California FTB (franchise theft board) - Page 13

rushpat · #**121** 04-22-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

IRS or state tax collection agency levies for unpaid taxes

Yes, and a levy is an action specified by an execution:

(BOUVIER'S 1856)
LEVY, practice. A seizure (q. v.) the raising of the money for which an execution has been issued.

EXECUTION, practice. The act of carrying into effect the final judgment of a court, or other jurisdiction. The writ which authorizes the officer so to carry into effect such judgment is also called an execution.

And concerning the "other jurisdiction" mentioned above:

JURISDICTION, Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.

So, a LEVY can be used to get a garnishment, but again, a LEVY is dependent upon an EXECUTION which comes from a court of final judgment.

Again, we see that it isn't lawful unless they have a court judgment, which is what ICE has been saying from the beginning. We must have wasted 6 pages of forum space to come to the same conclusion.

But it is there if anyone is facing this problem.

#**122** 04-22-2004, 03:35 PM

We must have wasted 6 pages of forum space to come to the same conclusion.

Yes, but we still need to be able to prove, to the best our ability, that they need a court order to garnish, hence all the pages.& If we ask them to prove they don't need a court order, it says they don't need a court order right in their own code.& How are you going to rebut that, if it happens to come up?

I would go down to a law library and look in the annotated statutes&under&garnishments or state tax levies.& That's where you&will find the real law. That's what I am going to do this weekend.&

Ice · #**123** 04-22-2004, 03:38 PM

I wouldn't consider the space "wasted"... you have very thoroughly supported my contention that a court judgment is absolutely necessary in order for any entity to turn over any of YOUR PROPERTY to a third party.

Here are the basic facts:& It is YOUR property and the right to be secure in YOUR PROPERTY is a right NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUT IS GIVEN BY YOUR CREATOR AND IS PROTECTED AND GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE U.S. WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

No one can violate your property rights without complete Due Process resulting in their PROOF OF CLAIM.

Always start at the basic and fundamental rights that you have.

(you are not a slave!)

&

#**124** 04-22-2004, 04:00 PM

It is YOUR property and the right to be secure in YOUR PROPERTY is a right NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUT IS GIVEN BY YOUR CREATOR AND IS PROTECTED AND GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE U.S. WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

No one can violate your property rights without complete Due Process resulting in their PROOF OF CLAIM.

Yes, and it is precisely because our rights&have been&violated WAY too many times, that we seem to &forget we have them.We&have&rights, but we must&DEMAND them, not just ask for them.&

&

rushpat · #**125** 04-22-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

If we ask them to prove they don't need a court order, it says they don't need a court order right in their own code.

The don't need a court order to mail a piece of paper, but their own civil rules say that it is without power if they go ahead without a court order anyway, right?

An earnings withholding order without a court order is really nothing more than a not-so-polite request, than an order.

Yes, our rights won't be passively defended.

#**126** 04-22-2004, 04:35 PM

Their rules IMPLY&it is without power.&It doesn't exactly say&it is&without power- you have to come to your own&conclusion about&how much power it has.&

And yes,&you're right, it IS a not-so-poliet request!

#**127** 04-22-2004, 04:45 PM

I think I will add Ice's comment to the bottom of the employer letter:

My WAGES are&my PROPERTY, and my right to be secure in my PROPERTY is a right NOT&GRANTED&BY THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, BUT IS GIVEN BY MY CREATOR, AND IS PROTECTED AND GUARANTEED BY THE&CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
So please do not violate my rights and hand over my property to the Franchise Tax Board without a court order (Due Process), resulting in their PROOF OF CLAIM.& 

&

rushpat · #**128** 04-22-2004, 05:24 PM

Their rules? You mean, the FTB as a corporation or the rules of California?

You might want to call them Remunerations or "monies paid", instead of wages.

I would also rely on the O'Dell and Williamson cases to show the procedure needed and the consequences of turning over property to a debt collector without a court order or your permission.

#**129** 04-22-2004, 05:30 PM

Their rules? You mean, the FTB as a corporation or the rules of California?

The&California&Civil Code, that's whata mean.

I thought the Williamson court decided in favor of the IRS. &I guess I did not&follow up on the&conclusion of the case.

Remuneration.. I suppose so..

#**130** 04-22-2004, 05:34 PM

I think I'll go with:& MY LABOR IS MY PROPERTY