Property Taxes and 31 USC 3124

[salsero]

Hello Group

I am interested in some insight. I had sent the property appraiser a letter, here in part, questioning the following:

1. As property appraiser, at anytime during your process to assess the value of property within the County of XX within the State of XX within the United States for the purpose of property tax assessment, do you use in any form, manner or specie whatsoever, in whole or part a debt obligations of the United States or Federal Reserve Notes to determine any part of the assessed valuation? YES OR NO

2. If you use debt obligations of the United States or Federal Reserve Notes in the assessed property valuation and then that valuation amount is used to compute a tax, does this violate 31 USC 3124? YES OR NO

[whether you send the actual property tax bill in November or another XX County agency such as the XX County Tax Collector, this question should be interpreted with your knowledge of a fact to answer the question directly]

3. If you do not define at any time “the present cash value of property or the immediate equivalent thereof” to include debt obligations of the Untied States or Federal Reserve Notes, please define your exact meaning of cash or immediate equivalent thereof?

4. If you use something other than debt obligation of the United States [18 USC 8, 12 USC 411] or Federal Reserve Notes, are you, as property appraiser able to tell me if this same “specie or other than debt obligations of the Untied States” can be used to discharge the debt obligation for parcel number XXX at the time of the presentment of the property tax bill which arrives in November 2015? YES OR NO

5. In the previous correspondence dated September 1, I required that you, as property tax assessor or appraiser to provide your wet ink signature and return the actual Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Proposed or Adopted Non-Ad Valorem Assessments thereto attached. This property tax assessment was to be signed by you, Lori Parrish as a duly authorized Constitutional Officer as attesting to the accuracy and truthfulness of the actual individual “2015 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Proposed or Adopted Non-Ad Valorem Assessments for XXXX, with the following statement: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. property tax assessment based upon the market value in Federal Reserve Notes on January 1, 2015 for Parcel Number XXXX.” Executed on (date). (Signature)”. This verbiage is hereto attached to your 2015 Notice for your convenience. When signed with wet-ink signature, please return original to XXXX.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did receive a letter from the attorney for the county stating the authority comes from the statute. This does not repsond to anything I wrote.

I was able to email the property appraiser and when specifially asked what does the value of 150,000 mean [no $, nothing]. He responded "US dollars". So I asked what do you mean by US dollars? His response was "US currency". So again I asked what do you mean by US currency? Can you provide me an image. His response was "Not my job". Again, I suspect it was to string me along - as he laughed.

Is there any reference one can help me with that says US dollars, US currency, US funds, etc is the same as federal reserve notes or debt obligations of the US?

Thanks Tony

[EZrhythm]

It is known that they can't apply the property tax to land declared as "private property". So then the deception is to have property owners register the property as "residence" or "commercial" etc. Hence the option to issue Notice declaring one's land as "private property".

[shikamaru]

It is known that they can't apply the property tax to land declared as "private property". So then the deception is to have property owners register the property as "residence" or "commercial" etc. Hence the option to issue Notice declaring one's land as "private property".

There was a thread on another forum that talked about judges having financial incentive (e.g. judges retirement fund) to rule against people seeking to privatize the usage of their vehicular conveyances.

Might the same aforementioned scenario be the case with governments and private land property?

[salsero]

Thank you EZ - however, the property that I am in is a condo unit. The purpose of going the route under 31 USC 3124 SHOULD, in theory stop the actual assessment dead in its tracks by operation of THEIR law. They can not use a value that is based upon FRNs to compute a tax at a state or it political subdivision. The property assessment valuation is based upon purchases of homes with presumptive FRNs.

Based on the HOA covenants I do not see being able to declare the property as private. thanks

[allodial]

Thank you EZ - however, the property that I am in is a condo unit. The purpose of going the route under 31 USC 3124 SHOULD, in theory stop the actual assessment dead in its tracks by operation of THEIR law. They can not use a value that is based upon FRNs to compute a tax at a state or it political subdivision. The property assessment valuation is based upon purchases of homes with presumptive FRNs.

Based on the HOA covenants I do not see being able to declare the property as private. thanks

The AARP has started getting active in taking action to protect the retired from adversely exploitive HOAs and HOA agreements. Some of the worst ever agreements or contracts I have seen are HOA agreements as in horrid as to the terms of the agreement. They want you to pay $5M for a house and sign a contract that allows some cabal of a board of directors that monopolizes the democratic process of a community to make all of the decisions (the householders hardly have any say). Most of the agreements embody utter disdain for property rights and rights to privacy. Imagine you put $45M into building a skyscraper, then sucker everyone into paying rent to your HOA by sigining an agreement that allows them to lien your property and put you out even after you have paid even for the smallest thing of having a pet rabbit (and yes I have seen 'pet rabbit clauses'). Of course, the HOA would find those who have paid for their properties the best target because otherwise they'd have to fight with a bank for condos with mortgages not paid off (i.e. liening and auctioning off property with a bank lien on it isn't as attractive but seniors who paid bought with cash ...). But most HOA contracts I've seen are designed to leave the owner exposed and force them into privity with statutory corporations. IMHO ownership of the commons should always be separable from ownership of the dwelling.

Most HOA agreements I have seen amount to total con jobs.

1. Bubba takes 100 of his 200 acres and allows building of homes under an HOA
2. Bubba, being the first HOA-er sets the terms and stocks the board and picks the management (all family and friends but shhh)
3. Newcomers see the beautiful development and plop down $2M+ per house but the terms if you really look at them say you don't own jack.
4. Bubba and company see a few people bought their house with cash, so they frequently send the HOA Nazis to pester them about "You have violated the rule against growing yellow flowers in visible view. Nevermind the fact that no one can see your house for all of the trees and we had to climb over your fence so we can inspect your property. But we have fined you and since you were on vacation and you didn't read our notice we went ahead and placed a lien on your property."
5. Bubba and company have made an easy way to take their land back, raise the value of their property because of comparable values of the 'plebe' HOA members, collect annual rent in the form of HOA fees and terrorize people selectively under the guise of "HOA" akin to a municipality that doesn't want to give any services but only wants the power to harass and fine.
6. Bubba and company want keys to your house so they can 'inspect' they can plant drugs or anything in your house, they can steal, they can harass you--but you do not know these people and might have zero control over them.
7. Typically the areas are the same areas that had race restrictions (i.e. you can move in but if they don't want you there they will fine the piss out of you until you leave.)

One recent HOA agreement I was given to review had a clause where the original owners put in as a running covenant a grant of an unrestricted an easement to local law enforcement and utility companies--not only to the common areas but to the individual units! Do you think Bubba's 100 acres he kept to himself are subject to that easement. Let's ask Bubba:

Attachment 2993

And the houses are priced at around $3M and up! It has many rules against painting or modifying the houses. However, the area is so wooded you can't even see the homes from the roads! Therefore, they the HOA terms is that the HOA and the Board always have right to enter upon your property to "inspect".

There are a sparse few HOA agreements that I have seen that were actually reasonable. I'd say 1 out of 95 are even somewhat non-fascist. Keep in mind that it is possible to simply sign an HOA agreements and C&R document with reservations and attach the reservations to the HOA agreement and CC&R. I would be sure to serve the reservations properly with a certificate of service and file the reservations with the certificate of service along with the signature page of the HOA and C&R documents in a county or U.S. district court case jacket.

[salsero]

[QUOTE=allodial;19206]The AARP has started getting active in taking action to protect the retired from adversely exploitive HOAs and HOA agreements. Some of the worst ever agreements or contracts I have seen are HOA agreements as in horrid as to the terms of the agreement.

First I want to clarify a few things. As far as claiming the condo apartment as mine, it is on shared land. I do not see that as "viable". Second, we are talking around $1000 in property taxes. We are not talking about much here. Third, I certainly did not expect the property appraiser to roll over and say, YOU ARE RIGHT. Property now exempt.

My second comment is to provide a different point of view of HOAs. I am on the board of this HOA and I can state and also prove how well run this one is. Financially, we can not be any better. Maintenance wise we are in very good shape. This was not the case 5 years ago before our group took over. The financial condition was so bad and the previous board was most corrupt, it required attorneys to get them out. HOAs serve a purpose, though I am not defending them. IF one desires to live inexpensively AND the HOA is run well, it is a win win. I can say the same thing about government. If the people are honest in government and people want to abide by certain guidelines subject to certain duties, it really is not a big deal. WE DO HAVE NATURAL LAW ON PLANET EARTH, WHERE WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN ON PAPER THE GOLDEN RULE. The issue is UNREASONABLENESS. We have a system in place now that has the federal reserve system in place. Putting that issue to the side. Many do not have an issue "paying taxes, etc" as we believe that that provides for the good for the people. We know that is not the case. Paying for anything only provides personal profit and gain for a group of bankers and their henchmen. But most people being reasonable BELEIVE OUR MONEY [lol] is ours. Legally we know this is not the case. The government officials are no different than condo commando board, just at a higher level. Until we change the consciousness of the people, nothing is going to change.

My overall point, maybe not well stated, is that whether HOA, government or Universal Law, we all have rules to live by. We can not think of just ourselves but must look at others as well. It is about WE not me. It does not mean, I exclude myself. It just means I attempt to live in harmony with others. pulling the engine from my car and leaving it in the driveway so everyone can see oil and engine all over is probably not the best place to fix a car. In the same manner, I should not have to listen to my neighbors playing loud music after 10 PM, and further still WE, as a people should not be subject to public officials knowingly breaking the law or bringing harm to the public in any way. Public official hold a position of trust.

[allodial]

First I want to clarify a few things. As far as claiming the condo apartment as mine, it is on shared land. I do not see that as "viable". Second, we are talking around $1000 in property taxes. We are not talking about much here. Third, I certainly did not expect the property appraiser to roll over and say, YOU ARE RIGHT. Property now exempt.

I believe you might do well to consider that the information provided you might be worth more than you suspect. Also if you look at the relevant Declaration of Condominium it is likely that the unit itself was made distinct unto itself. The unit itself is not shared although the commons might be shared. I have lots of experience when it comes to real property law and that also extends to nuances particular to condominiums and apartments. The unit itself is a subdivision even if its suspended in the air and it can be privately held notwithstanding the shared nature of what is out side the door to the unit.

My overall point, maybe not well stated, is that whether HOA, government or Universal Law, we all have rules to live by. We can not think of just ourselves but must look at others as well. It is about WE not me. It does not mean, I exclude myself. It just means I attempt to live in harmony with others. pulling the engine from my car and leaving it in the driveway so everyone can see oil and engine all over is probably not the best place to fix a car. In the same manner, I should not have to listen to my neighbors playing loud music after 10 PM, and further still WE, as a people should not be subject to public officials knowingly breaking the law or bringing harm to the public in any way. Public official hold a position of trust.

A selfish, megalomaniac who pens Nazi C&R and HOA terms is not likely out for "we" but himself or herself--in the case of a scamster cabal -> they would be out for themselves. How does such grotesque disregard for the rights and freedom of others amount to a community mindset? Isn't it "we" minded to realize that people have rights and freedoms that should be respected or is it more we-minded and community-minded by barring anyone from doing anything at their homes but breathing, eating, cutting the grass and sleeping? A restriction on leaving an engine sitting in the driveway is far from obnoxious to include in an HOA agreement--but most people I've come across even in the most ghetto neighborhoods do things (i.e. repairs) like that in their garage or in their backyard OUT OF SIGHT.

There are no doubt good HOAs. However, there are occasions where there are 20 acres of trees surrounding houses in an HOA. They cannot see each other. But yet rules for how many cars you can have, clauses that amount to total waiver of privacy, that you cant paint or modify your house without approval from a board that is not even democratically elected, that you cant grow food (we're talking about country acreage). Honestly , why doesn't the Bob just live by himself? Because Bob wants money and power and lots of control with little to zero liability and somehow he is "we" minded?

I have spent many rather charitable years dealing with the "we(e) minded" sorts who's idea of "we mindedness" is "we use your stuff, you take care of it if I break it" or "we share debts but my money is my own".

When the main service an HOA provides is a gate and you have 100 people paying $2,000 a year to maintain a gate.... Well that is just silly but it is typical in HOA land. "We have a shared gate so voila presto chango we have wut u call an HOA (i.e. excuse for a bazillion obnoxious restrictions and powertrips)".

Translation: Bob doesn't get along well with others, he has 200 acres of land and wants a fast way to make a few million dollars, he likes exerting power over others obnoxiously, he could build houses then rent them but that isn't a way to the Big Dollars, he doesn't really want to lose control over the land, Bob wants millions (from scam sales) + rent on top so subdivides off 100 acres and forms an HOA, by surface appearance he 'sells' the land, by syntax he denies the purchasers most all traditional property under the guise of "what is for the whole".

I also have real estate development experience. Running numbers on one project, I realized we could build a high-rise condo and pocket tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands from the HOA fees alone and still hire a manager, a security guard and cleaning company and have plenty left over. Sell the units, maintain control over the commons--like bridge trolls.

Keep in mind, Bob if he despises others could he simply stay on his 200 acres by himself. The HOA and obnoxious terms allow him to have his cake and eat it too. See also: bilk.

[pumpkin]

Salsero, I've been fighting the property tax for some time now. You must always keep in mind, if the judge is corrupt, a liar, or a thief, you will not win, no matter the truth. What I have found is (at least here), they use in rem actions against the property. This is done obviously to avoid the man and his rights. However, in rem actions still require jurisdiction. Here (Indiana) they do not fulfill what is required for in rem jurisdiction, which is either a summons upon the person (the, or a owner) or by publications with an affidavit stating the owner cannot be found. So what is produced is a void judgment without jurisdiction. I attempted the injunction route, and they misquoted the rules of court against me, so if they will do that, justice is not their purpose. I am confident I should prevail, but I am not confident that I will. But I do thank God for the greater judgment.

[salsero]

Salsero, I've been fighting the property tax for some time now. You must always keep in mind, if the judge is corrupt, a liar, or a thief, you will not win, no matter the truth. What I have found is (at least here), they use in rem actions against the property. This is done obviously to avoid the man and his rights. However, in rem actions still require jurisdiction. Here (Indiana) they do not fulfill what is required for in rem jurisdiction, which is either a summons upon the person (the, or a owner) or by publications with an affidavit stating the owner cannot be found. So what is produced is a void judgment without jurisdiction. I attempted the injunction route, and they misquoted the rules of court against me, so if they will do that, justice is not their purpose. I am confident I should prevail, but I am not confident that I will. But I do thank God for the greater judgment.

I agree with you pumpkin that you will not prevail in their private bankrupt tribunal military court system.

The question posed has to do with federal law. Not my law, but their law that THEY, as officials of the public trust must adhere to by oath of office. I am guessing that all property taxes throughout the US are based upon property values assessed at market value. How is this market value obtained?

I am of the opinion that ALL property is owned by the state. I have been left spoliated or naked. I should not even be discharging the state's obligations. I did this exercise with the property appraiser because I want to demonstrate damages to me personally, as the public official refuse to follow their own laws.

[pumpkin]

"I am of the opinion that ALL property is owned by the state. I have been left spoliated or naked. I should not even be discharging the state's obligations. I did this exercise with the property appraiser because I want to demonstrate damages to me personally, as the public official refuse to follow their own laws."

If they do not follow the simple natural law that the created serves the creator (government serves the people), then there is no law they will abide by. They are only liars and thieves.



Also, concerning HOAs. I have always wondered if they ever come to the court with an injury in fact, you know, to invoke jurisdiction of the court. Sure the agreement gets into equity, but equity without the jurisdiction of the court doesn't do much.