Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: IRS Levy

Expand Messages
  • lg900df@rock.com
    Good point on instrumentality...excellent point. However we need to promulgate no myth regarding contracts--even though you might find in your life certain
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Good point on instrumentality...excellent point.

      However we need to promulgate no myth regarding contracts--even though you might find in your life certain adversarial parties might "try to fling &hit at the wall and hope it sticks." In other words don't give the adversary ammunition even he doesn't have.

      Fact:
      • Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related: THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. [although one could argue govt. workers and those under oath might be 'stuck'] Adhesion is is defeated on face value. If adhesion contracts existed, no one could be bound by a new contract--e.g. they would be stuck to all that silliness people claim from birth certificate 'adhesion' and hence devoid of free will to contract. Yes, that book by Mercier is a JOKE and even laughed at by judges and attorneys. Yes, that bunk about bank disclosure cards adhering you is MORE bunk. [Look at the card]
      • "Four Corners Rules on Contracts": Not disclosed within 4 corners of document, it isn't valid.
      • You APPLY for SSA [and SSN's], you do not CONTRACT for either. Otherwise SS would be mandatory on government and certainly they don't want that. How do you know its an application? Answer: What does it say on the top?  http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf  Was anything promised in return on the 4 corners? Did SSA sign the document? Whose property is the SSN? What did you commit too? Answer: Probably that the application was truthful. [Easy to fix any inaccuracies with attachment. For example redefine US Citizen as simply "in possession of birth certificate indicating birth in XYZ" {not state of xyz}].



      --

      rock.com

    • BOB GREGORY
      * Stalwart: You wrote: Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law. In effect, you have written The U.S. law is not the
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 13, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        * Stalwart:

        You wrote: "Title 42 Chapter 7 Social Security does not have the force and effect of law."

        In effect, you have written "The U.S. law is not the law." The only reason for the existence of the United States Code is to break down the statutes passed by Congress into organized titles, subtitles, chapters, etc. for ease of reference. The code does not contain anything (other than chapter headings and cross references, etc.) that are NOT law.

        The regulations are, of course, different as you have pointed out. Only those substantive regulations issued by secretaries or other agency heads (with the authorization of Congress in the law itself) have the force and effect of law. Other regulations are administrative or interpretive and do not have the force and effect of law. Some judges refuse to make that proper distinction. *
      • paraclete45@gmail.com
        Hello all of you great Tipsters!!! The poster of the message identified by a designation, dave.wissel mentions several, unrelated issues, but most of the
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: IRS Levy Hello all of you great Tipsters!!!
          The poster of the message identified by a designation, "dave.wissel" mentions several, unrelated issues, but most of the comments do not seem to merit any comment.  They  have as much validity as his allegation that no adhesion contracts are valid.

          The comment was made that
          " * Although not mentioned, I will address it anyway as this is related:  THERE ARE NO ADHESION CONTRACTS THAT ARE VALID. "

          I do not agree with the above assumption that it is a FACT that no adhesion contracts are valid.  I base my disagreement on the plain wording of the last court decision cited in the definition for "Adhesion contract" in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 38,  which I quote in full;

          "Adhesion contract. Standardized contract form offered
          to consumers of goods and services on essentially
          "take it or leave it" basis without affording consumer
          realistic opportunity to bargain and under such conditions
          that consumer cannot obtain desired product or
          services except by acquiescing in form contract. Distinctive
          feature of adhesion contract is that weaker
          party has no realistic choice as to its terms. Wheeler
          v. St. Joseph Hospital, Cal.App., 63 Cal.App.3d 345,
          1 33 Cal.Rptr. 775, 783; Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v.
          Perkins, C.A.Or., 347 F.2d 379, 383. Not every such
          contract is unconscionable.
           Lechmere Tire and Sales
          Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
          503
          ."
            
          Nowhere do the court cases question the validity of any adhesion contracts, much less ALL adhesion contracts.

          "dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
          Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.

          Life is more peaceful when one learns the law, then sticks to it.

          May you be richly blessed!
          Bernie
           Paraclete45                          
          mailto:paraclete45@...
          Phones from the USA:
          cell phone:  011-507-6590-5441
          BlackBerry:  011-507-6426-6845
          land line:  011-507-771-4948
        • lg900df@rock.com
          Reply:Re:Not every suchcontract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d 503. Answer:  Here is the
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 17, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Reply:
            Re:Not every such
            contract is unconscionable. Lechmere Tire and Sales
            Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 7 13, 720, 72 1 , 277 N.E.2d
            503
            ."

            Answer: 

            Here is the court case I found. 

            It was a case of a fellow applying for a credit card and agreeing to be bound by the agreement:

            "(I) We agree to surrender credit plate on request and to be responsible for all purchases through its use until surrendered or until the company has been notified of its loss or theft in writing." After he had signed this application...."

            [Hint: Sounds like he agreed in writing eh?? Sounds like 4 corners to me???]

            Here is the EXACT findings regarding "unconscionable"....

            We do not regard the agreement as having been so unconscionable as to require that it be not enforced (cf. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F. 2d 445 [D.C. Cir.]). We merely hold that all doubts as to its interpretation and as to the meaning of the card itself are to be resolved in favor of the applicant for the card.
            There is every reason of public policy for protecting consumers from contractual provisions, not brought home to them, which are or may be unconscionable. See Corbin, Contracts, Section 1376; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.) Section 68; Williston, Contracts (2d ed.) Section 1751B

            {Hint: Sounds like the court is ALMOST finding the contract unconscionable simply because the consumer is at a slight disadvantage.....yet he clearly was not FORCED to sign the contract....it was just a credit card application.]


            By reference to the word "every" in Black's, obviously this Mass. Court found a few valid. Of course the Supreme Court of the US found Negro's and Japanese unequal to others at one time--so relying upon the courts will ONLY and I repeat ONLY yield you an OPINION. 

            The definition for which Black's draws is one of the courts--namely that one party is generally at a disadvantage to the other and unable to modify the terms as in "take it or leave it." So thus THIS definition of 'adhesion contract" is a different one in that simply one is being offered a "take it or leave it contract" with the party at a clear disadvantage. I sincerely doubt anyone is so "forced" as to that he MUST accept the terms of the credit card contract. Next understand that the reference in the PAYTRIDIOT movement of "adhesion contracts" is taken out of context compared to this court definition. They assume it binds beyond the terms which aren't even spelled out.

            Re: "dave.wissel" makes comments on the "Four Corners" rules, but does not seem to understand that information and provisions can be "incorporated by reference" into a contract and become as much a part of a document by reference as by being fully quoted in the contract.
            Incorporations by reference are a standard procedure in legal documents and are even found in the U.S. Constitution.
            Answer: Only an IDIOT doesn't understand this. I use this method all the time to correct government documents: "Signature is invalid without attachment". However the idiots in the paytriot movement assume applications with NO REFERENCE in their 4 corners to something external somehow BINDS someone as do CONTRACTS. First they are APPLICATIONS and NOT contracts.Secondarily without a reference spelled out clearly, how can they bind? Next the idiots in the paytriot movement assume Birth Certificates bind the person as some kind of chattel. Huh? Another crazy notion NOT worth planting in the heads of adversaries. 
            You didn't mention it but the Constitution might be a legal document but on its face without more, is not a contract.





            --

            rock.com

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.