Originally Posted by
allodial
And no surprise, Federal judgments are paid out pretty much like tax refunds through FMS Treasury. The flip-side is, if they harm you they could become liable to pay as if it were a tax. Its a two-edged sword for them. If an assessment is made against them per a judgment, for them to argue is to argue tax matters and to question the public debt--that is probably why they were served a can of "Shut up and do your job, clerks."--risk management, actuaries, inn sewer ants, etc. Consider that the typical traffic court case is like "rate-limited" (think network traffic) by the fact that the 'judges' have to give a criminal burden of proof before they can collect on their assessment. THE WAY THEY HAVE TO HANDLE THE CASE IS THAT THEY MUST PROVE THAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY THE TAX!!!!! The requirement of giving an alleged breach of contract a criminal burden of proof is designed to STOP THEM MAKING FRIVOLOUS ASSESSMENTS!
If you collect tax as a federal judge, you can't kvetch about paying it without expecting some negative reverberations. David Merrill, also consider that the tax filing requirements are far more stringent for attorneys. Members of the bar appear to be REQUIRED to have an SSN or tax ID. So there is some "cross talk" and "metaphysical improvement in resolution" going on here in the sense that attorney at bar is always a taxpayer.
I suspect the IMF only comes into play when it comes to general payments to the U.S. Treasury. Consider the Secretary of Treasury to be like a transistor, gate or router. If the money is destined for overseas, he has to deal with IMF/BIS. Like you, I take hype with a grain or two of salt. The idea that the IRS is the IMF is a bit sketchy. That there is overlap--no doubt. I have a few texts on the UCC and one of them makes it clear that the UCC is a "State law". Consider however that the District of Columbia is in a sense a "State".
P.S. the masters behave too stupidly, drunken or indifferent to stop their servants from clowning around.
Reply With Quote