Certified U.S. Mail                      c/o [address]
#P-xxx-xxx-xxx                           [City] zip code exempt
Return Receipt Requested                 [State] REPUBLIC
Restricted Delivery Requested
                                        [Date of Notice]

[Name of Bank]
Attention: Legal Department
[Street Address]
[City] zip code exempt
[State] REPUBLIC


                        NOTICE AND DEMAND
                   FOR RESTORATION OF ACCOUNT


Re:  IRS "Notice of Levy" dated [mm/dd/yy]
     against [Victim(s)]
     [Account Number]

Dear Sir/Ms:

     Notice and  demand are hereby served upon you to restore all
funds which  have been paid by [Name of Bank] from account number
[Account Number]  to the Internal Revenue Service, under color of
IRS Form 668-A "Notice of Levy" dated [mm/dd/yy] (see attached).


                          FORMAL NOTICE

     Formal Notice  is hereby  given  to  you   concerning  law(s)
applicable to  IRS levies,  and your  liabilities  for  violating
those laws.  IRS Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices
of Levy" that are sent to third parties such as banks, employers,
and other  financial institutions  to confiscate property for the
purpose of  collecting taxes  allegedly owed.   This  NOTICE   AND
DEMAND  to  you  covers  the  relevant  factors  in   the  correct
lien/levy procedure, and demonstrates how the IRS has misused and
abused  their   extremely  limited   authority  in    this   area,
particularly  in   the  case   of  funds  which   were  unlawfully
confiscated from [Name of Bank] account #xxxx-xxxxxx (hereinafter
"Victim's Account")  by alleged agent(s) of the "Internal Revenue
Service" [sic] (hereinafter "IRS").

     In what  follows, we  explain first what a "levy" is, and we
examine how  it is  commonly  mis-perceived  by  both  the   third
parties who  receive it  (e.g. banks)  and by  the IRS agents who
issue it.   Then we cover the legal requirements that must be met
before a  Notice of  Levy can  be valid.  We also discuss how, in
many  cases,   IRS  agents   use  the    Internal  Revenue  Manual
(hereinafter "IRM")  as  their  legal  "authority"   in  the  levy
process, even  though the  courts have ruled that the IRM conveys
no such legal authority.  We then relate the specific effect this
has on  IRS employees who fail to recognize the limited nature of
their authority.   We review the responsibilities and liabilities
of third  parties (like  [Name of  Bank]) who  may receive an IRS
Notice of Levy.  Finally, attached is a checklist for determining
whether or not an IRS Notice of Levy is valid.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 1 of 14


                            THE LEVY

     To understand  the limited  nature of  a levy,   we begin  by
defining the  term.   A "levy"  is a  confiscation of property in
accordance with a legal judgment.  From the definition itself, we
see that  there are two elements to a levy:  the first element is
that a  levy is  a confiscation of property;  but, the definition
is limited  by the  second element which is that, before property
can be  confiscated, it  must  be  in  accordance  with   a  legal
judgment.

     In civil  law, the specific process is carried out by a Writ
of Execution, or Warrant of Distraint, which is a "formal process
issued by court[s] generally evidencing the debt of the defendant
to the  plaintiff and commanding the officer to take the property
of the defendant in satisfaction of the debt."  (Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure,  Rule 69)   The plaintiff in the instant case is
the IRS;   the defendant is a [Status of Victim(s)].  The Warrant
of Distraint,  or its equivalent, results in a lien filed against
the property  by the court.  A lien, by definition, is a claim on
property for payment of debt.

     The following  are important  points to understand regarding
the nature of a levy:


(a)  levy can only come after seizure;

(b)  seizure only applies to property subject to forfeiture;

(c)  the only  property subject to forfeiture is that which comes
     under the  provisions of IRC Subtitle E -- Alcohol, Tobacco,
     and Certain Other Excise Taxes;  and

(d)  all the  enabling regulations pertaining to levies are found
     in Title  27 CFR,  which pertains  only to   those activities
     described in (c) above.


     The individual who actually receives the Notice of Levy is a
third party,  but rarely,  if ever, do third parties realize that
the responsibility  for determining  the validity  of a  levy  is
theirs (i.e.  the bank employee's, or officer's, responsibility).
Nor does  such a third party ever fully realize the importance of
making  a   correct  legal   determination,  since   an  incorrect
determination can  lead to a personal liability and possibly also
a criminal charge for "conversion of property."

     From Black's  Law Dictionary,  Fifth Edition,  we find  that
conversion is  an unauthorized  and wrongful exercise of dominion
and control over another's personal property, to the exclusion of
or inconsistent with the rights of the owner.  Anyone still doing
business with banks or other financial institutions must take the
time to  notify the  appropriate bank  officials of the Notice of
Levy's limited  application.   These officials  will benefit from
the knowledge  necessary to protect them from perfectly justified
damage  suits   brought  against   them  by    damaged  customers.
Information available  to us  indicates that  a  rapidly  growing
number of People are becoming aware of the applicable law and are
not bowing down to IRS threats and bullying tactics.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 2 of 14


     Most  People   have  little   or   no  understanding  of  the
applicable  law,   and  thus   are  unaware    of  the   statutory
requirements that  must be  met before  a Notice  of Levy  can be
valid.  We have found that most People assume the IRS has already
made that determination;  otherwise, why would the IRS be sending
the Notice  of Levy  in the  first place?   In  their   minds,  it
naturally follows  that the  IRS is  then legally responsible for
any errors.   What  those who  receive the Notice of Levy fail to
consider is  that, since  they are the fiduciary in possession of
the property,  it is  they who  are  ultimately  responsible   for
determining its  disposition --  not the IRS.  The trust we place
in those  who maintain  our property  is much  like the  trust we
place in  our doctor;   it  should be  maintained at  the highest
possible level of honesty and integrity.

     The IRS  agent who  sends a Notice of Levy is usually acting
on  the   presumption  that   he  has  the   requisite  authority.
Unfortunately,  most  IRS  agents  have  no  idea  what   the  law
requires.   Surprisingly, the  agent has  no legal  obligation to
tell the  third party  whether the  levy is  valid and, more than
likely, the  agent doesn't  know himself.   Rather,  because   the
third party  has  possession  of  the  property,  it   is  his/her
responsibility to know the law and to act accordingly, or to seek
competent legal  advice (assuming  any can be found).  The bottom
line is  this:  were it not for the many parties involved and the
various legal  aspects that seem to confuse the average attorney,
it would  be impossible  for the  IRS to seize property under the
guise of collecting income taxes.


                     AUTHORITY FOR THE LEVY

     The authority  to levy is restricted to and contained within
Section 6331(a)  of the  Internal  Revenue  Code   ("IRC").    The
annotated version  of  the  United  States  Codes  provides   more
insight into  the purpose  of Section  6331.  Title 26 USCA 6331,
under Note 5, describes the purpose of this section as follows:

     Purpose.   This section  was enacted  to subject salaries of
     federal employees  to the  same collection procedures as are
     available against  all other  taxpayers, including employees
     of a state.


     You will  not see  either of these paragraphs printed on the
back of any Notice of Levy form.  For some reason, the IRS begins
quoting their  levy authority  with the ominous sounding words of
subsection (b):  "Seizure and  sale of  property."  However, that
subsection is only an explanation of the term "levy" as that term
is used  in the previous subsection, IRC 6331(a), that limits the
authority for that levy.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 3 of 14


     Section 6331(a) contains the following key sentence:

     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.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     This sentence  would seem  to  imply  that   only  government
employees are  subject to  levy.   This would  be correct   if  it
specifically referred  to the  "employment tax"  on income   under
Subtitle C, but it is important to emphasize that this section is
implemented by regulations pertaining to, and making enforceable,
levies on the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms under
27 CFR  Part 70,  and certain other excise taxes under Subtitle E
of the IRC.

     The USC/CFR  Parallel Table  of  Authorities   reveals  quite
clearly  the   limited  application   of  this    IRC  Section  by
identifying these excise taxes.  The enabling regulations that it
specifies pertain  ONLY to  27 CFR Part 70 (alcohol, tobacco, and
firearms) and  those other  miscellaneous excise  taxes found  in
Subtitle E  of the IRC.  There is simply no connection whatsoever
with income  tax in  Subtitle A.   Therefore,  assuming that   all
other legal  requirements are met (e.g., notice and demand, court
order, lien,  etc.), a levy may be made only on property of those
persons who  are described in IRC Subtitle E, and on the property
of the  government employees  described in  6331(a).   No similar
provisions exist for anyone or anything else!

     One of  the more  troubling statements  which the   IRS makes
appears in IRS Publication 1 (Rev. 10-90) entitled Your Rights as
a Taxpayer.   On  the last  page under the subheading, "Access to
your private premises," it states:

     A court  order is  not generally  needed  for   a  collection
     officer to  seize your property.  However, you don't have to
     allow the  employee access to your private premises, such as
     your home  or the  non-public areas of your business, if the
     employee does not have court authorization.


     We will  show that  the statement  "A   court  order  is  not
generally needed for a collection officer to seize your property"
is an  incredible distortion of the truth.  Keep in mind that the
IRS admits  that its  interpretation  of  the  law  may   directly
conflict  with   court  decisions.    This  is   often  the  case,
unfortunately, because  its interpretations  seem to  be designed
more to intimidate than to represent the intent of the law.

     Section 6331  is the  only authority  in the entire IRC that
provides for  the levy  of property such as wages, salaries, etc.
The limitation  for that authority should be rather obvious since
it pertains  ONLY  to  those  persons  who  are   subject  to  the
provisions of  IRC Subtitle  E, and  certain officers, employees,
and elected government officials and, of course, their "employer"
-- the  government.   But, there are further limitations!  We say
"certain" officers,  employees, and elected officials because, in


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 4 of 14


this particular  section, the  applicable definition  of  "United
States" restricts  the  list  of  government  agencies   to  those
operating within  the geographical  confines of  U.S.  government
possessions and  territories such  as Guam,  American Samoa, etc.
There are  at least  three (3)  definitions of  the term   "United
States" in  the IRC, and it is important to know which definition
is in operation with respect to any given section.

     In this  case, the  ONLY government "employer" under such an
obligation and legally bound to honor the levy would be a federal
agency outside  the 50  Union states.   We  make the   distinction
because there  are many  federal officers, employees, and elected
officials working  for government  agencies within  the 50  Union
states who might otherwise think that the law provides for a levy
from their  own agency.   They  are concerned  because  they   are
employed within  the 50 Union states, but no other third party is
identified by this section, and thus, no other third party may be
served with such a notice.

     The technical aficionado who might question this should note
that this  section identifies the subject of a levy by specifying
the employer as defined in section 3401.  IRC 3401 is in Subtitle
C (Social  Security) and  the employer referred to is, or course,
an entity  that is  defined  for  the  purpose  of   administering
Subtitle C provisions.

     An employer  is NOT  the taxpayer under Subtitle A.   Rather,
he, she,  or it  is an  entity that is defined for the purpose of
administering the  provisions of Subtitle C only, and who, by the
definition  contained   within  Section   3401,    employs   other
participants  (defined  as  "employees")  within  the   geographic
confines of the insular island possessions and territories of the
United States.   Thus,  the  "employer,"  for   purposes  of  this
section, is a territorial government agency.

     Since this  geographic area is outside the borders of the 50
Union states,  the lawmakers  were not  under any  constitutional
prohibition  regarding   direct  or  indirect  taxation,   or  any
restriction  pertaining   to  the   rules  of   apportionment  and
uniformity.   The Constitution  for the  United States,  as such,
does not  extend beyond the limits of the States which are united
by and under it.  (See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).)

     As far  as the average person is concerned, it is completely
inapplicable to  those who have not voluntarily applied to obtain
a benefit  in federal  entitlement programs  or who  have revoked
their application  to participate,  based on  the fact that their
signatures were  obtained via a constructively fraudulent process
(if they were led to believe that participation was required).


                     DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

     Despite the  apparent loopholes  which seem to exonerate and
provide an  escape for  an  IRS  agent's  errantly   exercising  a
presumed authority,  there are  other provisions that do hold him
responsible   for   its   administration.    Specifically,   these
provisions deal  with what  are called  "delegation orders."    No
agent may  administer a  provision of  law without a proper order
delegating authority to do so.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 5 of 14


     The authority  to administer the provisions of Section 6331,
regardless  of   its  applicability,  is  further   restricted  by
national and  local delegation  orders designed  to ensure agency
compliance within the limits of the law.

     As with  all authority under the IRC, it is the Secretary of
the Treasury  who must  administer the  provisions for  levy,  or
delegate the  authority to  do so,  if and when appropriate.  The
delegation  orders  that  do  exist  for  liens  and   levies  are
remarkably limited.    For  example,  the  Delegation   Order  for
authority to execute lien and levy actions in the Newark District
Office of  the IRS  lists the  "Internal Revenue Manual, Sections
5312, 5314, 5326, 5343.2, 5421, 5541, and 5450."  Notice that the
citations pertaining  to liens  and levies within these orders do
not actually contain the statutory authority to levy that we have
examined thus far (i.e., IRC Section 6331).

     Interestingly, the  back side  of the  Notice of   Levy  form
itself also  shows a  similar peculiarity.   On  Form 668-W,   the
authorities listed  include 6331(b)  thru 6331(e),  but they omit
the elusive 6331(a), which is the actual authority for a levy and
the statute  upon which  the others rely and to which they refer.
Why is Section 6331(a) not cited on the form?

     In the Delegation Order, the remainder of the cite refers to
the IRM  which is,  of course, only "directive" in nature.  Since
it is  not the  law,  it  cannot  possibly  convey   actual  legal
authority.   It can  only clarify  what that authority is for the
benefit of  agents seeking  to understand  how to  administer the
law.   A nationwide  search of all delegation orders has revealed
that section  6331(a) has indeed been omitted from each and every
one;  but then again, if the authority for the levy pertains only
to those  previously mentioned,  then it should certainly come as
no surprise  that delegation orders pertaining to service centers
and district  offices within  the 50  Union states  of the  Union
(including [State]  REPUBLIC, of  course) cannot authorize such a
levy.

     If agents  are puzzled  by this, their only other source for
clarification is the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM").


                   THE INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL

     The IRC is the body of law that contains the legal authority
for the  Secretary (and  his delegates)  to administer provisions
pertaining to  the collection  of income  taxes.  It is, however,
not unusual  for the IRS to cite the IRM as their legal authority
for various aspects of a collection procedure.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 6 of 14


     As long  as there  is some illusion of authority, it is easy
for IRS  agents to  justify (in  their own  minds)  that   certain
actions are within the scope of their authority and, as mentioned
previously, the  delegation orders  do list  another "authority,"
specifically the  IRM.   But, research has revealed that at least
six courts  have ruled  that the  IRM does  not have the force of
law.   The courts  have ruled  that the provisions of the IRM are
only directory  in nature  and not  mandatory.   See   Luhring  v.
Glotzbach, 304  F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1962);  Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618
F.2d 347  (5th Cir.  1980);   and United States v. Goldstein, 342
F.Supp. 661  (E.D.N.Y. 1972);   Boulez  v. C.I.R.,  810 F.2d   209
(D.C.  Cir. 1987);  United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967 (6th
Cir. 1982).

     The simple  fact is  that the  IRM may not be relied upon as
the legal  authority for  any part  of a collection action, which
leaves Section  6331(a) as  the sole authority for a levy.  As we
have just  seen, this  Section is severely limited.  So, it would
seem that  the non-judicial collection powers of the IRS (without
a court  order) are  not as  awesome as  some IRS officials would
have the  public believe.   Or,  is it  just another  case of the
naked emperor  deluding himself?   Either  way,  it  doesn't   end
there.  The Notice and Demand is another nail in the coffin.


                    THE IRS NOTICE AND DEMAND

     The non-judicial  collection authority  is wholly   dependent
upon a  statute (Section  6321, also  enabled by 27 CFR Part 70),
which provides  for a lien to arise automatically when a taxpayer
fails to  pay a  tax that  is demanded  via a "Notice and Demand"
under Section  6303.   If such "demand" is not or cannot be made,
then a lien cannot automatically arise, and subsequent collection
activity cannot  occur.   All of  the available case law confirms
this.   In Linwood  Blackston et al. v. United States of America,
778 F.Supp. 244 (D. Md. 1991), the court held that:

     The general  rule is  that no  tax lien arises until the IRS
     makes a  demand for payment.   Myrick v. United States [62-1
     USTC 9112],  296 F.2d  312 (5th Cir. 1961).   Without a valid
     notice and  demand, there can be no tax lien;  without a tax
     lien, the  IRS cannot  levy against  the taxpayer's property
     ...  this   Court  concludes,    consistent  with  the  views
     expressed in  Berman, Marvel, and Chila that the appropriate
     "sanction" against the I.R.S. for its failure to comply with
     the [Sec.]  6303(a) notice and demand requirement is to take
     away its awesome non judicial collection powers.

                                                 [emphasis added]


     IRC Section  6303 is  the law  that requires   a "Notice  and
Demand" to  be issued;   however,  the IRS  does not   issue  such
notices for  reasons which are beyond the scope of our discussion
here.   As is  evident from  the court case just mentioned, it is
impossible for the IRS to move forward with the legal action that
is required  by Section  7403 (entitled Action to enforce lien or
to subject  property to payment of tax) if they have not issued a
Notice and  Demand.  In most cases, the Notice of Levy given to a
third party  falsely states  that a  Notice and  Demand has  been
issued;   but if  the IRS  fails to issue the required Notice and


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 7 of 14


Demand pursuant to section 6303, then they cannot possibly obtain
the necessary  legal sanction  through a  court of law to enforce
the levy.   Why?   Because,  in order to obtain the sanction of a
court, they would need to produce a copy of the Notice and Demand
that was referenced on the Notice of Levy form, and they can't do
that if  it does  not exist.   If  the IRS  is unable to send the
Notice and Demand, then it follows that it would be impossible to
obtain the necessary court order.

     Throughout this explanation, it is important to keep in mind
that no  single IRS  official is necessarily guilty of fraud.  It
is more accurate to say that the process itself is constructively
fraudulent.   In other  words, it is not necessarily intentional.
It is  sufficient to  explain that  there are  many IRS employees
involved, and that the employee responsible for any given part of
the "presumed  correctness" of  any given action rarely, if ever,
has any  communication with  any of the other employees, who then
act on those presumptions.

     Those who  have worked  in a typical busy office environment
know that  the responsibility for getting things done often falls
on a  low-level employee  who is  trying to  do the  work   of  10
People.   The short-cuts  they teach their fellow workers are not
necessarily in  the best  interest of  their employer,  but since
they are  unfamiliar with  the details  of their  company's inner
workings, the  reason that  it is  a detriment  is  beyond   their
understanding.   Of course,  if there  is no  penalty  for   their
actions, the  likelihood that  their invented  procedure will  be
corrected by  a superior  is slim.  When new employees are hired,
they learn the same defective way of doing things.

     The government  is more  prone to  this situation   than  any
privately owned business because its employees are generally less
productive and  have less  incentive to  change anything.  In the
situation we  are examining, the law is written to protect People
from these  inadvertent short-cuts made by lower level employees.
That is why a court order is necessary to effect a levy.


                         THE COURT ORDER

     Page 57(16)  of the  IRM entitled  Legal Reference Guide for
Revenue Officers  confirms (on the upper right-hand corner of the
page)  that  a  court  order  (i.e.,  Warrant  of   Distraint)  is
necessary.  We say "confirms" because the IRM is merely referring
to established  principles of  law,  since  it  does  not   itself
constitute the  law  that  requires  the  Warrant  of   Distraint.
Moreover, the  IRM shows  that the  IRS even  agrees  with   those
established principles  and encourages  their agents  to abide by
them.  The IRM, for example, cites the authority of United States
v. O'Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), to confirm that a proper
levy against  amounts held  as due and owing by employers, banks,
stockbrokers, etc., must issue from a Warrant of Distraint (i.e.,
a court  order) and  not  by  mere  notice.    The   O'Dell  court
specifically states that:

     The method  of accomplishing a levy on a bank account is the
     issuing of  warrants of  distraint, the making of the bank a
     party, and  the serving with notice of levy, [a] copy of the
     warrants of distraint, and [the] notice of lien.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 8 of 14


The court emphasized that:

     Levy is not effected by mere notice.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     Agents who  bother to read the IRM know that the "Warrant of
Distraint" mentioned  above is  the court order which is required
pursuant to IRC Section 7403.

     In the  case of  Freeman v. Mayer, 152 F.Supp. 383 (1957), a
U.S. District Court ruled, "A levy for delinquent taxes, pursuant
to statute, requires execution of warrant for distraint ...."  In
the case  of In  re Holdsworth,  113  F.Supp.  ____,  No.   279-50
(1953), a  U.S. District  Court ruled  that "... a mere notice of
levy is not tantamount to an effective levy upon and distraint of
all sums  of money  due from  debtors of bankrupts, in absence of
warrant of  distraint."   In a  recent Memorandum  of Points   and
Authorities in Support of an Application to Enter the Premises of
a safe  deposit  box  at  Wells  Fargo  Bank  in   California,  an
Assistant U.S.  Attorney admitted  on  record  that  the   IRS  is
required to obtain a court order to do so:

     The Supreme  Court recognizes the broad power of seizure and
     distraint authorized  by 26  U.S.C. 6331,  but has held that
     the government  must seek  a warrant before entering private
     premises to  search for  distrainable assets  to satisfy tax
     assessments.  G.M. Leasing Corporation v. United States, 429
     U.S. 338 (1977).  See also, United States v. Condo, 782 F.2d
     1502 (9th Cir. 1986).
                                                 [emphasis added]


     Thus, the  relevant authorities,  including the U.S. Supreme
Court, make  it abundantly  clear that a court ordered Warrant of
Distraint is  required before  property can be confiscated by the
IRS for payment of delinquent taxes.

     In a  decision involving  the tax  indebtedness of   Stephens
Equipment Company,  Inc. (debtor),  54 BR  626 (D.C.  1985),  the
court said:

     The role  of the  district court in issuing an order for the
     seizure of  property in  satisfaction of tax indebtedness is
     substantially similar  to the  court's  role   in  issuing  a
     criminal search  warrant.   In either  case, there must be a
     sufficient showing of probable cause.


     More  importantly,   the  court    held  that,  in  order  to
substantiate such  an order,  the IRS must present the court with
certain validation.  The court stated that:


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 9 of 14


     ... to  effect a  levy on the taxpayer's property [an order]
     must  contain   specific  facts    providing  the   following
     information:

     an assessment  of tax  has been  made against   the taxpayer,
     including the  date on  which the  assessment was   made, the
     amount of  the assessment,  and the taxable period for which
     the assessment was made;

     notice and  demand have  been properly  made, including  the
     date of  such notice  and demand  and the   manner  in  which
     notice was given and demand made;

     the taxpayer has neglected or refused to pay said assessment
     within ten  days  after  notice  and   demand;  ...  property
     subject to  seizure  and  particularly   described  presently
     exists at  the premises  sought to be searched and that said
     property either  belongs to the taxpayer or is property upon
     which a lien exists for the payment of the taxes;

     and facts establishing that probable cause exists to believe
     that the taxpayer is liable for the tax assessed.

                                                 [emphasis added]


     In their  Memorandum of  Points and  Authorities   supporting
entry into a safe deposit box at Wells Fargo Bank, the government
reiterated the  standard of probable cause necessary for an entry
order:

     In  the  Ninth  Circuit,  the  standard   of  probable  cause
     necessary for an entry order is similar to the standard used
     for criminal  search  warrants.  ...     In  particular,  the
     government must  establish  the  following   elements  to  be
     entitled to an ex parte order:

     (1)  The Internal  Revenue Service has made an assessment of
          tax and notice and demand for payment;

     (2)  the taxpayer has neglected or refused to pay the tax;

     (3)  notice of intent to levy has been given;  and

     (4)  there presently exists, at the premises to be searched,
          some property  subject to   seizure which belongs to the
          taxpayer or  is otherwise   encumbered by  a federal tax
          lien.   citing In   re Gerwig,  461 F.Supp.  449 at  452
          (C.D. Cal. 1978)


     Is it  any wonder that, in most cases, the IRS cannot seek a
court order?   Nevertheless,  the  court  order  is  a   statutory
requirement for  the levy  procedure because  it establishes  the
validity of  the IRS's  claim to the third party to whom the levy
is presented.   These  procedures assure the third party that the
lien and  subsequent levy  have been executed in a lawful manner.
The court  order also  protects the  third party from a liability
which may  arise under 26 CFR Part 301.6332-1(c), which states in
part:


     ... Any  person who  mistakenly  surrenders   to  the  United
     States property  or rights  to property not properly subject
     to levy  is not relieved from liability to a third party who
     owns the property ....
                                                 [emphasis added]


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 10 of 14


     Again, one  of the purposes of the court order is to prevent
overzealous IRS  agents from  taking a  short-cut  as  previously
discussed.

     Please be  advised that there is on record no court order or
declaratory judgment  holding that  the "[Name  of Trust or Other
Entity]" is  a Nominee, Transferee, or Alter Ego of "[Victim(s)]"
as is alleged on IRS Form 668-A dated [mm/dd/yy].

     It is  amazing what  happens when People insist that the IRS
obey the  law.  What is even more encouraging is that more People
are doing  this each and every day, and the political pressure is
now becoming  impossible for the IRS to ignore.  According to IRS
Commissioner Margaret  Milnor Richardson  in a  speech before the
National Association  of Enrolled  Agents in Nevada on August 26,
1993, (as  of that  year) 1 in 5 People had stopped (voluntarily)
complying, and  the situation  was out  of control.  We would say
just  the   opposite:     the  situation    is  finally   becoming
controllable because  the public seems to have developed the will
to study and know the law, and to confine the IRS within the law.


                             SUMMARY

     We have  reviewed the  nature of, confusion surrounding, and
authority for  the levy.   We  have examined  it in  light of its
application, the  enabling regulations,  the pertinent delegation
orders, the  missing notice and demand that is the cornerstone of
the process  leading up  to the  lien/levy procedure, and we have
shown why  the IRS  may not  obtain  the  necessary  court   order
without it.  A levy cannot be made against a bank account without
a court  order, which  cannot be obtained without the due process
requirements of  proper notice  and hearing  on the  matter.  The
U.S. Constitution  has never  been repealed,  and the Due Process
guarantees of  the Fourth  and Fifth Amendments are still in full
force and effect, because they have not been waived.


                     DEMAND FOR RESTORATION

     Wherefore, demand  is hereby  made upon  you to   restore all
funds which  were paid  by [Name of Bank] from the [Victim(s)] to
the IRS  under color  of IRS  "Notice of  Levy" Form   668-A dated
[mm/dd/yy].  Our records indicate that the amount in question was
at least [Dollar Amount].


                    RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND
                 NOTICE OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

     [Victim(s)] explicitly  reserves all  their Rights   to  hold
[Name of  Bank], and  all employees  who  were  involved  in   the
transaction in question, jointly and severally liable for actual,
consequential, and exemplary damages incurred by [Victim(s)] as a
consequence of this transaction.


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 11 of 14


                       NOTICE OF DEADLINE

     If the [Victim(s)] account is not restored to its full value
prior to  unlawful confiscation by the IRS, and if formal written
notice of same is not received by us, within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date of this NOTICE AND DEMAND, then [Victim(s)] will
have no alternative but to hold [Name of Bank] and the individual
employees involved  jointly and  severally liable for all actual,
consequential, and  exemplary damages, which have arisen under 26
CFR Part 301.6332-1(c), which states in part:

     ... Any  person who  mistakenly  surrenders   to  the  United
     States property  or rights  to property not properly subject
     to levy  is not relieved from liability to a third party who
     owns the property ....
                                                 [emphasis added]


     We have  provided you  with a  readable summary   of the  law
relevant to  levies performed  under authority  of  the  Internal
Revenue Code.  A much more detailed exposition of this law can be
provided to  you, upon  request.   In addition  to an irrefutable
reason for  restoring the  [Victim(s)]'s account  to its original
status, it  is our  sincere hope  that this letter will also give
you and  other bank  officials sufficient  legal justification to
handle IRS  Notices of Levy quite differently in the future.  May
we recommend that you consider adopting the attached checklist as
your standard operating procedure for handling all IRS Notices of
Levy from now on?

     Thank you  in advance for your immediate cooperation in this
matter.


Sincerely yours,




[Name(s) of Victim(s)]


copies:   litigation files

attachments


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 12 of 14


         Third Party Checklist for Determining Validity
           of Internal Revenue Service Notices of Levy

(Do not  proceed beyond  each step  unless  the  answer  to   each
question is  YES.   If the answer to any question is NO, the levy
is invalid.  Inform the IRS that you are unable to honor the levy
until all legal requirements are met.)


[ ]  Is there  a copy  of the  court ordered Warrant of Distraint
     and Notice of Lien included with the Notice of Levy?

[ ]  Does the  tax that the IRS claims is owed arise from taxable
     activities subject  to miscellaneous  excise taxes under IRC
     Subtitle E,  or those  that would  pertain to   the  enabling
     regulations of  Title 27  CFR Part 70 (alcohol, tobacco, and
     firearms), or  are you  a federal employer as defined in IRC
     Section  3401(d)   (in  one  of   the  U.S.  territories  and
     responsible for  administering provisions under IRC Subtitle
     C)?

[ ]  Was a  valid Notice  and Demand  for unpaid  tax sent to the
     individual (or  entity) whose  property is the target of the
     levy?

[ ]  Has a  valid Notice  of Lien been filed with the appropriate
     court at least ten (10) days after the Notice and Demand was
     received and  has the  court issued  a Warrant   of Distraint
     pursuant to IRC Section 7403?

[ ]  Has the  IRS sent  at least  three notices to the individual
     (or entity)  asking for  payment and  has the individual (or
     entity) refused to pay?

[ ]  Has the  IRS  sent  a  Notice  of  Intent  to   Levy  to  the
     individual (or entity) at least 30 days prior to the date on
     the Notice of Levy you received?

[ ]  Is the  Notice of Levy signed by an IRS agent and is there a
     delegation order  in existence  giving that particular agent
     the authority to issue a Notice of Levy?


If all  of the  above conditions  have been  satisfied, the  levy
could be  a valid  one.   However, if  you turn  over property in
response to an improper levy, the individual (or entity) who owns
the property  can sue  you  personally  for  actual  as   well  as
exemplary and consequential damages (see 26 CFR 301.6332-1(c)).


     It is your responsibility as a fiduciary to insure that all
legal requirements are met.


                             #   #  #


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 13 of 14


                     Roscoe Pound Warned Us

     Mr. Roscoe  Pound was  Dean of  the Law   School  of  Harvard
University from  1916 to  1936.   He was awarded the American Bar
Association  medal  of  "conspicuous  service  to  the   cause  of
American jurisprudence" in 1940.  He was the author of many works
in various fields of law.  He deserves our ear when he speaks.

     Back  in   1946,  Mr.   Pound    wrote   a   paper   entitled
"Administrative Agencies  and the  Law."  A few succinct comments
from that paper follow:

     "To them,  administrative officials, law is whatever is done
     officially.   And so  administrative law is whatever is done
     by administrative agencies ....

     "There was a steady growth of administrative agencies in the
     states in  the last decade of the nineteenth century and the
     first decade  of the present century, as part of the rise of
     social legislation.   At  first,  this   produced  a  certain
     friction with  the courts  ....   This led some advocates of
     administrative development  to denounce  the   separation  of
     powers which  is fundamental  in American constitutional law
     ....

     "Today, exemption  from judicial  scrutiny   of  its  actions
     seems to  be the  ambition of  every federal   administrative
     agency ...  but in the hands of agencies and subordinates of
     agencies not disposed to be scrupulously fair, these simple,
     nontechnical methods  may easily  serve  as   traps  for  the
     citizen who is seeking to obey the law ....

     "But,  it   is  a  characteristic   tendency  of  present-day
     administrative agencies  to use as a ground of decision some
     idea of policy not to be found in the statute or general law
     nor even in any formulated rule of the agency ....

     "Many of  these agencies  entertain complaints;     institute
     investigations upon them;  begin what are in effect prosecu-
     tions before  themselves;   allow their  own subordinates to
     act as  advocates for  the prosecution;   and often make the
     adjudications in  conference with  those same   subordinates.
     All this runs counter to the most elementary and universally
     recognized principles of justice."

                                                 [emphasis added]


     He goes  on to  say that  excessive zeal,   absence of a fair
hearing, disregard  of evidence,  prejudgment  by  administrative
agencies, improper  delegation of  authority and  obstruction  of
judicial relief,  are the  characteristics which  require checks.
Does this  sound as  if he  is speaking  of the  Internal Revenue
Service?


            Notice and Demand for Restoration of Account:
                          Page 14 of 14


                             #   #  #
     

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship