Mail Fraud? - Page 4

#31 05-25-2004, 10:29 PM

Rushpat,& I'm glad you asked that question, because I don't know if their job falls under 'executive'.& If not, then I guess they wouldn't need an oath of office and they are, like you said,&just 3rd party debt collectors.

I'll see if Paul Andrew knows the answers to these questions.& Maybe he doesn't.& I may have to do a FOIA to find out Roger L's and Leslie R's job description.

&

rushpat · #32 05-27-2004, 11:09 AM

How about using the FOIA to find out the full names of everyone involved in your 'case'. You can state later (if questioned) that you need to make sure that only "qualified" personel are looking into this matter, and you can't do that if you don't know the names of the people involved.

As soon as you get the names, make sure you list them on any lawsuits you have.

Only until we make these people personally liable will the others start the think twice about harassing the populace.

If they deny the FOIA for the names, then perhaps this denial can be used against them, as this might be a RICO operation.

nralien · #33 05-27-2004, 03:27 PM

Evidently every state has there own version of the FOIA.

At http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/foiamap.html#al I found links to all 50 states.

In re to “The California Public Records Act (CA PRA)” I did not find anything in §§ 6250 – 6276.48 that would not allow the name of the person corresponding with you.

However, I wonder if you are still in a paperwork whizzing contest with them if:

6254.& Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
 (a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, provided that the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.<o

></o

>
 (b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim[/b] has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.(emphasis added)[/b]
<o

>&</o

>
I have not checked out Division 3.6(commencing with Section 810).
<o

>&</o

>
On a “push-to-shove” note:

6258.& Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records under this chapter.& The times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these proceedings shall be set by the judge of the court with the object of securing a decision as to these matters at the earliest possible time.

6259.& (a) Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records to disclose the public record or show cause why he or she should not do so. Etc...
<o

>&</o

>
On a more federal [personal] note I know someone who may be interested in:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 > Sec. 1341.<o

></o

>
Sec. 1341. - Frauds and swindles

“If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”

nralien

#34 05-27-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushpat

How about using the FOIA to find out the full names of everyone involved in your 'case'. You can state later (if questioned) that you need to make sure that only "qualified" personel are looking into this matter, and you can't do that if you don't know the names of the people involved. As soon as you get the names, make sure you list them on any lawsuits you have. Only until we make these people personally liable will the others start the think twice about harassing the populace. If they deny the FOIA for the names, then perhaps this denial can be used against them, as this might be a RICO operation.

&Mr. Thornhill has already done a lot of research on Lubiens:

http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/ftb6_ipacorrect.html

1.c. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the purported subagency "Filing Compliance Bureau" in Fact exists within the FTB."& I was delivered a chart (identified as FTB 1250 (Rev. March 2000)) purporting to display the organization of the FTB, but it surely does not constitute "each and every valid Document(s)...".

1.d. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s) upon which the FTB relies to Prove that this "R. Lubiens"/"R.LUBIENS"/"RDL"/"Roger Lubiens" is, in Fact, an employee/officer of the FTB." I was delivered an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND DECLARATION OF PERMISSION TO WORK FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (identified as STO. 689 (REV. 7-75)), which appears facially incomplete, hence invalid, since it does not contain any information in the blocks, STATE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY and SUBDIVISION OR UNIT and since said document is not sealed as
implicitly required by the block (SEAL).

1.e. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s)upon which the FTB relies to Prove that this "R. Lubiens"/"R.LUBIENS"/"RDL"/"Roger Lubiens" is, in Fact, authorized to perform any action as, or on behalf of, THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.". I was delivered a FRANCHISE TAX BOARD POSITION DUTY STATEMENT
(identified as FTB7892 (Rev. 9/89), which appears invalid on its face when compared to the FTB organization chart (FTB 1250 (Rev. March
2000)). Said FRANCHISE TAX BOARD POSITION DUTY STATEMENT purports that this "Roger Lubiens" is a "Senior Compliance Representative" in
the "Filing Enforcement Operations Section". Yet the FTB chart (FTB 1250 (Rev. March 2000)), if accurate, shows no such "Filing Enforcement Operations Section" within the FTB.

Section 96.5. Perversion or obstruction of justice by judicial officer, court commissioner or referee.
(a) Every judicial officer, court commissioner, or referee who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. (b) Nothing in this section prohibits prosecution under paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 182 of the Penal Code or any other law."

&