Property Taxes and 31 USC 3124

[allodial]

"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.

Perhaps, but if you are telling him that you paid with scrip, its not a presumption since the assessor's knowledge would come from a confession. Furthermore, it would seem more viable to say you can't be taxed because you were paid with scrip rather than saying you can't be taxed because you PAID with scrip. Also, keep in mind that an 'unsecured debt' is one that is secured by EVERYTHING a person owns.

[allodial]

..........

[Jethro]

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?

Why not just ask "Fred" to verify the purported debt?

If he or anyone else refuses to do so, then there is no debt.

[salsero]

Why not just ask "Fred" to verify the purported debt?

If he or anyone else refuses to do so, then there is no debt.

Jethro it is not a debt. It is a proposed property tax assessment. Specifically, it states right on the proposed tax assessment, THIS IS NOT A BILL.

I can only ask Fred - what you suggest, IF it is an actual debt being sent.

These politicians are very smart, there are separate duties being done. One agency does the assessment, and another agency then takes that "value based upon FRNs", computes a tax and sends a bill based upon that value. It is clearly in violation of 31 USC 3124.

Last year, I send a package of information to the treasurer of the county, the one who would over see the actual property tax bills. It went ignored.

Folks, again, let me try and be clear. A constitutional officer has an oath of office that requires, as a condition of accepting the duties of said constitutional office to follow the laws of the US and of the state. In this situation, the property appraiser uses FRNs to base its valuation, since no other form of "US currency, funds, dollars" exist. It has nothing to do with me or the property tax itself. It has to do with, the law and the intentional violation.

Clearly these constitutional officers KNWOINGLY break the law, but how does one obtain relief? If I go to court, I lose. I must go to court, as a subject person to the jurisdiction thereof. I can not force the property appraiser to sign the appraisal. He ain't going to do that. He knows, but so does Hillary and this means what? Zero.

It makes me wonder is this a nation of laws that apply only to persons other than the one's making the laws? The answer seems to be a resounding yes!

[allodial]

There are significant points made earlier in this thread. Can you prove that the Assessor is using FRNs as the denomination? Likely he specifying that you pay in dollars. Perhaps you are mistaking the assessor for the US Department of the Treasury? The Assessor might make demand in dollars. The public policy is wide open to allow FRNs or for you to pay with lawful money. If you want the bill to be specifically in lawful money you can write the amount in words followed by "U.S. dollars lawful money" or the like. Could it be that neither your lack nor abundance of U.S. notes would necessarily caused by the Assessor?



If you sign up for a system of private law or deadhand corporate law, then the laws of the "nation" might not necessarily apply or even if they do the private law might apply moreso. Promissory notes for mortgages and student loans AFAIK are most always denominated in "lawful money of the United States of America". Thusly, lawful money *is* in circulation.

[Jethro]

Jethro it is not a debt. It is a proposed property tax assessment. Specifically, it states right on the proposed tax assessment, THIS IS NOT A BILL.

I can only ask Fred - what you suggest, IF it is an actual debt being sent.

These politicians are very smart, there are separate duties being done. One agency does the assessment, and another agency then takes that "value based upon FRNs", computes a tax and sends a bill based upon that value. It is clearly in violation of 31 USC 3124.

Then require the man to verify the "proposed tax assessment".

Agencies don't do anything -- they have no hands or arms. An "agency" exists only on paper or in the mind. Only a man can "do" something, like create an "assessment" or "compute a tax bill". Find out what man has created the "assessment" or "tax bill", and hold him accountable to the penny for his claim. If he can't verify the debt, then he made a claim that was not true -- that's an act of fraud (and possibly extortion, if threats are involved for non-payment). That's a trespass for which the man may be held personally liable.

I would never bring the make-believe (titles like "assessor", etc.) to life by arguing with it. Call out the man and see if he's ready to put his money where his mouth is.

[allodial]

Then require the man to verify the "proposed tax assessment".

Agencies don't do anything -- they have no hands or arms. An "agency" exists only on paper or in the mind. Only a man can "do" something, like create an "assessment" or "compute a tax bill". Find out what man has created the "assessment" or "tax bill", and hold him accountable to the penny for his claim. If he can't verify the debt, then he made a claim that was not true -- that's an act of fraud (and possibly extortion, if threats are involved for non-payment). That's a trespass for which the man may be held personally liable.

I would never bring the make-believe (titles like "assessor", etc.) to life by arguing with it. Call out the man and see if he's ready to put his money where his mouth is.

Well if someone is playing Monopoly or joins a sports league, that kind of thinking might not work especially if they are willingly participating. The approach of debt verification is better than meddling with the 'FRN factor' IMHO. Because telling them you paid with FRNs is not going likely going to work in your favor. Telling them that you were paid in FRNs is another thing when it comes to taxability.