NEED HELP

[Ice]

They were just helping the IRS out with a little "streamlining".


&

[Jerseee]

Rushpat,


That does not matter since they must verify the debt anyway.& So don't be bummed and don't let them deceive you.& How can anyone be expected to pay an alleged debt if it is not verified?


Let's talk about validity and verification&before we talk about payment.

Charlene,


What is Reconinize (spelling)? I do not understand. But this gives me the following idea:


If&I did&not recognize the sender (b/c no license to do business and therefore no legal status), I would send it back to them telling them&I do not recognize them stated very clearly in a one or two sentence letter.& Just like we include the definition of 'verification' to 'help out' those debt collectors, we should do the same with the definition of 'recognition'. So here is&an example: Please be advised recognition is defined as follows:& "The formal admission that a person, entity, or thing has a particular status."& -Black's 7th ed.Submit it&along with&a commercial affidavit stating such, and in this format it would be truly impossible for them to rebut as they could not provide a license to do business in that State (and if you really want to get creative here, think along the lines of STATE OF KANSAS vs.&Repbulic of Kansas vs. another foreign state/jurisdiction etc., if you are one).&At this point, I believe they would be legally estopped from any further collection&activity.& All further communication from them could safely be ignored.& In fact, if you did respond to further communication after giving them formal notice of non-recognition, it would show that you do recognize them!& This method of 'ignoring' them will keep you in honor.& It would be a&fun experiment to see this in action and give the idea of non-recognition some teeth.& (I hope you like this idea Jim!).&Thoughts?


-squirrels

[charlene]

Squirrels,


Thanks, I have not answered them since my first mailing to them, which contained copies of BOE sent to other collector. The first mailing to them was to stay in honor. I also informed them there would be no further contact betweeen us. I looked at what they sent to the strawman, and sending copies of Provedian cc statements showing where no payment was made is not certified verification. They are useing scare tatics and it will not work.& Thank you for your time.


Charlene


&

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Rushpat,


That does not matter since they must verify the debt anyway.Â* So don't be bummed and don't let them deceive you.Â* How can anyone be expected to pay an alleged debt if it is not verified?


Let's talk about validity and verificationÂ*before we talk about payment.

Well, I was hoping for one more piece of ammo in the arsenal.

The problem I'm seeing is that the FTB has been dodging the verification of alleged debt issue. They've so far told me all sorts of meaningless things about them not having to have a signed contract between us, their job is to enforce tax laws, them trying to brainwash me into believing that I'm a 'taxpayer', etc.

Sometimes, I wonder if words and letters really mean anything, as they just keep coming as if they never heard a thing I said.

charlene,


My worry is that stating you will& not respond to further communication&may not be perceived as staying in honor.& I see it as a form of anticipatory dishonor (if you are familiar with anticipatory breach of contract, this should make sense to you).I'm sure&it will eventually work out for you though.


-squirrels

[Jerseee]

Rushpat,

Maybe in an open court where they cannot hide, duck and dodge your questions, is the arsenal you may need.

You hit it on the head. Jurisdiction, prove of claim, and your remedy (HJR 192).

If they can prove you are a taxpayer, then you can use your remedy.

If they can prove their claim, then you can use your remedy.

If they can ignore what you ask, then you can ignore what they say and keep asking the questions you are asking. Do not give up because they refuse to answer your questions. do not get frustrated because they do not answer your questions. Keep the papertrail and keep asking the questions. this is your evidence of their dishonor and if you did a UCC 11 (search) this will be even more evidence of thier dishonor. Also you should read the "Paper Reduction Act". If their documents do not have an OMB number--they could be up the creek.

Check it out

Originally Posted by rushpat

I'm bummed... I took a look into Georgia's code on licensing to do business within the state and this is what I found: Title 14-2-1501

I wonder why they did that?

Wait. Are these "collectors" are a "foreign corporation"? If so, fine. If not, nothing changes, right?


Don't be bummed by that! Use it! I mean, how cool is this: You now get to ask them to prove/verify if they are a "domestic" or "foreign" corporation, right?


(I once worked for a company that moved here from Dubuque, Iowa--the bunch that fired me over the income tax-thing. While in Dubuque, they were "officially" a "foreign corporation.")


But sometimes dumb IS smart. "Foreign" means, to the normal, average person, "not continental," as one way to put it. Don't put legal words into their mouths is all I'm saying.


The statute you quoted clearly refers to "foreign corporations," that's all.


Randy

[rushpat]

I was going on the assumption that 'foreign' meant 'not from this state', but I'll check a little more closely to see if they've defined that too.

I saw on the James Hardin video how he asked for the IRS agents to provide their foreign agent registrations. Apparently, there is a multi-year jail term for foreign agents working in this country without one. Now, some say that all agents are foreign jurisdiction, others say that this is only because they work for particular people who represent a foreign jurisdiction. I need to check on that as well.

My apologies to the original poster for hijacking this thread.

[dattwing]

<FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">No need rushpat, when you guys get brainstorming its a treat to sit back and see what pours out. To my way of thinking though, the FDCA states that they Must provide verification upon request. And it has been ruled that:</FONT>


<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 8.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">While continuing efforts to collect debt may occur within 30-day validation period provided under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), those efforts must terminate for at least that period from date validation demand is received by debt collector, within the 30-day period, until date that information demanded is provided to debtor. Rabideau v. Management Adjustment Bureau, W.D.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1086. Consumer Protection 10</SPAN>


<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 8.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN>&