Huh?When I get to bigger computer
![Image](http://www.nea.com/UploadedImages/ImageGallery/old%20computer%20image.jpg)
Judge Roy Bean really stuffed his foot down his throat that time! What Big Fun you all are. The more experienced, the bigger the blurts; like that article JRB wrote to terrorize people into thinking the bank had unlimited power to arrest with no recourse or remedy available for us.The NFTL is not the lien. The lien itself will be recorded whether or not the interested party receives or is even aware of the NFTL.
Every attorney is taught to keep it a secret that the people, in the light of emergency since the Civil War are the chattel behind FDR's government bonds. And JRB's use of the word recorded lets the cat out of the bag as bigtime as it gets around Quatloos. JRB reveals that recordation is a prime ingredient to chattel mortgages...Bank of America’s “Higher Standards”
In the simple mention of recordation, which only exists with the NFTL, not in any lien form, Judge Roy Bean has spilled all with his foot in his mouth to the ankle - for anybody who has been keeping up with our dialogue. And of course the entire concept of the IRS having some kind of immunity to state statutes governing the recordation methods while entering the states is absurd; unless you consider endorsement of private credit with the federal reserve a pledge.*The Chattel Mortgage as a Statutory Security
Garrard Glenn
Virginia Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Jan., 1939), pp.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6 ... 0.CO%3B2-T
Virginia Law Review is currently published by Virginia Law Review.
[bottom of 321]In the usual case however, where no delivery at all takes place, the common law question is, how can one pass title to a chattel, or bail it, merely by saying so? How can Borrower say to Lender, "This chattel was mine, but now it is yours, with a defeasance to me; you may be taken as redelivering possession to me, and I now hold as your bailee"?... [323] ...that he could redeem by way of bill in equity, ... [325] ... With an outright sale, the vendor must remain in possession,... [326] ...This justifies an American view, early taken, that the chattel mortgage is of no avail unless statute protects the mortgagee in abstaining from taking possession... It should also provide machinery for giving notoriety to the transaction, because recording the agreement is useless unless the statute so provides...
And then there's the little matter of the fact that the voices in Van Pelt's head somehow haven't managed to "terminate" his very own, personal federal tax lien, despite his incessant, although ridiculous, claims of a way to do so
Second, the federal tax liens are filed against David Merrill Van Pelt, who (on Planet Merrill) is a completely different person than David Merrill.
If it is a self-releasing lien, why do we have IRS spending so much money on resources to issue release of liens on liens already released? What a waste of money.Quixote wrote:IRS Publication 1468 (8-2006):Judge Roy Bean wrote:It doesn't happen "automatically." It will sit there until Van Pelt gets the IRS to send the Clerk something releasing it.Quixote wrote:...
Van Pelt may have waited them out. Unless that lien was refiled, it released automatically on 01/30/2006.
Self-Releasing Liens
A lien usually releases automatically 10 years after a tax is assessed, if the statutory period for collection has not been extended and the IRS extended the effect of the lien by re-filing it. When a lien is self-released, the Notice of Federal Tax Lien itself is the release document.
The lien is considered self released if the:
• date for refiling has passed and
• IRS has not refiled the original Notice of Federal Tax Lien.
Taxpayers should check the column titled Last Day for Re-filing on the Notice of Federal Tax Lien to determine if the lien is self-released. The IRS recommends that recording offices provide the requestor with a copy of the lien and identify the self-releasing language. This information is contained directly under the name and address on the lien document.
The Observer wrote:In the meantime, David, where are those district court cases supporting your contention that "terminated" liens can get IRS levies and seizures released? Or are you admitting that your method can't stop a levy/seizure?
No, you keep ignoring my primary question, which has always been the following:David Merrill wrote:You think that there are district court cases saying that there is no judicial process in the district court? What a silly girl!
As the judge noted above:If it is a self-releasing lien, why do we have IRS spending so much money on resources to issue release of liens on liens already released? What a waste of money.
The IRS has not made any effort to educate the credit industry about self releasing liens.[Reference to the lien] also exists in any number of other databases that no lending or insuring underwriter will ignore. Without the formal release form (which may be accepted or at least recognized prior to appearances in the records), most underwriters won't budge.
Judge Roy Bean answered your question. However I will edify you about it by asking what to do?Quixote wrote:As the judge noted above:If it is a self-releasing lien, why do we have IRS spending so much money on resources to issue release of liens on liens already released? What a waste of money.
The IRS has not made any effort to educate the credit industry about self releasing liens.[Reference to the lien] also exists in any number of other databases that no lending or insuring underwriter will ignore. Without the formal release form (which may be accepted or at least recognized prior to appearances in the records), most underwriters won't budge.
If I recall right, you are the idiot who thinks that tax liens arise out of some IRS agent thinking there might be a tax liability. You said that the lien itself is not the same thing as the NFTL. If you clear up your problem about how you think, realizing there is never a certified accounting done by any IRS agent in forming that notion of a tax liability, then you will have answered whatever you are expecting me to answer.The Observer wrote:No, you keep ignoring my primary question, which has always been the following:David Merrill wrote:You think that there are district court cases saying that there is no judicial process in the district court? What a silly girl!
"What does a terminator do once they have "terminated" the lien and the IRS and the employer/banker/levy source continue to withold and forward funds to the IRS?"
You have answered and stated that the terminator needed to go to federal district court.
So I am asking for proof where a terminator went to court and got a judge to order levied funds released based on the UCC-3 filing. To this date, you have provided zip,nada, nil, nothing.
. wrote:And Van Pelt once again demonstrates that he has no clue what the difference is between a lien and a notice of a lien.
No, I haven't said anything about the lien or the NFTL. What I said was that I want you to show me a federal court case that agreed with your method of terminating a federal tax lien and ordered the employer/bank to release funds attached by a IRS levy (or the alternative of ordering the IRS levy released).David Merrill wrote:No, you recall wrong. But no surprise there.If I recall right, you are the idiot who thinks that tax liens arise out of some IRS agent thinking there might be a tax liability.
You said that the lien itself is not the same thing as the NFTL. If you clear up your problem about how you think, realizing there is never a certified accounting done by any IRS agent in forming that notion of a tax liability, then you will have answered whatever you are expecting me to answer.
What you want is a US district court opinion about something that never made it into the US district court.The Observer wrote:David Merrill wrote:No, you recall wrong. But no surprise there.If I recall right, you are the idiot who thinks that tax liens arise out of some IRS agent thinking there might be a tax liability.
No, I haven't said anything about the lien or the NFTL. What I said was that I want you to show me a federal court case that agreed with your method of terminating a federal tax lien and ordered the employer/bank to release funds attached by a IRS levy (or the alternative of ordering the IRS levy released).You said that the lien itself is not the same thing as the NFTL. If you clear up your problem about how you think, realizing there is never a certified accounting done by any IRS agent in forming that notion of a tax liability, then you will have answered whatever you are expecting me to answer.
So where is it? Or do your victims just have to tolerate watching the IRS walk away with their money?
Okay, I tend to group you together since you consider me a tax protester, which I do not agree with at all. Let's suppose that you have not been pestering me thread after thread to make a distinction between a lien and an NFTL:
And Van Pelt once again demonstrates that he has no clue what the difference is between a lien and a notice of a lien.
That is an interesting admission on your part. Why has not such a case made into the district courts? Could it be that your terminators realized that the UCC-3's they filed were totally ineffective in getting their monies back from IRS levies? Could it be that these same terminators realized that it would be a waste to throw away even more money filing for suit in district court, after having paid you money for your "assistance" in getting a lien "terminated?"David Merrill wrote:What you want is a US district court opinion about something that never made it into the US district court.