Remove Tax Liens

[gratisman]

Here's a group that claims they can remove Notice of Federal Tax Liens and Levies by getting a State Court Judge to sign a vacate order to have the liens removed from the public record.

www.nftl-removal.com

[AndyK]

from nftl-removal.com:

Q. How do you know that the IRS won’t show up at the hearing? What if they do?

A. They will not show up and there are a number of reasons for this, but I will just go over the most obvious. The person that the Order to Show Cause is addressed to is the person that signed your NFTL. We have never seen a “real person” signature on a NFTL. They know that these instruments are illegal and therefore do not sign their real name to the document. How can a fictitious person show up at a hearing?

Their theory is flawed in that the lien is not filed BY the person who signed it, it is filed by the United States Government.

Perhaps some local judges might overlook the improper service and improper party to the suit, but that doesn't make the lien go away.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by AndyK

from nftl-removal.com:

Their theory is flawed in that the lien is not filed BY the person who signed it, it is filed by the United States Government.

Perhaps some local judges might overlook the improper service and improper party to the suit, but that doesn't make the lien go away.

Are you stating that the IRS is the United States Government or an agency thereof? Would you care to rebut the information in the link provided with verifiable facts?

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/2/irs.htm

[gratisman]

Originally Posted by AndyK

from nftl-removal.com:

Their theory is flawed in that the lien is not filed BY the person who signed it, it is filed by the United States Government.

Perhaps some local judges might overlook the improper service and improper party to the suit, but that doesn't make the lien go away.

AndyK,

I'm a little confused at your statement. Who is going to show up at the Motion to Show Cause Hearing with first hand knowledge that the lien was legally placed.

From what I read, they claim that the lien is illegal because it was never adjudicated in the first place. Their process seems to call for verification of the lien.

[David Merrill]

AndyK thinks that there can be a lien without any judicial action.

This is all you need to know about AndyK.

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/p...wprofile&u=413

He is being so predictable and redundant I will likely just Ignore Member him and link his bio after his posts now and again.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[gratisman]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Are you stating that the IRS is the United States Government or an agency thereof? Would you care to rebut the information in the link provided with verifiable facts?

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/2/irs.htm

Last time I checked the IRS was a private corporation that was incorporated in Puerto Rico. Not the same as the United States Government.

[planetmark]

Explain a bit about liens needing judicial action? I was under the impression that once you default someone, that becomes the judgment... That's the gist of the "commercial lien" documents running around here anyway. So, I'm confused why you guys are saying the IRS liens are illegal without a judgment.

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 349 (1968)"The ability to place a lien upon a man’s property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman times."

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by planetmark

Explain a bit about liens needing judicial action? I was under the impression that once you default someone, that becomes the judgment... That's the gist of the "commercial lien" documents running around here anyway. So, I'm confused why you guys are saying the IRS liens are illegal without a judgment.

Administrative government, or government in miniature and its processes cannot exist without judicial oversight to watchdog it. The citation you brought is interesting but based in a general ignorance of how to respond to the Notice. One only needs to prevent the Notice from curing into a lien.

Originally Posted by gratisman

Last time I checked the IRS was a private corporation that was incorporated in Puerto Rico. Not the same as the United States Government.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...nsminger_3.jpg




Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Important Note: Pay attention carefully to the linked court document. And I am not referring particularly to the Circuit Court in Denver; I am referring to superior court of the people with my clerk Robert C. Balink. The insideous attorney-in-the-black-robe who uttered the words in your citation does not reveal where the judicial action took place - at the county clerk and recorder! Common law via public notice and record.

That is why I find AndyK and Judge Roy Bean so difficult to tolerate sometimes. They continually berate the authority inherent in the character of men and women and always elevate government above its creator. Luckily about anything they say can be utilized to edify the Readers in general.

The sanitized attachment worked great and is of course public record. However you had to wait while I sanitized it because of craven little rats like AndyK who would sooner have you chained to the wall next to him than have you explain how it is you are free and he is not. The Reception # of the Notice of Lien has been blacked over near the top of the form. The explanation of statutes is unnecessary but helps to get the Notice of Lien removed from Credit Reporting Agencies. However it only removes the lien, expect the pesky agent to file another as soon as he or she sees you have defeated the action. Therefore I prefer opening an evidence repository and formalizing the Refusal for Cause before the United States - exclusive original cognizance...

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Are you stating that the IRS is the United States Government or an agency thereof? Would you care to rebut the information in the link provided with verifiable facts?

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/2/irs.htm

The quotations are correct. The interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue reports to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. The people who work for the Commissioner make up the Internal Revenue Service. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

The internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the Federal government just as the Army is not an agency of the government. They are both parts of the Executive branch.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by AndyK

The quotations are correct. The interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue reports to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. The people who work for the Commissioner make up the Internal Revenue Service. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

The internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the Federal government just as the Army is not an agency of the government. They are both parts of the Executive branch.

That's what I thought, no factual rebuttal.