7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

reply to post by jdub297


child support isn't exactly the same thing as a tax obligation - and even if you are right about the tax warrants (which I actually believe you are) - it still does not negate the ultimate gun at the end of the line.

Just because something is "legal" does not mean it is just or moral.

The enforcement of violent looting we call "taxes" is "legal" - however that does not negate the ultimate gun it is enforced with, nor does it make it moral.

Legal != moral

As TJ once said:

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

and

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

reply to post by jdub297

In reality (apparently a place neither you nor the OP care to visit), the tax assessor/treasurer sends multiple notices prior to any enforcement actions.

Does the tax assessor's final notice attempt to disguise itself as a final judgment from a court of law by using the word or any variation of arrest at all?

I'm asking because I do not now, however I should point out I have indeed seen this bully tactic used by private and government entities alike.

-Lightrule

reply to post by jdub297

A tax warrant is the result of a judicial determination, a judgment, that tax is owed. The "warrant" is the court's means of enforcing its judgment.

All warrants, in this context, are the result of a judicial determination. Warrant defined:

a writ from a court commanding police to perform specified acts

The word "warrant" in no way implies or expresses violence, threat, or harm. It is a legal authorization or promise.

A "warrant" is not always a legal authorization or promise. There are such things as invalid warrants. Consider, for example, Expert: Invalid Warrant Used On Raid in iPhone Reporters Home

Police raided the house of an editor for Gizmodo on Friday and seized computers and other equipment. The raid was part of an investigation into the leak of a prototype iPhone that the site obtained for a blockbuster story last week. Now, a legal expert has raised questions about the legality of the warrant used in the raid. Read More www.wired.com...

The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if it’s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime by receiving or possessing the material, which seems to be the nature of the investigation involving Chen.

Instead, investigators need to obtain a subpoena, which would allow the reporter or media outlet to challenge the request and segregate information that is not relevant to the investigation. Read More www.wired.com...

As another example of illegal warrants, consider this news story; Oakland To Pay Settlement For Illegal Search Warrants, or this example, or this example, and finally, when discussing the harm a warrant can cause, particularly an invalid warrant, it is worth citing Franks v Delaware

Franks was an unfortunate victim of a lie, that resulted in a warrant. Franks attempted to challenge the veracity of the affiant, but was denied this opportunity, and that denial of opportunity was upheld by The Delaware Supreme Court, and then ultimately reversed by The Supreme Court. The process by which a warrant is tested as being valid or not is subsequently known as A Franks Hearing. That such hearings exist makes clear that warrants can and do cause harm.

In reality (apparently a place neither you nor the OP care to visit), the tax assessor/treasurer sends multiple notices prior to any enforcement actions.

In reality, when a tax assessor/treasurer sends notices where the assessment was made in error any attempts to correct this error through due diligence by responding to such notices and challenging the assessment are met with invitations to argue or plead the case within a tax court. However, if the assessment is in error a tax court is the last place a person who has been unfairly assessed wants to go.

If in fact, an error of assessment has been made, this means the person who has been improperly assessed as being liable for a tax, and subject to the tax laws, is not at all liable for a tax, nor subject to the applicable revenue laws. This means a tax court has no jurisdiction in the matter, and cannot offer any remedy regarding the error. To accept the invitation to argue or plead within a tax court would only mean granting jurisdiction where none existed before hand. It is a fools journey to grant jurisdiction in order to challenge it.

As in all civil cases, the taxpayer can contest at multiple levels the assessment. In both property and income taxation, the taxpayer has the opportunity to make her own assessment of liability, including ZERO!

Again, when a person makes an assessment of liability and concludes the amount is ZERO, it is rare indeed that those sending notices take such a personal assessment seriously, and instead plays legal tricks such as inviting a person to argue their case in a court of no jurisdiction.

They have the right to petition the trial court and appeals courts for relief. Even AFTER judgment, the state must wait at least 30 days (usually at least 60, and sometimes YEARS) before seeking to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.

If by "trial court" you mean tax court, this form of court does not offer a person the right of a trial by jury. If a person wants a trial by jury regarding a tax liability, they must first decline entering into a tax court, (assuming they know the law), and then usually must wait for criminal charges to be brought against them in order to rely upon a trial by jury, unless they choose to take the battle to a civil court and sue the tax assessor/treasurer for operating outside of the scope of their jurisdiction. The problem with that route is evidenced by the multitudes of literature and websites that famously call these people "tax protesters".

No tax lien or tax warrant is created without multiple opportunities for the taxpayer (or non-payer, in your case) to contest the existence or amount of their liability. Most taxpayers are permitted to make their own determination.

The term "taxpayer" is statutorily defined as any person subject to the applicable revenue laws, and it would be folly for a "taxpayer" to claim no liability. "Taxpayers" may have issues with how much is owed, but they can not legally claim they are not subject to the applicable revenue laws.

There is no such thing as an "arrest" of property. Property is neither detained nor held against its "will." Ownership is legally transferred according to "the Rule of Law" (as JPZ seems to invoke when it suits him).

When I invoke the rule of law, I do not ever place quotation marks around that phrase. In this thread, you have consistently placed quotation marks around them. The more you do so the more it appears as if you are showing some sort of contempt for the rule of law, as if it is merely a phrase that can only be referenced with quotation marks.

Your game of semantics regarding there being no such thing as an "arrest" of property is merely a game. If a tax collector seizes someones property without any due process of law this is a harm done.

A bank account, automobile or business license are no more arrested or "harmed" than an apple at the grocer; their possession and ownership are transferred according to the rules society has adopted for commerce.

Again, an seizure of property that has been done so without due process of law is a harm.

Would you prefer that child-support obligors keep their accounts, wages and possession without regard to their obligations to their children? The state carries out child-support enforcement through the same rules of garnishment and auction that apply to tax (or almost any other) judgments.

What sort of disingenuous argument is this? Do you hope to equate the actions of a tax collector to the actions of the state acting on behalf of a child? It is always clear when someone is becoming desperate in their arguments as they begin to rely on hypothetical situations instead of relying on the facts.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In the days before the government turned into a mafia protection racket, a solid portion of the government's revenue came from charity donations.

Ah, the good ol' Articles of Confederation days, back when we had spiraling debt, a near-mutinous continental army, and state militias very close to border conflicts with one another .Ah, no doubt those halcyon days are something to be remembered with fondness and longing. Sure, maybe it didn't work with four million people, but I'm sure a nation of four hundred million would do just fine!

That is to say, people donated to government freely because they felt it provided good services that they enjoyed.

Then as now, few people provided such charity, believing that someone else would pick up the slack. Thus leading to the massive debt and near civil war.

This didn't last long of course, as the government soon morphed into a criminal Stasi enforcement agency run by tyrant oligarchs under the control of banks and special interest groups.

Well, it was either one big "tyrant" government, or a big collection of warring city-state tyrants up and down the Eastern seaboard.

Almost all federal revenue came from trade tariffs and charity during the early years of our now criminal government.
[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

And that particular experiment failed miserably. Not that you'd know, with your paper tricorn and some Boston Harbor-flavored teabags stuffed in your cheeks.

-post deleted-

You aren't worth my time.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by IsALL]

reply to post by Lightrule

Does the tax assessor's final notice attempt to disguise itself as a final judgment from a court of law by using the word or any variation of arrest at all?

I'm asking because I do not now, however I should point out I have indeed seen this bully tactic used by private and government entities alike.

You really should seek out answers to questions like these from a trusted source, rather than a social forum.

But, since you seem somewhat curious for the truth, and I know the answer, I'll tell you. (please verify my reply before you attack it)

1st, if you participated in the process, you ALREADY know the court's decision.

2nd, the court's determination is a matter of public record, so even if you weren't there, you can easily find out.

3rd, the assessor sends out a series of statements/requests: for your own assessment (known as a "tax return" or "voluntary assessment" depending on the type of tax); of their determination of liability if you did not file a return or assessment, or include payment with your return; a "tax statement" (usually payable in installments) based upon the filings, a notice of delinquency if a payment assessed was not timely made; and at least one "final notice" BEFORE any court action is sought.

(In Texas and Indiana, this process is spelled out specifically in the state Tax Codes).

The assessor/treasurer/ Dept. of Revenue include specific statements of your rights, the consequences of inaction and their intentions/options for future relief.

There is no need to "make up" the possibility of a judgment, because the process is simple and regularly conducted in the course of collections. When the notice refers to a court judgment, that is because there is a court judgment, there is no need for "threats," and certainly no violence involved.

Although some people here claim that criminal consequences may flow from tax collections, that is false and sophistry. They refer to instances of FAILURE to file returns (tax evasion) or filing falsified statements (tax fraud) as "proof" of criminal consequences.

They also include examples of refusal to comply with COURT (not tax) ORDERS that serve to protect the court's jurisdiction - CONTEMPT actions, that do result in incarceration in lieu of compliance. These actions are taken by the COURT to enforce its rulings and jurisdiction, and have no application in the tax collection process. Their arguments are thus pure sophistry. (E.g., when people are jailed for child-support or other obligations, it is usually for CONTEMPT of the court's orders, a willful refusal to comply with a lawful order.) No one is imprisoned for lack of money; they may be for refusal to pay when they have the resources and ability but simply refuse - hence "deadbeat dads" )

The OP is based upon COLLECTION through civil process, which involves no criminal statutes or penalties.

Private collectors are bound the the Fair Debt Collection Practices ACT (FDCPA) which has strict limits upon what they can state in their efforts. ANY misrepresentations as to judicial enforcement have serious consequences, including forgiveness of the debt and money penalties; so these "laws" which you seem to dismiss and denigrate really DO serve to protect the innocent or ignorant consumer.

You should ALWAYS question the authority of anyone claiming they are owed something by you; many times, these claims are false or unsupportable, (Just last month, I helped a young lady defeat such claims) from unscrupulous private collectors, who specialize in buying paper claims, without any proof of the underlying obligations.

As far as the tax assessor's office is concerned, there is no mention of "arrest" or any variation of it, nor any suggestion of such. The state has adequate civil remedies at hand to collect what is due.

I happen to agree that we are over-taxed generally. However, when people or businesses set up shop, take advantage of government services, generate income from business conducted under state and local licenses, they should face their obligations as in any other business transaction. My business collects delinquent BUSINESS tax judgments from people and companies that owe tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for services that you and I would otherwise have to pay for if they do not pay their fair share.

So, when NY co. XYZ, Inc. sets up shop in Indiana or Texas, takes advantage of roads, improvements, services and utilities provided by local and state governments; and then decides to walk away from their $800,000.00 tax bill (a true example, and public record if you look), would you prefer that I just let it go? Look the other way? Let the rest of us male up the difference?

Or, should I seek the lawful relief that I and my neighbors are entitled to under the laws?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

the fact that some warrants are improvidently issued does not make them any less a "warrant." Valid, or invalid, they are still a grant of authority.

Your sophistry is amazing.

In reality, when a tax assessor/treasurer sends notices where the assessment was made in error any attempts to correct this error through due diligence by responding to such notices and challenging the assessment are met with invitations to argue or plead the case within a tax court. However, if the assessment is in error a tax court is the last place a person who has been unfairly assessed wants to go.

Not necessarily. In Texas and Indiana, appeals of assessments are conducted before panels of citizens selected as with a grand jury.

The decisions of the review panel may be appealed into a district or circuit court; there are no "tax courts" in these jurisdictions - they are "courts of general jurisdiction." Your arguments are baseless and unsupportable in the relevant contexts.

As for your earlier claims to have disproven my statements of fact, even the author of this thread now concedes the difference between tax warrants and other types. He persists in his belief that collection of tax equates with violence, and no amount of logic or fact will disabuse him of such beliefs.

Nevertheless, the title of this thread is entirely made up in his subjective perceptions and is, in fact, utterly false.

If in fact, an error of assessment has been made, this means the person who has been improperly assessed as being liable for a tax, and subject to the tax laws, is not at all liable for a tax, nor subject to the applicable revenue laws.

No, it does not. "Error of assessment" may be as to the amount of liability rather than the fact of liability.

This means a tax court has no jurisdiction in the matter, and cannot offer any remedy regarding the error.

No, it does not. Any court designated exclusively as a "tax court," (of which there are none in Indiana or Texas) has jurisdiction to determine those matters within the purview of liability, amount, and enforcement. Look at the US Code if you want to see what jurisdiction entails instead of making it up out of wholecloth.

To accept the invitation to argue or plead within a tax court would only mean granting jurisdiction where none existed before hand. It is a fools journey to grant jurisdiction in order to challenge it.

Jurisdiction CANNOT be granted by consent where none exists.

More pure BS sophistry. Stick to philosophy; facts are quite obviously not your milieu.

Again, when a person makes an assessment of liability and concludes the amount is ZERO, it is rare indeed that those sending notices take such a personal assessment seriously, and instead plays legal tricks such as inviting a person to argue their case in a court of no jurisdiction.

MILLIONS of taxpayers report NO tax liability, and tens of thousands actually claim and receive CREDIT, for which they receive payment, on their "assessments."

Your assertion is patently false on its face; laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

With the use of exemptions, credits and deductions countless income tax assessments have been $0.00 or NEGATIVE for years running. The lowest income earners almost universally receive MORE than they paid in through withholding; most do not realize they shouldn't be subject to withholding at all! These are only rarely and anecdotally challenged at either the state or federal levels; and more often for obvious fraud than for entitlement to a refund or credit.

There is no such thing as a "court with no jurisdiction;" except, perhaps, the kangaroo court you convene to bastardize authority and fact.

It's interesting to note that the OP has correctly simplified the idea:

1. Protection money
2. Threat of Violence

I've come to the realization that any non-communal power structure - any political organization that allows for a class distinction that is mostly, though not totally, barred to the majority of society - will quickly lead to these circumstances.

Political means "of policy," or rather the regulations of society.

In a mafia-controlled neighborhood, the mafia power structure is both good and evil. Good because it protects its shopkeepers, restaurant owners, tenants, vendors, barbers and so on. But, at the same time, a "tax" is demanded for protection.

Protection could be loosely construed as "policing" to protect the locals from crime created by fringe elements of their community or neighboring communities. But very quickly it becomes apparent that the protection is also from the very people who offer the protection.

In our greater (by size only) society, it is also clear that any offense, big or small, has as a potential final outcome of physical violence and death.

No matter the infraction, it becomes clear that if you totally disagree you can fight it, but if you fight it too much (ignore court orders, flee the police, etc.) you can expect arrest or even death. Flee arrest further and you can be assured of physical violence.

Most people who commit minor crimes such as victimless crimes and financial crimes like tax evasion (on a personal, household level - we all realize the biggest financial criminals are exempt from being considered criminals) will put themselves in line upon first warning and not resist their punishment. That is the indoctrination of such a well-organized system: it polices itself at most levels.

reply to post by jdub297

the fact that some warrants are improvidently issued does not make them any less a "warrant." Valid, or invalid, they are still a grant of authority.

And with this statement right here, you are on record as to the willful harm you would cause people. It doesn't matter to you whether or not the warrant is valid, just as long is it is a warrant. If the validity of a warrant doesn't matter to you, then what is to stop you from lying as an afiant in order to gain this "grant of authority"?

Your sophistry is amazing.

Uh-huh. This coming from the man who has willingly stated on record that the validity of a warrant makes no difference.

Not necessarily. In Texas and Indiana, appeals of assessments are conducted before panels of citizens selected as with a grand jury.

Is that so? Let's take a look at what in.gov has to say about the issue:

Indiana law provides a couple of ways for taxpayers to contest the assessed value of their property. Both begin at the local level and can be appealed to the state only after being reviewed locally.

I have all ready made it clear that "taxpayers" are subject to any applicable revenue law. If one is not a "taxpayer" as specifically defined then where do they go for a redress of grievance?

Begins with written notification to the local assessing official requesting an informal conference to discuss the assessment. The request should detail the pertinent facts of why the assessed value is being disputed. It should also include the parcel number, property address, property owner name and contact information. A taxpayer may only request a review of the current year’s assessed valuation. Following the informal conference with the local assessing official, the assessor will make a recommendation either denying or approving the appeal. If denied, the appeal will be forwarded to the county Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) for review. If the PTABOA denies the appeal, instructions will be provided on appealing the decision to the Indiana Board of Tax Review.

Again with the "taxpayer". If one is not a "taxpayer" Indiana's panel of citizens is no better than the tax court you hope to distinguish from.

Here is what Texas has to say about the matter:

If you disagree with the appraisal district's value or any action of the appraisal district about your property, you may file a protest with the appraisal review board (ARB). In most cases, you have until May 31 or 30 days from the date the appraisal district notice is delivered - whichever date is later.

Again what we have is a clear presumption of liability. There is no mention of what a person who has no property but has been assessed as having property does, and since you have shown how little it matters whether a warrant is valid or not, it is safe to assume that you don't really care if the assessment in question is valid or not.

Texas also likes to play the taxpayer game, and actually supplies a Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which of course has nothing at all to do with rights, and bears no resemblance at all to the actual Bill of Rights found in The Constitution for the United States of America.

If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.

~Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition pp 449~

Due process of law is the rule of law, but this is something you like to place in quotation marks and show contempt for.

The decisions of the review panel may be appealed into a district or circuit court; there are no "tax courts" in these jurisdictions - they are "courts of general jurisdiction." Your arguments are baseless and unsupportable in the relevant contexts.

My arguments are not baseless and unsupportable, and where you like to make such bold unsupported claims, it was not you that supplied links and quotes from the States of Indiana and Texas, it was I, and in quoting both those states we find clear language where the question of fact or liability, in the matter of these "citizen panels" is clearly conclusively presumed against them.

As for your earlier claims to have disproven my statements of fact, even the author of this thread now concedes the difference between tax warrants and other types. He persists in his belief that collection of tax equates with violence, and no amount of logic or fact will disabuse him of such beliefs.

You don't have the O.P. backing you on this, you have the O.P. showing a willingness to take your word for it, but he has not conceded anything, but simply shown a willingness to be reasonable, even after you have called him unreasonable, but this is your character, isn't it? Your claims of "statements of fact", are claims coming from a man who views an invalid warrant as having the same authority as a valid warrant.

Nevertheless, the title of this thread is entirely made up in his subjective perceptions and is, in fact, utterly false.

Your subjectivity has been clear in this thread from the get-go. It is you who have made several statements that are, in fact, utterly false.

No, it does not. "Error of assessment" may be as to the amount of liability rather than the fact of liability.

If it is a matter of amount, then your "citizens panels" are fine, if it is an error of fact of liability where does that person turn to? This you don't seem to want to address, and of course, this is understandable given that you claim that invalid warrants have the same authority as valid warrants.

No, it does not. Any court designated exclusively as a "tax court," (of which there are none in Indiana or Texas) has jurisdiction to determine those matters within the purview of liability, amount, and enforcement. Look at the US Code if you want to see what jurisdiction entails instead of making it up out of wholecloth.

And you are the one accusing me of relying on sophistry. You have just made my point! Within the purview of liability means they have jurisdiction, but if there is no liability then they don't have jurisdiction. Your games of semantics are elementary and easy to spot.

Jurisdiction CANNOT be granted by consent where none exists.

This is a harmful lie. There is a reason that police officers ask people for permission to enter into a home, or a car, or a back pack or purse to inspect it, and that is because they have no jurisdiction to do so without that permission, and you asserting this lie is harmful to anyone who would be foolish enough to believe you. The same goes for a tax court. If a person is not liable for any tax the last place they want to go is to a tax court, or a "citizens panel" where the only scope of jurisdiction they have is with those who are liable. A person not liable that is foolish enough to plead their case to a court that has no jurisdiction has just granted that jurisdiction and while they can challenge the jurisdiction at a later date they are going to have to explain to a judge why it is they granted the jurisdiction to begin with. Your lack of ethics and honesty is astounding.

More pure BS sophistry. Stick to philosophy; facts are quite obviously not your milieu.

Right. How did you begin your last post? Oh that's right, you began by claiming an invalid warrant has the same authority as a valid warrant.

'

MILLIONS of taxpayers report NO tax liability, and tens of thousands actually claim and receive CREDIT, for which they receive payment, on their "assessments."

This coming right after you asserted that facts were not my milieu. A taxpayer who receives CREDIT can only do so by first being subject to the applicable revenue laws, and if they are subject to the applicable revenue laws they are liable for something, even if that amounts to CREDIT. Who do you think you;re kidding?

Your assertion is patently false on its face; laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Uh-huh. You are desperate now, and much like others in this thread that have fallen prey to desperation, it is just a matter of time before you start screaming childish games of "you're rubber and I'm glue", or "la-la-la-la-I can't hear you-la-la-la-la"

With the use of exemptions, credits and deductions countless income tax assessments have been $0.00 or NEGATIVE for years running.

A person not liable needs no exemption, credit or deductions, because they are not liable.

The lowest income earners almost universally receive MORE than they paid in through withholding; most do not realize they shouldn't be subject to withholding at all!

Take your game of Three Card Monty and shucking and jiving to some other corner, you con man.

These are only rarely and anecdotally challenged at either the state or federal levels; and more often for obvious fraud than for entitlement to a refund or credit.

Right, only the tax collectors are honest, even if they see no difference between an invalid warrant and a valid warrant, and more often than not the people are frauds. Right.

There is no such thing as a "court with no jurisdiction;" except, perhaps, the kangaroo court you convene to bastardize authority and fact.

Why don't you tell that to Dred Scott. Mr. Scot could not get any redress of grievances because the Supreme Court claimed they had no jurisdiction in the matter, genius.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

the fact that some warrants are improvidently issued does not make them any less a "warrant." Valid, or invalid, they are still a grant of authority.

And with this statement right here, you are on record as to the willful harm you would cause people. It doesn't matter to you whether or not the warrant is valid, just as long is it is a warrant. If the validity of a warrant doesn't matter to you, then what is to stop you from lying as an afiant in order to gain this "grant of authority"?

Mere acknowledgment of a fact is not an endorsement. Your "reasoning," if you can call it that, is patently flawed.

I have not said it does not matter to me. You have no idea wht mateers to me; you presume and project wat too much.

My personal integrity, conscience, and self-respect "stop [me] from lying as an affiant." I need not lie to earn a grant of authority.

Your post is nothing more than a personal attack, completely unfounded, and utterly without merit.

I merely stated a fact: once issued, a warrant is a grant of authority. Our rule of law permits the contest of unjustly granted writs and warrants through many legal means available to everyone.

It also provides for the punishment of perjury and abuse of process.

Of course, in the anarchist's world, there would be no such restraints on authority, nor any such redress; a fantasy world you and the OP seem to long for.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

In Texas and Indiana, appeals of assessments are conducted before panels of citizens selected as with a grand jury.

Is that so? Let's take a look at what in.gov has to say about the issue:

Indiana law provides a couple of ways for taxpayers to contest the assessed value of their property. Both begin at the local level and can be appealed to the state only after being reviewed locally.

I have all ready made it clear that "taxpayers" are subject to any applicable revenue law. If one is not a "taxpayer" as specifically defined then where do they go for a redress of grievance?

What I said is exactly what the authority you quoted, in part, explains.

If one is not a taxpayer, then there is no assessment, nor the need for redress, is there?

If one seeks relief generally, then there are local courts of general and limited jurisdiction in which to seek relief.

Your willful ignorance of reality and persistence in mendacity are truly amazing.

Here is what Texas has to say about the matter:

If you disagree with the appraisal district's value or any action of the appraisal district about your property, you may file a protest with the appraisal review board (ARB).

Again what we have is a clear presumption of liability. There is no mention of what a person who has no property but has been assessed as having property does, and since you have shown how little it matters whether a warrant is valid or not, it is safe to assume that you don't really care if the assessment in question is valid or not.

Are you on drugs?

There is no "presumption of liability" if you do not own property!

How could you be subject to an assessment of something you do not own?
Once again, your fantasy world has intruded upon reality.

Assume that you don't pay the assessment on the property that you do not own; the sheriff will sell the property, or you can voluntarily "deed" it to the county. End of problem. (In your fantasy world.)

Even if a tax warrant were issued on this property, it serves only as a lien on it to be satisfied when it is sold, mortgaged or otherwise transferred or encumbered.

If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.

Exactly! Thus, the requirement that ownership of real property be in writing and filed for recording in the deed records of the county clerk.

Just where do you think the county gets its ownership and tax information?

There is no such thing as a"presumption of ownership," (and, hence, liability). It is determined by documents on file with the appropriate
authority.

If it is a matter of amount, then your "citizens panels" are fine, if it is an error of fact of liability where does that person turn to? This you don't seem to want to address, and of course, this is understandable given that you claim that invalid warrants have the same authority as valid warrants.

The same panel that you accept for disputed amounts also considers jurisdiction and ownership/liability. The taxing authority/state has the burden to establish both liability and amount due; there is no "presumption of liability."

Are you intentionally ignoring the burden of proof, or completely oblivious?

Within the purview of liability means they have jurisdiction, but if there is no liability then they don't have jurisdiction. Your games of semantics are elementary and easy to spot.

The question of liability may be raised by either party to the dispute, thus the court does have jurisdiction to address the issue.

You seem to contend that if you are not legally responsible for a tax, then there is NO COURT with jurisdiction to hear your case. You are clearly wrong or deceptive.

This isn't semantics, but common sense and common law.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 28-8-2010 by jdub297]

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by IsALL

 

LOL!

Yeah well have you ever stepped back and took a good long look at how a loan is created?

Step 1: You go into the bank and tell them you would like to take out a loan. They smile and get their loan officer.

Step 2: Loan officer asks you all the usual questions like what type of loan and how much you would like. You tell him you would like a personal loan of 10,000 dollars.

Step 3: Loan officer draws up the paper work and brings it to you to sign, what you are signing is called a "loan agreement" but it does have other names, such as security, promissory note etc. they don't tell you this.

Step 4: You sign the "agreement" and the SECOND you finish your signature the agreement becomes a promissory note and instantly gains the exact value of the $10,000 you wanted to "borrow". YOUR SIGNATURE MAKES THE MONEY AND CREATES THE VALUE.

Step 5: Loan officer sends all the papers to head office where they record YOUR $10,000 promissory note as an ASSET item to the bank, a free $10,000 you have now loaned the bank, but bank laws state the banks balance sheet must equal 0 at the end of the day.

Step 6: So what they do is, they take the $10,000 out of the account that your $10,000 created and put it into your personal account. You now think the bank has loaned you $10,000 of its own money. And the bank's balance sheet shows they have taken $10,000 from you, then gave it right back, making it equal to 0. You got duped into paying it back AGAIN with the agreement you signed now plus interest.

Step 7: You walk out of the bank happy you have $10,000 dollars but now on the hook for $11,500 to repay.

Step 8: Bank laughs at you. You keep paying, and paying, and paying...

So you tell me, who is the creditor?

-Lightrule

Beautifully done, this IS exactly HOW it's done, and who pockets that "money" YOU pay back?

That's right, the bank owner gives a share to the politicians to keep passing "laws" to keep the public in the dark and under control. WHY oh why do people NOT get it, this is how the system has become and the people DO NOTHING to stop it. Read my next post on what to send to the tax assessor.

reply to post by daddio

NOTICE
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ___ day of August, 2010

James Atchison, County Assessor
Minneapolis
A-2103 Government Center
300 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487

Dear Mr. Atchison:

I am requesting to have my property removed from the property tax rolls for the following reasons:

1. 42 USC 1982 Property rights of citizens
2. 42 USC 1441 Congressional Declaration of National Housing Policy
3. 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
4. 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights Under Color of Law
5. Article 1 Section 1, Bill of Rights, Minnesota State Constitution
6. UCC-1 filing number 0987654321
7. UCC-3 filing number 1234567890

With explicit reservation of all my rights and without prejudice, per U.C.C. 1-207, 1-308


Sincerely,

John-Henry: Doe, Agent
c/o non-Domestic, Foreign mail near;
1234 47th Avenue N.
Anywhere, Minnesota republic
Zip code exempt (DMM 122.32), As Amended
Without the U.S.


Included; Power of Attorney in Fact
Zip Code Exemption

Sent that in over a month ago and haven't heard anything since. Haven't paid property taxes or a mortgage for almost a year now.

Know the truth.

Prove up your claim or cease and desist under the color of law against the Sovereign in the party.....ME!!!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Jurisdiction CANNOT be granted by consent where none exists.

This is a harmful lie.

It is a fact. You thrive on distortion and manipulation, but that does not alter the facts or the law.

There is a reason that police officers ask people for permission to enter into a home, or a car, or a back pack or purse to inspect it, and that is because they have no jurisdiction to do so without that permission, and you asserting this lie is harmful to anyone who would be foolish enough to believe you.

Yes, there is (just not the one you cited)! It is so the unwary will give permission!

Do you intentionally conflate "permission" with "jurisdiction," or do you just not know the difference?

More falsehoods from a serial deceiver. Police officers with lawful authority may search a person, conveyance or place without any grant by you of permission.

When you say "yes," you have granted them permission, not jurisdiction!

Why do persist in such falsehoods?

The same goes for a tax court. If a person is not liable for any tax the last place they want to go is to a tax court, or a "citizens panel" where the only scope of jurisdiction they have is with those who are liable.

Perhaps in your fantasy world this is true. In reality, anyone who disputes liability or amount due has the right to contest either at multiple levels.

You persist in referring to an imaginary "tax court;" but in reality an appeal to an appropriate court of general jurisdiction enables you to contest ALL issues pertinent to the claim: the taxing aauthority's jurisdiction, your liability, and the amount due.

A person not liable that is foolish enough to plead their case to a court that has no jurisdiction has just granted that jurisdiction and while they can challenge the jurisdiction at a later date they are going to have to explain to a judge why it is they granted the jurisdiction to begin with.

You cannot "grant jurisdiction" where it does not exist. Anyone who follows your "advice" will be sorely surprised.

Your lack of ethics and honesty is astounding.

Your personal attacks are pathetic. Considering that they are based entirely upon a distortion of fact, law and logic, they are laughable as well.

I once thought that you brought objective reason to some threads.

I was sadly mistaken.

jw

[edit on 28-8-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by daddio

Sent that in over a month ago and haven't heard anything since. Haven't paid property taxes or a mortgage for almost a year now.

No doubt they are still passing that around the various offices and branches.

They probably haven't stopped laughing long enough to take any serious action.

reply to post by jdub297

If one is not a taxpayer, then there is no assessment, nor the need for redress, is there?

Unless there is an assessment erroneously made by some unscrupulous tax assessor, then there is a need for a redress, isn't there?

Your willful ignorance of reality and persistence in mendacity are truly amazing.

You can keep calling other people liars all you want Pinocchio, it doesn't change the fact that your unethical behavior is readily apparent.

Are you on drugs?

There's a typical question from a government agent. Are you corrupt?

There is no "presumption of liability" if you do not own property!

Sure, you and the rest of government never makes mistakes. All presumptions of liability are really not presumed, but known to be fact, right? You are corrupt, aren't you?

How could you be subject to an assessment of something you do not own? Once again, your fantasy world has intruded upon reality.

I never claimed I or anyone else could be subject to something not owned. I am suggesting that property not owned could be assessed as liable for a property tax.

Assume that you don't pay the assessment on the property that you do not own; the sheriff will sell the property, or you can voluntarily "deed" it to the county. End of problem. (In your fantasy world.)

Better yet, assume I and several other people in Indiana, have broken off with the Catholic Church, and not at all interested in joining the Protestant Church, Baptist Church, or any other Church that has formed an alliance with government, we instead just build our own Church on property we purchased through our tithing. None of us own this Church, it is God's Church, and open to any person who cares to worship at this Church. We have not sought any "tax exemption" from the state of Indiana, nor the federal government, because our conscious dictates that such a contract is contrary to our religious beliefs.

Go ahead sport, tell me that all the members of this Church have to do is apply for "tax exempt" status. Tell me that the Indiana State Constitution has no bearing on the matter. Tell me whatever the hell you want to tell me, but I assure you that if I and others formed such a Church and told you and your cronies to go to hell regarding "tax exempt" status, the last place we would want to go to seek redress is your buddies on the "citizens panel". We would have to, in all likelihood seek a federal judge sympathetic to our cause to prevent the Sheriff, you and your unethical cronies will no doubt send to sell off that property, and in order to defeat you and your cronies we would have to rely on a real court, not your kangaroo court with your "citizens panel".

Exactly! Thus, the requirement that ownership of real property be in writing and filed for recording in the deed records of the county clerk.

Which has nothing at all to do with the battle that would ensue between this assumed Church and you and your buddies. The right to contract would no doubt be challenged by you and your buddies, the right to worship by the dictates of our own conscience would be dismissed and not at all respected, all in the name of taxation.

Just where do you think the county gets its ownership and tax information?

Just who do you think the county gets their authority from?

There is no such thing as a"presumption of ownership," (and, hence, liability). It is determined by documents on file with the appropriate authority.

There is such a thing as presumption of liability, and the appropriate authority in the State of Indiana is spoken to in their Constitution:

Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the People have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

deny ignorance

You preach ignorance.

reply to post by jdub297

Mere acknowledgment of a fact is not an endorsement. Your "reasoning," if you can call it that, is patently flawed.

When you are asserting that both valid and invalid warrants are grants of authority, you are not acknowledging fact, you are lying. An invalid warrant is not a grant of authority, it is a criminal act, and under the reasonable person standard to simply just stand by and watch such criminality happen and shrug your shoulders and pretend there is nothing that can be done about it is a crime as well.

I have not said it does not matter to me. You have no idea wht mateers to me; you presume and project wat too much.

I am not presuming a damn thing. You're lying, and an invalid warrant is not a grant of authority, it is a fraudulent claim.

My personal integrity, conscience, and self-respect "stop [me] from lying as an affiant." I need not lie to earn a grant of authority.

You "personal integrity, conscience, and self-respect" are demonstrably weak.

Your post is nothing more than a personal attack, completely unfounded, and utterly without merit.

Any person who insists on calling a fraudulent or invalid warrant a grant of authority deserves to be attacked, and at best you are woefully ignorant, and at worst you are just evil.

I merely stated a fact: once issued, a warrant is a grant of authority. Our rule of law permits the contest of unjustly granted writs and warrants through many legal means available to everyone.

Our rule of law does not permit the people to do a damn thing, genius. Our rule of law permits, and prohibits government officials from acting in certain ways. As to the people, they are free to do whatever it is that is their right to do. Of those rights, the right to contest unjustly granted writs existed before government did, and exists now, and does not exist because government permits it. That is the rule of law.

It also provides for the punishment of perjury and abuse of process.

Which only offers evidence to the fact that an invalid warrant is not a grant of authority, if it were there would be no remedy on the matter.

Of course, in the anarchist's world, there would be no such restraints on authority, nor any such redress; a fantasy world you and the OP seem to long for.

I am not an anarchist, but tragically, when it comes to the criminal behavior of government officials, I am discovering that anarchists such as the O.P. are far more inclined to respect the rule of law than the likes of you.

deny ignorance

Just like the hypocrite who prays in the streets uttering his Amens and Hosannas, just to appear holy, you utter your hosanna, not even understanding what it is you utter.

reply to post by jdub297

It is a fact. You thrive on distortion and manipulation, but that does not alter the facts or the law.

Your claim that jurisdiction can not be granted where none exists is not a fact, it is just one of your many lies. In fact, here is you next statement:

Yes, there is (just not the one you cited)! It is so the unwary will give permission!

Why would the police officer need permission to begin with? If they have jurisdiction they have jurisdiction and need no permission at all. They are asking permission because there is no jurisdiction to search without express permission to do so.

Do you intentionally conflate "permission" with "jurisdiction," or do you just not know the difference?

Do you know the difference? Jurisdiction defined:

Law The right and power to interpret and apply the law:

Without permission, the police officer asking for permission has no right, nor power to apply what he or she interprets to be the law.

More falsehoods from a serial deceiver. Police officers with lawful authority may search a person, conveyance or place without any grant by you of permission.

Sociopaths such as yourself often play this game, accusing others of their own crimes. Police officers with lawful authority need not ask for permission to search a person, conveyance, or place. Do you genuinely think people are so stupid they cannot see through your game?

When you say "yes," you have granted them permission, not jurisdiction!

Why do they need permission, sport? What happened to that lawful authority you were spouting off just above this one?

Why do persist in such falsehoods?

Uh-huh. People can read in this site, and are more than capable of reading who is spreading falsehoods.

Perhaps in your fantasy world this is true. In reality, anyone who disputes liability or amount due has the right to contest either at multiple levels.

People have the right to challenge jurisdiction at any time, and once that jurisdiction has been challenged, it is incumbent upon the court party asserting jurisdiction to prove on record and by credible evidence that jurisdiction actually exists. It still remains a fact, that entering into a kangaroo court in order to challenge the validity of a kangaroo court is nonsensical.

You persist in referring to an imaginary "tax court;" but in reality an appeal to an appropriate court of general jurisdiction enables you to contest ALL issues pertinent to the claim: the taxing aauthority's jurisdiction, your liability, and the amount due.

If the tax court is imaginary than why would an appeal to a court of general jurisdiction be necessary? Why wouldn't the court of general jurisdiction be the first court used to contest such issues, and any appeals then brought to higher courts?

You cannot "grant jurisdiction" where it does not exist. Anyone who follows your "advice" will be sorely surprised.

What advice is it that you imagine it is I am giving? You most certainly can grant jurisdiction where none exists before that grant, and in fact the entirety of government is granted jurisdiction by we the people and without that grant of jurisdiction it would not exist. Any one who believes a tax collector is really just looking out for their best interests will be sorely surprised.

Your personal attacks are pathetic. Considering that they are based entirely upon a distortion of fact, law and logic, they are laughable as well.

From the moment you entered this thread you began with an attack, you have relentlessly attacked the O.P. and his character, and you have attacked mine, and while you are fine in dishing it out, you surely can't take it can you. Liars should always be called out on their lies, and this is what I am doing with you. The difference between you and I, is where you simply make claims that those you oppose are lying, I have offered up other sources and authorities to back up my assertions.

I once thought that you brought objective reason to some threads.

I think you are lying again, as I have never seen you ever show me the respect you are doing so with this back handed compliment. You have always been an arrogant unreasonable person, and just because you and I have never had much reason to debate in the past doesn't mean I wasn't aware of your arrogance, which began in full swing the moment you entered this thread.

I was sadly mistaken.

You are sadly mistaken about quite a bit.

I've been reading every word Jean Paul Zodeaux has written in this thread and He is right on target. I'm glad I did not bother to debate Jdub as I have neither the patience, nor the stomach for such outrageousness.
My congratulations to Mr. Zodeaux, who has done a masterful job trouncing Mr. jdub.

The fundamental problem I see with Jdub's treatise, brought to startling resolution by Mr. Zodeaux, is jdub's utter lack of any ethic in regards to his official duties.

If anyone were in a position to ensure that justice was served, and the rights of the people preserved, it would be in jdub's capacity as a public servant; where the duties of the office he holds, and the authority in which he is vested, were faithfully discharged.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Smack]

I can see more states doing this as more budgets are cut and more revenue will need to be retrived. This almost goes along the lines of that commerical in pennslyvania