OCR Text |
Show I. R. S. restrained from il!egai search-sizure U. S. Constitution. f The plaintiff's enthusiastically enthusiasti-cally praised the court's decision de-cision to invoke constitutional guarantees against the unlawful un-lawful tactics and procedures af the IRS and its agents in this case. They stressed that "Neither the IRS nor its agents be permitted to operate outside out-side the bounds of constitutional constitu-tional law and that the courts have the power and authority to require the IRS to function in a law abiding manner." They also stated that "Individuals s h o u Id use their recourse to the courts to prevent the use of the IRS vast manpower and machinery from coercing and intimidating intimidat-ing them into involuntarily complying with illegal demand," de-mand," , they concluded. On July 11 the Fifth District Dis-trict Court setting in Washington Wash-ington County was the scene of an important decision handed han-ded down by District Judge J. Harlan Burns by which he continued an earlier restraining restrain-ing order prohibiting the Internal In-ternal Revenue Service and its agents from illegally seizing seiz-ing financial records pertaining pertain-ing to local citizens which were in the posession of St. George financial institutions. The plaintiffs in the case, Jack Price, V. F. Victor, Ted L. and Joyce Gubler, Joseph V. and Joyce G. Hamilton, George Geor-ge O. and Ernestine Sanford, Everett and Ruth Lounsbury, and Chester and Doreen Loun-sburv. Loun-sburv. arsrued throusrh their "Search and Seizure" as provided pro-vided under Article of Am-mendment Am-mendment 4, U. S. Constitution. Constitu-tion. It was also established that the illegal IRS demands would force a breach of fiduciary fidu-ciary trust and confidentiality between the banks, Savings and Loan Association and the plaintiffs. And, also, would violate the plaintiff's "Rights of Privacy." The plaintiff's further argued argu-ed that IRS seizure cf their financial records would place in the hands cf the IRS personal per-sonal inform ation which could be used against them by the IRS in violation of Article Ar-ticle of Amendment 5, of the attorney Jim R. Scarth, that the IRS as an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Fed-eral Government did not have constitutional Judicial authority author-ity to search and seize financial finan-cial records of the plaintiffs which were on file with Zion's First National Bank; Dixie State Bank and St. George Savings and Loan Association. And that to do so was a violation viola-tion of the constitutional principle of "Separation of Powers" as provided for by the Constitution. During the course of the court hearing the plaintiffs argued ar-gued that the IRS action ' demanding de-manding their financial, records re-cords constituted a violation f their constitutional guarantee guaran-tee a g ainst unreasonable |