Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[KnowLaw]

The doc is a slight variance of the original "Coupon Offer" document which has been circulating around for awhile. If you read it through, it is a basic instruction to the account owner as to how to settle their own account internally. The statutes cited are specifically for their own benefit only as a friendly reminder of the laws that bind them. Also, as another gesture of good faith, the coupon provided by them is included and returned as an instrument of payment which they MUST recognize and accept according to the laws of their realm of operation and commerce. This coupon is essentially as valid a form of payment as is an envelope full of FRNs acording to thier own law. I kindly provided that law for them to read, for their own benefit only, to make it easier for them to settle the matter quickly on their books.

It is actually a very simple document when you extract all the statutes, codes and definitions. I do not want or gain any benefit from their "laws"; I provide it to them only as a friendly reminder and as a gesture of good faith from the standing and character of a competent living soul who chooses to be a non-jurisdictional peaceful inhabitant on the land who can offer assistance to others when needed.

Thanks for the amended link, Anthony. It worked.

As I suspected, the document you provided is essentially the same response I sent to the county treasurer where I live, virtually word for word, although in a slightly different form. When I have more time available, I will return to document what I did.

About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

Needless to say, I have no questions regarding this matter as the correspondences I sent to the county treasurer have outlined the law quite clearly, as well as any consequences he will encounter should he decide not to take advantage of the offered presentment.

I have not heard back from either one of these two government officials since that time.

As I say, when I have time, I will return to this thread to document the action I took.

Be well everyone, and fight the good fight.

[Anthony Joseph]

Thanks for the amended link, Anthony. It worked.

As I suspected, the document you provided is essentially the same response I sent to the county treasurer where I live, virtually word for word, although in a slightly different form. When I have more time available, I will return to document what I did.

About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

Needless to say, I have no questions regarding this matter as the correspondences I sent to the county treasurer have outlined the law quite clearly, as well as any consequences he will encounter should he decide not to take advantage of the offered presentment.

I have not heard back from either one of these two government officials since that time.

As I say, when I have time, I will return to this thread to document the action I took.

Be well everyone, and fight the good fight.

That would be most appreciated; the more experiences and trials at a certain method that we can be exposed to may assist in manifesting a successful outcome. I view the "response" by the county treasurer to be yet another presentment; an offer to accept his conclusions which are obviously imposing in nature and not even according to their own laws and rules. A proper record of R4C of that "response" is also in order so as to avert any assertion that you "understand" or accept it.

[KnowLaw]

I view the "response" by the county treasurer to be yet another presentment; an offer to accept his conclusions which are obviously imposing in nature and not even according to their own laws and rules.

I haven't had any contact with the county treasurer, only the county attorney's office, which is seeming to see if it can lure me into some kind of discussion or controversy. Since I'm in the private realm, I don't view his response as anything more than a weak attempt at "scare tactics." He's at a disadvantage because he doesn't know who he is dealing with, whereas I know the ammunition he has in his arsenal (which is limited in this case).

I have made my tender of payment (together with notarized and recorded a letter of credit) and remain in a position of honor. There is no controversy, just as you stated in your Coupon Authorization.

A proper record of R4C of that "response" is also in order so as to avert any assertion that you "understand" or accept it.

I don't see anything on the table to refuse for cause. Perhaps you are reading something into his response that is not there?

[David Merrill]

Thanks, David. First time uploading to Google docs. I tried uploading the file directly but I got a message that the file was to big for the "file type". It is only 49K and the limit is 19K. Maybe we can change that; the Word doc is only 5 pages of text.

Anyway, try this out; I changed the share settings to "people with a link can view without signing in". If that doesn't work, I will change it to full public sharing.

Payment Coupon Authorization

That setting will work well for most people. However Google is so dominant a search engine there will be a lot of people who have registered for a free gmail.com email address and have forgotten. Those are the class who will not be able to access your docs on that setting AJ. If they do not remember their password, they will be called upon to login to see the document. I am using Public to anybody on the Web.

You have done an excellent job of refining the Coupon Redemption document. Assuming you worked on it. Which is like with me; people think that is my work but I heard the suitor who hired me got it from Rick ERTYL. I heard Rick wrote up the first draft and apparently, not to criticize, his word processing skills were just plain poor. Assuming Rick has a mastery of spoken English, he may be a high-school dropout. I am not saying that to be insulting - it is just that the suitor needed to hire me; or anybody with grammar and word processing skills just to finish the Coupon Redemption technique on paper. It is Rick's intellectual property as I understand it.

It would be a masterpiece in its original form if there were in fact funds setting in the mythical Treasury Direct or STRAWMAN SSN accounts based in HJR-192 or whatever. It would be terrific if there were because you could literally pay any bill simply by referring the bill collector to the Treasury like that. Go get your money over at my back-room account with the Treasury!

There is a consistent money-mechanism related to the creation of credit though, that can arise from this coupon redemption method though. Setoff. The bill collector will consistently acknowledge that the debt has been setoff to zero - that the account has been zeroed out.

This setoff must be combined with the techniques of being a suitor, proper record-forming and knowledge of money, responsibility and proper timely response, or the bills continue and your credit rating will be affected, and possibly liens may arise affecting your property. In other words, the zeroing of your account is fleeting. It is a requirement of law that you get that setoff in writing in the process, it would seem. I recall when playing with the technique, the attorneys for the debt collectors would play several different games; the most common one was to zero the account for "Ten Days" awaiting your response. This way Refusal for Cause could be interpreted that you were refusing Setoff, not that they would begin billing again in ten days...

One suitor was going to develop the document into a business plan and so we set him up for a firmly documented setoff for his Example. But he had some health troubles that caused him to drive to the wrong city for filing, a misjudgment caused by pain and at a timing in his crisis that he never got the plan back on its feet. He is better now though.

The suitor should be able to spot the Setoff and get that into an evidence repository, forming the Record around it. Then one can use it to keep liens from developing or being enforced. One can use the Setoff to clean up the credit report but most take my addition (the last paragraph added to Rick's work) seriously. If you say what you say on the Coupon Redemption remittance, then you can no longer get credit under the influence of fraud anyway. If you sign for credit, even endorsement on the back of your paycheck you go in eyes wide open. Your confession about understanding to be the secured party to any credit is now on paper! In other words, this process changes your credit life permanently.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Anthony Joseph]

That setting will work well for most people. However Google is so dominant a search engine there will be a lot of people who have registered for a free gmail.com email address and have forgotten. Those are the class who will not be able to access your docs on that setting AJ. If they do not remember their password, they will be called upon to login to see the document. I am using Public to anybody on the Web.

You have done an excellent job of refining the Coupon Redemption document. Assuming you worked on it. Which is like with me; people think that is my work but I heard the suitor who hired me got it from Rick ERTYL. I heard Rick wrote up the first draft and apparently, not to criticize, his word processing skills were just plain poor. Assuming Rick has a mastery of spoken English, he may be a high-school dropout. I am not saying that to be insulting - it is just that the suitor needed to hire me; or anybody with grammar and word processing skills just to finish the Coupon Redemption technique on paper. It is Rick's intellectual property as I understand it.

It would be a masterpiece in its original form if there were in fact funds setting in the mythical Treasury Direct or STRAWMAN SSN accounts based in HJR-192 or whatever. It would be terrific if there were because you could literally pay any bill simply by referring the bill collector to the Treasury like that. Go get your money over at my back-room account with the Treasury!

There is a consistent money-mechanism related to the creation of credit though, that can arise from this coupon redemption method though. Setoff. The bill collector will consistently acknowledge that the debt has been setoff to zero - that the account has been zeroed out.

This setoff must be combined with the techniques of being a suitor, proper record-forming and knowledge of money, responsibility and proper timely response, or the bills continue and your credit rating will be affected, and possibly liens may arise affecting your property. In other words, the zeroing of your account is fleeting. It is a requirement of law that you get that setoff in writing in the process, it would seem. I recall when playing with the technique, the attorneys for the debt collectors would play several different games; the most common one was to zero the account for "Ten Days" awaiting your response. This way Refusal for Cause could be interpreted that you were refusing Setoff, not that they would begin billing again in ten days...

One suitor was going to develop the document into a business plan and so we set him up for a firmly documented setoff for his Example. But he had some health troubles that caused him to drive to the wrong city for filing, a misjudgment caused by pain and at a timing in his crisis that he never got the plan back on its feet. He is better now though.

The suitor should be able to spot the Setoff and get that into an evidence repository, forming the Record around it. Then one can use it to keep liens from developing or being enforced. One can use the Setoff to clean up the credit report but most take my addition (the last paragraph added to Rick's work) seriously. If you say what you say on the Coupon Redemption remittance, then you can no longer get credit under the influence of fraud anyway. If you sign for credit, even endorsement on the back of your paycheck you go in eyes wide open. Your confession about understanding to be the secured party to any credit is now on paper! In other words, this process changes your credit life permanently.



Regards,

David Merrill.

That's right, no NEW signature loans or credit cards should be applied for after such a declaration is made. I have decided to no longer pursue any NEW agreements or contracts of that sort.

The point is that the creation and the issuance of a coupon by the entity in question is for the purposes of non-disclosed double enrichment; they actually may get paid twice: by your check and by the filled out coupon which is decribed IN THEIR OWN LAW as being an obligation of the United States just like a stack of FRNs. Since they generated this instrument, they must have knowledge of its nature and utilization. Handing in a stack of FRNs is still not actually PAYING the debt until the United States makes good on that paper; it is a United States' obligation to fulfill that promise to PAY. In the meantime debts are discharged with the hope that God will restore the balances (In God We Trust) and the United States will satisfy its responsibility in the future.

According to their own law, a coupon is no different than an FRN. If it was generated by an entity with authority to do so, then that entity is the obligatory party which must accept it for what it is (legal tender of payment) and the United States is the debtor with the obligation to make good on it. I just refuse to offer my substance behind their scheme and instruct them to utilize their instrument to settle their account; an account I no longer lend my energy to, now that I have become aware of the truth.

[Anthony Joseph]

I haven't had any contact with the county treasurer, only the county attorney's office, which is seeming to see if it can lure me into some kind of discussion or controversy. Since I'm in the private realm, I don't view his response as anything more than a weak attempt at "scare tactics." He's at a disadvantage because he doesn't know who he is dealing with, whereas I know the ammunition he has in his arsenal (which is limited in this case).

I have made my tender of payment (together with notarized and recorded a letter of credit) and remain in a position of honor. There is no controversy, just as you stated in your Coupon Authorization.


I don't see anything on the table to refuse for cause. Perhaps you are reading something into his response that is not there?

It was this I was referring to:

About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

That response by the attorney could be construed as another presentment/offer for you to agree with his interpretation or opinion. This is why most people have doubts about the R4C process; they think that a letter like that means "it didn't work" and not what it really is - A NEW OFFER to continue arguing the "contoversy". Of course, unless there is proper and certified proof of service of such an offer, there is no evidence you received it unless it is you that acknowledges receipt or argues what is contained in it.

[KnowLaw]

It was this I was referring to:

That response by the attorney could be construed as another presentment/offer for you to agree with his interpretation or opinion. This is why most people have doubts about the R4C process; they think that a letter like that means "it didn't work" and not what it really is - A NEW OFFER to continue arguing the "controversy". Of course, unless there is proper and certified proof of service of such an offer, there is no evidence you received it unless it is you that acknowledges receipt or argues what is contained in it.

Now this interpretation begins to sound like the AFV process, of which I am also familiar. And you might be correct if we were playing on an even playing field, where one fiction at law was corresponding with anther fiction at law.

But the truth and fact is: There is more to what I was describing than what I am willing to admit to on a Public forum, which is why I didn't respond to or acknowledge that correspondence from the county attorney.

There is also the fact that the wording of his correspondence ("...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid...") indicates that he is not providing a legal determination but rather is just mimicking the response of the county treasurer, as though the county treasurer knows the law and he (the county attorney) does not.

At any rate, that response came before I had thought to provide a notarized Letter of Credit upon which to draw the suggested relief on the Coupon. It also was before I revised and sent the new format for the Notice of Memorandum of Law that I originally sent which comprised the first notice that was sent to the county treasurer. The first one was printed on both sides of one sheet along with an additional sheet. It was two pages, when it should have been three pages. The county attorney was indicating that he ignored the back side of one of those pages in the photocopied example he provided in his correspondence. So, I had to correct that mistake. This was one of the two additional mailings to the county treasurer that were required before I was able to get the process of my first mailing corrected. Each one was served with a Certificate of Mailing, which I have read is sufficient in their court to serve as evidence of service. Both the Letter of Credit and the original Coupon for redemption at the FED contained canceled stamps on their face, indicating that this matter was out of the jurisdiction of the statutory court. This last is another reason why I did not respond in any way to the county attorney's letter.

While I see what you are suggesting, I don't think that it necessarily relates to my specific case in this instance. The county treasurer now has a valid instrument in his hands if he wishes to take advantage of the relief it offers. At the time that the county attorney sent his correspondence, he was responding to the first presentment of tender of payment, which it turned out was a faulty presentment on my part. The subsequent two mailings to the county treasurer were meant to correct the faulty nature of the first.

I haven't heard back from either of these two public officials since having corrected my process. A happenstance that is not totally unexpected on my part in this case.

[Anthony Joseph]

Now this interpretation begins to sound like the AFV process, of which I am also familiar. And you might be correct if we were playing on an even playing field, where one fiction at law was corresponding with anther fiction at law.

But the truth and fact is: There is more to what I was describing than what I am willing to admit to on a Public forum, which is why I didn't respond to or acknowledge that correspondence from the county attorney.

There is also the fact that the wording of his correspondence ("...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid...") indicates that he is not providing a legal determination but rather is just mimicking the response of the county treasurer, as though the county treasurer knows the law and he (the county attorney) does not.

At any rate, that response came before I had thought to provide a notarized Letter of Credit upon which to draw the suggested relief on the Coupon. It also was before I revised and sent the new format for the Notice of Memorandum of Law that I originally sent which comprised the first notice that was sent to the county treasurer. The first one was printed on both sides of one sheet along with an additional sheet. It was two pages, when it should have been three pages. The county attorney was indicating that he ignored the back side of one of those pages in the photocopied example he provided in his correspondence. So, I had to correct that mistake. This was one of the two additional mailings to the county treasurer that were required before I was able to get the process of my first mailing corrected. Each one was served with a Certificate of Mailing, which I have read is sufficient in their court to serve as evidence of service. Both the Letter of Credit and the original Coupon for redemption at the FED contained canceled stamps on their face, indicating that this matter was out of the jurisdiction of the statutory court. This last is another reason why I did not respond in any way to the county attorney's letter.

While I see what you are suggesting, I don't think that it necessarily relates to my specific case in this instance. The county treasurer now has a valid instrument in his hands if he wishes to take advantage of the relief it offers. At the time that the county attorney sent his correspondence, he was responding to the first presentment of tender of payment, which it turned out was a faulty presentment on my part. The subsequent two mailings to the county treasurer were meant to correct the faulty nature of the first.

I haven't heard back from either of these two public officials since having corrected my process. A happenstance that is not totally unexpected on my part in this case.

What I offer here is not intended to convey any AFV method. I only wish to provide others with the knowledge that any presentment (response, letter, etc.) sent relating to an issue you are engaged in can be viewed and used as a NEW offer to contract and reopen the "controversy". Without having full knowledge of your situation, I cannot comment about whether or not it relates to your specific case. It seems like you have a good handle on it and are proceeding as a competent self-governor.

This issue of avoiding and/or abating property taxes, while maintaining exclusive use and possession, is of great importance to many since, for most, it is a life spent of energy and sweat equity at stake, not to mention the right to have and keep land and a home. Any other information and experiences you can share on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

[Metheist]

Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]151[/ATTACH]

Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]152[/ATTACH]


One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

Why not re-deed absent the agreement to pay property taxes?

[Metheist]

OR, deed the property to the County in Trust...

[Anthony Joseph]

How does one protect their exclusive right of possession and use when "deeding the property to the County in Trust"?

[Michael Joseph]

How does one protect their exclusive right of possession and use when "deeding the property to the County in Trust"?

What gives a man exclusive right to use anything? Especially if another man expended his energies to form it?

so then in order to dissect the foregoing we must first comprehend what is Right, Possession and Use and furthermore what exactly is the County Registry? And who has Proprietory interest in the County Registry?

Right: A valid Right is a grant to a Person for certain Control, Benefit of Use or Privilege of particular Property. A Right, also known as Right of Use is equivalent to Property. As a valid Right is equivalent to Property, it presupposes the existence of Property, which implies the existence of a Trust relationship and a valid Trust deed defining the nature and limits of the Right for the Beneficiary. In the absence of Property, a Right cannot exist in reality.

Possession: is the intentional act and fact of occupation, use, employment or effective control of a Form of Matter. Possession is distinct from Ownership in that a Person who possesses a Form of Matter may have no rightful claim or title. [a tenant may possess a Form but has no rightful claim to the Form]

Use: is a skill employ of a right for some benefit. Hence, the ancient principle “Right of Use”. Right of Use is equivalent to Property. The Use of a Form of Matter assumes Possession. A Person, who takes Lawful Possession of a Form of Matter and Uses it over an accepted period of time, assumes those Rights of Use implied by such Use, whether or not such rights have yet been formalized by Deed or Title. [Example: If I build and maintain an access road across a Property [the Property is NOT the land] and I begin to use said Property, without any rebuttal, then I have assumed a Right of Use and therefore this is an unrebutted Claim to said Property and therefore my Right of Use stands.]

Property is any Right of Use expressed into a Trust relationship with other Forms of Matter whereby there exists a claimed Form of Ownership, Form of Trustee(s) administering the Form as Property and Forms of Beneficiaries. Hence Property is the Rights of an Owner to Use the Form of Matter, never ownership of the object or concept itself. Therefore Property is equivalent to Rights of Use of an Object or Concept [Form], not Rights of Ownership of an Object or Concept [Form]

The Ownership Rights of Property cannot exceed the Ownership Rights of the original Owner that conveyed the Form into the first Trust in the beginning. The Settlor made the Law and surveyed the Forms of Matter and the governing terms and conditions upon the surveyed Forms. The Beginning expresses a claim upon Forms of Matter.

Owner: is a Person who holds the rightful claim to a Form of Matter or title to Property. The Claim is recorded in a Registry of a Trust whereby the written claim produces Title to Property. And now go again and read what Property is the Right of Use.


------

Now, there may be an existing agreement which will not allow the Owner to transfer interest or said another way, if the Owner transfers interest and a "loan" is outstanding, more than likely the Lender can evoke the "Due on Sale" clause and demand the entire outstanding balance due within 30 days of the notice of Loan Acceleration.

------

Now, if in the foregoing you are stating that you have "somehow" removed the Property from a Trust Asset Registry - County Registry- and you have claimed the Property - within your Estate, then perhaps we have something a bit different. Of course, when I say you have claim the Property - have you issued forth a Survey upon the Form of Matter, have you created a Registry to document your Claim? Are you Trustee or Beneficiary? What exactly do you mean by Property?

There are many claims to the Roadways - and there are many districts that Overlay and Abut the existing Roadways. Is one claim more superior to the other, you bet. Thus the need for agreement.

Perhaps we need to discuss how one comes to Possess Property? And specifically does that Possession include Ownership? How does one come to Ownership of Property?

[Michael Joseph]

OR, deed the property to the County in Trust...

because that would violate the Garn St. Germane Act and also more than likely the Deed of Trust would open the door to allow the Lender to Accelerate the Loan by Due on Sale Clause.

And the Military as Trustee - See Lieber Code will enforce the Agreements. Remember Sheriff Grice - "I am just following orders"....

Most men and women do not have a rightful Claim to deed any Property to anyone. Senate Resolution #62 need not be Positive Law it is a matter of fact in regard to Trust Law.

However, lets say there are no banker liens - outstanding loans - the Deed might just spell out a new Agreement. And since we are talking about Trust Law only one signature is required. Please go to any deed and tell me who signed the Deed? Did the Grantee sign the Deed? I think not.

[David Merrill]

because that would violate the Garn St. Germane Act and also more than likely the Deed of Trust would open the door to allow the Lender to Accelerate the Loan by Due on Sale Clause.

And the Military as Trustee - See Lieber Code will enforce the Agreements. Remember Sheriff Grice - "I am just following orders"....

Most men and women do not have a rightful Claim to deed any Property to anyone. Senate Resolution #62 need not be Positive Law it is a matter of fact in regard to Trust Law.

However, lets say there are no banker liens - outstanding loans - the Deed might just spell out a new Agreement. And since we are talking about Trust Law only one signature is required. Please go to any deed and tell me who signed the Deed? Did the Grantee sign the Deed? I think not.

I have been pondering this question MJ!

Please tell us the point?

[Frederick Burrell]

On my warranty deed the Grantor is "legal name" and the on the signature page we find the same "legal name."

Deed says in fee simple. no Grantee signature. fB