Refusal for cause UCC 3-501

[rushpat]

Aha! Here is something for those of us that are being plagued by shadowy agents of tax collections who refuse to sign their demands (like the California FTB...).

I was listening to the Liberty Forum with Don Ray, and he mentioned Refusal for Cause (I'm going to see if I can upload this to SuiJuris, as it is GOOD!).

He mentions responding within 72 hours like Rice McLeod, but he mentions Refusal for Cause, so I did a little searching on the net and found this response to the IRS:

http://www.gii.net/cybernews/ton/refusirs.htm

In it, there is mention of refusal for cause without dishonor, according to UCC 3-501, so I looked that up:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-501.html

and one pertinent part mentions the following:

§ 3-501. PRESENTMENT.
(b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:
(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement , or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

See where I'm going here? Under the term indorsement:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-204.html

(a) "Indorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring indorser's liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.

I think I see yet another tactic forming...

Any comments?

This is what Barron's Law Dictionary defines:


INDORSEMENT signature placed upon theback of an instrument, with or without other words, whose effect is to transfer the instrument and create "a new and substantive contract by which the indorser becomes a party to the instrument and becomes a party to the instrument and liable on certain conditions for it's payment".& 370 S.W. 2d 811, 813 n. 4.& To constitute an indorsment, the writing must be effective to transfer the entire instrument to which it is affixed; otherwise it operates as only a partial assignment. UCC 3-203(3), which is merely a transfer of title. 182 N. W. 409, 413

[rushpat]

Hmm... maybe the other part should be examined then:


(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement , or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

They don't indorse their letters&because with a signature&they become a party to the instrument

[rushpat]

From the indorsement ucc definition:

incurring indorser's liability on the instrument,

Yeah, they don't want any liability on those letters they send.

I think the UCC3-501 can be a good defense. Make sure to read that that IRS Refusal for Cause link above.

[rushpat]

http://www.iresist.com/ice/bryant03.htm


Another interesting use of this.

[rushpat]

http://www.iresist.com/ice/bryant03.htm


Another interesting use of this.

<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Here ya go, Rushpat... FTB package for you:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>$50</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.jhdassociates.com/CTR2.1.html</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Commercial Toolbox Release 2.1 -- State Income Tax Agency Package, the second Toolbox in the Non-monetary Conditional Acceptance Series, is available only at www.jhdandassociates.com.&</FONT></DIV>

[rushpat]

Actually, I already have that one. I used something like it even before they made this, as this is used in the early stages of the request for the return.

I used the older Notarial Protest (now called Notarial Certification of default). They refused to answer and defaulted. The only thing I didn't do was to have the county recorder publish it.

I was suprised when 6 months went by from the time of their last request to the time of the Notice of Proposed Assessment. At this stage, the Commercial Toolbox 3.0 was more appropriate, as that was written for the IRS NOPAs. I just tailored it to add the Privacy Act request.

My 21 day limit I also added is up as of Tuesday, so I'm about to send out the Notice of Default with Opportunity to Cure (10 days), and then the final notice, then off to the county recorder both here in Georgia and I will try to get a paralegal buddy of mine in Sacramento to do one there as well.

After that, anything they send afterwards will not only be returned, refused for cause within 72 hours with an affidavit, but will build toward any future action against them, as they've broken both Privacy Act and the FDCPA. I'm just curious of the steps involved.

In the lawwork Yahoo group, they are using a version of the 3 step default/quick judgment (Finding of Fact and Conclusion in Law) and using the court system to enforce this ex parte action to stop collect (or in some cases receive damages) from the other part. In many cases, they are doing this to the IRS.

I would suggest that anyone interested take a look into that group as they are one of the cutting edge type groups utilizing common law remedies. The moderator is quite knowledgeable and helpful).

<FONT size=3>Last time I looked "lawworks" was not active... it is now a 'moderator only' group.</FONT>


<FONT size=3>I suppose you can archive the messages. </FONT>


<FONT size=3></FONT>&