Re: [tips_and_tricks] California FTB
- 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.