refusal for cause

[David Merrill]

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...r-coupon.html?

[phreeman2003]

Thread title is supposed to be a question: see edited repost.

[nydeemarie]

My refusal for cause was actually inside a Notice to the Court.. though not mentioned as an exhibit.

I wanted the court aware that since the judge recused himself earlier... I had cause to refuse his Order. I sent this Notice to interested parties.. including the receiver appointed.

When parties are Noticed... and a controversy such as this exists..... What is their duty as officers of the court..

To ignore? To pretend it's valid and move forward? To invalidate the order?

Does UCC 15 deal with the receiver(officer of the Court)

United States Code
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 2D - INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND ADVISERS
SUBCHAPTER II - INVESTMENT ADVISERS
Section 80b-15
Section 80b-15. Validity of contracts


(a) Waiver of compliance as void Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or with any rule, regulation, or order thereunder shall be void. (b) Rights affected by invalidity Every contract made in violation of any provision of this subchapter and every contract heretofore or hereafter made, the performance of which involves the violation of, or the continuance of any relationship or practice in violation of any provision of this subchapter, or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, shall be void (1) as regards the rights of any person who, in violation of any such provision, rule, regulation, or order, shall have made or engaged in the performance of any such contract, and (2) as regards the rights of any person who, not being a party to such contract, shall have acquired any right thereunder with actual knowledge of the facts by reason of which the making or performance of such contract was in violation of any such provision.

* quick note.. after filing.. A friend attorney, that I respect reviewed.. and said, "Well done.. an attorney couldn't have done better."

Whatever will be.. I wish to thank you all... and to pass the compliment on to those who deserve it.. My thanks again..

[IanAnd]

A question for David.

Are there some situations that refusal for cause does not work very well with? For instance, with regard to a county property tax. In reading over a thread on the Land Ownership forum, there is mention of the property tax being applied to the land itself and not the PERSON "owning" the land. (I lost the link and haven't been able to track down where I read this.)

Yet, in another thread in the same forum, I came across some information that seems to confirm that refusal for cause of a property tax is a viable route.

The property tax clause is an express, NOT implied contract, the terms of which are the statutes imposing and enforcing the tax. It is however a renewable, or more correctly, voidable contract, in that the terms are adjusted yearly. This must be so because if the voidability were not built into the contract, such an open ended contract would be unconscionable and unenforcible.

I have found that the more I research this subject the simpler the solutions become. The reason that it seems so complex is because the drones on the other side of the issue are so ignorant and adamant about their position. There is no need to update a patent (which I previously believed), no need to transfer the property to remove the taxing clause (which I previously believed) or litigation, although the need to respond to such may be necessary. Your property tax bill is no different than any other bill you receive for services rendered and contracted for.

After reading this, it all made sense again. Would you concur with the above statements?

I'm in the second year of applying refusal for cause to this incoming mail at the mailbox and am a little jittery about incurring any kind of tax lien after the third year, and having the property confiscated. Not having done this before, I'm not sure what changes, if any, may have been made in their approach or what they might do.

I haven't opened the envelopes, just stamped the date received and sent back on it, and returned them to sender refused for cause, keeping a photocopy of the refusal for cause envelope. The first year, both envelopes returned (the initial one in the Fall and the delinquent one at the end of Spring) were never resent. But this year, someone at the county treasurer's office must have gotten wise and resent the first refusal for cause back after receiving it. I then had to black out the window showing the address in order to get the postal service to return it. It hasn't been returned since then.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by IanAnd

A question for David.

Are there some situations that refusal for cause does not work very well with? For instance, with regard to a county property tax. In reading over a thread on the Land Ownership forum, there is mention of the property tax being applied to the land itself and not the PERSON "owning" the land. (I lost the link and haven't been able to track down where I read this.)

Yet, in another thread in the same forum, I came across some information that seems to confirm that refusal for cause of a property tax is a viable route.



After reading this, it all made sense again. Would you concur with the above statements?

I'm in the second year of applying refusal for cause to this incoming mail at the mailbox and am a little jittery about incurring any kind of tax lien after the third year, and having the property confiscated. Not having done this before, I'm not sure what changes, if any, may have been made in their approach or what they might do.

I haven't opened the envelopes, just stamped the date received and sent back on it, and returned them to sender refused for cause, keeping a photocopy of the refusal for cause envelope. The first year, both envelopes returned (the initial one in the Fall and the delinquent one at the end of Spring) were never resent. But this year, someone at the county treasurer's office must have gotten wise and resent the first refusal for cause back after receiving it. I then had to black out the window showing the address in order to get the postal service to return it. It hasn't been returned since then.

You can bet that attorneys for the "creditors" will be looking for any chink in your R4C process. That is why we suitors acquire the exclusive original cognizance of the US over any seizures on land. The Libel of Review LoR is fluff but crucial to negotiating the conditioning we all get from an early age, beginning with misnomer. However, even getting the cognizance of the US is a crutch to help you onto your feet.

One of the insideous devices about property tax is that it is tied to the Administration Act of your State through the School Districts? I have never seen this applied in Colorado, this not being a de jure state (1876) on equal standing with California (pre-1861). Richard McDonald of state citizenship fame brought this up and I have not studied it being that I have never applied it.

Next we find a market I heard about at a Donald Trump Jr. seminar in property tax liens. It is simply somebody able to find the listing of your back taxes and to pay them on a guarantee they will get their money back with interest. The USA is basically divided on the Mississippi as to two types of liens. I forget their names but East of the Mississippi one can easily transfer ownership on a complete default. To the West though, the mortgage company - even when the property is fully paid off, gets first grab at the physical property.

The lecturer mentioned 5013 Jurisdictions and I have wondered if that is school districts, not counties or whatever. 5013 School Districts across the USA. Try searching that "5013 Jurisdictions tax lien" - I found that company once that way. Yeah! That's the lecturer...

Wayne Gray - Tax Lien Seminar Review at Gureview.com Blog

He also stated that there are redemption and grace period provides by the over 5013 taxing jurisdiction in the United States today. Tax lien investing can ...

www.gureview.com/blog/wayne/

More specifically: http://www.zero2rich.com/wayne-gray-on-tax-liens.html

If you are not utilizing the LoR and its evidence repository you can probably get by with good mailing and filing practices. You will have to get over trying to avoid process, you need the process and you need to stay on top of quashing the billing process timely.

One suitor discharged his mortgage with a bond - I did not even read it because he said it was based in HJR-192. So it was paid three days after the mortgage company got it since they did not R4C. He sought me to draft remedy when the mortgage company bypassed the USPS slipping an informal note in his doorjamb. The note said that they had missed his last month's payment. No amounts were on the Statement so it was a certificate that they had setoff the amount due. There was a curious footnote that said the notice did not apply to any bankruptcy proceedings of the US.

But the presentment implied that he had missed a payment. So we set him up in a LoR and he R4C'd the presentment and the guy knew Acceptance for Value, began overthinking things and decided to inquire, accepting the presentment as to its origin. He decided to delay the LoR process, accepting the notion that he had missed a payment...

Well that blew up and sure enough, the attorneys for the mortgage company were ready for a full attack... It got messy but he is still turning a key in the front door to his own home.

So my advice is keep a meticulous docket of all mail aside from junk. Note how you handled what. By the way you can get rid of the junk mail: Return to Sender; Not Residing Here.



Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. In summary and easy to miss above:

The courts blended law and equity in 1938. Therefore an attorney brethren in a black robe will quickly see that you have made payments and therefore are in breach of contract. Thank you Judge Roy Bean.

So you best be ready for the only argument that will be heard in equity when they break the law by slipping you over there; bad faith. That is basically the money argument and presumption you have bought into a feudal system of property ownership with the US in receivership. There is a very profound reason why I have quoted licensed attorney and law librarian Shoonra in my Signature below.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

If I had known in good faith that I could have redeemed lawful money I would have done so since my very first paycheck.

By paying property taxes one signs approbation to the Treaty of 1213 assigning all of Crown property to the Pope - Unidroit's (Vatican City) UCC and its franchises, the States.

http://www.unidroit.org/english/presentation/villa.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIDROIT

But if you did not know that it is in bad faith.

http://www.unidroit.info

[IanAnd]

Thank you, David, for providing clarification of the situation for me. For once, I understood the gist of your assessment the first time through. Having someone cognizant of the relevant facts and able to explain them clearly makes all the difference.

If you will, please, I'd like to further clarify the situation facing me (although I do not think it will make any great difference in what needs to be done) for the sake of any others who might read this thread and be in the same or similar position. The property in question is fully paid off and has no mortgage. It came into my possession through Affidavit of Succession to Real Property two years ago. As a result of my not being clear about the process of refusal for cause, I ended up paying the first year's tax in order to avoid a legal hassle and to set my mind at ease at least for another year.

The next year, I was under the false impression that declining the contract at the mailbox (i.e. not opening the envelope and making an appearance) would be enough to establish the process. But this, I am now learning, was incorrect. At least in this instance with regard to property tax assessments. I returned the first envelope "Improperly addressed" rather than "Refusal for Cause." The second (delinquent notice) envelope was returned "Refused for Cause."

In light of what you have brought to my attention:

"The courts blended law and equity in 1938. Therefore an attorney brethren in a black robe will quickly see that you have made payments and therefore are in breach of contract. Thank you Judge Roy Bean.

"So you best be ready for the only argument that will be heard in equity when they break the law by slipping you over there; bad faith. That is basically the money argument and presumption you have bought into a feudal system of property ownership with the US in receivership."

I can now see where METRO's claim lay.

Would I then be correct in presuming that even if proper R4C process is subsequently carried out that it would have little effect on what might transpire? In other words, it would not convince those who would challenge it that there is no suit to pursue, and therefore cause litigation through the court? Or am I incorrect in that impression.

It would seem to me that if I continue on the path (avoidance of contract at the mailbox) I'm currently on that METRO is likely to issue a tax lien in their pursuit of booty. This is something I would like to avoid if at all possible, not being certain how to handle it without litigation.

Thank you for your time and wealth of consideration.

Best regards,

Ian Allan

[David Merrill]

Here is some crosstalk - a copy of a suitors' email broadcast. I often get useful suggestions from one suitor, sanitize it and then broadcast it:

Thank you so much for this suggestion. So many presentments do not seem to have the gravity to be worth $25. It looks like by the Instruction, you live close to the US courthouse.

This is an excellent example of understanding the objective. Elevation of authority. That is to say, nobody will even consider contesting that the R4C happened, and you can easily prove it did with a certified copy from the case jacket.

It brings to mind the obstenant Dale postal clerk. He told a new suitor, "That junk will never hold up in court." I kept my cool and explained the objective is to stay out of court. Court may have a purpose for finding facts, but if the fact of a R4C cannot be challenged, nobody takes it into court for a finding of fact.


Regards,

David Merrill.



----- Original Message -----
From:
To: David Merrill
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Suggestion


Hello David,

Your recent email made me decide to share my Clerk Instruction / Certificate of Mailing with you..

What with the recent jump in Registered mailing fees I decided to find a work-around them. I had a pleasant conversation USPS associates and discovered the requirements for a Certificate of Mailing are:

1) The certificate has to show to whom the item is being mailed to; and

2) Who mailed the item.

I place the $1.05 in postage stamps on the original (first take a copy);

I then take the item to be mailed to the US Post Office and have the stamps on the original canceled;

I put the original aside (to take home and make copies for the rest of the court package)

I then have the stamp location on the copy of the Clerk Instruction / Certificate of Mailing round stamped;

I then place the round dated copy (with no stamps) in the envelope, seal it and have the USPS associate mail it for me. (SEE ATTACHMENT)

The Certificate shows proof of mailing. On the out-side of the envelope I simply write:

" Certificate of Mailing Enclosed"

I do not particularly care who receives the item as long as I can prove it was mailed.

Stamps for Certificate: $1.05; stamp for envelope $ .41; saving $11.00 +/-... price less....

by: xxxxxxxxxx Expressly Reserving All Rights and Liberties.

I wish I had more experience with property taxes. But from my experience with refusal for cause, the earlier the better. Always. No guarantees in 20/20 hindsight but when the first bill was presented, within 72 hours, that is when you should have nipped this in the bud.

There is a thread around here that by the title deals specifically with removing the property from the roster or whatever. But I have not read there.

Note the time of that Crosstalk quoted there. Synchronicity.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

You just gotta love this prosecutor's face:

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You just gotta love this prosecutor's face:

Oh, that's good.

(SMILE)