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

California FTB

Expand Messages
  • crl333mry
    Greetings, Any info re; California FTB would be appreciated. They are attempting to collect a 1980 state tax bill. They claim there is no statute of
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings,

      Any info re; California FTB would be appreciated.

      They are attempting to collect a 1980 state tax bill.

      They claim there is no statute of Limitations.

      What is the best way to defeat FTB efforts against us.

      We do not live in California and our state does not allow

      garnishments.

      Thank you
      Carl
    • pd
      You may want to look at your current home State s statutes or codes. In the early 1980 s California was trying to assess taxes on people who had moved from
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        You may want to look at your current home State's statutes or codes.  In the early 1980's California was trying to assess taxes on people who had moved from California to Nevada.  Nevada passed laws prohibiting California from this.  Many other states followed suit.  Yours may be one of them.  The second issue is that California, especially the FTB, has no authority and no jurisdiction over you unless and until you are within their territorial boundaries.  The third issue is that most States are farming out their collections to third parties that do not represent the State.  Instead, they are third party debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and have to be registered as a third party collection agency with your State regulatory agency.  A fourth issue may be that your current State does have a statute of limitations on collection of State revenue taxes (many do) and the efforts to collect a 25 year old claim can easily be taken as a fraudulent claim being done under color of law or under color of official right.  There should be all kinds of avenues of redress should you put your mind to recognizing them.  pd

        crl333mry <crl333mry@...> wrote:
        Greetings,

        Any info re; California FTB would be appreciated.

        They are attempting to collect a 1980 state tax bill.

        They claim there is no statute of Limitations.

        What is the best way to defeat FTB efforts against us.

        We do not live in California and our state does not allow

        garnishments.

        Thank you
        Carl







        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

      • Jah Red
        i have these for the FTB on EWOT s i don t have a link for this stuff... [employer name and address as it appears on the EWOT order] FRANCHISE TAX BOARD P.O.
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          i have these for the FTB on EWOT's

          i don't have a link for this stuff...


          [employer name and address as it appears on the EWOT order]

          FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
          P.O. BOX 942867
          SACRAMENTO, CA 94267-0011

          [date]

          Re: Request For Sworn Statement or Court Order Pertaining to an
          Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes (Case Number ________ for tax
          year _____.


          To Whom It May Concern:

          We have received an Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes
          issued on [date] pertaining to the funds [employee or contractor name
          as appears on EWOT] receives from our firm as an [independent
          contractor or employee] requesting that we withhold money allegedly
          due to the Franchise Tax Board.
          [independent contractor or employee] has furnished us with a
          sworn affidavit that he/she is not liable for the taxes you claim
          that he/she owes. (Attached is a copy of his sworn affidavit that is
          an integral part of the request).

          To protect ourselves from a possible future lawsuit in which
          [independent contractor or employee] sues us for turning over his
          funds to a 3rd party without a Court Order and without any due
          process whatsoever, we are requesting you to furnish us with a
          contesting sworn statement that [independent contractor or employee]
          is in fact, "liable" for the taxes at issue and that you, in fact
          sent him a court order and/or writ of attachment for payment per the
          requirements stated in the California Code of Civil Procedures (cited
          below). In the alternative, you might furnish us with a court order
          directing us to turn over the funds to the Franchise Tax Board.


          Your alluding to 706.074 of the California Code of Civil
          Procedures is misplaced as it is defined in Code of Civil Procedures,
          Section 706.070(b) to be the amount which the
          "state has a tax lien as defined in Section 7162 of the Government
          Code…".
          Section 7126 of the Government Code defines a "state tax lien" to one
          created under various sections of the Fish and Game, Public
          Resources, Revenue and Taxation, of Unemployment Insurance Code.
          None of the code sections listed in 7162 refers to personal income
          tax, and thus, an Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes may not, under
          Section 706.074, be issued to collect personal income tax as you have
          erroneously stated in your papers.

          Further, California Code of Civil Procedures, Section 706.125 states
          in relevant part,
          "The earnings withholding order", [shall include ALL of the
          following:]…
          "(c) The court where the judgment was entered, and the name
          of the judgment creditor.
          (d) The date of issuance of the writ of execution to the
          county where the earnings
          withholding order is sought."

          All of the law must be followed and it seems that you are not doing
          this. We are also aware of the fact that since the State of
          California has adopted the Internal Revenue Code that per
          26 USC 6061 you are obligated to sign any and all correspondence
          related to tax matters that you send out – which you have not done in
          this case. My information from [independent contractor or employee]
          is that he has answered your various correspondences in the past, but
          has never heard back from you as to the questions he has asked and
          legal rebuttals he has made. Are you not aware of the Information
          Practices Act, and are you not aware that your non-responsiveness is
          considered non-compliance? It seems to us that perhaps there could
          be the possibility of litigation considered by [independent
          contractor or employee] regarding the various infractions that are
          seemingly evident.

          I am sure you can appreciate our position; in a legal sense,
          [independent contractor or employee] sworn affidavit takes precedence
          over your informal, computer generated, unsigned, and unofficial
          document (i.e. without legal standing via the violation of CCP
          706.125 cited above).

          Until such a time as we get all of the above documents from
          you, properly executed (signed by a Judge of competent jurisdiction),
          we will continue to honor our contract employment commitment with
          [independent contractor or employee]. We await your prompt and legal
          answers and forthcoming information that is not vague in nature,
          specifically as it relates to the law you mention in your Earnings
          Withholding Order for Taxes document.


          Thank you for your prompt response.



          ___________________________________________ Date:
          ________________
          [employer principal]




          [your name & address as it appears on EWOT]

          Franchise Tax Board
          P.O. Box 942867
          Sacramento, CA 94267-0011

          Re: Year 2000 – Case number 541158989


          To Whom It May Concern:

          The copy of the attached Earnings and Withholding Order for Taxes
          (EWOT) cannot be authorized for a personal income tax – an income tax
          which was repealed by the State of California in 1945 (court decision
          cited later in this letter – see page 3). The California Code of
          Commercial Procedures (CCP) 706.074 does not specifically state who
          an Earnings and Withholding Order for Taxes (EWOT) refers. Further,
          the Revenue and Taxation Code 18671 (which is directly connected to
          CCP 706.074 via 706.011 Definitions) does not refer to any personal
          income tax code.

          Additionally, you should note the following:
          "Code is not law – Self V. Rhey, Washington Supreme
          Court"
          "Individuals are not subject to any Code – Yick Wo v.
          Hopkins, 1886."

          I have filed all California tax returns for which I am liable, even
          though I know that the Revenue & Taxation Code (R&T Code) Sections do
          not apply to me (proof cited herein). I am by the very nature of the
          Revenue & Taxation code not liable. This letter simply affirms that
          fact and that my private sector remuneration for services by a
          private sector employer is clarified by the following:
          1) I have not received any payments made by the Unites States
          according to California Revenue and Taxation Code §18637, (formerly
          §18802), and Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1.6041-1(g),
          §1.6014-2, and §1.6041-3 in accordance with R&T Code §17024.5.
          2) I have not received any payments made by a State according to
          California R&T Code §18637 and 26CFR1.6041-1(g), §1.6014-2, and
          §1.6041-3 in accordance with R&T Code §17024.5.
          3) I am neither employed nor receive payments made by the State
          of California, or the states, or political subdivisions of other
          states, or the District of Columbia according to Title 22 California
          Code of Regulation (formerly the Administrative Code) §4320-1, et
          seq., California R&T Code §18662 (formerly 18805), §19002 (formerly
          18551.1) and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
          4) I am neither employed nor received payments made by the
          United States according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation
          (formerly Administrative Code) §4320-1, et seq., California R&T code
          §18662, §19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
          5) I am neither employed nor receive payments made in other
          states, political subdivisions of other states, or the District of
          Columbia according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation
          (formerly Administrative Code) §4320-1, et seq., California R&T code
          §18662, §19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
          6) I am not entitled to exemptions, deductions and/or credits
          according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation (formerly
          Administrative Code) §4320-1 et seq., California R&T Code §18662,
          19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.

          I understand that the issuance of an EWOT to collect an alleged
          personal income tax liability is an illegal and fraudulent attempt to
          collect a tax without any applicable and supporting law.

          You continue to quote the IRS, and have even adopted the Internal
          Revenue Code (IRC) as part of your operating tax procedures per the
          Revenue & Taxation Code:

          PART 10. PERSONAL INCOME TAX
          CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS ..... 17001-
          17039.1
          CHAPTER 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX .......................
          17041-17061
          CHAPTER 2.1. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ............... 17062-
          17063
          CHAPTER 2.6. SPECIAL TAX CREDIT
          CHAPTER 3. COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
          Article 1. Definition of Gross Income, Adjusted Gross
          Income, Taxable Income, etc. ...........
          17071-17078

          Additionally, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has made this perfectly
          clear in the Instructions for CA (540), which reads:
          "Due to California legislation enacted in 1997, California tax law
          conforms to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as of January 1, 1997."

          Since you have adopted the IRC (which I obey to the fullest), you
          have to recognize and conform to the entire IRC.

          If there is no Federal tax liability created, determined or assessed,
          there cannot be any liability that extends to the state of
          California. Additionally, the California Constitution does not have
          any law to enforce any income tax on its citizens apart from the IRC
          because it would violate your own R&T Code, the Federal IRC and the
          Federal Constitution.
          According to the IRS, we only need to obey REGULATIONS, and they must
          be LEGISLATIVE regulations (e.g. Code of Federal Regulations).

          You are attempting to collect a tax which is, (according to Treasury
          Regulations, the IRC, the Secretary of Treasury, various Senators,
          Congressmen, Commissions of the IRS, various IRS publications, the
          Supreme Court, and even you – all of whom have said is), a "voluntary
          tax… self-assessed." Our income tax system could not be based upon
          constraint, forcible obligation or direct police enforcement by the
          state, as it would then be unconstitutional.

          On line 13 of the 540 return it states:
          "Federal adjusted income from form 1040"
          Per the IRC, Form 1040 is not a legal form to be filled out by a U.S.
          citizen, but rather it is for non-resident alien individuals. It is
          the same for your form 540.


          You are in violation of 26USC6501 which states in relevant part:
          "The amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be
          assessed with 3 years."

          Further, you have not offered me a hearing as required by law.
          Any return I was legally required to file was valid and if I swear to
          anything different than what I have entered on my Federal return, I
          would be committing perjury.

          The case cites that you have quoted in reference to this issue do not
          carry any legal merit with a judge in the State courts as they are
          merely internal administrative decisions carried out by appointees
          and secondarily have NO direct bearing in substance on this case as I
          did not engage in any of the actions relevant to such cites. In
          contrast, I cite Supreme Court Cases which do have a direct bearing
          on this information as the Supreme Court is the only court of the
          land that has the authority to interpret the Constitution. These
          Supreme Court cases have NEVER been overturned.

          The "Personal Income Tax Act of 1935, Chapter 329, Pages 1090-1123"
          enacted the personal income tax in California – and was "REPEALED by
          Chapter 659, Statutes of California, 1943". This repeal reads in key
          part on page 2412:
          "Section 2, Section 50015 is added to the code to read:
          50015 – "The Personal Income Tax Act is repealed.
          Section 3.
          This Act shall take effect July, 1945."

          I will allow you to prove that there is a statutory law behind your
          R&T Codes as I know in researching these codes that there is NOT one
          thing in the California Constitution to allow you to tax citizens on
          their wages who are residents of the State of California as was put
          forth in the beginning of this letter.

          Revenue & Taxation Code §17041.5 states in relevant part,
          "Not withstanding any statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or
          decision, to the contrary, no city, county city, and county
          governmental subdivision, district, public and QUASI-public
          corporation, municipal corporation, whether unincorporated or not,
          shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon
          the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or non-
          resident. This section shall not be construed so as to prohibit the
          levy or collection of any otherwise authorized license tax upon a
          business measured by or according to gross receipts."
          The EWOT presented to me and my employer is defective on its face for
          the following reasons (among many others):
          CCP 706.125
          The earnings and withholding order shall include ALL of the
          following:
          (a) The name, address, and if known, the social security
          number of the judgment debtor.
          (b) The name and address of the employer to whom the order is
          directed.
          (c) The court where the judgment was entered, and the name of
          the judgment debtor.
          (d) The date of issuance of the writ of execution to the
          county where the earnings withholding order is sought.
          (e) The total amount required to satisfy the order on the
          date of issuance…


          Pursuant to CCP §706.072, and EWOT can only be issued under certain
          circumstances.

          706.72. (a) A "withholding order for taxes" is an earnings
          withholding order issued
          pursuant to this article to collect a state tax liability and
          shall be denoted as a withholding order for taxes on its face.
          (b) A withholding order for taxes may only be issued under
          one of
          the following circumstances:
          (1) The existence of the state tax liability appears on
          the face
          of the taxpayer's return, including a case where such tax
          liability
          is disclosed from the taxpayer's return after errors in
          mathematical
          computations in the return have been corrected.
          (2) The state tax liability has been assessed or
          determined as
          provided by statute AND the taxpayer had notice of the
          proposed
          assessment or determination AND had available an opportunity
          to have
          the proposed assessment or determination reviewed by
          appropriate
          administrative procedures. If the taxpayer makes a timely
          request
          for review of the assessment or determination, the state
          shall not
          issue a withholding order for taxes until the administrative
          review
          procedure is completed. If the taxpayer is given notice of
          the
          proposed assessment or determination but does not make a
          timely
          request for review, the state may issue a withholding order
          for
          taxes.
          (c) In any case where a state tax liability has been assessed
          or
          determined prior to July 1, 1983, and the state determines
          that the
          requirement of subdivision (b) may not have been satisfied,
          the state
          may send a "Notice of Proposed Issuance of Withholding Order
          for
          Taxes" to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address by
          first-class mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall advise
          the
          taxpayer that the taxpayer may have the assessment or
          determination
          reviewed by appropriate administrative procedures and state
          how such
          a review may be obtained. If the taxpayer is sent such a
          notice and
          requests such a review within 30 days from the date the
          notice was
          mailed to the taxpayer, the state shall provide appropriate
          administrative procedures for review of the assessment or
          determination and shall not issue the withholding order for
          taxes
          until the administrative review procedure is completed. If
          the
          taxpayer is sent such a notice and does not request such a
          review
          within 30 days from the date the notice was mailed to the
          taxpayer,
          the state may issue the withholding order for taxes.
          (d) A withholding order for taxes may be issued whether or
          not the
          state tax liability has been reduced to judgment.

          An EWOT may not be issued if a taxpayer has not had a review of the
          proposed assessment or determination (Administrative Assessment).

          It is clear from the above that any tax liability to the state
          accrues only AFTER and assessment has been made (whether
          mathematically related or an administrative assessment) from a FILED
          TAX RETURN. If an administrative assessment is involved,
          a "taxpayer" has the right to demand at a hearing:
          (i) A copy of all the supporting documents upon which the
          administrative assessment was based, relied upon by the Franchise Tax
          Board.
          (ii) A copy of verifications received by the Franchise Tax Board
          that the above information and assessment was correct.
          (iii) A copy of procedures, and/or procedures manuals utilized by
          the the Franchise Tax Board which explains the procedure and process
          implemented and used to verify a procedurally correct administrative
          assessment was applied.
          (iv) IF NO RETURN IS FILED, a copy of the delegation of authority
          order which delegated the authority to the person who SIGNED the
          assessment.

          Revenue & Taxation Code §18671 – Notice to withhold and transmit
          amounts due; effect of levy; amount required to be withheld.
          …
          (d) For purposes of this section, the term "payments" does
          not include earnings as defined in subdivision (a) of §706.011 of the
          Code of Civil Procedure…

          Code of Civil Procedures §706.011 - Definitions
          As used in this chapter:
          (a) "Earnings" means compensation payable by an employer to an
          employee for personal services performed by such employee, whether
          denominated as wages, salary, commissions, bonus or otherwise.

          The only EWOT recognized by the Courts is the form adopted by the
          California Judicial Council, 982.5(12) WHICH IS A COURT ORDER, not
          form FTB 2905ARCS ( REV 12-2001). See Government Code §68511. Also
          see Rule of Court 2011(B) which demands the proper form.
          You have not produced any legally enforceable document, or Court
          order signed by a Judge to prove that I owe any of the taxes you
          allege.

          An EWOT under CCP §706.074 may only be issued to collect a "state tax
          liability", which is defined in CCP §706.70(b) to be the amount for
          which the "state" has a tax lien as defined in §7162 of the
          Government Code. Section 7162 of the Government Code defines
          a "state tax lien" to be created under various sections of the Fish
          and Game, Public Recourses, Revenue and Taxation, or Unemployment
          Code. None of the code sections listed in §7162 refers to
          a "personal income tax" and that an EWOT may not, under §7162, be
          issued to collect personal income tax.



          The Franchise Tax Board

          You are put on notice regarding the lack of authority carried by the
          FTB in this matter via the following legal evidence regarding your
          non-governmental status:
          NO individual is taxable under West's Ann. Cal. R&T Codes, §18501 or
          §18505 until the FTB has formally adopted Regulations (codified in
          Title 18, Barclay's Official California Code of Regulations) PURSUANT
          TO West's Ann. Cal. R&T Code §19503, which would place said
          individual within a taxable class.
          FTB adoption of said regulations is supposed to be in conformity with
          the Administrative Procedures Act (West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code §11340,
          et seq.). To date, the FTB has only adopted regulations in relation
          to individuals who fall into the classes:
          "married couple" or "fiduciary".

          The Revenue & Taxation Code §17003 specifically states,
          "Franchise Tax Board" means the Franchise Tax Board described
          in Part 10, Division 3, Title 2, of the Government Code."
          This reference falls under §15700 of the Government Code, which
          specifically states,
          "There is in state government, IN THE AGRICULTURE AND
          SERVICES AGENCY, a Franchise Tax Board consisting of the State
          Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State
          Board of Equalization."

          Subsequent to this, the legislature unconstitutionally attempted to
          amend this section via §12800 and §12804 of the Government code which
          specifically says,
          "Whenever the term "Agriculture and Services Agency" appears
          in any law, it means the "State and Consumers Services Agency"
          (§12800).
          AND
          "The Agricultural and Services Agency is hereby renamed the
          State and Consumers Services Agency…" (§12804).
          Article IV, section 9 of the California Constitution strictly forbids
          this when it says,
          "A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section
          is re-enacted or amended…"
          Since §15700 has NEVER been re-enacted or amended, the reasonable
          inference to be drawn from this are:
          1) The FTB is still located in the lo-longer legally existent
          Agriculture and Services Agency (which means it is no longer in a
          part of the state government).
          AND/OR
          2) The FTB has not been properly or legally
          moved/relocated/reassigned to the State and Consumers Services Agency
          (which also means it is no longer part of the state government).

          I would suggest, for your own protection, that you and your attorney
          see the law for yourselves:
          http://caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/15700-15704.html
          http://caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/17001-17039.html

          Your actions evidenced by your EWOT document that you have submitted
          to me will have you personally prosecuted for criminal intent to
          extort money from me according to the constitution and the fraud
          statutes. The FTB is not a governmental office (although you
          continue to use the state seal of California illegally) therefore you
          will be required to hire your own attorney at your personal expense
          for fraud under the color of authority.

          If this letter is not satisfactory to you, I am requesting that an
          administrative hearing be held for the year 2000 according to my
          rights as a citizen, where we can discuss your violations of law, and
          the rest of the R&T codes, et al. Looking forward to such a meeting,
          there are many cases now in the courts against the FTB (a municipal
          corporation with no standing as a state government office) that give
          me the leverage to sue you in your personal capacity.

          You should note that there are other legal avenues that can be taken,
          such as in a court decision the FTB never mentions, Ballmer v. The
          FTB. Additionally, you may wish to stop quoting Tax Court cases as
          the Tax Court is NOT A COURT OF LAW and has consistently been
          overturned on appeal by the Federal Appellate Court. To attempt to
          threaten me with criminal action without any supporting law will
          expose you to the possibility of being criminally and civilly
          prosecuted under a myriad of sections, not the least of which is
          section 7214 & 7714 (and others).

          You are violating my constitutional rights by attempting to impose an
          income tax on me that is not evident in the code cites you quote in
          your EWOT document, nor present in the supporting statutes. You
          mistakenly and erroneously refer to tax LAWS, which are simply only
          CODE references.

          I am fully aware that the California personal income tax provisions
          (as put forward in your documentation) are unlawful. You are trying
          to perpetuate a lie through your correspondence. I am keeping your
          documents as evidence to your violations.

          Since you have not adhered to legal process, administrative process
          for notification, let alone followed the substance of the law, and
          since the substance of the R&T Codes delineate that I have followed
          the law (and you have not), I am demanding an immediate release of
          the Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes. If this demand is not
          immediately recognized and properly acted upon, I will be filing an
          action against you, as so many others are now doing.

          I will expect you to rebut this letter in its entirety, however, I
          will not accept anything akin to a form letter stating, "We do not
          respond to letters using the Constitution, religion [etc.] as a
          defense…", going on to cite cases that do not have any bearing on the
          facts presented here. Otherwise, you will be answering these and
          many other questions about your serial violations of the CCP, the R&T
          Codes, and the Constitution itself, in a lawsuit. Anyone else
          honoring your fraudulent documentation related to this EWOT will also
          be sued for fraud.

          This is a NOTICE AND DEMAND under the Universal Common Law Code.


          Sincerely,


          [your name here]




          some laws
        • CCDude
          RE: paying a deposit (for water bill). Does the keeper of a security deposit have to pay interest in Texas on that deposit while in their hands??? Is there
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            RE: paying a deposit (for water bill).

            Does the "keeper" of a security deposit have to pay interest in Texas on
            that deposit while in their hands??? Is there any law that covers this.

            Thank you,
            Bob Miller
          • Frog Farmer
            ... ...which they cleverly removed from their consttution, so it s really anybody s guess (would one call Rand McNally??) as to just what those territorial
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Dec 1, 2005, at 4:55 PM, pd wrote:

              >   The second issue is that California, especially the FTB, has no
              > authority and no jurisdiction over you unless and until you are within
              > their territorial boundaries.

              ...which they cleverly removed from their consttution, so it's really
              anybody's guess (would one call Rand McNally??) as to just what those
              territorial boundaries might be. One would have to ask someone who
              would know the "official" answer...but then who would we turn to for
              that? Would you accept the word of a criminal impersonator? See
              California constitution Article XX, Section 3.

              Only an "officer" can speak for "the state" (with the exception of his
              licensed attorney - see Calif. Business & Professions Code Section
              6067.) So just WHO is this "FTB" that is supposedly harrassing
              people? Some people believe in ghosts, and some believe anything they
              are told. Who has actually checked it out and found a qualified
              officer (with the REQUIRED oath of office on file) with the same name
              as seen on the bottom of the threatening letters? I'm not in the habit
              of letting unlicensed attorneys into my court either.

              I'm not bothered by FTB, probably because I know that it's a "vacant
              office" staffed only by "employees" (slaves) whom any court would
              declare incompetent to testify as to what the law is or was, aside from
              the fact that I hold no state-created franchise. Even though we are
              all presumed to know the law, whenever I've had such an employee on the
              witness stand, and asked a pertinent question regarding specifics of
              the laws in question, the "judge" has always disallowed the question,
              based upon the fact that the employee is not qualified to answer it.

              I don't waste my time quibbling with mere paycheck anticipators.

              Hope this helps.

              FF
            • Jah Red
              You can t license the practice of Law!.. Lawyers are members of bar, like club of lawyers.. this is one thing about US Attorneys, they usally don t have a bar
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                You can't license the practice of Law!..

                Lawyers are members of bar, like club of lawyers..

                this is one thing about US Attorneys, they usally don't have a bar card
                for the state in which you live..

                But you can't license the practice of law..
              • Tucson & Peru
                I received a “garnishment” notice through my boss for taxes for years 1999, 2000 and 2002. I guess they don’t care about ’01… I had worked, back
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 9, 2015
                • 0 Attachment
                  I received a “garnishment” notice through my boss for taxes for years 1999, 2000 and 2002. I guess they don’t care about ’01…

                  I had worked, back then, on notifications to companies about the legalities of garnishing without a court order, notices that went ignored as garnishments proceeded forward.

                  One, the most outlandish, was for a truck I sold and my friend took it to Michigan and registered it there. Despite doing the entire transaction “by the books”, California DMV came after me for delinquent registration.

                  I wrote to them probably 8 times with copies of all the relevant papers and finally they stopped asking for , well by that time it was close to $1K with penalties and interest.

                  To my surprise, DMV converted the past due amount to a tax lien by way of FTB and they garnished me!

                  Just like that! No notice, no court, no judgement, no nothing.

                  And the so-called “employer” is so scared of these extortionists that they just do it! I showed them that the registration was properly deeded to another party. No avail…

                  So I looked up all the process and procedures for a legal garnishment in the California here they are. This is from 2001, though.

                  Does anyone know if anything has changed?

                  Is there a better procedure to use than just sending the copies of the laws they broke to them? I mean, right? That has never worked before!

                  I guess if I get garnished I’ll take my boss to small claims court, but I kind of like my boss!

                  Anyone familiar with these California thieves could contact me at my e-mail as well, tucson.peru at gmail dot you know what.

                  Thanks!!

                  Timothy

                  Applicable Sections of California Civil Code

                  a.    Section 701.050 of the California Civil Code is part of Article 3, Division 2 of the CC and as such it is dealing with “garnishments”  Further, Section 706.050 refers to Section 1673(a) of Title 15 of the United States codes which defines a “garnishment” as a legal or equitable procedure.

                  b. Section 701.050 of the California Civil Code requires a court order to determine a judgment creditor’s lien.

                  c. Section 706.030 of the California Civil Code requires the Levying Officer to serve a copy of the writ of execution and a notice of levy upon the third person.

                  d. Section 701.030 of the California Civil Code also requires the third person to give to the Levying Officer a “garnishee’s memorandum”.

                  e. Section 701.011 of the California Civil Code defines all the terms used in Article 3, Division 2 of the Code.  You have no evidence and material facts that lead you to believe that I am:  (1) an “employee”; (2) a “person”; (3) an “individual”; (4) a “judgment debtor” since I am none of these.

                  f. Sections 706.050 and 706.047 of the California Civil Code are referenced in the Order.  These Sections fall under Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Code and as such deal             only and specifically with “wage garnishment”.

                  g. I would be exempt from any such action proposed in the Order pursuant to Section 706.105 of the California Civil Code if I were a judgment debtor (which I am not) because of 707.105, Sections (a)(1) and (2).

                  h. Section 706.050 of the California Civil Code again references Section 1673(a) of Title 15 of the United States codes which defines a “garnishment” as a legal or equitable procedure.

                  i. Section 706.075 of the California Civil Code requires that a withholding order for taxes served upon an employer must be accompanied by a notice informing the “taxpayer” of the effect of the order and of his right to hearings and remedies provided in Chapter 5 of Article 3 of Division 2 of the Code.

                  j. Section 706.075(c) of the California Civil Code requires the state to provide a hearing.

                  k. Section 706.076 of the California Civil Code requires the state to apply to a court of record in the county where the taxpayer was last known to reside.  I was never provided with:  (1)  evidence that I am a “resident”; (2) evidence that I am or ever was a “taxpayer”;  (3)  a copy of the application referenced in 706.076(c)(1); (4) a copy of the notice referenced in 706.076(c)(2).

                  l. Why wasn’t Section 706.084 of the California Civil Code was not adhered to?

                  m. Section 706.071 of the California Civil Code states that “no levy...is effective unless such levy is made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter...”.

                  n. The provisions of California Civil Code, article 2, Sections 1788.10 et seq., entitled Debt Collector Responsibilities have not been adhered to.

                  o. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act has been violated (15 USC 1692, along with violations of 15 USC 1673 and 1681).



                • Frog Farmer
                  On 12/9/2015 7:45 PM, Tucson & Peru tucson.peru@gmail.com ... ... as if their oaths and bonds were found to be in order... Regards, Frog Farmer
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 10, 2015
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 12/9/2015 7:45 PM, Tucson & Peru tucson.peru@...
                    [tips_and_tricks] wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I wrote to them probably 8 times with copies of all the relevant papers

                    ... as if their oaths and bonds were found to be in order...

                    Regards,

                    Frog Farmer
                  • Frog Farmer
                    ... What address was that? Barry s list? ... Must have ... ... For that very reason, I have no established technique. Every case I ve ever had, even if the
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 13, 2015
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 12/12/2015 8:20 AM, Mike wrote:
                      > Greetings Farmer!
                      > I wrote you at a different address awhile back asking how to learn more
                      > of your IMOC tech.


                      What address was that? Barry's list?


                      > Heard nothing as the inquiry likely went into a cyberspace void. LOL!


                      Must have ...


                      > Anyway I can avail myself of more of your tech?
                      > I currently hang out in So Calif and I'm always looking to sharpen my
                      > knowledge and skills.


                      For that very reason, I have no established technique. Every case I've
                      ever had, even if the charge was the same, was totally different. My
                      first case produced the most paper and every one to follow was an effort
                      to reduce typing. Nobody, even friends and lovers, ever read it to
                      appreciate it anyway. I saw the judge throw my biggest pile into the
                      trash can. He never read or addressed any of it. He was drunk and
                      disheveled at the time and literally threw the code book at me which I
                      handed off to a friend right there and we did not offer to return it. It
                      is now one of my souvenirs. So, every case is and should be totally
                      different because you sharpen your skills and hopefully there is some
                      time between cases although I once had three going.


                      > Any chance I could meet you or have a phone conversation?


                      Maybe if you were like some others who have given me several ounces of
                      gold in return for many hours of my quality time, but so far none of
                      them has needed a face-to-face or direct phone call.


                      When I was laid up with a broken back I had time to kill, but no more.
                      Now time is killing me.


                      IMOC came about by analyzing all my prior errors and figuring out how
                      they could have been avoided. This led to putting everything into a
                      timeline. Obviously all points on the line can be avoided by not
                      letting the line grow beyond it's initial point of origin. Thus Initial
                      Moment Of Confrontation, IMOC. Also, I mock.


                      I also analyzed all the other cases I knew or read about and discovered
                      that everyone had made admissions, confessions, and rights waivers. If
                      they had avoided doing that, they might have fared better.


                      Now, I disqualify EVERYONE in the IMOC. It has always been done
                      spontaneously verbally and never has had to go farther with any
                      paperwork. Most impersonators like the pay and would prefer to escape
                      discovery. How many people have you ever disqualified? If none, why
                      not? The procedures exist to be used. It all begins in the IMOC.


                      Regards,


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