Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx

Xx Xxxxxxx xxxxx

Las Vegas, New Mexico

 

 

December 19th, 2005

 

Andrea Nelson, Staff Attorney

ING/Reliaster Life Insurance Company

20 Washington Avenue South

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401

 

Dear Ms. Nelson,

 

            This lawful notification to you is sent pursuant to the federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Amendments, and the Bill of Rights of the State Constitution, specifically Article II, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 17 and 18, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter.  You failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, that in this letter with which you disagree, is your lawful legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you.  Your silence is your acquiescence.  See;  Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391.  Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.”  Also, See:  U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297.  “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”    

 

            You are in a responsible, and liable, position concerning the disposition of the urgent matter we have and are currently discussing, namely, the unlawful, unconstitutional and unwarranted, unsigned levy and unauthorized actions of Rosemary Abascal, of the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter, (IRS), by which she transmitted to ING/Reliaster Life Insurance Company, hereinafter (ING), an unlawful, unconstitutional and improper “notice of levy” which falsely purports “authority” for conversion of my property by and through ING.  IRS revenue agent, Rosemary Abascal, (ROSEMARY ABASCAL), does not have an enforcement pocket commission, therefore, she cannot engage in any actions that involve enforcement.  She has only an administrative pocket commission, she can only perform administrative duties.

 

            Because of your position in this matter, your actions must be supported by corporate resolutions authorizing those actions, or you act on your own, without corporate authority, and thus, are fully liable, personally, and in your professional capacity, as are your superiors, for allowing your unauthorized actions against me and my property.  Basically, you, personally, become the scape-goat.  It is the corporation’s legal and lawful responsibility to determine if your actions are correct, lawful, authorized, and, if so, by whom, and on what valid, lawful authority; and if the “notice of levy” from the IRS is lawful, legal, authorized by valid law, in compliance with the Constitution.  The failure by ING to:  (a) perform as stated herein; (b) make lawful decisions; and (c) take lawful actions, which do not oppose my Constitutional Rights, renders ING fully complicit with the IRS in acts of collusion and conspiracy to (i) unlawfully defraud me of my property and my Rights; (ii) perpetrate fraud; (iii) unlawfully convert my funds/property; (iv) participate in the unlawful abrogation of contract.

           

            If ING fails to verify the IRS’ actions and “notice of levy”, in this matter, as valid, lawful and Constitutional, and fails to obtain qualified legal opinion of corporate or other counsel verifying the same, then, in that situation, you and ING hereby admit that both you and ING are totally responsible for and liable for your actions in this matter, fully binding upon you both, in any court in America, without your protest, objection, or that of those who may represent you. 

 

            As I have stated on numerous occasions, the IRS must, according to law, their own administrative rules and regulations, as well as recent federal court rulings, perform required and authorized procedures to do any “notice of levy”, and you and ING must be fully aware that a “notice of levy” is not a lien, and, as such, no funds can be lawfully or constitutionally deducted, converted or stolen, by anyone, for any reason, from my property.  If this notice were a lien, which it is not, then that lien would REQUIRE a valid court order for any action, by anyone, to convert my property.  See:  Schulz v. IRS, 04-0196-CV, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the IRS cannot apply force against a tax payer without a court order, and U.S. v. O’Dell by which the Supreme Court of the United States clearly ruled that absent a court order, there can be no enforcement.

 

            I have a contract with ING regarding my property, and ING has no authority from me, whatsoever, to pay or pass over or steal my property for the benefit of the IRS or any other fraudulent agency.  As you know, the government, under any perceived authority by any renegade agency, cannot impair the obligations of contract.  If you do what this unlawful levy requires, then you hereby admit you do so without authority, in violation of my contract with ING.  Since the IRS has no authority, it can convey no authority, and if you and ING act on your own, you do so to your own liability and detriment.

 

            No corporation is required to abide by any unlawful order, especially, one from an unlawful, fraudulent agency, acting under color of law.  Further, as stated above, since the IRS has absolutely NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY, because its actual status is that of a rogue, private collection agency, acting for the financial interests of the private Federal Reserve Bank.  The IRS is not authorized, as a lawful federal agency, by congress, nor did congress ever vote Titles 26 and 27 into positive law, thus, it can convey no lawful authority, under, color of those titles, to any entity, to act against me, my property or that of any other American Citizen.  In fact, pursuant to 1 USCS § 204, “United States Code is not enacted as statute, nor can it be construed as such, it being only prima facie statement of statute law.”  Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1947, CA 5 Fla) 160 F 2d 787.  “Official source for United States laws is Statutes at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws.”  Royer’s v. United States (1959, CA 3 Pa.) 265 F 2d 615, 59-1 USTC § 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137.  Title 26 and Title 27 have not been enacted into positive law, therefore, have no force or effect of law upon me as a private American Citizen.  Furthermore, 1 USC § 112 further confirms that the United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws.  In addition, “Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, that title is only ‘prima facie’ evidence of the law.”  Preston v. Heckler, 734 F 2d 1359, (1984, CA 9 Alaska).  “…that the Code establishes ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States, the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ being that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423 (1943); United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964).  Therefore, reference must be made to the Statutes at Large, and the Statutes at Large only allow liens or levies on the excise taxable activities involving cotton or distilled spirits.  Therefore, any presumed authority which the IRS assumes by quoting section 6321, 6331, 6332 through 34, has no lawful force or effect upon me, a private American Citizen, who is not now nor ever has been involved in any excise taxable activity, the fact of which I have informed the IRS in all previous correspondence between the IRS and me.

 

Unless ING is actually part of and owned by the IRS, ING is an independent corporation free of government intrusion into its contractual arrangements with me and others, and has no obligations, of any kind, to abide by unlawful orders from any unlawful, unconstitutional private concern fraudulently posing as an authorized branch of the government of the United States of America, as is the IRS.             

        

            If, by the actions of ING, it becomes apparent that ING abrogates its requirements under contract, and/or pays proceeds of property belonging to others, under contract, to any unauthorized third party, on the basis of a fraudulent and unlawful order or assessment or levy, then, it is my sworn duty to make this practice by ING widely known within the entire insurance industry, and more particularly, to clients and agents, who could be harmed by ING’s unlawful policies and practices.

 

            In all previous correspondences that I have had with you, you have failed to rebut or deny any of my legal positions, and the facts and law, as set forth in my letters.  You have failed to state any legal position or to provide any statement of fact and law on which you are basing your position.  Therefore, you have admitted to all of my legal and lawful positions and facts and law as presented.  In both of your correspondences to me, you simply state that you disagree with my legal positions, but you fail to provide any legal and/or lawful position based on facts and law as required by your oath and your professional ethics as an attorney.  Your statement that you simply disagree with my legal position and the facts and law as set forth in my letters, does not establish a lawful position for you or ING, thus you are appointing yourself as a “judge”, and you have established your level of incompetence, the recklessness of your actions, obviating your professional ethics as established by the Georgia State Bar, Disciplinary Board, and have exposed yourself to personal liability in your own private capacity and your professional capacity, and furthermore, your actions invoke ING as a liable party. 

 

As I Have previously stated to you, which you have not denied, you and ING have the responsibility to determine if the IRS levy is lawful and meets all lawful requirements imposed on such a levy, including, but not limited to, IRS’s own rules and regulations. The levy does not meet these requirements.  Further, I remind you that the levy was unsigned, and NO COURT ORDER WAS ISSUED AUTHORIZING THE LEVY.  Still further, both issuance of the levy and your and ING’s unlawful actions were taken without due process of law.     

 

            For your information, I have sent you copies of Supreme Court Decisions that support my legal position.  In United States v. O’Dell, the court stated that, “mere notice of intent to levy is insufficient.”   In United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., D.C. Conn, 1942, 146 F. Supp.30, 37, in which Judge Hincks observed that he could “find no statute which says that a mere notice shall constitute a ‘levy’”.  In Given v. Cripe, 7 Cir. 1951, 1987, F2d. 225 and United States v. O’Dell, supra, the courts found “that a warrant for distraint is necessary to constitute a levy.” The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit state in its opinion, 221 F2d at page 642, “…require that a levy….be accompanied by warrants of distraint[issued by a judge in a legal proceeding].”(Exhibit A, page 4 of 6).  A copy of 26 USC, section 6331(a) that clearly states who may be levied, exhibit A, page 3 of 6.   Tax law is not law by implication, it is written law.  In Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) the court found, “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.  In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.”  In Botha v. Scanlon, 288 F2d. 504,(1961) the court found, “Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute.” 

 

            Andrea Nelson, it is clear that by your words and actions you are choosing to engage in collusion and conspiracy, to defraud me and engage in conversion of my personal property, with the IRS, via the IRS agent Rosemary Abascal, ROSEMARY ABASCAL.  The decisions above, Gould v. Gould and Botha v. Scanlon, are confirmed at, 20 Fed. Proc. L Ed. Section 48, 548. WHAT MAY BE LEVIED UPON.

 

“…[W]ith regard to a levy on salary or wages[26 U.S.C.S. Section 633(e)(1); 26 CFR Section 301.6331-2(c)] a levy extends only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time of the levy[26 U.S.C.S. section 6331(b); 26 CFR section 301.6331-1(a)(1)].  Levy may be made upon the salaries of federal, [26 U.S.C.S. section 6331(a)] state, and municipal, [26 CFR section 301.6331(a)(4)(ii)] employees and a pension payable to a former state employee may be levied upon[Revenue Ruling 55-225, 1955-1 CB551].”

 

See exhibit A, page 4 of 6.  Under no circumstances have I ever fallen into this above named category, a FACT I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS MANY TIMES, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT DENIED.  How many times do I have to tell you that?  Are you dumb and deaf of hearing or do you suffer a disability in your reading skills?  In any case, your actions affect ING, and if you act incompetently, as attorney for ING, then ING is complicit in your incompetence. 

 

26 CFR Section 301.6331.1  Levy and Distraint

 

(i)                 Federal Employees. Levy made be made upon the salary or wages of any officer or employee (including member of the Armed Forces) or elected or appointed official of the United States, the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, who has control of payment or wages…

(ii)                State or Municipal employees. Salaries, wages or other compensation of any officer, employee, or elected or appointed official of a State or Territory, or of any agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof, are also subject to levy to enforce collection of any Federal tax.

(iii)              Seamen..  wages of seamen, apprentice seamen, or fishermen employed on fishing vessels are subject to levy.”

 

See exhibit A, page 4 of 6.  See exhibit A, page 4 of 6.  Under no circumstances have I ever fallen into this above named category. 

 

            In the Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 220 Wed Nov. 14, 1990 at page 47623 in describing the 26 USC 6331 process section 70.161 Levy and Distraint

 

(a)(4)(i) Federal Employees.  Levy may be made upon the salary or wages of any officer or employee (including members of the Armed Forces), or elected or appointed official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of either, by serving a notice of levy on the employer of the delinquent taxpayer.  (PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS NO MENTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR PEOPLE).  As used in this paragraph, the term “employer” means:

 

(A)     The Officer or employee of the United States, the District of Columbia, or of the agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, who has the control of the payment of wages, or

(B)      Any other officer or employee designated by the head of the branch, department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of the District of Columbia as the party upon whom service of the notice of the levy can be made.

 

If you did the research, you would find that there is no authority stated in the Federal Register, in any volume, for executing a levy against a private Citizen, nor is there authority for the private employer to execute said levy against a given private Citizen or the authority for the IRS or any of its fraudulent agents, to execute any levy against any private Citizen through a private employer. (See page 5 of exhibit A).  Under no circumstances have I ever fallen into this above named category.  As previously stated to you and not denied by you, when the IRS has no authority, it can convey no authority to ING or to anyone else.  Thus, you and ING act on your own, without any lawful authorization, whatsoever.

 

            In exhibit A, page 6 of 6, titled, “Figure 7-9”, The IRS’s Legal Reference Guide For Revenue Officers [MT 58 [10][0]-14] states;

 

            Constitutional Limitations:

 

“…However, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated.”  (Emphasis added.)

 

By the IRS’s own admission, it is clear that the due process of law required by the 4th and 5th Amendments must not be violated.  Both you and ING, and the IRS are conducting all of your actions under “conclusive presumptions” with no basis in fact or law.  All conclusive presumptions are void of due process of law as guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the united States.  The IRS agent Rosemary Abascal, (ROSEMARY ABASCAL), has engaged in “constructive force” in her dealings with you and ING.  Furthermore, she has engaged in all manner of frauds in her dealings with you and ING, and myself, and by doing thus, she has ensnared you and ING into all manner of criminal actions for which you, ING, the IRS agency and the IRS agent, Rosemary Abascal, (ROSEMARY ABASCAL) are lawfully liable.

 

            Andrea, all of your words and actions confirm your level of incompetence, your laziness in regards to doing any research that may establish any lawful position for you or ING, your fear in dealing with an IRS agent who has no confirmed authority (ask for a copy of her pocket commission), your lack of professional ethics, your disregard for the established Court decisions, your lack of understanding of the duty created by your Oath of Office, in which you swore to defend and support the Constitution of the united States, and in general your willingness to engage in criminal actions in order to cow-tow to the fraudulent actions of the IRS agent.  All of your actions are prosecutable under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures and the Constitution of the united States.  Further, you and ING are also liable for civil prosecution.

 

            In summary, with no Constitutional authority to lien or levy a private Citizen, with no authority to lien or levy a private Citizen under the Statutes at Large or the Revised Statutes at Large, and no authority to lien or levy a private Citizen under the IRM or IRC (either Title 26, IRC or Title 26 USC), the IRS has no authority to execute this levy, and therefore, ING has no authority, whatsoever, to execute this levy.  If one has no authority, one can convey no authority, and you, Andrea Nelson, acted without authority.  ING’s own corporate resolutions/charter must authorize your actions; absent that authorization, you act against INGs’ corporate resolution/charter.  You act for yourself personally, and to your own personal and professional detriment, and as a mere appendage, an un-paid flunky for the IRS, and to the detriment of ING. 

 

The Constitution is the Law of the land, as widely professed by the federal state, and all local governments.  Since you and ING, by your own incompetent actions, act in direct opposition to and in contradiction to the Constitution, and collude and conspire with the IRS, which has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, to deprive me of my Rights and my property, then, you, and ING, as a corporation, act in treason.  Further, the Constitution of the united States of America and Supreme Court rulings I have cited are established authorities, which you and ING, by your own actions, have consistently violated, as you have done with IRS rules and regulations.      

 

            If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, using fact, law and Constitutional authority to support your disagreement, within 30 days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and valid law.  Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.

 

Sincerely,

All Rights Reserved

 

 

Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx

CC:

            File

            Thomas McInerny, ING CEO

            John Barmeyer, Chief Legal Counsel

            Shawn Adams-Commissions Coordinator

            ING Supervisory Board

            ING Executive Board

            Georgia State Bar, Disciplinary Board

            District Attorney-Atlanta

            U.S. District Attorney-Atlanta