So you will have to excuse me if I wonder if you are not just simply making up all of this stuff about "terminating" liens out of thin air.
Why would a district court judge comment about a terminated lien?
Because perhaps a "terminator" filed suit in district court to get the IRS levy stopped? After all, you are the one who originally raised this route of remedy earlier. I had merely posed the situation where a "terminator" was confronted with the IRS continually serving levies despite the UCC-3 being filed according to your "method." You replied that it was up to the "terminator" to "convince" the employer or banker that the lien had been "terminated" and that the IRS levy was not enforceable. When I asked what the "terminator" would have to do if the banker or employer refused to be "convinced" you said that the terminator would have to go to district court.
Now you act as though this is has never occurred before. Did you just toss out an answer hoping that I would just accept it and go away? Did you think I wouldn't examine and test you for what you said? Or do you have just a poor capacity for understanding and retaining what you put out there for public digestion?
So are you backpedaling away from your original answer? What should a "terminator" do if the employer/banker refuses to listen? Or have you even bothered to think that far ahead?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Because perhaps a "terminator" filed suit in district court to get the IRS levy stopped?
I think that must be why you sound so retarded. For there to be a lien, there must be an action either lis pendens or a transcript of the judgment from the US district court filed with the NFTL within thirty days. That's the law.
Since no action is ever commenced in the district court, the lien never cures.
Therefore one gets a certificate of search from the district court to file with the UCC-3 to terminate the NFTL.
I think that must be why you sound so retarded. For there to be a lien, there must be an action either lis pendens or a transcript of the judgment from the US district court filed with the NFTL within thirty days. That's the law.
Since no action is ever commenced in the district court, the lien never cures.
Court action isn't necessary. You could cure the lien by salting or smoking it.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
I think that must be why you sound so retarded. For there to be a lien, there must be an action either lis pendens or a transcript of the judgment from the US district court filed with the NFTL within thirty days. That's the law.
I've asked you before: what law? Written where?
That is in the statutes somewhere:
Though shalt not honor any NFTL, howsoever published unless it is accompanied within thirty (30) days by a judicial action from the US district courts by way of notice lis pendens or a transcript of an actual judgment...
What really gets me is the way you all think that it would be any other way. - Like the $5000 Nikki owes me because I said so here on Quatloos.
You seem to think that an IRS agent has the authority to affect somebody's property without the scope of judicial action.
Because perhaps a "terminator" filed suit in district court to get the IRS levy stopped?
I think that must be why you sound so retarded. For there to be a lien, there must be an action either lis pendens or a transcript of the judgment from the US district court filed with the NFTL within thirty days. That's the law.
Since no action is ever commenced in the district court, the lien never cures.
Therefore one gets a certificate of search from the district court to file with the UCC-3 to terminate the NFTL.
Regards,
David Merrill.
David, you are still avoiding MY question and answering the question that is echoing in YOUR head. I am not asking about your nonsense.
I am asking what "terminators" do when the IRS continues to levy and seize and the employer/banker or third-party holder of proper continues to honor the levy or recognize the seizure, regardless of the documents that your "terminators" have secured/filed?
Can you answer THAT question? Or are you just going to sit there and keep beating your lips about about how the lien doesn't exist anymore. And hope that the potential marks don't notice that you seem unable to answer THAT question?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
David Merrill wrote:You seem to think that an IRS agent has the authority to affect somebody's property without the scope of judicial action.
The IRS thinks that they can affect property without seeking judicial action. And they continue to do it, in spite of whether there is a UCC-3 filed or not. The question is what a terminator does next to get the levy/seizure undone - a question that you seem totally unable to answer.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
David Merrill wrote:That is in the statutes somewhere:
Quote:
Though shalt not honor any NFTL, howsoever published unless it is accompanied within thirty (30) days by a judicial action from the US district courts by way of notice lis pendens or a transcript of an actual judgment...
Only if "the "statutes somewhere" means "the voices in my head."
I am asking what "terminators" do when the IRS continues to levy and seize and the employer/banker or third-party holder of proper continues to honor the levy or recognize the seizure, regardless of the documents that your "terminators" have secured/filed?
If there is no lien then it would be stupid to divert funds and/or seize property.
You say you are not asking me about my nonsense. The law is nonsense to you Observer.
The IRS thinks that they can affect property without seeking judicial action. And they continue to do it, in spite of whether there is a UCC-3 filed or not. The question is what a terminator does next to get the levy/seizure undone - a question that you seem totally unable to answer.
See what I mean? You are making an assumption that the IRS is seizing property and diverting funds after the lien or levy has been terminated. You are assuming so. At least the Readers can see that you are simply making an assumption there or I would bother to explain it more thoroughly.
David Merrill wrote:That is in the statutes somewhere:
Quote:
Though shalt not honor any NFTL, howsoever published unless it is accompanied within thirty (30) days by a judicial action from the US district courts by way of notice lis pendens or a transcript of an actual judgment...
Only if "the "statutes somewhere" means "the voices in my head."
No. When I look up the statutes and/or print them out, that is basically what they say. I enjoy that such basic principles of law evade you that you think such a fundamental statement of rights like to judicial oversight and review prior to having property rights affected by lien and levy are voices in my head.
You must be a medical Dr. because it is obvious you are not a doctor in the law.
David Merrill wrote:I enjoy that such basic principles of law evade you that you think such a fundamental statement of rights like to judicial oversight and review prior to having property rights affected by lien and levy are voices in my head.
I guess the U.S. Supreme Court must have missed these "basic principles of law" as well:
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote:A tax is an exaction by the sovereign, and necessarily the sovereign has an enforceable claim against every one within the taxable class for the amount lawfully due from him. The statute prescribes the rule of taxation. Some machinery must be provided for applying the rule to the facts in each taxpayer's case, in order to ascertain the amount due. The chosen instrumentality for the purpose is an administrative agency whose action is called an assessment. The assessment may be a valuation of property subject to taxation, which valuation is to be multiplied by the statutory rate to ascertain the amount of tax. Or it may include the calculation and fix the amount of tax payable, and assessments of federal estate and income taxes are of this type. Once the tax is assessed, the taxpayer will owe the sovereign the amount when the date fixed by law for payment arrives. Default in meeting the obligation calls for some procedure whereby payment can be enforced. The statute might remit the government to an action at law wherein the taxpayer could offer such defense as he had. A judgment against him might be collected by the levy of an execution. But taxes are the lifeblood of government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need. Time out of mind, therefore, the sovereign has resorted to more drastic means of collection. The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor's property to satisfy the debt.
I think your citation of the Supreme Court must be taking it in mind that the statutes require for a NFTL to cure a lien there must be action in the US district court filed with the NFTL within 30 days. That is what the statutes say.
And I think knowing that, the citation makes sense. Of course when you do not know that, the quote sounds like it is sanctioning arbitrary and capricious seizures.
David Merrill wrote:That is in the statutes somewhere:
Quote:
Though shalt not honor any NFTL, howsoever published unless it is accompanied within thirty (30) days by a judicial action from the US district courts by way of notice lis pendens or a transcript of an actual judgment...
Only if "the "statutes somewhere" means "the voices in my head."
Oh come on, Dr. C. You can't just take a raving madman convicted of passing bad checks who sues Jesus Christ on his word?
David Merrill wrote:That is in the statutes somewhere:
Quote:
Though shalt not honor any NFTL, howsoever published unless it is accompanied within thirty (30) days by a judicial action from the US district courts by way of notice lis pendens or a transcript of an actual judgment...
Only if "the "statutes somewhere" means "the voices in my head."
Oh come on, Dr. C. You can't just take a raving madman convicted of passing bad checks who sues Jesus Christ on his word?
There is a great reason I am not citing the statute specifically. You folks are really under the impression that the IRS can cure a lien independent of judicial action, all but the attorneys anyway.
