notyour*itch wrote:The pleadings were all marked with the following language: "Received 1-19-10," "Timely Response," "Accepted for Value exempt from levy," husband‘s apparent signature dated January 21, 2010, and "Exemption ID No. . . .Deposit to United States treasury and charge the same to [husband.]"
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I have never quite understood all of the legal language that he had in his reply. Perhaps someone could explain in plain language what it all was "supposed" to mean.
Others have explained that the "legal language" is gibberish, but I'd like to give you a more detailed example from the word salad above.
(And, for what it's worth, I'm a lawyer, and I've been studying this kind of gibberish for many years, and it really is gibberish.)
"Accepted for Value" is a phrase some people believe has magical meaning under the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been enacted in every state, as well as the District of Columbia). See, for example,
"What does Accepted for Value Mean?", which states on the cover page:
Millions of people use the phrase “accepted for value” everyday without knowing what it means and why it is so powerful. You have the right to make personal choices that affect your commercial affairs. You can be in control, or you can be controlled. Acceptance for value is one means of being in control.
How does acceptance for value put you in control? I have no idea, but after citing various definitions of words under the UCC, the author states at page 3 (of 50) that:
The right to be the creditor is what you get when you A4V [accept for value] an instrument that is issued and transferred for value, like a tax bill, penal action “indictment,” or speeding ticket.
Well, that's obviously nonsense because the UCC is a statute that governs *commercial* transactions (duh!), and has nothing to do with tax bills, criminal indictments, or speeding tickets, all of which are governed by completely separate and different statutes.
Although the intended meaning of "accepted for value" is incomprehensible, the intended purpose is clear, which is that your husband wanted to be "in control," and he thought that scrawling that phrase on court pleadings would put him "in control."
His use of the phrase "exempt from levy" is also a mystery. The word "levy" is most often used to describe the imposition or collection of taxes, but it can also mean a process of seizing property to collect debts other than taxes. Certain types of property can be exempt from levy by state statute or federal statute (the types of property exempt from federal tax levies are listed at 20 U.S.C. §6334).
So what did your husband mean when he wrote "exempt from levy" on a divorce pleading? Was he declaring that something was exempt from levy (which he has no power to do), or was he expressing an opinion that it was exempt from levy (an opinion which is almost certainly wrong)? And *what* did he think was exempt from levy? The pleading itself? The marriage itself? His property? Your property?
It all makes no sense.
So he took a phrase from commercial law and a phrase from tax law, jammed them together, and wrote them on a divorce pleading, and the result is incoherent gibberish. It's like reading a recipe for lemon meringue pie and finding an instruction to "weld the I-beams together using spherical trigonometry." It's just nonsense.
I would do as much as I possibly could of the typing, work, whatever.