+menu-


  • Category Archives Ambiguous Laws
  • Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    As promised, a brief posting on the complicated federal  IRS Estate Death Tax lien laws.

    It has taken nearly 10 years for me to find this 9000 word IRS Estate Death Lien Tax documentation on line.

    Below, is the link to the IRS Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    SHOCKING? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary.

    It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit.

    ———————————————————————–

    Indeed, the IRS has gone to to great lengths (9000 words) to protect THEIR DEATH TAX LIEN INTEREST in your family’s Estate.

    OPEN AND TRANSPARENT? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    ——————————————————–

    Another 9000 word Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere.

    WHAT LENGTH, DOES A  SMALL BUSINESS OWNING AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE TO GO TO, TO PROTECT HIS HEIRS FROM THE IRS ESTATE DEATH TAX?

    —————————————————-

    Oct 19, 2017 SARCASM FROM THE LEFT

    WASHINGTON ―  Whenever a small business owner dies, a cruel tax man swoops in on his mourning family with a hefty bill, forcing the children of farmers and mom-and-pop shops to sell off the family business to pay the government.

    ————————————————————

    Dec 22, 2017 PARTIAL RELIEF FROM THE RIGHT

    12/22/2017 Became Public Law No: 115-97.

    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – HR1 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

    Shown Here: Passed House amended (11/16/2017). (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 13, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, …

    Unfortunately, the complicated IRS Estate death tax liens are still alive online, just the exemptions have been  raised.

    TOO BAD THE IRS DEATH TAX CUTS ARE  NOT RETROACTIVE

    —————————————————————–

    Estate Tax Liens 5.5.8 –  5.5.8.1

    WARNING: An IRS  table briefly describing the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities,

    IS MISLEADING.

    THE LINK BELOW IS ABOUT A 9000 WORD DOCUMENT

    ——————————————————–

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens | Internal Revenue Service – IRS.gov

    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-005-008

    The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities. … Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien ….. for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter.

    Chapter 5. Decedent Estates and Estate Taxes

    Section 8. Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8.1 (06-23-2005)

    Section Overview Characteristics of Estate Tax Liens

    1. This section covers estate tax liens. Before filing a lien on an estate tax case, give careful thought to the advantages and limitations of each type of estate tax lien.
    2. In many cases, the general IRC § 6324(a) lien is the best tool to protect the government’s interest. It is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective. It attaches to all of the assets that are part of the decedent’s gross estate and are required to be reported on Form 706, U.S. Estate Tax Return, and is security for any estate taxes that may be determined to be due. If a probate asset (assets in the name of the decedent at time of death) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, but for the exceptions detailed at IRM 5.5.8.2(2), the lien continues to attach to the asset. If a non-probate asset (property described under IRC § 2034 to § 2042) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, a liability equal to the value of the asset at the time of the decedent’s death becomes due from the transferee. A separate assessment against the transferee is not needed. Assets of the gross estate can be sold or encumbered free of the IRC § 6324(a) lien if the proceeds from the sale or loan are used for the payment of charges against the estate or expenses of its administration that are allowed by any court having jurisdiction.
    3. A limitation of the general estate tax lien is that it has an absolute life of 10 years. It cannot be extended. Estate tax attributable to an estate’s interest in a closely held business may be paid over a 14-year period if an extension of time to pay under IRC § 6166 is in effect which could potentially leave the Service without lien protection for four years if a notice of lien is not recorded before the 10 years have elapsed.
    4. The filing of Form 668-J (the special IRC § 6423A lien for taxes deferred under IRC 6166) will secure the deferred taxes for the duration of the extension. The collection statute of limitations under IRC § 6502 is suspended during the period of the extension.
      1. The lien attaches only the property specified on the recorded lien and in the IRC § 6166 agreement. A lien on property with equivalent value can be substituted for the actual IRC § 6166 property upon agreement between the Service and all parties with an interest in the property.
      2. When estate property is listed on the recorded Form 668-J, it is automatically released from the effects of the general IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      3. The IRC § 6324A lien is a negotiated lien that is created only when both the Service and all persons and/or entities with an ownership interest in the property listed on the notice of lien agree to it’s recording.
    5. The filing of Form 668-H – the special IRC § 6324B lien for special use valuations under IRC § 2032A or qualified family owned business interest property under IRC § 2057 will secure the potential recapture tax during the required 10 year holding period. IRC § 2057 elections may be made only on estates of decedents dying before December 31, 2003.

    5.5.8.1.1 (06-23-2005)

    Comparison Chart Federal Estate Tax Liens

    1. The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities.

    Code Section

    How Created

    Attributes

    Form Title

    6321

    assessment, balance owed, notice & demand

    ·         attaches to all right, title and interest of the decedent in any probate property undistributed at time lien arises

    ·         10 year life can be extended

    Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien

    6324(a)

    at death

    ·         attaches to estate assets listed on the Form 706 the value of which are the basis of the tax liability

    no form

    ·         recording not required to be choate (their glitch)

    ·         absolute life of 10 years

    ·         follows the probate assets if transferred or liquidated, a lien of comparable value arises upon any property of the party who received proceeds from sale or encumbrance of non-probate property

    6324A

    Upon election by the estate and signed agreement by all parties with an interest in the property on the lien

    ·         attaches the specific property shown on the lien

    ·         must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all parties of interest and the specific property that is subject to the lien

    Form 668J Notice of Estate Tax Lien under Internal Revenue Laws

    6324B

    Upon election by estate of the special use 2032A or qualified family owned business interest 2057

    ·         pertains to farm or business real estate only (2032A) or family owned business property

    ·         notice must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all qualified heirs and has a complete legal description of the subject real property

    Form 668H Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws

    5.5.8.2 (06-23-2005)

    General Estate Tax Lien under IRC § 6324(a)

    1. The estate tax lien provided for by IRC § 6324(a) is similar in character to the lien imposed by IRC § 6321. The general lien imposed by IRC § 6321 and the special lien for estate tax are not necessarily exclusive of each other, but can be cumulative. Whereas the IRC § 6324(a) lien arises upon death and attaches to all probate and non-probate assets comprising the gross estate, after the tax liability has been assessed, notice and demand is given, and there is a neglect or refusal to pay, the IRC § 6321 lien arises and also attaches to all as yet undistributed probate assets. Neglect and refusal to pay is generally inferred from notice and demand and an unpaid balance.
    2. Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    Except

    Unless

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in probate property at the direction of a court having jurisdiction and proceeds are used to pay charges against the estate

    no exception

    purchaser or holder of a security interest in probate property after executor has been released from personal liability under IRC § 2204 if seller is an heir, legatee, devisee, or distributee

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in non-probate property

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in securities

    knowledge of lien exists

    purchaser of a motor vehicle

    knowledge of lien exists

    retail purchaser of tangible personal property

    purchaser buying with the intent to hinder, evade, or defeat collection

    purchaser of personal property (defined at IRC § 6334(a)) valued at less than $1,000 at a casual sale

    knowledge of lien exists or is one in a series intended to liquidate most of the assets

    local law lien securing the price of repairs or improvements

    lienor gives up possession of property after lien arises

    local real estate tax & special assessment

    local law does not give them priority over other liens that are filed first

    residential property subject to a lien for repairs & improvements

    the contract price is more than $5,000

    attorney’s liens

    fees are unreasonable, the lien is not valid under local law, or is subject to offset

    certain insurance contracts

    knowledge of lien exists

    deposit-secured loans

    knowledge of lien

    1. The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary. It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit. The estate tax lien continues for a maximum period of ten years after the decedent’s death or until the tax is paid.
    2. IRC § 6324(a)(2) provides that when the estate tax is not paid when due, any spouse, transferee, trustee, surviving tenant, person in possession of the property by reason of the exercise, nonexercise, or release of a power of appointment, or beneficiary, is liable for the payment of the estate tax to the extent of the value of any non-probate estate assets held by, or passing to such person.
    3. There is no need to assess the liability against the person liable under IRC § 6324(a)(2). The collection statute under IRC § 6502 applies. IRC § 6324(a)(2) also makes all of the property of such person subject to a lien just like the estate tax lien if their transfer of estate assets divests the assets of the estate tax lien. This ″like-lien″ continues until the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien expires or the estate tax is paid.
      Example: A beneficiary of a decedent’s trust receives real property valued at $100,000 on the Form 706. The beneficiary sells the property for $125,000 and invests the proceeds. Because the property was non-probate property, the purchaser takes title free of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien. However, a like-lien in the amount of $100,000 now attaches to all of the property of the beneficiary as long as the IRC § 6324(a) lien has not expired. A separate assessment against the beneficiary is not necessary.

    5.5.8.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of Unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) Lien

    1. Release – Advisory occasionally receives requests for release of the unrecorded estate tax lien. However, just as there is no provision for recording a notice of the unrecorded estate tax lien, there is no provision for recording a release. Applicants should be instructed to provide documentation to potential purchasers of the decedent’s property that either there was no Form 706 filing requirement, or, if Form 706 was filed and a closing letter has been provided to the estate by Estate & Gift Tax (E&G), a copy of the return, the Estate Tax Closing Letter ( Letter 627, and verification of payment, are evidence that the IRC § 6324(a) lien has been satisfied.
    2. Discharge
      1. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) are usually submitted on Form 4422 , Application for Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien. These applications will be processed by E&G if Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued. If Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) will be processed by Advisory. Form 792 , United States Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien, is used to discharge property under IRC § 6325(c).
        Example:An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and the reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the estate representative believes she has paid the estate tax in full, she proposes to use the proceeds from the sale of the probate property to pay other creditors. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, but a balance remains due for which a extension of time to pay has been granted. The estate is selling a parcel of probate real property but needs the proceeds to pay necessary administrative expenses. The estate has provided for the payment of the taxes by listing a second parcel of real property for sale. Because the final amount of the estate tax due is known, Advisory will process the application.
      2. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(b) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.
    3. Subordination – Applications for subordination under IRC § 6325(d) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.

    5.5.8.4 (06-23-2005)

    Special Valuation Estate Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324B

    1. IRM § 2032A provides for special valuation for certain farms and closely held family business real property if the qualified heirs decide to continue operating the farm or business for at least 10 years. Because the property is valued at less then its fair market value, less estate tax is due. IRM § 2057 provides for a special valuation for certain qualified family owned business interests and also results in less estate tax being due. If the criteria for the IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057 valuations do not continue during the required holding period, the savings in tax attributable to the special valuation is “recaptured” and must be repaid by the heirs who inherited the property.
    2. IRC § 6324B imposes a lien attaching to the specific property valued under IRC § 2032A. IRC § 2057(h)(3)(p) imposes a lien identical to the IRC § 6324B lien to the specific property valued under IRC § 2057.

    5.5.8.4.1 (06-01-2010)

    IRC § 6324B Form 668-H (Advisory Actions)

    1. When the executor elects the special valuation under IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057, and secures an agreement to the election signed by all parties having an interest in the specially valued property, Estate & Gift Exam (E&G) will complete and forward Form 6111, Notice of Election Under IRC § 2032A and/or IRC § 2057, to Advisory with copies of the following documents:
      1. First 3 pages of Form 706
      2. Schedule A-1 and/or Schedule T
      3. Agreement to special valuation signed by all parties with an interest in the property to be shown on the lien. Only the decedent’s interest in the property is shown on the lien. If the decedent co-owned the property, the co-owner’s interest is not shown on the lien and the co-owner is not required to sign the agreement.
      4. Complete legal descriptions of property to be shown on the lien
      5. Any power of attorney
    2. Verify that each Form 6111 includes a copy of the agreement signed by all ″qualified heirs″ and all other parties having an interest in the property covered by the election. The agreement must designate:
      1. an agent for dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, and
      2. a complete legal description of the property to be shown on the lien
    3. Contact the E&G group manager to resolve any inconsistencies.
    4. Prepare and file Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws, (see Exhibit 5.5.8-1) in the name of the estate and all qualified heirs as shown on Form 6111. Only one Form 668-H will be used unless a local jurisdiction requires separate forms. Recording a copy of the agreement to Form 668-H is not necessary. If the qualifying property consists of the decedent’s interest in a closely held corporation, partnership, LLC, etc., consult with Area Counsel to determine if evidence of ownership, such as a stock certificate, must be held as collateral in order for the lien to be effective under local law.

    Note:

    When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.

    1. If elections were made under both IRC § 2032A and IRC § 2057, one Form 668-H reflecting the combined maximum tax subject to recapture may be used.
    2. Form 668-H must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html
    3. Mail the completed Form 668-H to the Centralized Case Processing Lien Operation (CLU) for recording on a Form 3210.
    4. All documents sent with the lien to the recording office will be returned to CLU. The CLU will be responsible for inputting lien indicators; applicable lien fees and forwarding the recorded lien document back to the originating advisor on Form 3210, Document Transmittal, to maintain with the lien file. If a lien is returned to the Advisor due to insufficient funds, return it to the CLU for corrective action. All liens will be sent to:

    Internal Revenue Service
    Attn: Manager Team 208 – Stop 8420G
    P.O. Box 145595
    Cincinnati, OH 45250-5595

    1. This CLU FORT has responsibility for logging in receipt of the estate tax liens; monitoring the recording process and forwarding the recorded liens to the advisor on a Form 3210. CLU FORT will send acknowledgement of receipt of the lien by returning the Form 3210.
    2. Within 7 business days of receipt, the CLU FORT will mail the lien to the recording office for filing. See IRM 5.19.12.10.2 , for CLU FORT processing procedures and lost lien research procedures.
    3. Advisory is responsible for sending the lien to the lien unit on Form 3210, including the estate name, complete SSN, lien type and request for input of TC 582, TC 583 and TC 360 as applicable. Advisory is also responsible for determining if there is an open module on IDRS and will instruct CLU to input applicable lien indicator/fees. In the case of Form 668-H liens, if there is no open module on IDRS, do not request input of lien indicator/fees on the Form 3210.
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. At local option, after coordinating payment of recording fees with the CLU, advisors may mail liens for recording directly to recording offices. However, except for exigent circumstances, advisors may not issue OI’s requesting that a revenue officer deliver an estate tax lien to a recording agency for filing.
    6. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate until the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies with Form 6111 and associated documentation.

    5.5.8.4.2 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release of IRC § 6324B Form 668-H

    1. Requests for release of Forms 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. If the qualified heir(s) is requesting a release of lien because the 10 year special use period has elapsed, and assuming no recapture tax is due, instruct the designated agent to submit a written request that the lien be released, including a statement that during the 10 year period no events occurred that would cause recapture of any portion of the tax. The letter should be signed under penalty of perjury. Advisory will consult with the Estate & Gift Tax group manager to determine if any further verification should be secured prior to releasing the lien.
    3. The qualified heir(s) may also request a release of lien because all of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use. In order to receive a release of the lien, the qualified heir(s) must report the recapture event by filing Form 706-A, United States Additional Estate Tax Return (if the section 2032A election was made), or Form 706-D, United States Estate Tax Return Under Code Section 2057, and all tax and interest due must be paid in full. Interest on the Form 706-A begins to accrue at the regular underpayment rate on the date the return is due. Interest on the Form 706-D at the regular underpayment rate is computed from the original due date of the Form 706, not taking into account any extensions of time to file that may have been granted, until the date the recapture tax is paid. Each qualified heir must file a Form 706-A or Form 706-D reporting and paying the tax and interest due that is attributable to their share of the inherited property.
    4. Secured Forms 706-A or 706-D, with any payments and or approved extensions, are forwarded via Form 3210 , overnight mail, to: IRS, Cincinnati Submission Processing Center, 201 W. Rivercenter Blvd., Covington, KY, 41011, Attn: Mail Stop 31. Preparation of a posting voucher is not necessary unless penalties are applicable and being paid. Ensure that the return and check are identified as belonging to the heir and indicate NMF by placing “N” behind the heir’s SSN on the return and the check. Enter the tax period in YYYYMM format at the top of the return. The period ended is the earliest date shown on schedule A, column C. For example, if the property disposition date is 3/10/2005, the tax period would be 200503.
    5. Releases of estate tax liens are prepared by advisors and the procedures for recording described in IRM 5.5.8.4.1. However, follow up to obtain a copy of a recorded release is not necessary.

    Note:

    Whenever contact is made with an estate representative who is requesting a release of an estate tax lien, the advisor should give the representative the option of recording the release, making the representative aware that if they choose to do so, it is their responsibility to pay the recording fees.

    5.5.8.4.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Discharge of Property from IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for discharge of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. A discharge is necessary if part of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use.
    3. If issuance of a conditional commitment to discharge property from the effects of the lien is necessary, Advisory should request a draft of Form 706-A or Form 706-D from each heir who owns a share of the property being sold or removed from special use. Upon review and approval of the draft(s) by the Estate & Gift Tax (E&G) group manager, Advisory will conditionally commit to the discharge. Upon filing of the Form 706-A or Form 706-D, with full payment of any tax and interest due, the discharge certificate will be provided.
    4. See IRM 5.5.8.4.2(4) for instructions on processing the returns and payments.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 4 heirs. The property listed on the lien consists of 6 parcels of real property for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2032A. The heirs want to convert 1 of the parcels to a non-qualified use and submit an application for discharge under IRC § 6325(b)(2)(A), along with draft copies of each of their required Forms 706-A showing the recapture tax that will be due. E&G reviews the returns and advises that they reflect the correct amount of recapture tax. Advisory issues a commitment to discharge conditioned upon the receipt of original Forms 706-A and payment of the tax and interest due.

    5.5.8.4.4 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Subordination of IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for subordination of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Although it is possible that the qualified heir(s) may apply for a certificate of subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(2), almost all requests for subordination will be made under IRC § 6325(d)(3) which directly addresses IRC § 6324B, and provides for the issuance of a certificate of subordination if it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured.
    3. Instructions for applying for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3), are contained in Publication 1153, How to Apply for a Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Section 6325(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    4. If it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured, issue Form 669-F , Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 2 heirs securing potential recapture tax of $200,000. The property shown on the lien is an apartment building for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2057. The fair market value of the property is $1.5 million, and it is unencumbered but for the Form 668-H. The heirs want to borrow $250,000 in order to make renovations to the building and use the property as security for the loan. They apply for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3). Since the United States will be adequately secured after the subordination, Advisory may issue Form 669-F.

    5.5.8.5 (06-01-2010)

    Special Lien Under IRC § 6324A for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. IRC § 6166 provides that the executor of an estate may make an election to pay in as many as 10 annual installments, that portion of the estate tax attributable to assets used in a qualifying closely held business. Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam personnel or E&G Campus personnel make the determination if the estate qualifies for this special election. If property qualifies for installments, only interest on the unpaid balance is due on the first four anniversary dates after the due date. The first tax payment along with interest is due on the fifth anniversary of the due date of the return. This election to pay in installments must be made at the time the Form 706 is filed. Late filing of the return invalidates the election. If the deferred tax due is the result of an examination deficiency, the estate must make the election within 60 days after issuance of notice and demand.
    2. Under IRC § 6503(d) the Collection Statute Expiration Date is suspended for the period during which payment of the tax is deferred. However, running of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien is not suspended.
    3. Collection field function will utilize Form 668(Y) when recording liens on balance due accounts. Advisory has the responsibility of securing a lien using Form 668-J, which is typically secured during the installment period.
    4. Key elements of the lien include:
      1. A lien describing the agreed upon property is recorded using Form 668-J, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws (see Exhibit 5.5.8-2).
      2. An agreement to the lien under IRC § 6324A is filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Form 13925, IRC Section 6324A Lien Agreement Form. The agreement must be signed by all of the persons having an interest in the designated property (whether or not in possession) described on the lien.
      3. Although real property is preferred, any property, either real or personal, with equity equal to the deferred taxes plus interest, and that can be expected to survive the deferral period, may be designated in the agreement. Property, other than property that was part of the gross estate, may be used to secure the lien. If at any time the value of the property covered by the agreement becomes less than the deferred taxes plus interest, the IRS can require the addition of property to the agreement.

    Note:

    Even though the property offered by the estate as security for the lien may be, if necessary, difficult to enforce against (such as stock in a closely held corporation), distrainability is not a factor in determining the adequacy of the value of the property offered. As long as the requirements under IRC § 6166A(b) as to the value of the property are met, and there are no indications that the property will not survive the deferral period, whatever property the estate offers as security for the lien is acceptable.

      1. Any property that is part of the decedent’s gross estate that is part of the agreement and described on the recorded lien is no longer subject to the unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      2. Recording of the lien acts as a discharge of the executor and/or or fiduciary under IRC § 2204. See Treas. Reg. 20.2204-3.

    5.5.8.5.1 (06-01-2010)

    Advisory Bond/Lien Determinations for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. Advisory will receive a lien package, as described below, and set up an ICS case control.
      1. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of Form 706 and schedules A, B, F & G and any attachments thereto (but not appraisals unless specifically requested by an Advisor) including other pertinent schedules listing assets.
      2. Form 4349, Computation of Estate Tax Due With Return and Annual Installment.
      3. Form 1273, Report of Estate Tax Examination Changes, and Form 3228, Adjustments to Taxable Estate or Form 6180, Line Adjustments – Estate Tax. (These forms will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      4. The examiner’s narrative report of examination changes. (e.g. Form 886A, Explanation of Items, or similar documentation.) (This form will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      5. Any Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative.
      6. IRC § 6166 election and attachments to the election.
      7. Listing of all businesses listed on the Estate tax return including name and EIN. This information may be listed separately or on the related schedule.
    2. The Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam group will be responsible for sending lien packages to Advisory when the case has been assigned to the group for examination. When returns are accepted as filed or surveyed during classification, Campus will be responsible for preparing and forwarding the lien package to Advisory. E&G Campus will hold the original tax return for 90 days once the lien package is sent to Advisory, in case additional information is needed.
    3. Advisory shall contact the estate’s executor or representative within 60 days of receipt of lien package and request the estate voluntarily provide a bond, or in the alternative an IRC § 6324A lien, to secure the deferred estate tax. If the executor or representative agrees to provide the bond or lien, proceed with processing procedures to get the bond or lien recorded. Send a copy of the lien agreement to E&G Campus for association with the IRC § 6166 file. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances. It may be necessary to request the estate representative provide encumbrance information. Document the above action in the case history.
    4. If the estate declines to provide a bond or lien, Advisory shall review all information available to it before requesting any information from the taxpayer. Advisory shall review the following:
      1. The lien package provided by E&G Exam,
      2. Any information that the IRS may have such as extension requests (Form 4768), compliance with current installment/interest payments, tax returns or tax compliance information with respect to the decedent (1040), the estate or trust (1041) and closely held business (1040, 1041, 1120, 1120s, 1065, 941’s),
      3. Any information available by public record or on the Internet, such as filings with the Secretary of State.
    5. Advisory will determine what additional information is required to make a determination regarding whether security is required in that case.
    6. Advisory shall send a letter to request any additional information needed to determine whether security should be required. The deadline for additional document request shall be kept to 30 days. If within the 30 day period, the estate requests an extension of time, the Advisor may grant an extension for up to 30 days. Any additional extension must be approved by the Advisory Group Manager. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    7. Advisory shall determine whether a bond or lien should be required in a case based on a review and analysis of applicable factors listed below and any other pertinent information. This is not an exclusive list and no single factor will be determinative of whether to require security in any particular case.
      1. Duration and stability of the business: This factor considers the nature of the closely held business and of the assets of that business, the relevant market factors that will impact the business’s future success, its recent financial history, and the experience of its management, in an effort to predict likelihood of its success and survival through the deferred payment period. This information may be found in the appraisal, financial statements, and SEC filings. Facts relevant to this factor are information regarding any outstanding liens, judgments, or pending or anticipated lawsuits or other claims against the business, if any; age of business; and continuity and stability of management. The estate may use a sworn affidavit or other probative documents to provide this information. When considering this factor, determine whether the decedent owned a majority interest in the business. If the decedent owned a minority interest, the financial information pertaining to the business may not be as relevant because the estate may not force distributions to pay the estate tax. In this case, consider whether other assets in the estate or other income are available to pay the estate tax.
      2. Ability to pay the installments of tax and interest timely: This factor considers how the estate expects to be able to make the annual payments of tax and interest as due, and the objective likelihood of realizing that expectation. Facts relevant to this factor may include the nature of the business’s significant assets and liabilities, type of debts (subordinated, related party, guaranteed, payment terms), and the business’s cash flow (both historical and anticipated). An appraisal, the business’ tax return, or SEC filings may provide this information.
      3. Compliance history: This factor addresses the business’s, estate’s and decedent’s history regarding compliance with all federal tax payment and tax filing requirements, in an effort to determine whether the business, its management and the executor respect and comply with all tax requirements on a regular basis. The relevance of the closely held business’s filing and payment compliance is proportional to the estate’s ownership interest and control of the business. This factor also addresses the estate’s compliance history with respect to federal tax payment and filing requirements. Review frequency of requests for extension of time to pay, amount, and ultimate payment.
    8. Advisory shall fully document in the case file history:
      1. The factors and information considered in making the determination,
      2. A brief history outlining taxpayer’s response to request for bond or lien, and;
      3. A detailed explanation regarding why a bond or a lien was required in this case in order to protect the government’s interest, and the amount of bond or lien required.
    9. After Advisory has made its determination, Advisory will send the estateLetter 4283, Notification Regarding Internal Revenue Code Section 6166 Security Requirement. When preparing the letter, select the optional paragraph (1) to notify the estate that no bond is required; optional paragraph (2) to notify the estate that a bond is required after reviewing the information provided by the estate; or optional paragraph (3) to notify the estate that a bond is required when the estate did not provide the requested information within 30 days. If option (2) or (3) is selected, include the IRC § 6324A Lien Agreement, Form 13925, and Form 8821. If the estate provides a lien form other than Form 13925, Advisory will consult Area Counsel for the state of the decedent’s domicile for approval of the lien form. If the designated agent on the Form 13295 or lien agreement is someone other than the executor, ensure Form 8821 is received. Fax a copy of the lien agreement and Form 8821, if applicable, to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    10. Maintain a copy of the Letter 4283 in the case file and schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    11. In the case of any proposed bond, Advisory will consult with Area Counsel for drafting, if needed, and review of the bond agreement.
    12. Area Counsel will also be consulted when unusual assets are pledged on the lien agreement, such as art or collectibles.
    13. The Letter 4283 allows 30 days from the date of the letter to negotiate the bond or lien property. If the estate refuses to provide a bond or lien after Advisory sends Letter 4283 notifying the estate that a bond or lien is required, the Advisor will send the case to the Advisory Group Manager for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter. The Letter 950-I is the letter that notifies the estate of its right to appeal the preliminary determination. If the estate does not appeal within the time period, the IRC § 6166 election terminates. Send Letter 950-I by certified mail and maintain one copy in the case file, notating the date it is sent, also schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    14. If decedent died before August 6, 1997, the estate should not be sent the 950-I letter because the estate does not have the right to appeal or go to Tax Court. Provide a narrative to the E&G Campus stating the reason for proposed termination and request the Letter 6335-F be sent.
    15. Advisory will send a copy of the Letter 950-I to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    16. After the Letter 950-I is issued, the case will be controlled and monitored for expiration of the 30-day period by the Advisory Group Manager.
    17. If within the 30 day period allowed in Letter 950-I the estate requests an extension of time to request Appeals consideration, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an extension for up to 30 days. In unusual cases if circumstances warrant, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an additional extension of time. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    18. If the estate does not appeal the preliminary determination within the 30-day period allowed in Letter 950-I, or as extended, or if the estate sends an untimely post-marked protest, Advisory shall terminate the election 15 days (to allow for mail time) after the expiration of the 30-day period or the extended period. Advisory must send to the E&G Campus a narrative indicating that the time for appeal has expired and that the account should be accelerated. Advisory shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F to the estate, certified mail, return receipt requested. E&G Campus will compute interest on the Letter 6335-F, 30 days from the date of the Letter 950-I, and will prepare the Letter 6335-F showing the total balance on the account and all additional interest.
    19. If the estate requests Appeals consideration, Advisory will date stamp the protest and document in the case file history that the protest was received and forward the protest letter and the following to Appeals 30 days from the postmark date of the protest letter:
      1. Letter 4283,
      2. Documentation considered in analyzing whether the bond or lien was required,
      3. Letter 950-I,
      4. Case file history, and;
      5. Any pertinent correspondence with the Taxpayer.
    20. If the estate submits a protest containing new IRC § 6166 related issues with its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory shall determine the validity of the new issue. If Advisory disagrees with the estate on the new issue, it shall prepare a response to the protest which includes the determination reached on the new issue. Advisory shall send the response to the protest to the estate and include it in the package to be transmitted to Appeals.
    21. Prepare Form 3210 forwarding case to Appeals notating “Type of Case IRC § 6166 – Termination Case, Lien Determination – This is an emerging issue. Please check the Appeals Technical Guidance issue locator on the Appeals webpage for further information” . Advisory will route their protest cases based on the state in which the decedent was last domiciled using the case routing list on the Appeal’s website, http://appeals.web.irs.gov/APS/bystate2.htm, with the understanding the case may be transferred to another Appeals Officer based on inventory needs. Notify E&G Campus by secure e-mail that a protest has been forwarded to Appeals so that the Letter 6335-F is not sent prematurely.
    22. If no new issues are raised by the estate in its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory will not prepare a response to the protest. Appeals will consider the documentation in the case file history containing all prior analysis.
    23. The Appeals Office will send the case file with the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) to Advisory once a decision is final, so that Advisory can proceed. Advisory shall notify E&G Campus if the election under IRC § 6166 is terminated, and shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F certified mail, return receipt requested. If Appeals allows the election to continue, notify E&G Campus that Appeals has determined the estate is entitled to the election. If no response is received, Advisory will follow-up with Appeals in 90 days. Advisory may contact the Appeals’ Account Resolution Specialist at (559) 456-5931 to locate case or update status.

    5.5.8.5.2 (06-01-2010)

    Miscellaneous Documentation From Campus or Appeals

    1. Advisory will receive documentation from E&G Campus concerning IRC § 6166 payments or installment payments that have not been paid. E&G Campus is sending this information to be associated with the case file. E&G Campus will forward for informational purposes copies of billings and/or protest letters that are sent to Appeals. OI’s will be maintained in ICS on accounts where informational documents are sent to Advisory from the E&G Campus.
    2. This information should be used in considering creditworthiness of estate, necessity for a bond or lien, and/or necessary enforcement action.
    3. Advisory may receive a courtesy investigation from the E&G Campus to collect non-deferred tax, penalties and interest. The following actions should be taken:
      1. Contact the estate representative and demand payment of the non-deferred tax. Provide a deadline for payment and document the ICS history.
      2. If payment is not made send final demand letter (Letter 1058) for only the non-deferred portion of tax due plus penalties and interest.
      3. After expiration of the 30 day final demand letter the advisor will issue a courtesy investigation to initiate enforced collection (such as levy or suit referral) as necessary against assets or initiate such action themselves, as appropriate. The Advisor will coordinate collection action with the revenue officer involved.
      4. If full payment is still not made, the IRC § 6321 lien should be recorded by the field revenue officer to attach to the remaining undistributed probate property for the non-deferred portion of the estate tax due. Document the ICS history concerning your action to protect the Government’s interest. Revenue Officers must comply with collection due process rights in IRM 5.1.9.3 when utilizing the IRC § 6321 lien.
      5. If estate is unable to pay the non-deferred tax this is an indicator/factor that the estate may be financially unstable. At this time the advisor will conduct an evaluation of the current assets, review time remaining on the IRC § 6324(a) lien (or any other lien in effect such as the IRC § 6324A lien) and determine if the Government is adequately secured for the remaining tax due during the duration of the deferral period.
      6. If the advisor determines the Government is not adequately secured for the remaining portion of deferred estate tax, Letter 4283 will be sent to the executor/designated agent. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9).
      7. If estate still does not pay non-deferred portion of tax and refuses to provide a lien or bond on the IRC § 6166 portion, issue letter 950-I and proceed with acceleration of the deferred portion of tax.
      8. Revenue Officers may continue collection actions on the non-deferred portion of estate tax while the deferred portion is being accelerated.
    4. Advisory will also receive documentation (copies of Letter 6335 or 6335(T)) from the E&G Campus when estates are delinquent in paying installments timely, Advisory should review the account to determine if a lien or bond has been secured. If a lien or bond has not been secured a re-evaluation of collection risk is appropriate action to ensure the Government is adequately protected. This information and advisor actions must be documented in the ICS history because a pattern of delinquency is a factor in determining credit risk.
    5. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation (copies of Letter 6335(F)) indicating installment payments have not been made and the acceleration of the tax due is in process. Advisory must upon receipt review the account and determine if a lien or bond has been secured. Advisory should review, recommend and document the ICS history regarding the most appropriate collection action based on information in their lien file. Considerations to be addressed:
      1. what assets remain that are encumbered by the IRC § 6324(a) lien
      2. are there specific assets pledged on the IRC § 6324A lien,
      3. equity in assets
      4. is there a bond,
      5. does a seizure or levy need to be done on pledged assets, and
      6. should a suit referral be completed.
    6. Advisory shall take such action or coordinate enforced collection action.
    7. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation indicating the case is in litigation contesting the termination of the election. The collection statute is not suspended during the time the case is in litigation. Advisory should determine based on the facts and circumstances of the case whether collection should be pursued during litigation and handle the case accordingly. If Advisory determines collection should be pursued during litigation, before collecting Advisory must contact the Chief Counsel attorney assigned to the case.
    8. When Appeals makes a determination that an estate may continue to elect an IRC § 6166 installment election, the entire case file, including the original return shall be sent to Advisory to copy information necessary for bond or lien determination. This file should be copied within 30 days, and the return should be sent to E&G Campus to complete the installment account set-up.
    9. Advisory will be responsible to set follow-ups through ICS to check status of cases that were sent to Appeals for resolution either by utilizing the Appeals Account Specialist or contacting the E&G Campus to determine if they have received the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) from Appeals.

    5.5.8.5.3 (06-01-2010)

    Monitoring Accounts During The Deferral Period (Advisory)

    1. Informational documents received from the E&G Campus should be reviewed within 30 days of receipt. The advisor’s evaluation of impact or harm to the Government’s interest should be documented in the ICS history. This documentation may dictate frequency of monitoring an account.
    2. Notice of late installment payments, preliminary IRC § 6166 election terminations or extensions to pay on IRC § 6166 installment payments should be considered as a factor in lien determination and monitoring. Accounts should be re-evaluated if any of the above actions occur.
    3. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances.
    4. (4) All IRC § 6166 accounts will be re-evaluated six years into the deferral period. Schedule a follow up through the ICS system. Advisors will consider the factors described in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(7) and should also look at subsequent actions below to determine if additional action should be taken to protect the Government’s interest:
      1. What assets have been distributed?
      2. Has the estate distributed, sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 50 percent or more of the value of the estate’s interest in the closely held business?
      3. What assets have been discharged or subordinated?
      4. Has the estate made installment payments timely and in the full amount due?
      5. Has the estate requested extensions to pay installments?
      6. Has the estate defaulted on other financing?
      7. Has the estate made additional payments toward the tax liability?
      8. Does the closely held business appear to be financially stable and able to make future installment payments?
      9. Is the estate in compliance with filing and paying requirements?
    5. Annual monitoring, considering the above factors should be conducted as the Service nears expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Each year that Advisory conducts a review, the Advisor must document their analysis and recommendations to adequately protect the Government’s interest. As the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    6. Advisory must be aware that if a determination is made that the Government is at risk of not collecting the remaining tax due, appropriate action (for example, a bond or lien or enforced collection action) must be taken and completed prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Consideration must be given to allow time for the executor to exhaust any allowable appeals and potential litigation time if the estate petitions the Tax Court under IRC § 7479. If the account is accelerated, this process generally requires a minimum of six months to be completed. Timeframes of acceleration, appeals and litigation must be considered in order to complete collection actions prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien.
    7. If the advisor determines that a lien is required the advisor will send the executor Letter 4283. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9) .
    8. In consideration of accounts where the estate has been in compliance with timely payment of installments, as the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    9. Advisory must ensure annually that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. In accordance with the Form 13925, the designated agent is required to send current valuation information annually with respect to the pledged property listed in the agreement. If the executor has provided an IRC § 6324A lien, Advisory must review the annual valuation information report from the designated agent to confirm that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. If the financial information is not received from the designated agent, the Advisor may contact the designated agent to request that information.

    5.5.8.5.4 (06-01-2010)

    Processing of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J (Advisory Actions)

    1. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.1 for recording of estate tax liens.
    2. When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.
    3. Actual lien fees will be manually posted by CLU FORT when the lien is received back from the recording office, see IRM 5.19.12.10.2 .
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate for which the Form 668-J was recorded until such time as the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies and associated documentation.
    6. The Cincinnati Campus Estate & Gift Tax Department, will, upon receipt of full payment of the liability secured by Form 668-J, coordinate with the Advisory Estate Tax Group to ensure that the 668-J lien is released in a timely manner. Campus will notify the Advisory, Estate Tax Group within 10 working days after receiving notification of payment, through secure e-mail, to release any Form 668-J that may have been recorded.
    7. Form 669-J must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html.
    8. If the estate representative chooses to post a bond rather than consent to the recording of a lien, follow the procedures for processing bonds found at IRM 5.6.1.2.1, Bonds and IRM 5.6.1.2.3, Estate Tax Bonds and Other Collateral.
    9. If stock certificates are pledged as collateral, the advisor will secure the actual stock certificate. This would prevent the sale of such certificates to third parties.
    10. Prepare Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record classifying the stock certificates as ″safekeeping″ and reflecting a zero value for revenue accounting system (RACS) purposes. The certificates must be stored in an approved safe. Follow procedures in IRM 5.6.1.8, Preparing Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record.
    11. Stock, in most instances, will be considered personal property by most state law. With respect to personal property, a lien must be filed in the office designated by state law in which the property subject to the lien is situated.

    5.5.8.5.5 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J

    1. Requests for release of Form 668-J, and discharge and subordination applications will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Releases– The criteria under IRC § 6325(a) for issuance of a certificate of lien release – liability satisfied or unenforceable or bond accepted – are applicable to Form 668-J. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.2 for processing estate tax lien releases.
    3. Discharge – Requests for discharge will normally be made under IRC § 6325(c). Provided property equal to the amount of the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest will remain subject to the lien, a certificate may be issued discharging a portion of the property listed on Form 668-J from the lien. As an alternative, under IRC § 6324A(d)(5), the estate representatives may substitute other property in order to obtain a discharge of all or part of the property listed on the lien. If the disposition of property will result in accelerated payment of all or part of the deferred tax, or if the equity in the remaining property will not equal the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest, the application should be made under IRC § 6325(b)(2).
    4. Subordination – Requests for subordination will normally be made under IRC § 6325(d)(2). Provided it is determined that the amount realizable by the United States from the property will ultimately be increased, or that the ultimate collection of the tax liability will be facilitated by the subordination, a certificate may be issued.

    5.5.8.6 (06-23-2005)

    Gift Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324(b)

    1. The provisions of the gift tax lien are also delineated in IRC § 6324 and parallel those for the general estate tax lien.
    2. The special gift tax lien imposed by IRC § 6324(b) attaches to all gifts made during the calendar year for the amount of the gift tax imposed upon the gifts made during such year. If the gift tax is not paid by the donor when due, the donee of any gift becomes personally liable for the tax to the extent of the value of the gift. The gift tax lien extends for a period of ten years from the time the gifts were made or until or the tax is paid, whichever date is sooner.

    Exhibit 5.5.8-1

    Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws


  • The IRS Estate Death Tax 2008-2018

    How devastating was the IRS Estate Death Tax to our family?

    The death tax in 2008, the year my Dad died, the IRS demanded 1/2 of everything over two (2) million dollars. My father’s trust was Land rich and Cash poor. I did in fact, have to sell the FARM. Over 100 acres of a farm that had been in our family for over 60 years (they will take whatever you have).

    2009-2013 How complicated were the IRS estate death tax legal and federal financial lien laws?

    How devastating  was the IRS Estate Death Tax in 2008?

    Jan 29, 2013 Five years later, Why did I have my Grandson set up my blog/website behindmyback.org

    Three days later I posted…..

    My code name “Pearl Revere”

    Posted on February 1, 2013 9:37 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————

    Little did I know, about the IRS Estate Death tax on June 1, 2009, when I became the trustee/executor of my father’s Trust/Estate.

    What I did know, was it took Attorney’s and  an Accounting Firm from March 19, 2008 to June 1, 2009, to compile an 8 inch pile of legal documents for the IRS.

    The beneficiaries’ of the Estate were instructed to, and did  sign an agreement with and for the IRS.

    What did we sign?

    How complicated were the IRS estate death tax legal and federal financial lien laws? And, how many IRS  liens were filed against the estate, when were they filed  and what restrictions did the liens place on the estate property?

    2009-2012 How many  IRS estate death tax forms had to be filled out and signed?

    How long did it take the IRS to decide what estate options were allowed for payment of the estate death tax? A document from the IRS dated Feb 15, 2012

    March 13, 2012 IRS Letter three Years after my father’s death  Attached, IRS form 890, dated Feb 15, 2012 IRS Estate of George C. Rains page (2), SEC. 6166 Installment Option SELECTED?  the Rains Sr. Estate is a closely held business.

    ——————————————————-

    WHAT IS AN IRS CLOSELY HELD BUSINESS? 

    The estate tax generally is due within nine months of a decedent’s death.

    However, in recognition of the illiquid nature of most closely held businesses,

    ———————————————————————————

    What is the legal definition of illiguid?

    Illiquid refers to the state of a security or other asset that cannot easily be sold or exchanged for cash without a substantial loss in value.

    ———————————————————————–

    The Code  allows the executor of a deceased business owner’s estate to elect to pay the estate tax attributable to an interest in a closely held business in up to ten installments.

    An estate is eligible for payment of the estate tax in installments if the value of the decedent’s interest in a closely held business exceeds 35 percent of the decedent’s adjusted gross estate (i.e., the gross estate less certain deductions).

    ——————————————————–

    March 19, 2008  I know now, Jan 12, 2018, the closely held business Rains Sr. Estate illiguid was over 74%, more than double the 35 percent eligible amount.

    ——————————————————————————————

    If the election is made, the estate may defer payment of principal and pay only interest for the first five years[2], followed by up to 10 annual installments of principal and interest. This provision effectively extends the time for paying estate tax by 14 years from the original due date of the estate tax.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Five years paying interest only, followed by up to 10 annual installments of principal and interest financially  and effectively adds up to a whole bunch of money.

    ———————————————————————

    2008 How devastating  was the IRS Estate Death Tax?

    2009 How complicated were/are the IRS estate death tax legal and federal financial lien laws?

    2013  Why did I start my blog/website?

    2015 Why did I support Donald J. Trump? He had plans for taxes and jobs.

    2016  Why Campaign for Donald J. Trump? Agree to be the designated Trump Campaign Chairperson in Clallam County WA? He had plans for taxes and jobs.

    2017 Why Vote for Donald J. Trump? He had plans for taxes and jobs.

    President Trump had plans for jobs and taxes and gets results. period

    12/22/2017 Became Public Law No: 115-97.

    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – HR1 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

    Shown Here: Passed House amended (11/16/2017). (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 13, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, …

    —————————————————————————–

    Little did I know, about the IRS Estate Death tax on June 1, 2009, when I became the trustee/executor of my father’s Trust/Estate.

    Even less was known by the beneficiaries that were looking forward to a distribution of money.

    —————————————————————

    WOW, another discovery, I just found this today Jan 12, 2018

    Another Really long Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere

    WARNING: An IRS  table briefly describing the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities…

    IS MISLEADING.

    THE LINK BELOW IS ABOUT A 9000 WORD DOCUMENT

    —————————————————–

    Just saying…

    No wonder, it took Attorney’s and an Accounting Firm from March 19, 2008 to June 1, 2009, to compile an 8 inch pile of legal documents for the IRS.

    ——————————————————

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens | Internal Revenue Service – IRS.gov

    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-005-008

    The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities. … Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien ….. for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter.

    ————————————————————————

    What’s new JAN 10, 2018?

    Tax Law for the Closely Held Business | Farrell Fritz, P.C. | State …

    https://www.taxlawforchb.com/

    2 days ago – The Tax Department of Farrell Fritz has created this blog to provide meaningful information and to elicit discussion regarding those Federal and New York tax issues which are of particular concern to closely-held business organizations and their owners.

    Implications (or Fact)

    As stated immediately above, the owners of many closely held businesses will not be subject to the federal estate tax – at least not through 2025[5] – thanks to the greatly increased exemption amount and to continued portability.

    Thus, a deceased owner’s taxable (not gross) estate in 2018 – even if we only account for conservative valuations of his business interests and for reasonable estate administration expenses – may be as great as $22.4 million (assuming portability) without incurring any federal estate tax.

    ————————————————————————–

    Same as above… The IRS Federal Estate Tax posted Jan 10, 2018

    The Federal Estate Tax Lives On, But “Where, O death, is your sting …

    https://www.taxlawforchb.com/…/the-federal-estate-tax-lives-on-but-where-o-death-is…

    2 days ago – January 10, 2018 To better understand the change wrought by the Act – and to appreciate what it left intact – we begin with an overview of the federal transfer taxes. The Estate and Gift Tax. The Code imposes a gift tax on certain lifetime transfers, an estate tax on certain transfers at death, and a generation-skipping transfer …

    Implications? or  FACTS

    As stated immediately above, the owners of many closely held businesses will not be subject to the federal estate tax – at least not through 2025[5] – thanks to the greatly increased exemption amount and to continued portability.

    Thus, a deceased owner’s taxable (not gross) estate in 2018 – even if we only account for conservative valuations of his business interests and for reasonable estate administration expenses – may be as great as $22.4 million (assuming portability) without incurring any federal estate tax.

    ———————————————————————————–

    To be continued…..

    a brief posting on

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens | Internal Revenue Service – IRS.gov

    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-005-008

    The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities. … Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien ….. for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter.

    ————————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    With President Trump, the smaller estates of a  hard working American citizens, eligible as a closely held business,  those smaller family estates beneficiaries  will never become slaves to an IRS Estate Death Tax demanding 25% of the illiquid  assets of a tree farm, acquired by their father, with 60 years of hard labor.

    Unfortunately, the IRS death tax is still there, but the exemptions have been  raised.


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • Putting Down the Distracted Drivers Law?

    FACT: WA STATE DISTRACTED DRIVERS, HOLDING ELECTRONIC DEVICES, KILL AND INJURE PEOPLE, THE PUNISHMENT AND PENALTIES, BY LAW, SHOULD  BE THE SAME AS DUI LAWS.

    DUI or DWI Punishments and Penalties | Nolo.com

    www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dui-or-dwi-punishments-penalties-30321.html

    Jail Time. In all states, first-offense DUI or DWI is classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail. That jail time may be increased under certain circumstances. … MANY STATES ALSO REQUIRE MINIMUM JAIL SENTENCES OF AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS ON A FIRST OFFENSE.

    MANY STATES also require minimum jail sentences of at least several days on a first offense. Subsequent offenses often result in jail sentences of several months to a year.

    For a DUI or DWI that’s been classified as a felony — either because the driver killed or injured someone or because it’s the driver’s third or fourth DUI — jail sentences of several years are not uncommon. Again, this depends on state law, the facts of the case, and the discretion of the judge at trial.

    FINES IN ADDITION TO JAIL SENTENCES, courts can and do impose high fines for DUI or DWI. These range from $500 to as much as $2,000.

    DRIVER’S LICENSE PROBLEMS A DUI or DWI offender stands a good chance of having his or her license suspended for a substantial period of time (either by court order or mandate of the state motor vehicles department). FOR EXAMPLE, MANY STATES suspend a first offender’s license for 90 days; a second offender’s license for one year; and a third offender’s license for three years.

    IN MANY STATES IF YOU COMMIT THE SAME CRIME , KILLING AND INJURING PEOPLE, YOU DO THE SAME  TIME

    —————————————————————————

    JULY 27, 2017

    HAS WA STATE NANNY GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE (D)  GONE TOO FAR WITH THE STRICTEST DRIVER  LAWS IN THE NATION?

    OR  HAVE HE AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS JUST WANDERED OFF INTO LAW LAW LAND?

    Nation’s Strictest Distracted Driver Law Bans Motorists From Even …

    www.newsweek.com/distracted-driver-law-washington-state-no-holding-phones-6413…

    3 days ago – Drivers in Washington state caught holding their phones, having a quick snack or applying makeup could face fines of up to $234 under a new …

    ———————————————————————–

    A “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES….

     WHILE DRIVING.

    —————————————————————————

    Nearly 30,000 sign petition against Washington’s new distracted …

    q13fox.com/2017/…/petition-started-against-washingtons-new-distracted-driving-law/

    22 hours ago – TACOMA — At least 28000 people have decided that a Washington state law against distracted driving takes enforcement too far. The News …

    INDEED, MICROMANAGER NANNY GOV. INSLEE (D) AND HIS WA STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE GONE TOO FAR. period

    ———————————————————————————

    California: The Ultimate Nanny State – The Federalist

    thefederalist.com/2016/05/05/california-is-an-authoritarian-hellhole/

    MAY 5, 2016 – In California a 15-year-old girl can abort a viable baby without telling her parents, but a 20-year-old can’t buy a pack of cigarettes.

    ——————————————————————————-

    CALIFORNIA NEEDS THE SUPREME COURT TO TELL IT THAT REGULATING….

    DC HAS ALREADY GOTTEN IN THE GAME.

     APR 7, 2017 – WASHINGTON (CNN) THE SENATE FRIDAY MORNING CONFIRMED NEIL GORSUCH, A 49-YEAR-OLD FEDERAL JUDGE WHO COULD HELP CEMENT A CONSERVATIVE …

    ——————————————————–

    The Michael Bloomberg Nanny State In New York: A Cautionary Tale

    www.forbes.com/…/the-michael-bloomberg-nanny-state-in-new-york-a-cautionary-tal…

    May 10, 2013 – Since New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced the 20-ounce soda ban last fall, the controversy has garnered national attention. But, this is just the latest example of his attempt to expand the “nanny state” that has become New York City.

    ———————————————————————–

    Meet Bloomberg | Nanny State

    https://www.meetbloomberg.com/nanny-state/

    Bloomberg’s 12 years as mayor of New York City have been referred to as a “stereotypically laughable example of a liberal nanny state at its worst.

    ———————————————————–

    What Has Bloomberg Tried To Regulate Or Ban In New York City?

    A BETTER QUESTION MIGHT BE WHAT HASN’T HE TRIED TO REGULATE OR BAN.

    HERE’S THE LIST OF SOME OF THE ITEMS ON HIS NANNY AGENDA: ALCOHOL, CALORIE COUNTS, carbon, CELL PHONES, CIGARETTES, contraceptives, composting, fingerprinting, gasoline, NOISE, POLITICS, PRIVACY, SECOND AMENDMENT, SODA, SODIUM, Styrofoam, taxis, tanning, traffic congestion and trans fats.

     BLOOMBERG’S 12 YEARS AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS A

    “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST. HE “UNLEASHED A TSUNAMI OF PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES” IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES, from composting to trans fats.

    HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE THINKS THERE ARE TIMES WHEN GOVERNMENT  “SHOULD INFRINGE ON YOUR FREEDOM.” 

    BLOOMBERG DOESN’T THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT, OR WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

    HE HAS ACTUALLY SAID,“YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT.

    BECAUSE WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT CHANGES WITH WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD,

     AND YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR YOU.”

    And Bloomberg has spent his billions trying to be that somebody.

    Bloomberg’s ban on cell phones in schools simply showed how out-of-touch he was with today’s realities.

    ———————————————————————————

    The Complete List of Everything Banned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg

    gizmodo.com/the-complete-list-of-everything-banned-by-mayor-michael-1490476691

    DEC 31, 2013 – Michael Bloomberg leaves office tomorrow after 12 years as New York City’s mayor. No mayor in recent memory has added so much to a city. Or taken so much away. To remember him properly, here’s a list of everything Bloomberg banned during his time in office.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Is American freedom suffering  from being micromanaged  by  Nanny States,  government? THAT MAKE TOO MANY LAWS, about how people should live their lives, especially about, gun control, eating, smoking, or drinking, coffee, water, sugary water, energy drinks,  overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choices, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Like, driving to work holding your morning cup of Starbucks? Or eating a McDonalds  egg McMuffin in your car?

    Jul 27, 2017 Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some states can’t seem to help …

    Down Right insulting,  WA State’s Micromanaging Nanny’s,   PASSING A LAW, THAT CONNOTES ANYONE DRIVING IN WA STATE (including tourists) CAN’T CHEW GUM AND DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME……..

    Connotes by definition: imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning.

    Micromanagement is Mismanagement.

    Micro-managers are bad news for business and bad news for employees.

    They dis-empower staff, stifle opportunity and innovation, and give rise to poor performance.

    MICROMANAGEMENT IS JUST PLAIN BAD MANAGEMENT.


  • Due Process for Distracted Drivers Law?

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) DUE PROCESS BY PUBLIC NOTICE?

     WA State Distracted Drivers Law ADOPTED 04/19/2017 

     VETOED by Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  MAY 16, 2017

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) accelerated the law’s effective date to July 23, 2017

    Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue, because a law that is too vague to understand does not provide adequate notice to people that a certain behavior is required or is unacceptable.

    The “void for vagueness” doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the average person could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law.

    ————————————————————————

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing the state over a disputed ticket for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al.

    —————————————————————-

    A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    First, the law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain or state what behavior the law is meant to affect.  If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that the law violates due process. 

    Second, a law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain the procedures that law enforcement officers or courts must follow when enforcing the law or handling cases that deal with certain legal issues. 

    Specifically, a law may be found to be unconstitutionally vague if it gives a judge no idea how to approach or handle a case based on that law.

    —————————————————–

    ADOPTED 04/19/2017  WA State Distracted Drivers Law

    MAY 16, 2017 Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  vetoed a compromise by the Legislature that would have postponed enforcement of the Driving Under the Influence of Electronics (DUIE) Act until 2019.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  surprised even the supporters of a distracted-driving law Tuesday when he accelerated the new crackdown, IN A LETTER TO THE SENATE DATED MAY 16, 2017.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) vetoed the section that gave drivers until 2019 to acclimate to the changes and instead declared Sunday, July 23, 2017 as the law’s effective date.

    The final version passed Wednesday pushed the proposed start date from Jan. 1, 2018, to Jan. 1, 2019, because several members wanted extra time for the public to adjust, according to prime sponsor Rep. Jessyn Farrell, D-Seattle.

    Farrell justified the wait on Wednesday, saying colleagues in both parties sought more TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION campaign, for the public to adapt, and for motorists to obtain built-in communication systems. The State Patrol is currently understaffed but is striving to boost recruitment, with help from proposed raises this legislative session.

    Understaffed was confirmed yesterday by Kyle at  WSP media center, yesterday.

    ——————————————–

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  His abysmal record on TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION speaks for it’s self

    ———————————————————————

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THE VETO. period

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing WA State over a disputed ticket  for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al. 

     But why would Gov. Jay Inslee (D) worry about a WA State lawsuit?

    After all  Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has  his nationally spotlighted Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) to defend his VETO.

    After all , A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    And after all, Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue.

    AND, PUBLIC NOTICE IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE


  • WA State Distracted Drivers Law

    Effective July 23, 2017 Washington State has enacted one of the nation’s toughest distracted driving laws after legislators passed a bill outlawing nearly every conceivable form of attention-diverting behavior behind the wheel.

    The bottom line….

    What does it mean when a law is “void for vagueness” or “overbroad …

    www.rotlaw.com › Legal Library › Procedure

    How does “choice of law” affect judgments? … If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that …

    —————————————————————————-

    Inslee’s WA State Distracted Drivers Law may have ambiguous inclusion?

    “INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO”  This phrase is used to indicate that a list is not necessarily exhaustive.

    In other words, when you don’t want someone to get the impression that whatever you’re saying applies only the items on the list.

    It means that those things are included, but other things you haven’t mentioned could be included as well, as ALL OF THE ABOVE

    OR, ARE THE DRIVING DISTRACTION TICKETS AND FINES et al, TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE WSP OFFICER THAT PULLS OVER,  OR NOTICES A RUNNING VEHICLE, WITH A  DRIVER IN THE VEHICLE, WHERE EVER THE VEHICLE IS PARKED, WITH A DRIVER DOING WHATEVER HE’S DOING, WITH WHATEVER HE’S DOING IT WITH IN HIS VEHICLE?

    ————————————————-

    IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE

    ———————————————————

     A LAW BASED ON STATISTICS?

    October 19, 2016 Olympia-  The phenomenon of driving while distracted is growing.  According to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, fatalities caused by distracted driving increased by 30.8% in 2015.

    STATISTICS are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.’

    STATISTICS – and research in general – is carried out by *people*. PEOPLE HAVE MOTIVATIONS.

    Then again, by now we know WASHINGTON GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE doesn’t have the highest regard for human drivers in all our glorious fallibility. And he kept beating that drum at a distracted driving awareness event in the state capital on Monday.

    Governor Inslee also vetoed a provision of the original bill that would have delayed its implementation until 2019, reminding the crowd in Olympia that A DISTRACTED DRIVER IS JUST AS BAD AS A DRUNK ONE—and that the issue is too urgent to wait.

    STATISTICS  ON DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVERS

    DRUNK DRIVING  ACCOUNTS FOR 32 PERCENT  OF ALL TRAFFIC-RELATED DEATHS add, 10 % OF MARIJUANA RELATED FATAL CAR ACCIDENTS

    July 21, 2017  Washington State Patrol WSP has more life saving priorities.

    Jun 3, 2016, After alcohol, marijuana is the drug most often found in the blood of drivers involved in crashes. … Along with marijuana, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE ALSO COMMONLY LINKED TO DRUGGED DRIVING CRASHES.

    ————————————————————————————-

    AND,  JUN 23, 2017 – DRUG DEATHS… FATAL OVERDOSES SURPASSED SHOOTING DEATHS AND FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

    JULY 21, 2017  WASHINGTON STATE PATROL WSP HAS MORE LIFE SAVING OPPORTUNITIES

    Investigative Assistance Division – Washington State Patrol

    www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/iad.htm

    … Section participate in 14 local and 4 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) task forces. …

    ———————————————————————————

    Washington State DUI Statistics [infographic]. DRUNK DRIVING ACCOUNTED FOR 32 PERCENT OF ALL TRAFFIC-RELATED DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES in 2009

    Marijuana-related fatal car accidents surge in Washington state after …

    www.washingtontimes.com/…/2016/…/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-wa…

    ROUGHLY 10 PERCENT OF WASHINGTON STATE DRIVERS INVOLVED IN FATAL CAR CRASHES between … MARIJUANA-RELATED FATAL CAR ACCIDENTS SURGE IN WASHINGTON STATE AFTER LEGALIZATION … By Andrea Noble – The Washington Times – Tuesday, May 10, 2016.

    ——————————————————————————–

     BIKINI  STATISTICS ON GOV JAY INSLEE’S  WA STATE DISTRACTED DRIVERS LAW

    STATISTICS ? What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.’

    “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.”

    Statistics – and research in general – is carried out by *people*. PEOPLE HAVE MOTIVATIONS.

    WASHINGTON GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE (D) HAD HIS MOTIVATIONS.

    AND, HE HAD HIS STATISTICS…..

     15% INCLUDED PASSENGER DISTRACTION

     12% INCLUDED CELL PHONE DISTRACTION

    ————————————————————————–

    THE STARTLING STATISTICS ON DISTRACTED YOUNG DRIVERS?

    58% OF TEEN DRIVERS INVOLVED IN MODERATE TO SEVERE CRASHES WERE DISTRACTED

    24% OF YOUNG DRIVERS INVOLVED IN WASHINGTON FATAL CRASHES WERE DISTRACTED IN 2015, 

     According to the Department of Licensing, 24% OF YOUNG DRIVERS INVOLVED IN WASHINGTON FATAL CRASHES WERE DISTRACTED IN 2015, up from 18% in 2008. Videos taken inside teenage driver’s car seconds before a crash reveal some startling statistics. Out of 1,700 videos taken:

    ——————————————————————————————

    Washington State Targets All Forms of Distracted Driving With New ‘E …

    www.thedrive.com/news/…/washington-state-targets-all-forms-of-distracted-driving-w…

    3 days ago – Washington State Targets All Forms of Distracted Driving With NewWashington’s new EDUI law will undoubtedly be a sticking point for …

    July 18, 2017 The Drive · Kyle Cheromcha View Kyle Cheromcha’s Articles

    instagram.com/kylecheromcha

    Fresh off its efforts to end the scourge of left-lane slowpokes, Washington State is preparing to enact one of the nation’s toughest distracted driving laws after legislators passed a bill outlawing nearly every conceivable form of attention-diverting behavior behind the wheel.

    Starting Sunday, drivers will no longer be allowed to use handheld devices at all, even while stopped in traffic or doing something as simple as scrolling through a playlist. Say goodbye to your red light selfies and social media spot-checks; officers who spot a driver with a phone in hand at any time for any reason can issue a ticket starting at $136, and repeat offenders will see that fine rise to $234 per violation.

    Additionally, a whole slew of other common sights—smoking, eating, drinking, reading, and “grooming”—are now secondary offenses, meaning drivers can be handed a $99 ticket for any of these actions if they’re pulled over for something else. So that guy you see on your morning commute making the illegal merge while shaving and eating his McMuffin is in for a rude awakening.

    Washington’s new E-DUI law will undoubtedly be a sticking point for some people. We can all agree that texting (and reading, and grooming, and sometimes eating) is indeed distracting when controlling a multi-ton vehicle, and therefore probably shouldn’t be allowed. But can the same be said for drinking a bottle of water? Or smoking a cigarette? It can be argued that anything other driving is a distraction behind the wheel, but it doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a driver suing the state over a disputed ticket and the law’s true intent.

    Then again, by now we know Washington governor Jay Inslee doesn’t have the  highest regard for human drivers in all our glorious fallibility. And he kept beating that drum at a distracted driving awareness event in the state capital on Monday. Governor Inslee also vetoed a provision of the original bill that would have delayed its implementation until 2019, reminding the crowd in Olympia that a distracted driver is just as bad as a drunk one—and that the issue is too urgent to wait.

    ——————————————————————-

    Does (D)  Inslee’s WA State Distracted Drivers Law have this ambiguous inclusion?

    “INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO”  This phrase is used to indicate that a list is not necessarily exhaustive.

    In other words, when you don’t want someone to get the impression that whatever you’re saying applies only the items on the list.

    It means that those things are included, but other things you haven’t mentioned could be included as well, as ALL OF THE ABOVE

    OR, ARE THE DRIVING DISTRACTION TICKETS AND FINES et al, TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE WSP OFFICER THAT PULLS OVER,  OR NOTICES A RUNNING VEHICLE, WITH A  DRIVER IN THE VEHICLE, WHERE EVER THE VEHICLE IS PARKED, WITH A DRIVER DOING WHATEVER HE’S DOING, WITH WHATEVER HE’S DOING IT WITH IN HIS VEHICLE?

    ———————————————————-

    The bottom line

    After reading nearly everything about this new law on line for six hours, I’m so confused

    What does it mean when a law is “void for vagueness” or “overbroad …

    www.rotlaw.com › Legal Library › Procedure

    How does “choice of law” affect judgments? … If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that …