Re: [tips_and_tricks] California FTB
- 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:
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
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- 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
Re: Request For Sworn Statement or Court Order Pertaining to an
Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes (Case Number ________ for tax
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
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
"(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
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.
[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
"Individuals are not subject to any Code Yick Wo v.
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-
CHAPTER 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX .......................
CHAPTER 2.1. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ............... 17062-
CHAPTER 2.6. SPECIAL TAX CREDIT
CHAPTER 3. COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
Article 1. Definition of Gross Income, Adjusted Gross
Income, Taxable Income, etc. ...........
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
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.
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):
The earnings and withholding order shall include ALL of the
(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
(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
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
the following circumstances:
(1) The existence of the state tax liability appears on
of the taxpayer's return, including a case where such tax
is disclosed from the taxpayer's return after errors in
computations in the return have been corrected.
(2) The state tax liability has been assessed or
provided by statute AND the taxpayer had notice of the
assessment or determination AND had available an opportunity
the proposed assessment or determination reviewed by
administrative procedures. If the taxpayer makes a timely
for review of the assessment or determination, the state
issue a withholding order for taxes until the administrative
procedure is completed. If the taxpayer is given notice of
proposed assessment or determination but does not make a
request for review, the state may issue a withholding order
(c) In any case where a state tax liability has been assessed
determined prior to July 1, 1983, and the state determines
requirement of subdivision (b) may not have been satisfied,
may send a "Notice of Proposed Issuance of Withholding Order
Taxes" to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address by
first-class mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall advise
taxpayer that the taxpayer may have the assessment or
reviewed by appropriate administrative procedures and state
a review may be obtained. If the taxpayer is sent such a
requests such a review within 30 days from the date the
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
until the administrative review procedure is completed. If
taxpayer is sent such a notice and does not request such a
within 30 days from the date the notice was mailed to the
the state may issue the withholding order for taxes.
(d) A withholding order for taxes may be issued whether or
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
(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
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
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
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
"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
"Whenever the term "Agriculture and Services Agency" appears
in any law, it means the "State and Consumers Services Agency"
"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).
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:
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
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.
[your name here]
- 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.
- On Dec 1, 2005, at 4:55 PM, pd wrote:
> The second issue is that California, especially the FTB, has no...which they cleverly removed from their consttution, so it's really
> authority and no jurisdiction over you unless and until you are within
> their territorial boundaries.
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.
- 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..
- 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).
- On 12/9/2015 7:45 PM, Tucson & Peru tucson.peru@...
>... as if their oaths and bonds were found to be in order...
> I wrote to them probably 8 times with copies of all the relevant papers
- On 12/12/2015 8:20 AM, Mike wrote:
> Greetings Farmer!What address was that? Barry's list?
> I wrote you at a different address awhile back asking how to learn more
> of your IMOC tech.
> Heard nothing as the inquiry likely went into a cyberspace void. LOL!Must have ...
> Anyway I can avail myself of more of your tech?For that very reason, I have no established technique. Every case I've
> I currently hang out in So Calif and I'm always looking to sharpen my
> knowledge and skills.
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.