Mail Fraud? - Page 3

#21 05-02-2004, 09:56 PM

You can write the words "not applicable" where the SSN is on the W-4, just to keep the number off of the form.& You could still give it to your employer, but I wouldn't volunteer it on the form.& The form says that it is not valid if it is not "signed",&not if it doesn't have an SSN. I wouldn't the volunteer the number.. and if your employer gives you a hard time about that, it's not like he doesn't have it.& If he wants to write the number in himself, he can&put his intitials by it.

Just a suggestion..

nralien · #22 05-03-2004, 01:41 AM

Tora

I suppose with the flesh-and-blood name on the W-4 you could just tell them the truth.& You do not have a SSN.

nralien

#23 05-03-2004, 01:52 AM

"You do not have a SSN"

Yeah, but that is going to sound like you are in denial.& You cannot tell someone who does not understand& the&STRAWMAN, "I do not have an SSN". They will not understand what you are talking about.& They will be thinking, "What is he talking about, he does not have an SSN"??

I'd use another approach.

nralien · #24 05-03-2004, 04:59 AM

Tora

You are probably right.& Most people also believe they are U.S. Citizens and go on about Democracy.& I love to quote them the pledge of allegence to the flag and when I get to the Republic I substitute Democracy, stop, and say no..."Republic..."

Thanks for all the info,
nralien

rushpat · #25 05-03-2004, 05:05 PM

From the USPS website:

Quote:

The False Representation Statute (Title 39, United States Code, Section 3005) is a civil law used to protect the public from aggravated monetary loss where proving fraudulent intent is difficult. Three remedies are available to the Postal Inspection Service under this law in pursuing con artists who use the mail to defraud people. If the Postal Service sues the promoter based on evidence obtained by postal inspectors, it need only prove a particular representation was made, that it is false, and that money or property was sought through the mail.

If the judge rules the promotion violates the statute, a false representation order (FRO) is issued by the Judicial Officer of the Postal Service directing the postmaster in the city where the promoter is receiving mail to return to the senders all mail connected with the promotion. An FRO thus cuts off the promoter's receipt at that address of funds sent by victims. The statute does not provide a judge with authority to order refunds to victims whose money the promoter has already obtained.

A law suit under the False Representation Statute sometimes takes time to resolve, so the Postal Service may ask for a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a U.S. District Court near where the suspect promoter receives his mail. While an FRO is being sought, a TRO keeps consumers' money from reaching the promoter by allowing the postmaster in the city of address to detain incoming mail connected with the promotion, thus reducing the public loss while legal proceedings seeking an FRO continue.

The sooner an investigation is undertaken, the sooner postal inspectors can prevent consumers from losing money to mail fraud swindlers. If you have been victimized in a fraudulent promotion in which the mail was used, report your experience to your local postmaster or nearest Postal Inspector.

If the guys in the lawwork yahoo group are able to find a successful route to enforcing the ex parte actions when the IRS or FTB fail to reply, then this could be enough to trigger a Mail Fraud investigation to put a temporary restraining order on the agents.

nralien · #26 05-03-2004, 07:10 PM

rushpat

That would be great news if the lawwork yahoo group are able to enforce ex parte actions and I know you will share that with us when (if) it happens.

Can you tell us more about ex parte actions?

nralien

#27 05-25-2004, 03:18 PM

Here's some info on mail fraud. I'm going to request a copy of Roger Lubien's (FTb) oath of office.. and hold HIM accountable if a Witholding Order for Taxes is sent to any employer.

When the federal government solicits
information, their "information collection
requests" ("ICR") must exhibit a valid
OMB control number and expiration date.

See the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Without that control number and expiration date,
the intent of that Act is for you to police the
agency by throwing their request for information
into the trash can, because it is legally defined
as a "bootleg request" without a valid OMB control
number and expiration date.

BUT ... the federal Privacy Act and the
Paperwork Reduction Act only apply to
federal agencies.

If you are dealing with a State government agency,
then you must use State law, because these two
Acts do not apply to State government agencies.

When dealing with State employees, we recommend
that you first request their Oaths of Office,
as required by 4 U.S.C. 101:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/101.html

If they won't produce an Oath of Office, then
all their U.S. Mail to you is evidence of mail
fraud and mail fraud is a felony federal offense.
See 18 U.S.C. 1341:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1341.html

Paul Andrew Mitchell

rushpat · #28 05-25-2004, 05:51 PM

Excellent!

How about sending one to the mysterious Leslie R.?

Now I see why they don't want to reveal their names at the FTB.

Just send a letter requesting that anyone who is involved in your 'case' send copies of their Oaths of Office that was valid on the day they handled your case (to keep them from running down at the last minute and getting themselves sworn in).

Also state that if no one sends this, then no one is qualified to handle your case, which means that all of their requests and demands and such are null and void and proof of fraud.

Jerseee · #29 05-25-2004, 06:02 PM

AAAhhh,

Finally someone introducces the paper reduction act!!!

I beleive it is a power move using this act.& That is why I constantly stressed it.& Good move Tora!& use that Act! And then ask them "who's ya Daddy?"

rushpat · #30 05-25-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

very member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State

Would they fall into the 'executive' description?

If they don't, then they are just 3rd party debt collectors, so other rules might apply.