Deceptive IRS spoof on NFTL

[.]

And who is this "broker" Van Pelt keeps referring to?

At the point where the IRS has moved to seize a customer's funds, the customer is going to be dealing with a lawyer employed (on whatever basis) by the brokerage firm, not what most people think of as a "broker," namely a Series 7 licensed registered representative. And no mistaken reading by some registered rep is going to affect how any reputable broker, on the advice of their lawyer(s), deals with the legal demands of the IRS, because no lawyer is going to put up with any of Van Pelt's nonsense for even 5 seconds.

Perhaps Van Pelt once upon a time bought a hundred dollars worth of some obscure penny stock from a local tout (Colorado is famous for its pink-sheet mining shell companies and their touts,) the IRS levied on the account, and the "broker" thumbed his nose at them. Van Pelt thus imagines that this is how all brokerage firms operate.

The possibility of the customer being as impecunious as is Van Pelt is also a very good possibility. No point in wasting collection effort for a de minimus result.

In any case, it's a foregone conclusion that Van Pelt is full of it, for whatever reason(s).

Speaking of full of it, isn't it amazing how the "fired" IRS "agent" now magically "works" for the very same "company" which this unknown IRS debtor "founded" and then later had an "IPO" and is now a public company? Anything is possible on Planet Van Pelt.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You attack him with style and grace as befitting your position and his infirmity.

Some of the others are getting too crude and impolite.

Some of us are just flat out sick and tired of his bullsh*t.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I wonder what it would take to have Davey declared incompetent and remanded to an asylum?

[webhick]

I wonder what it would take to have Davey declared incompetent and remanded to an asylum?

I know that being a physical danger to yourself and/or others is one way to get forcibly committed. I don't think David's at that point.

[silversopp]

You are saying that the NFTL and the fax say the same thing?

No Mr. Van Pelt, I am only addressing the faxed document you received. The one that says "unless X happens by Y, Z shall happen"

Don't worry about any other document David, this one is clearly too difficult for you. Look at these examples, and conclusions drawn by using your interpretation of the sentence structure:

Unless you give me a ransom of $1,000,000 by Thursday, I shall destroy your motor scooter.

You're incorrectly claiming that the motor scooter is destroyed today.

Unless you pay your debt by Octobor, we shall go to a collection agency.

You're incorrectly claiming that the debt is already is in collections.

Unless you refile this form by 2010, it shall be a release of lien.

You're incorrectly claiming it is already a release of lien.

What is so hard about this? It clear English, and should be simple for even a dolt like you to comprehend.

[David Merrill]

Because tax liens do not arise as a matter of law...

Yes, they do. IRC 6321.

It was Wesley Marc, a trained attorney who added et seq. to that citation. Title 26 never being enacted into law aside, when the IRS agent chooses another venue than US district court (§6323 - Place for filing.) the process becomes subject to the state laws for filing and perfecting liens.

What you seem to think is the myth that the only purpose of an NFTL is to inform third parties about a prior claim by the IRS. That would only apply if the IRS agent filed and won judgment in the US district court. Sorry to spring that on you after months of you making an ass of yourself...


Naw!! I am not really sorry!



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

No Mr. Van Pelt, I am only addressing the faxed document you received. The one that says "unless X happens by Y, Z shall happen"

How can you all be such stupid idiots to disqualify whatever you post by inferring a Government bond on me by changing my name?

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

You either expose your ignorance of history and law, or your disengenuousness before you even open your mouths! So why bother even trying to change what the fax said?

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

Some of you are saying the image is falsified. Good for you! That is the only argument that is making any sense.

The image has not been falsified.

[silversopp]

Some of the others are getting too crude and impolite.

The man scams other people. If we cannot be impolite to conmen preying on those with lower than average mental ability, who can we be impolite to?

[webhick]

Some of the others are getting too crude and impolite.

The man scams other people. If we cannot be impolite to conmen preying on those with lower than average mental ability, who can we be impolite to?

That raises a good question: Is he really conning if he really and honestly believes what he's preaching?

[silversopp]

No Mr. Van Pelt, I am only addressing the faxed document you received. The one that says "unless X happens by Y, Z shall happen"

How can you all be such stupid idiots to disqualify whatever you post by inferring a Government bond on me by changing my name?

At this point, he has realized that he made a mistake and that he cannot argue his position any further. Rather than fess up and admit he was wrong, he tries to change the topic.

It was fun playing with you Mr. Van Pelt. I was hoping you'd put up more of a struggle though.

[David Merrill]

No Mr. Van Pelt, I am only addressing the faxed document you received. The one that says "unless X happens by Y, Z shall happen"

How can you all be such stupid idiots to disqualify whatever you post by inferring a Government bond on me by changing my name?

At this point, he has realized that he made a mistake and that he cannot argue his position any further. Rather than fess up and admit he was wrong, he tries to change the topic.

It was fun playing with you Mr. Van Pelt. I was hoping you'd put up more of a struggle though.

As fun as it is correcting you about English, I am sure!

You actually believe that when the IRS agent removed the clause about the day after the date in column (e), the notice still said the same thing?


That is a funny joke indeed!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Title 26 never being enacted into law aside...

Lying again, David? Title 26 is law.

...when the IRS agent chooses another venue than US district court (§6323 - Place for filing.) the process becomes subject to the state laws for filing and perfecting liens.

That section talks about the notice of lien and where to record it for the purposes of establishing priority for real and/or personal property. 6323(f) says nothing about the lien arising from the notice recordation. The language is precise; you need to start discerning between the lien and the notice of lien.

What you seem to think is the myth that the only purpose of an NFTL is to inform third parties about a prior claim by the IRS.

Why do you think it is called a notice? Why do you think a notice is recorded in a public location such as the county clerk or recorder's office? It can't be a myth if the process actually functions as I have been describing it, that creditors and title insurance companies are acting in accordance with the law in verifying whether notices of liens are recorded before transacting business with the consumer. The only myth being told here is by you that somehow these notices get recorded for no purpose whatsoever.

That would only apply if the IRS agent filed and won judgment in the US district court. Sorry to spring that on you after months of you making an ass of yourself...

And more lies. There is no requirement that the IRS win a judgement in federal court to enforce upon a lien. The IRS enforces liens with levies and seizures on a daily basis. If what you were saying were true, then you could be a very rich person by filing class-action suits for unlawful levies. Instead, you are living a hand-to-mouth existence, failing to support your daughter, and subsisting off money conned out of people silly enough to listen to the lies you peddle. You have yet to win a case in court on your own behalf, let alone winning cases for thousands of other people.

So another challenge, David. Instead of sitting there in your underwear, wasting time clinging to unproven myths, head into district court and prove me wrong by winning a suit. If nothing else, you could garner some money for that child support you owe.

[silversopp]

You actually believe that when the IRS agent removed the clause about the day after the date in column (e), the notice still said the same thing?

The faxed document never had the words "the day after the date in column (e)" written on it, therefore, the IRS agent could not possibly remove it.

Answer this simple question David. A clerk at Blockbuster tells you "Unless you return the movie by 11pm tomorrow, you shall be fined $2.50"

When do you get fined $2.50?
a) immediately
b) tomorrow at noon
c) OMG! OMG! At Family Video the fine is $3.00! WTF! BBQ SAUCE! The IRS changed the fine!!!! My name is David Merrill, not Van Pelt! Where's my motor scooter?!!!
d) tomorrow at 11:01PM

Now try another one:

"Unless you refile by November 22nd, 2010, this notice shall be a release of lien"

When does the notice become a release of lien?
a) immediately
b) tomorrow at noon
c) OMG! OMG! It doesn't say "the day following the date in column (e)"! WTF! BBQ SAUCE! The IRS changed the language!!!! My name is David Merrill, not Van Pelt! Where's my motor scooter?!!!
d) 12:01am November 23, 2010

I don't expect you to answer. As a reader named Steve PMed me this morning, "I can't believe I almost fell for David Merrill's ideas. He sounded credible up until you for pointing out his flaws". That's 2 readers who no longer believe in you. The longer we keep this up, the more readers will see through you.

[The Observer]

I don't expect you to answer. As a reader named Steve PMed me this morning, "I can't believe I almost fell for David Merrill's ideas. He sounded credible up until you for pointing out his flaws". That's 2 readers who no longer believe in you. The longer we keep this up, the more readers will see through you.

I got an e-mail from another reader who bothered to look up the IRC code 6325 regarding the releases of liens. They were in perfect agreement that David was misinterpreting the statute and its effects. This is the reason I have spent time confronting David and his lies - not because the effort will result in convincing him. It is so that the readers who come through here will see the shallowness of his position and be aware of the lies, half-truths and obfuscations that he persists in publishing.

[Dezcad]

half-truths and obfuscations that he persists in publishing.

You've given him way too much credit - he's not even close to 1/18th truth, let alone 1/2.

[The Observer]

I wonder what it would take to have Davey declared incompetent and remanded to an asylum?

I know that being a physical danger to yourself and/or others is one way to get forcibly committed. I don't think David's at that point.

I think he meant to say "have Davey declared impotent..."

[The Observer]

half-truths and obfuscations that he persists in publishing.

You've given him way too much credit - he's not even close to 1/18th truth, let alone 1/2.

Actually, David does tell half-truths - but he has to do that in order to appear to the less-educated as being credible. That is the bigger danger - because if David relied on 100% imaginary creations, the game would be up right away. This way, David is able to string along the gullible and get them to agree with him.

While many people want to believe that David is suffering from psychosis, my own personal guess is that he is simply sociopathic and manipulates the truth to serve his own personal desires.

[silversopp]

While many people want to believe that David is suffering from psychosis, my own personal guess is that he is simply sociopathic and manipulates the truth to serve his own personal desires.

I concur. If David was suffering from some mental illness, he would not shy away from directly answering questions posed by myself and others here. He is intelligent enough to recognize that the questions lead to the destruction of his argument, and understands that the only way to avoid publicly admitting his argument is rubbish is to avoid the questions.

Personally, I think that Van Pelt uses this forum to hone his skills at BSing. If he can manage to survive a thread on an issue without admitting defeat here, he can probably deceive the ordinary Joe long enough to get some money out of it.

[The Observer]

As long as Barnum's Theory is correct, David should have an opportunity to scrape by on the tads he cons out of the gullible. A blind guess in the dark would be that during slow periods David works a few cash jobs (mowing lawns, shoveling snow, cleaning pools, shampooing dogs, etc) to keep the rent paid.

[Nikki]

No rent. He lives with Mom and gets an allowance.

[David Merrill]

The faxed document never had the words "the day after the date in column (e)" written on it, therefore, the IRS agent could not possibly remove it.

That's what I am talking about! Here it is again:

The NFTL says:

IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in IRC 6325(a).

and the Release of Lien says:

With respect to each assessment below, unless notice of lien is refiled by the date in column (e), this notice shall constitute the certificate of release of lien as defined in IRC 6325(a).

Now you are catching on folks. The release is immediate because it is no longer dependent on waiting for...

...on the day following such date...

Regards,

David Merrill.