The Termination Method - Time to Prove It.

[Joey Smith]

When I get to bigger computer

Huh?

[David Merrill]

Helpful - Joey!

[David Merrill]

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.

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.

http://www.loansharks.blogspot.com/

Bank of America’s “Higher Standards”

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...

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...

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.*

At this rate I may show you all the clear statutes, that the IRS is bound to obey, and of course by oath the county clerk and recorder is bound to obey should he enjoy governmental immunity for filing spurious documentation, within a few more days. But then again, as wonderful and forthright admissions are blurted, maybe not...

Meanwhile... a little payback, pestering for an answer I already know...

Judge Roy Bean; please be specific and tell us where this Place for Recording is that you mentioned?

Hint: Demosthenes and Nikki, our local busybodies have already answered that question with eloquence and volume, and that answer fails statutory support miserably:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol7.html#fedln
http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dl ... plates&2.0

Thank you so much for trying though JRB! As sure as my name is Van Pelt; you are disbarred!



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. Chuckling;

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.

* At which time the Constitution will support the cause in American courts (Sixteenth Amendment) through Article I, §10 about no state can interfere with obligations of contract.

Hint for John J. Bulton;

You better consider non-endorsement if you wish to ever use law to convince any judge or jury that you would have always redeemed every penny of your paychecks in non-taxable income. Your endorsement on the backs of all your paychecks testifies you have been receiving private credit from the Federal Reserve without redeeming any lawful money in your life. Was that action on your part in bad faith? Did you know? Were you informed about these terms?

[The Observer]

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?

[Kimokeo]

...

Van Pelt may have waited them out. Unless that lien was refiled, it released automatically on 01/30/2006.

It doesn't happen "automatically." It will sit there until Van Pelt gets the IRS to send the Clerk something releasing it.

IRS Publication 1468 (8-2006):

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.

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.

[David Merrill]

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?

You think that there are district court cases saying that there is no judicial process in the district court? What a silly girl!

The Certificate of Search is the district court case. Here is one:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... rected.jpg

When a UCC-3 is filed with a Certificate of Search at the proper one state office, the NTFL is removed from the index so that people inquiring hear nothing of it. Your statements are herein this thread proven, and that you know, the lien is the NFTL.

However it is noted that you are no longer asking for the statutes requiring there be judicial action in the US district court... are you admitting that by law and common sense there must be?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

You think that there are district court cases saying that there is no judicial process in the district court? What a silly girl!

No, you keep ignoring my primary question, which has always been the following:

"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.

[.]

To this date, you have provided zip,nada, nil, nothing.

And he never will.

[Quixote]

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.

As the judge noted above:

[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.

The IRS has not made any effort to educate the credit industry about self releasing liens.

[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.

As the judge noted above:

[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.

The IRS has not made any effort to educate the credit industry about self releasing liens.

Judge Roy Bean answered your question. However I will edify you about it by asking what to do?

Should somebody inquire and find that the NFTL is self-released, that is to say more than 10 years old, but is still there in the county clerk and recorder index, what do they do?

They call up the IRS and ask them to please release the NFTL - which is the lien. The IRS will say, "Okay, we just renewed the NFTL with a new one. Talk to you in ten years if you don't like it."

Judge Roy Bean was nice enough to answer by informing you Readers that the lien is recorded. However the only thing recorded is the NFTL. The NFTL is the lien.

Unless of course JRB means recorded in some file cabinet in the corner of an IRS agent's cubicle in Ogden, Utah? Is that what you mean JRB? Is that what you call judicial process?




Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S.

You think that there are district court cases saying that there is no judicial process in the district court? What a silly girl!

No, you keep ignoring my primary question, which has always been the following:

"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.

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.

Think about what JRB said. Maybe you will get it, maybe you wont. No matter.

[.]

And Van Pelt once again demonstrates that he has no clue what the difference is between a lien and a notice of a lien.

[David Merrill]

And Van Pelt once again demonstrates that he has no clue what the difference is between a lien and a notice of a lien.

You have really got to get a clue.

Why don't you even bother trying to get a grip on reality; just for the sake of writing edifying posts?

Listen to what JRB said; He says that the liens are recorded...

Ask yourself, What is recorded? The NFTL is recorded and only outside the scope of statute too.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

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, you recall wrong. But no surprise there.

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.

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).

So where is it? Or do your victims just have to tolerate watching the IRS walk away with their money?

[David Merrill]

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, you recall wrong. But no surprise there.

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.

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).

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.

What you want is a US district court opinion about something that never made it into the US district court.

Here it is - again...

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... sified.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... rected.jpg

During this timeframe in the formation of the modern Libel of Review, Katherine was getting all persnickity about forming legal name. Notice the dates on the two documents. I sent $350 to Congress to hear the matter of falsifying information on US court documentation and they quickly corrected the matter. I recall they replaced the clerk of court about then too.

I assume you have found the statutorily defined US district court (judicial) requirements - lis pendens or a transcript of judgment - within 30 days of any NFTL for there to be any chance of a lien developing from it. That is why you have shifted your demand to this absurdity.

It is easy to make good points about procedure and process off your misdirected education Observer. And as always I enjoy the misnomer, inference that I support a government bond of FDR's New Deal.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

Give it up, Van Pelt.

You've never defeated, removed, terminated or done anything of any consequence to a federal tax lien and no mark of yours ever has either.

If you had, you would have provided the proof. You haven't because there is no proof of that which hasn't happened and will never happen because your "theories" are BS. Even your very own federal tax liens are only invalid because they expired by virtue of the passage of time.

Everyone knows you're just a delusional scammer who doesn't know the difference between a lien and a notice, the legal effect of either, or how to remove a lien. The really sad thing is that you don't know when to stop embarrassing yourself.

It's getting boring. Please come up with a new delusion.

[The Observer]

What you want is a US district court opinion about something that never made it into the US district court.

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?"

See, this has been the paradox that I have seen in your "termination" method. The IRS believes so strongly in this concept that a lien arises after an assessment has been made, demand was made for payment, and the assessment went unpaid, that they actually go around issuing levies and seizing property based on that belief. And they believe that they do not have to go through a judge (contrary to what you believe the law says) to accomplish this. And yet, despite your fervent claims that the liens are illegal, invalid and phony, the IRS continues merrily on their way levying and seizing to the tune of millions of dollars every year. Yet you sit here - impotently, I might add - and just keep saying that those UCC-3 filings stop all of this.

I ask for proof of this and you have not one case where you can show me that a "terminator" went into district court and got a judge to agree that the so-called liens and levies of the IRS were illegal, had contravened the judge's authority, and awarded the terminator a release of the levy, sanctions against the IRS for operating outside of the law, or some other court order that could be seen as support for what you contend.

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.

[Kimokeo]

"Should somebody inquire and find that the NFTL is self-released, that is to say more than 10 years old, but is still there in the county clerk and recorder index, what do they do?

They call up the IRS and ask them to please release the NFTL - which is the lien. The IRS will say, "Okay, we just renewed the NFTL with a new one. Talk to you in ten years if you don't like it."

Regards,

David Merrill. "



I don't think this is possible. Even a new lien has to have the expiration date and if the expiration date hadn't been extended/suspended, a new lien would still carry the expired date.

[.]

I don't think this is possible

Anything is possible on Planet Van Pelt. Including all of his happy horsesh!t.

[David Merrill]

I suppose it was pretty stupid to blurt Judge Roy Bean. You make up for that in training; you will not come back and explain about Place for Filing (recording). I suppose that makes stupid subsequent remarks about non-extant district court opinions evidence these silly Quatlosers are your marks.

The argument about the district court opinion is won every time a court clerk asks why the suitor is filing a counterclaim. Where is the current court case? The suitor explains that is the counterclaim - agents of foreign principal UN/IMF are required to file in the US district courts and they did not. However they have been filing spurious liens without any such judicial substantiation. So ergo the counterclaim. The clerk files the counterclaim.

What is amusing is your posts brought yet another suitor, just because many readers can understand what I am saying. You are all such silly people as far as law goes. This demand for a US district court opinion about something that never got filed in the first place is rediculous!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[jkeeb]

Van Pelt wrote:

What is amusing is your posts brought yet another suitor

Which reminded me of something PT Barnum (quite possibly not his real name) said.