic language for the Fourth Amendment, Cropsey says. At the
time of the construction of the Bill of Rights, Richard Henry Lee,
Senator from Virginia, and an ancestor of Robert E. Lee, saw to it
the word "effects" rather than "possessions" was used in the
Fourth Amendment, so that accounts receivable, which would
include the apparent shooter, Michael McDermott’s earnings, have
Fourth Amendment protection.

This means, and the 4th and 5th Amendment pre-judgment seizure
case law shows, that a warrant is required, according to Cropsey.
Additionally, wages are special property for purposes of pre-
judgment seizure under the Supreme Court decision in Sniadach v.
Family Finance Corp. You can’t seize property for taxes in this
country pre-judgment without a sworn statement, says Cropsey.
"Certainly the government should have to swear the debt is owed
and demonstrate probable cause for these searches and seizures.
The IRS has no business writing your employer about you and
interfering with your employment relations without proper
authorization."


Recently Cropsey showed that the Fourth Amendment’s "no
warrants" clause was intended by the Framers to require at a
minimum, an executive branch warrant for tax seizures. “I call it ‘all
about adjectives,’” said Cropsey. “I read the case law more
carefully than most attorneys, and noted that the Supreme Court
said in its 1977 opinion in GM Leasing that a judicial warrant was
necessary for entry into private premises for tax seizures. I knew
from the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, and from
research I did on the 1762 case of Entick v. Carrington & Three
Other King’s Messengers, a British sedition case, and from other
research, that at least an executive branch warrant was necessary
for other tax seizures. I’m a bit like the kid in “6th Sense” – I don’t
see dead people, but I see something the others didn’t due to my
careful reading of the Fourth Amendment’s 'no warrants' clause – I
see executive branch warrants."

These executive branch warrants were held to be required for federal
tax seizures. Pre-1954 case law exposed in a 1998 opinion in
Williams v. Boulder Dam Credit Union by Clark County Nevada
Magistrate Victor Miller held the executive branch warrant is
required, Cropsey says.  Cases concerning the issue of the
warrant requirement are just beginning to make their way through
the courts, she says. In order to avoid a Fourth Amendment test,
the government does not cross the line and technically seize the
property; it has not been using the language obfuscated case law
says is required for seizure – "is seized and levied upon,"
according to Cropsey, who says she spent over 1000 hours
researching the issue and who has 60 pages briefed on the subject
in the Michigan Court of Appeals, as well as on the question of
whether private sector employers are required to withhold wages
without a signed wage withholding order in effect.

"They used quite a few standard legal tricks. It was a textbook case
of stealthy encroachment." The levy situation leaves banks and
employers subject to suit on contracts, and without a defense that
they honored a levy under 26 U.S.C. 6331 & 6332 since no levy
occurs, according to Cropsey. Cropsey’s briefs show the pre-1954
case law was continued in effect by Congress under the 1954
Code. Since then, a consumer snatch-back line of cases in the
Supreme Court makes clear that the Due Process clause of the
Fifth Amendment requires sworn statements for pre-judgment
seizure. These standards also apply to federal tax seizures
according to the Supreme Court, Cropsey says.

Cropsey says her research also shows future earnings aren’t
property under state law, and therefore under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6331,
the federal tax levy statute, so the IRS cannot reach future
earnings with current levy process as they currently do.

"The situation is despicable; every member of Congress, every
President in modern times, bears responsibility for allowing this
situation to occur," she says, and encourages citizens to write
Congress and the President and demand the IRS obtain the
warrants the Constitution requires for tax searches and seizures.
The warrant is critical to show all the necessary procedures and
laws have been complied with to allow the government to seize the
property, she says.  "One judge stated he’d never seen anything
like what my research exposes in 23 years on the bench."

"The IRS can’t get a warrant for these tax seizures because no
competent authority can swear the tax debt is due and owing. The
Constitution prohibits direct taxes without apportionment. The
government is avoiding a test of the Constitutionality of the income
tax by not technically seizing the property. It’s a double-end run of
the Constitution, one the framers Fourth Amendment language was
written to prevent, and one which must end immediately," Cropsey
said.  "The IRS has engaged in a calculated campaign to intimidate
attorneys, legislators and others who should have reported this
situation into silence – the situation is grim."

The article submitted by Red Hen Resources - Troy, Michigan


--


Gun-control has always been an elitist method of controlling the common folk. 
...Nevertheless, if the urban insane wish to be prey for predators, that's their 
privilege. But no one has the right to tell someone else that he or she cannot possess 
the tools necessary to defend his or her life and the lives of loved ones. --Charley 
Reese

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to