ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Roman World
 Statute Law
 Taxes
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

n/a
deleted

18 Posts

Posted - 13 Jun 2003 :  17:03:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree

Enoch, the tax agencies want FRN's to release a lien - You are wasting your time paying them. Tax agencies = WASTE! ;-)

Does anyone know what the Truth in Lending Act's connection is with the tax agencies? Does IRS actually go by the rules of the Lending Act?




Hi Livefree, the connection is the UCC, the supreme law of the land, in force since the 1973 consolidation of the courts into one. The IRS goes by the UCC and the Lending Act pertains to the UCC. Everything is a contract, including your relationship with the taxing authorites.
CT
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 13 Jun 2003 :  21:16:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you, CT, for answering the Lending Act question.

Now, does anyone know where in the probate statutes it says: "Equality under the law is mandatory and paramount"?
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 13 Jun 2003 :  22:28:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Equality under the law is mandatory and paramount" is a legal Maxim that dates from Roman Law and about 50 b.c.

If it is codified into statute law, I am not aware of it.

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 13 Jun 2003 :  23:13:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I thought Rice said, "they had it hidden in the probate statutes". In fact, I'm almost certain he said that, but I'll double check. Thank you, Lewis.
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 14 Jun 2003 :  01:23:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The "Equal Protection Clause" is part of the 14th Amendment. But the original concept is almost as old as Law itself.

Live free in the Light of the Lord,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2003 :  16:10:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Lewis,

I'm thinking about becoming a Notary and was wondering if you knew how a Notary would learn about doing a Notorial Protest for someone? Do you know?
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2003 :  19:16:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There is a book for Notaries that is available from many of the office supply stores. It covers just about everything a notary should know. About $20, I think.

In Wash State, a notary has to attend a 6 hour class before being certified as a notary. I assume something similar is required in all states. In that class you can ask about notary protest, certificate of dishonor and all those other important things that generally aren't covered, because "they" don't want you to know.

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2003 :  20:20:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh thank you Lewis. I'll take a look at that book over the weekend.





Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 19 Jun 2003 :  21:58:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
CA Secretary of State has the Notary handbook on the website. The link below discusses the Protest! Hey!

http://www.ss.ca.gov/business/notary/notary_2003hdbk.htm#ucc
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2003 :  10:23:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I guess it doesn't matter whether the court has jurisdiction or not, they do whatever they want (see below). Ed has 10 days from July 18 to remove from his website all tax scheme promotional materials. The court further ordered Rivera to produce, to Assistant US Attorney Robert Conte, within 30 days any records under his possession identifying by name and SSN, individuals who have purchased his plans or arrangements.

Ed is not going to hand those names over, I do know that, and he hasn't shut his website down yet, so I doubt he will. The next thing that will happen... contempt of court?? Then jail?? Ridiculous, but hey, I'm sure Ed is prepared for the worst.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888


FEDERAL COURT BARS CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
FROM PROMOTING ABUSIVE TAX SHELTERS

Court Stops Man Who Falsely Advises Customers Not To Pay Federal Taxes

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Late yesterday, a federal court in Los Angeles permanently barred California attorney Eduardo Marmolejo Rivera from promoting several abusive tax schemes. The court also ordered Rivera to provide the government with the identities of his customers and to notify those customers of the court order.

“The Department of Justice and the IRS are determined to shut down the promotion of tax evasion schemes,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Tax Division. “People who encourage others to violate the law will be stopped and brought to justice.”

The court found that Rivera sold to customers “opinion letters” containing frivolous arguments, including “that the federal income tax is voluntary, that Americans employed in the private sector are exempt from federal income tax and do not need to file federal returns, and that the IRS has no authority to assess or collect taxes.” The court also found that Rivera represented customers before the IRS for the purported purpose of “determining their non-liability for all federal taxes” and that he directed customers “to resist IRS examination and collection efforts with copies of his opinion letters.”

According to court papers filed by the Government, the IRS has asserted that six Rivera customers identified by the agency owe over $9.5 million in tax, interest, and penalties.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California worked in cooperation with the Justice Department’s Tax Division on this case. More information about the case is available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/03_tax_224.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/riveracomplaint.pdf




Edited by - Livefree on 25 Jul 2003 10:26:10
Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2003 :  18:03:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, according to a recently leaked internal memo, some 25% of us are no longer paying income taxes.

The net result of cases like Rivera's is that more people are discovering how many of their neighbors aren't paying and are stopping also. The publicity is having the reverse effect that Caesar expected. More are dropping out.

And, as courts more and more ignore their own law, the country is ignoring the courts and losing confidence in the government. And, you know what happens when enough of us get to that position.

Peace all; there is a brighter day coming,

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2003 :  22:00:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Error: The actual date of the court's order to hand over names and remove tax schemes from website is 7/21/03 not 7/18/03.

Anyone can have electronic access to federal court case information by signing up with "Public Access fo Court Electronic Records (PACER)". I signed up to get a login and password by mail and it was as easy as 1-2-3 to access the case events.



Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2003 :  23:04:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Read what the Black Robe Cult wrote for CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM regarding Attorney & Client.


Volume 7 section 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

"His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter."

From section 2 of 7 C.J.S. "Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorney."

Wards of court: Infants and persons of unsound mind. Davis' Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d 189, 190. Their rights must be guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 FL2d 189,292. See Guardianship. (Blacks 5th Edition)

Go to Top of Page

Lewish
Advanced Member

uSA
496 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2003 :  12:54:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Right. That is why you are considered incompetent before a court, unless you declare otherwise.

It is also good to have a Notice of Competency recorded in the county records.

Lewis
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2003 :  13:11:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes, good point, Lewis.

Over at yahoogroups in the legality-of-income-tax forum at message 21858 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/message/21858
they were talking about a guy who challenged jurisdiction not of the court, but the jurisdiction of the DOJ in a failure to file case.

The following is a part of the message.

******************************
Maken did NOT challenge the jurisdiction of the COURT. Maken challenged the jurisdiction of the PROSECUTOR and requested the court, as an "independent" and "non-biased" THIRD PARTY, to order -- as it MUST when jurisdiction is formally challenged -- for the DOJ to produce the documentation as REQUIRED by the statute.

Within an hour, Maken walked out and has not set foot inside again. FORTY months later (July 2003), the DOJ has still NOT responded with the required documentation and his trial has not proceeded any further. (The charges remain lingering, unprosecuted)

I believe the reason the government have not responded to Maken is that they CAN'T. No such documentation exists because NO SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS.
*******************************
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2003 :  16:09:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just got this from We The People. WoW! is all I can say. You can read the entire article at
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update07-25-03.htm

WE THE PEOPLE

v.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

The Lawsuit to Restore Constitutional Order


History Making Lawsuit Proceeds
Legal Team Engaged

Law Professors Back Us:
Right to Petition is THE Cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty

Join & Support The Lawsuit


Note: This article is the long awaited announcement that we have referred to repeatedly for several weeks.

It may be the most important update we have ever posted due to the extraordinary events that will soon unfold for our nation as a direct result of this legal initiative.

We urge everyone to read the entire article, study the supporting materials and to widely distribute news of this history making lawsuit.

Click Here to Read the Entire Article


Edited by - Livefree on 26 Jul 2003 16:13:13
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

19 Posts

Posted - 09 Aug 2003 :  02:21:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I need a notary in the state of arizona to do a notary protest. can anybody help?
TIA
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 09 Aug 2003 :  11:46:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Van,

I don't know if the Notary must be in your state or not, but here is the email address for a Notary in Sacramento. And yes, he does notarial protests.

[email protected]

Edited by - Livefree on 09 Aug 2003 11:47:29
Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 12 Aug 2003 :  14:32:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish

Hi Loy,

I think the best way to deal with the IRS is in writing. Anytime they send you a request for money, send a letter back saying the amount must be asked for on a letter which is signed in a legible signature and under penalty for perjury. They never seem to respond after that.

Lewis



Hi Lewis,

Why must government agencies sign their claims for money under the penalties of perjury? Why is it mandatory for government agencies to do this?

Go to Top of Page

Livefree
Advanced Member

USA
270 Posts

Posted - 12 Aug 2003 :  21:09:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"At this stage of equation, the Respondent should consider securing professional services of some one who has clue of what they do to overcome the colorable acts of the Service by properly addressing a form driven claim upon which relief shall be granted"
~~~~~~~~~~~

So do you know what this guy means when he says, "by properly addressing a form driven claim upon which relief shall be granted"? Do you know what "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" means? Failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted means that you are NOT the holder in due course, the government is; the government has claim to your property before you do. The government is first in line/holder in due course, until you claim what you own on your UCC-1 financing statement/security agreement. But, just because you have filed a UCC-1 doesn't mean they will automatically release the lien.

I have been through two levy's already with the taxing agencies. It doesn't matter what you tell them or what law you have. They are the holder in due course and there is nothing you can do about it unless you throughly understand what that means. Then you would know what steps you need to take to get that levy released.

The only other way they will release the levy is to agree to an Offer in Compromise. That means compliance with the tax laws for the next 5 years.



Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.06 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000