diferences in terms

[rushpat]

Over in the California FTB thread, I put out some research I had done on the rules of summons of garnishment.

Tora was talking about earnings withholdings orders, and we've previously discussed notices of levy.

Does anyone know if there is a legal difference between these three? I'd hate to bring up rules about summons of garnishment after receiving an earnings withholding order or notice of levy and told that they are different and the rules don't apply.

Also, a question of jurisdictional rules came up. If a state taxing agency in one state issued a notice, would the company receiving first follow those rules or the rules of the state in which they are located?

[quote= rushpat]


Does anyone know if there is a legal difference between these three? I'd hate to bring up rules about summons of garnishment after receiving an earnings withholding order or notice of levy and told that they are different and the rules don't apply.


Here in Virginia, we have similar problems: "Adminstrative liens" v liens, garnishment, and so forth. They ARE different animals, but ALL share similar requirements in that it's still about "alleged" debts. And I have yet to see the entity involved follow their own rules regarding these things. I.E., through their refusal, or failure, to follow established "rules of procedure," they practically hand you a great starting point for your "defense."


Also, a question of jurisdictional rules came up. If a state taxing agency in one state issued a notice, would the company receiving first follow those rules or the rules of the state in which they are located?


I'm truly just guessing on this one, but I'd say the ONLY "rules" that apply would be those relative to "venue." IF someone brings an action against you, it's going to be relative to where you live/have your business. That venue is going to determine the rules.


Randy

[rushpat]

Another one that has been bugging me is "Due Process Hearing" or "Collection Due Process Hearing".

If you ask for one of these, it just sounds like you are admitting that you are under their jurisdiction. If a taxing agency comes to you and tells you that you owe them, why should you call for a due process hearing, unless you are just haggling over the amount and not the validity of the whole thing?

We don't engage in due process hearings with 3rd party debt collectors do we? We don't engage in due process hearings with other sovereigns do we? I'm sorry, but asking for one just makes me think that it is another way of a slave begging mercy from his master.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with that, but due process hearing doesn't sound like something that you should ask for unless you are a taxpayer. I wouldn't think that a nontaxpayer would have anything to do with it.

I gotta agree with you about the "due process hearings." Yes, I think you and I both know and understand that there are specific "rules" and "procedures" in place, and these "hearings" are part of that, and that such procedures MUST be followed IF, somewhere down the road, you seek a "remedy" for all this nonsense.


However, here in VA, for example, part of those "rules and procedures" (re income taxes) is this:


Somewhere along this twisted path of "hearings," etc, you still MUST pay the alleged debt, THEN bring action in hopes of "justice." No if's, and's, or but's, you MUST pay the alleged amount, THEN seek remedy.&


Since THAT sucks plum out-loud, I have NO "faith" in the rest of their "rules."


Yes. Simply put: I think it's a trap! True or not, that's how I choose to approach the whole thing.


I made up my mind from day one that the only thing I could do was:


1) Build a true and accurate "reliance defense" based upon nothing more than
2) My "due diligence" in making "timely" replies to each and every piece of correspondence I receive,
3) Always offering nothing and always demanding:


a) Proof of alleged debt,
b) Proof of authority to collect the alleged debt, and
c) Verification of the alleged debt (and assessments).


4) Having done this, and nothing more, the only absolute "legal procedure" I have going for me is that regarding exculpatory evidence. Agents simply cannot NOT introduce ALL this stuff on my behalf--should it go to court.


Disregarding THAT possibility, I'm staying as far away from all agents as possible.


We'll think of it in Biblical terms: I'm treating them as I wish to be treated: Left alone.


Randy

[rushpat]

Well, I was thinking that a CDPH was part of any checklist that one had to complete before bringing a suit, like you said. I really think it is only a formality, as I have yet to hear of the IRS or any state taxing agency changing their plans or agendas, because you had a so-called 'due process' hearing with them.

As for paying up first, then seeking remedy, no way! That is yet another way of admitting that you are owing and under their jurisdiction.

I'm trying to decide if I want to waste some of my long distance minutes on a phone call to the other side of the continent for a meeting that will probably not change a thing just to get this marked off of my checklist, in case I want to bring suit later.

Even then, I STILL don't have any names, besides the name of the guy running the whole organization.

[suijuris]

I can't really think of anything helpfull to say, so I know I should remain quiet.

But then I noticed there were a lot of cowboy hats in this thread, and got to thinking: we should just get us an old-fashioned posse and start hunting down some outlaws.

What say ye?
Sui Juris

[rushpat]

Mine is Indiana Jones.

[suijuris]

You are still more than welcome to ride in the posse. :lol:

Sui Juris

Mine is, well, just me.


Got two favorite hats. The one I'm wearing and, believe it or not, an "official" Indiana Jones fedora (gotta love those fedoras)! Actually, 2 of 'em: One for driving my big-truck and one for "everyday."


Now, I agree: Time to saddle-up!


Randy