More on State taxes

[Ice]

Here is a letter received by a Sovereign in Indiana:


Caption at the top designed to look like official court document, noting STATE OF INDIANA as PLAINTIFF.& There is a "Warrant #".


The body of the letter is as follows:
<P align=center><U>FINAL NOTICE OF WARRANT AND APPEARANCE DATE</U>
<P align=left>You were previously notified a judgement and corresponding warrant for failure to pay taxes owed the State of Indiana in the amount of $__.
<P align=left>The warrant for failure to pay taxes was issued on Monday, December 01, 2003.
<P align=left>An appearance date has been scheduled for final resolution of this matter.& You are hereby scheduled to appear at 9:00 a.m. at (County Courthouse addy), Thursday, December 30, 1999.
<P align=left>Special Note: It is possible to resolve this matter without appearance either in this office or the Court.& Indiana Law provides for the Sheriff of County to cancel your warrant and all other action in this matter upon receipt of the full amount due.& You must satisfy the full amount due prior to the appearance date.& Remit the above amount immediately, made payable to Sheriff of County, by cashier's check, certified check, or by money order.& NO PERSONAL CHECKS OR BUSINESS are accepted.
<P align=left>At the bottom of the letter it contains the "Warrant #", Tax type = Individual, Total Due, Liability Period (year 2000), and a contact number.
<P align=left>I would like to add that -- there is no record of any other "Notice" of a debt or "demand" for payment from the State of Indiana that can be found in his files.
<P align=left>I would just like to know what others think about this "tactic" being employed by the State of Indiana.
<P align=left>Ice

[Ice]

Please note... there are no mistakes in the above... the dates and language are EXACTLY as written in the letter (except where edited to leave out the county name).


Ice

[suijuris]

Ice,

I believe&this tactic was taken from a debt collectors manual somewhere. Basically, they draw up a official looking court document. That scares people so bad they quickly call the number on the document to resolve the issue, when they see they have already "missed" the court date.


Here is the most important part:


"You are hereby <U>scheduled to appear</U> at 9:00 a.m. at (County Courthouse addy), Thursday, December 30, 1999."


Anything out of place there? Would not a genuine court document ORDER you appear?

I could be <U>scheduled to appear</U> at my dentist's office tommorow at 10:00 AM, but I can not be <U>lawfully compelled</U> to do so under any penalty unless a court of competent jurisdiction ordered me to do so. And even then a court cannot order an action that cannot possibly be performed. If so, it would just order murderers to bring their victims back to life, and justice would be served! Hooray!

I know if I ever get a notice that I am scheduled to appear somewhere in 1999 A.D., I will just jump in my time travel machine pronto!

Ice, thanks for sharing this. I am grinning real big. I am sure others will point out some other problems...

Regards,
Sui Juris


&

What do they expect to accomplish with an incorrect&Notice to Appear date?&I suspect most people would be AFRAID to call them for fear of getting a new appearance date.& If I got a notice like that&I'd call them. I'd&ask&about the incorrect appearance date and about the&prior notices&they&referenced in the Notice.&I'd also ask them why&I have&to make a court&appearance if there is already a judgment?&


Most people are&not going to call&because they don't want to point out&the incorrect date fearing they will be given&a new appearance date!& Anyone with common sense would just ignore it!

[Ice]

I think it is a ploy to see if they will receive a call.& It is impossible to make an appearance in 1999 for a debt that wasn't incurred until 2000... and time travel is still fantasy anyway.


Also notice: "You were previously notified a judgement..."& What judgement?& When did this occur?& Why wasn't the "party" notified of a claim being filed in court and allowed an opportunity to answer??


Yes, the document could appear to be a court document, but in this case the document is a bad bluff... it is definitely a "letter"... and could not be mistaken for a court document unless the court has taken to allowing for colored ink (a light purple).& It also states at the bottom "Rev. 1/19/2004&- 9279"& It is obvious that this is a "form".& But, to the unsuspecting "sheeple"... who knows what they would think of this or how they would react!!& Of course, we could all assume that they would diligently call after "freaking out" cuz the state got a judgement against them for tax without them knowing anything about it!& I think they are also attempting to brainwash the sheeple into thinking that the sheeple no longer have to appear in court in order for a judgement to be rendered against them... boy!... that would sure save the government a lot of time when they want to incarcerate someone!!


It is a laugh... for sure.& But, how about some ideas on what to do in regards to this document.& First question: Should the Sovereign deal with this county Sheriff or should he deal with the State Taxing authority.& Note: This Sovereign DOES NOT live within that particular counties jurisdiction and has not lived in that jurisdiction (yes, of course he NEVER really did!!)&for almost 2 years.


Any comments or suggestions are welcome.


&

[suijuris]

If this is a bluff, does a warrant really exist?

[Ice]

Too cheap to pay the online fee to find out.& My guess is that it is pure bluff.& I'm reading through the IN law at the moment... remember, this is a "civil" court matter... not "criminal".& They haven't followed any "civil procedure" as far as I can tell.


This is going to be a fun.


Ice

[suijuris]

At this point, I think the only thing they may do is attempt to damage Ice's debt report. IMHO, everything else is nothing but a big bluff.

[suijuris]

I am not sure what the constitution of your state says, but mine says this:

"No person shall be imprisoned for debt except in cases of fraud."

Sui Juris

[Ice]

At the moment I believe that Title 18, Ch. 13, Sec. 241 and 242 would apply in this instance.& Any comments regarding these 2 cites are welcome.


Ice