Property Taxes and 31 USC 3124

[salsero]

HOA's boards are not different than government. Please, all of them are not bad. Just like not all government employees are evil. You can put an X on all you want, if living in a HOA is not for you, then do not move into one. At least you have a KNOWING and UP FRONT choice. This is not the same as making a claim to property belonging to state of XX called a name.

[allodial]

HOA's boards are not different than government. Please, all of them are not bad. Just like not all government employees are evil. You can put an X on all you want, if living in a HOA is not for you, then do not move into one. At least you have a KNOWING and UP FRONT choice. This is not the same as making a claim to property belonging to state of XX called a name.

Property in the State is so because it is registered into the State or held by a State officer such as a resident. Property purchased under a mortgage with a bank is "in this State" because the bank owns the property until it is paid off. If the borrower is a debtor to the bank, and the resident is 'servant' to the statutory entity--there ya go. I agree, not all HOAs are necessarily bad. Key point is: if you already have government to deal with who needs a layer of utterly-obnoxious on top?

IMHO HOAs make the most sense with high-rise or multifloor properties --but with acreage? Hardly ever. In one case there were 60 houses in an allfluent urban setting. HOA fees something like $2,000 a year. There was 24 hour security guard in a patrol car. The streets are private and you get to help clean up the leaves in the Winter as part of community spirit. Overall, the HOA was quite reasonable--no using your house to run a business that had frequent clients basic restrictions nothing obnoxious. Very good and amicable HOA and people actually. The HOA fee to clearly toward an obvious expense (the security guard).

HOA's boards are not different than government. Please, all of them are not bad. Just like not all government employees are evil. You can put an X on all you want, if living in a HOA is not for you, then do not move into one. At least you have a KNOWING and UP FRONT choice. This is not the same as making a claim to property belonging to state of XX called a name.

If the requirement at closing is delivery of the land free and clear of encumbrances, the HOA is an encumbrance and it is basically fraud on a purchase but not necessarily so with a lease or a rental. With acreage, Bob purchased the land free and clear, why can't he let others enjoy it free and clear? The point is: someone should be able to acquire land in a location without being subjected to utterly ludicrous HOA terms--that is a right. A statutory corporation shouldn't be able to block living souls from enjoying traditional property rights. In the case of typical cookie-cutter McMansion culdesac HOA communities with houses on .5 acres or less and everything is 'manicured' OK well maintaining a decor makes more sense because the clear visibility. If there are 20 acres of trees surrounding a home, who gives a rat's butt if you paint your house yellow or green? On prime land in great locations, the intruder or interloper is the HOA not the living soul (ever heard of the the Statutes of Mortmain?). Because the HOA is more often than not acting as a trapper and a snare. Again, that ain't the way Bob bought the land and so why can't he allow others to enjoy the land as freely as he did? The county government is already in place, isn't that enough?

Also, pretty much every community that had racially discriminatory clauses that I've come across has an HOA. Obnoxious HOA rules basically serve as a consent to harass or persecute someone 'unwanted' in order to make them move. With obnoxious HOA rules, they can say the color of the blinds was the problem rather than color of skin.

The most sensible uses of HOA agreements that I have come across have been with multi-floor or highrise condo dwellings.

From: The General Principles of the Law of Corporations By Sir Cecil Thomas Carr

[Michael Joseph]

HOA's boards are not different than government. Please, all of them are not bad. Just like not all government employees are evil. You can put an X on all you want, if living in a HOA is not for you, then do not move into one. At least you have a KNOWING and UP FRONT choice. This is not the same as making a claim to property belonging to state of XX called a name.

Very wise advise. I worked as a professional engineer for 20 years rising to the level of owner and president of a successful company. We designed many a subdivision from as small as seven lots and as large as 2500 lots. Without exception many of the requirements for a H.O.A. are the decision of the developer but also many requirements come at the mandate of the municipality.

For instance if water quantity and water quality treatment and retention ponds are constructed, then someone will need to provide maintenance [admiralty term]. And this maintenance is not the responsibility of the citizenry in the city/town. Furthermore, if the developer proposes a private roadway, most times to save money, and this means the houses will cost less to the end buyer, then a H.O.A. must be established to provide maintenance so that the public might enjoy and use the roadway without risk to life or property.

Thusly H.O.A.'s are many times necessary to the "people farms" called residential subdivisions. So I like your advice salsero, if one does not wish to become subject to an H.O.A., then one should find a house in the County. There, of course, always exists the exception. For instance, the small 50 lot subdivision which has public roads, and has no need for any H.O.A. maintenance. In this condition most times H.O.A. exists solely for the landscaping at the monument entrance! Lights, if private, etc.

When I used to be a landlord, I remember a house once which was subject to some "Architectural Review Board" which was an arm of the H.O.A. Now you talk about a sham. When the neighbor erected a 7-ft butt-style fence, the tenant thought she was living in a prison. When the H.O.A. was called, they were completely impotent to force any change. One word of caution in regard to dues: If one fails to pay the H.O.A. dues, I have seen H.O.A.'s foreclose especially when there is large equity involved.

Even though the H.O.A. was 2nd in line and would need to cure the 1st mortgage, they still foreclosed because there was more than 100k equity up for grabs at the expense of a couple of thousand in H.O.A. past due fees. I have found in my life that no amount of words [statutes] can force any man [or woman] to do anything. Nevertheless, one would be wise to apply knowledge upon the honor of Wisdom and Understanding. Where it really gets sneaky though is when H.O.A. corporations buy houses due to delinquent property tax foreclosure. And I have seen that too.

Make it a great day!
MJ

[salsero]

Me thinks - you should not be moving in an HOA.

FOLKS, I ASKED THE GROUP FOR SOME "REASONABLE INFORMATION" CONCERNING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND 31 USC 3124". This concerns the general population whether you live in a HOA or not. Can we please stick on subject. I provided the correspondence. I would say that is much more worthy to comment then on HOAs.

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.



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.

[ag maniac]

This probably won't add much to which you seek, Tony....you probably already know it.....but here's Carl Miller's ("Constitution Man")take on the 31 USC 742 FRN tax computational prohibition

https://www.hisadvocates.org/blog/re...r-property-tax

And a google search on 31 usc 742 might reveal some reasoning for your plight.

[allodial]

For instance if water quantity and water quality treatment and retention ponds are constructed, then someone will need to provide maintenance [admiralty term]. And this maintenance is not the responsibility of the citizenry in the city/town. Furthermore, if the developer proposes a private roadway, most times to save money, and this means the houses will cost less to the end buyer, then a H.O.A. must be established to provide maintenance so that the public might enjoy and use the roadway without risk to life or property.

From the homeowner's perspective 'money is saved' according to short-term deceptive accounting. From the developer's perspective money is saved because the buck is passed to the home purchaser. It will cost just as much to the buyer in HOA fees and property tax and headaches. They can simply make the roads public. In all HOAs I have come across the roads in front of your house are part of your property. Taking care of asphalt roads is very easy. Its just as easy to contract care for the roads out to the county government for a fee and its a lot easier to pay for under public policy.

So I like your advice salsero, if one does not wish to become subject to an H.O.A., then one should find a house in the County. There, of course, always exists the exception.

Consider when HOAs are gobbling up masses of land and taking over deforested areas, I aim to make it clear that folks have the right to opt out by making reservations especially if they purchase on a cash basis. If consent wasn't required, then it would be fraud to present a piece of land for sell deliverable free and clear at closing and saddle it with HOA and CC&Rs and dead-hand clauses that amount to a lease on a pretty prison compound.


HOAs have been invading even the most remote, undeveloped places. (Agenda21?)

Me thinks - you should not be moving in an HOA.

FOLKS, I ASKED THE GROUP FOR SOME "REASONABLE INFORMATION" CONCERNING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND 31 USC 3124". This concerns the general population whether you live in a HOA or not. Can we please stick on subject. I provided the correspondence. I would say that is much more worthy to comment then on HOAs.

You mean I dont has a license to hijack threads like many others do? "Oh so sad." The relevance of the HOA is really that how the property gets to be "in this State". If the HOA is a creature, franchisee or licensee of state and a homebuyer is FORCED to be a member of an artificial entity which itself is absolutely subject to the State, you see why the property tax issue and comes to bear and why rights abrogation comes to bear. Furthermore, in that venue, the law you assert may not even apply.

You are asking for a way to avoid property tax when IMHO the easiest way is to flip the PRIVATE switch on and switch off both COMMERCIAL and RESIDENTIAL. You speak of "we mindedness" but looking to dodge payment for property taxes. What is interesting is that even where my property might be exempt from property taxes, I have always been happy to privately contract for County services even to the extent of adding more to the kit to improve things for all. Likely, I have put more $ into the County and State tills than any of my neighbors even though I don't have to. Many people have the idea of what it means to be sovereign backwards. Maybe I don't necessarily think in specifically in terms of 'we mindedness', I consider the greater good. It rains falls and the sun shines for both the just and the unjust, on we and them.

I wrote Fred and email. The gist was

What does 150000 mean? Does it mean 150000 in FRNs or something else?

Fred's 1st response: US dollars

Of course, I ask more question: What does US dollars mean?

Fred's response: US currency

Of course I ask more question

Fred's final response: Thanks but not my job.

SO here it is folks - Going into court ain't going to work - how does one obtain justice from just-us?

So you see what seemed to be a distraction was a light shining on the situation of an HOA and holding a unit as a member of a legal entity that is subject to administrative law and the plenary powers of County, State or Federal legislatures. HOAs have been a tool for implementing communism and property theft in the USA. The suggestions to avoid them are 'so nice'. But they are even out in the woods with that nonsense in the exact places most nature loving people would love to live. Thusly, in many instances they are the intruder and interloper and the right of avoidance can be exercised.

Likely the attorney took notice of the HOA and covenants and the applicability of administrative law and snickered and is telling you in so many ways he sees how you are going to lose. He is also considering the likelihood that you "paid" for the house with FRNS, have a bank account in an FRB district, that the municipality and the HOA are likely construed to be in an FRB district, etc.

In the movie Wizard of OZ, Ms. Gulch wanted Toto which means "everything" or "all". Toto-alitarians.

Thankfully, in Christ the "HOA rules" (in the the heart) are simple: love your neighbor, love God, love yourself, love your enemies. Neighbor falls ill, cant maintain his roof? Evict him? No way. Help him out instead!

Related:
HOA - The New Communist State in the USA: Dubious Legalized Communism in America = Dirty Rotten Home Owner Associations

[salsero]

You are asking for a way to avoid property tax when IMHO the easiest way is to flip the PRIVATE switch on and switch off both COMMERCIAL and RESIDENTIAL. You speak of "we mindedness" but looking to dodge payment for property taxes. What is interesting is that even where my property might be exempt from property taxes, I have always been happy to privately contract for County services even to the extent of adding more to the kit to improve things for all. Likely, I have put more $ into the County and State tills than any of my neighbors even though I don't have to. Many people have the idea of what it means to be sovereign backwards. Maybe I don't necessarily think in specifically in terms of 'we mindedness', I consider the greater good. It rains falls and the sun shines for both the just and the unjust, on we and them.[/QUOTE]

Correction: I guess my writing is not so good. It is not me looking to avoid ANYTHING. The question has to do with 31 USC 3124. I have nothing to do what THEY are obligated to uphold according to their law under their oath of office. I hope I am now clear about this.

It is my opinion, based upon evidence to support my opinion, that the US is under martial law rule and 12 USC 95a applies where ALL property has been seized by a belligerent occupant for its administrative and military operations. I have come to peace with this. Not an issue. So I am not quite sure how anyone pays for anything, since there is no money. If there is no money, you can not pay for services. I believe the US treasury states - http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

If for some reason you do not understand Allodial that all property has been confiscated, then maybe that is why you are paying for services.

As far as your asinine comment about the "we mindedness", if you are not familiar with spiritual principles, I fully understand your ignorance. However, to put down someone - and by no means a lefty liberal - just because he senses we are One with the One and Only and does not wish to "think in a small box" and sees life as a little more than just "it is all about me and mine" - maybe you may wish to consider addressing the subject matter - 31 USC 3124 rather than everything else of no importance.

And for further clarification, I agree the rain falls and sun shines on the just and unjust equally. However, when the sun shines or the rain falls on the just, somehow, all is well. When the sun shines on the just, it is only temporary, however, when the rain falls - watch out. And there is a difference.

[salsero]

Ag Maniac. Thank you - but the first link agrees completely with me but offers no solution. The key is the property appraiser will not budge. Sure we all know they all use US currency and US dollars but will not admit they are Federal Reserve Notes.

[allodial]

Correction: I guess my writing is not so good. It is not me looking to avoid ANYTHING. The question has to do with 31 USC 3124. I have nothing to do what THEY are obligated to uphold according to their law under their oath of office. I hope I am now clear about this.

It is my opinion, based upon evidence to support my opinion, that the US is under martial law rule and 12 USC 95a applies where ALL property has been seized by a belligerent occupant for its administrative and military operations. I have come to peace with this. Not an issue. So I am not quite sure how anyone pays for anything, since there is no money. If there is no money, you can not pay for services. I believe the US treasury states - http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

If for some reason you do not understand Allodial that all property has been confiscated, then maybe that is why you are paying for services.

As far as your asinine comment about the "we mindedness", if you are not familiar with spiritual principles, I fully understand your ignorance. However, to put down someone - and by no means a lefty liberal - just because he senses we are One with the One and Only and does not wish to "think in a small box" and sees life as a little more than just "it is all about me and mine" - maybe you may wish to consider addressing the subject matter - 31 USC 3124 rather than everything else of no importance.

And for further clarification, I agree the rain falls and sun shines on the just and unjust equally. However, when the sun shines or the rain falls on the just, somehow, all is well. When the sun shines on the just, it is only temporary, however, when the rain falls - watch out. And there is a difference.

You can take it as asinine if you like. Perhaps you don't get that each member of the One is important. Are clubs made for their members or members made for the club? Some might say both. But to suggest spirituality OKs disregard for the individual is drivel. We mindedness is exclusive of those you think as 'them'. A mindset for the greater good even includes good will toward enemies--perhaps you missed that (yes enemies can be those who are enemies to you in behavior whether you initiated the hostility or not).

If you see fully the situation you are in, you can see the better way to deal with it. "Its all about me and mine" that is the totalitarian mindset but only they use groups to accomplish their objectives under the charade of 'spirituality' (spiritual corporations are spiritual and they aren't always necessarily ones you'd want to join).

I suspect you aren't really reading what is being said but instead are getting emotional without seeing that anytime someone is looking for a remedy, turning the light on as to the rhyme and reason is a way of showing the way out. Why are you looking to see what they will do if you don't mind paying the taxes? The question is because of your own remarks which seemed very contradictory.

And your idea of 'everything being confiscated' is in error. I have traveled from Illinois land to New York land and never once set foot in the United States. Under US Army Rules of Land Warfare, etc. the military is not the sovereign and is only an agent of a sovereign. Elizabeth was free to take up office as an ambulance driver in the UK State-Plantation and so for the time being she 'devolved' for a moment during that servitude. CC&Rs, HOA agreements may come under the category of servitudes. When she retired from public service, she ceased to have a last name.

I get the general idea of the code you are referencing. But it seems you were seeking to eliminate property taxes on that basis. On one hand, they might look to administrative law somehow to bypass the applicability of the code especially in the state or municipal setting. Nonetheless per 31 USC § 3124 the taxability of FRNS (i.e. U.S. currency) raises interesting questions (which you have raised). On another, they might realize you are getting at something so they dodge the question. I have come across similar non-response, convoluted-response or distractive-response when posing questions to attorneys.

Consider also, if the constitution doesn't apply to a private corporation, why would the U.S. Code apply?

If for some reason you do not understand Allodial that all property has been confiscated, then maybe that is why you are paying for services.

Article 8 of the UCC refers to the likes of assets indirectly held. A trustee holding something for my benefit isn't the same as confiscation. The public/residential properties are effectively pooled and the revenue streams used to secure obligations of the State/County/Fed/etc. Private property isn't necessarily contributing to that scheme. The public/residential pays for services through effectively allowing their property to be pooled with others and the revenues and returns are potentially managed by 'strangers'. Private land if you ever have noticed on county GIS systems is goes un-assessed as in it is struck off of the books. From the perspective of a good neighbor, even though I don't HAVE to pay the property, I see nothing wrong with contributing to the fire department sheriffs departments or the like or giving the County something to replace the revenue stream.

Consider the mindset of public education being 'free'. What utterly bogus nonsense. Free as in...eat now, pay later. The way things are paid for is through my indirect-holding fiduciaries.

A double edged sword in that the county assessor might also be aware of the FRNs being value-less and therefore you construed that you didn't really pay for your condo with lawful money--thus you see the price to pay might be for them to act as if you did.

Contrary to the MSM garbage propaganda, I know of sovereigns who have put millions in to county government and who have done unfathomable good deeds for millions who don't even know their name who even though they did not HAVE to pay they funded charities, sheriffs departments (that were on the potentially verge of coming apart).

[pumpkin]

"A double edged sword in that the county assessor might also be aware of the FRNs being value-less and therefore you construed that you didn't really pay for your condo with lawful money--thus you see the price to pay might be for them to act as if you did."

I don't think this could be a presumption that the assessor could hold. He was not a party to any previous contract. You are in possession, and for anything resembling a replevin (naming specific property is a replevin not attachment), the plaintiff only succeeds in the strength of his title, not the weakness of the one in possession. Also anyone can declare to have paid the previous owner in lawful money and let the opposing party make the claim that you didn't. The previous owner, being dumb as the general public, will agree with you if called upon to do so.