This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
: Doe Division: petitioner, vs. In rem “notice of lien” filed by (Name of Party(s) recording notice of lien) respondents. ___________________________________/ Complaint of quite title in a claim of lien and to discharge by cancellation Jurisdiction and Venue This civil action arises under Amendment V of the Constitution for the United States and Article I, §9 and Article V §20 (C) (3) of the State of Florida Constitution, giving Original Jurisdiction as to in rem, in personam and subject matter to this court. For the courts personal jurisdiction over the respondent (Name) and (Name), petitioners rely on Florida Statute 713.901 as actions by the respondents precipitated this complaint. The court has In personam jurisdiction over the respondents pursuant to Florida Statute 48.193 (1)(a). The respondents maintain an office within this State and filed the “thing” which is the subject of this action from that office, thereby slandering the petitioners good name in commerce and clouding petitioners real property which is located within this State and County. All of the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. All of the events alleged herein transpired within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this County and State, ergo; venue is properly set. This court has Jurisdiction and Mandamus authority to issue Writs under Florida State Constitution Article V §5 (b). If Quite Title at Law
The Internal Revenue Agents are directed and controlled by the corporate "Governor" of "The Fund".. It appears from documentary evidence. (b) respondent must have a clear duty to act. State and zip). respectively and Citizens of (State) state and have been domiciled within (Name of) County. Parties Petitioner Petitioners. Administrative remedy exhausted Petitioners administrative remedies were exhausted the moment the respondents (Name). are “agents of a foreign principal” within the meaning and intent of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. that Internal Revenue Service Agents. (Your Name) and (Wife Name) are natural born Citizens of (State) and (State). acting under color of law or legal authority violated the mandate of Congress and the State of Florida Constitution. by the act of recording the “thing”. 2 . Said “thing” having the effect of clouding petitioners’ property or any future property acquired by the petitioner thereby slandering petitioners’ good name in commerce. Revenue Officer (Name) is an Internal Revenue Service employee whose business address is (Address City. (Name) as Agents for the Internal Revenue Service and (Name) as the Registrar of Records for (Name of) County. a. Respondent. without due process of law.the petitioner can clearly and indisputably show the following elements: (a) petitioner must have a clear right to the relief.. and (c) no other adequate remedy must be available. etc. State of Florida at (Address) for a period in excess of 5 years.a. Respondents Respondents (Name) is a natural born person and Citizens of Florida.k. Notice of Lien in the Alphabetical Lien Index of (Name of) County.
collect. §611(c)(ii) 44 (22 U. tax-pecuniary contribution. On or about (Date of event) the respondent (Name) filed or mailed a document with the (Name) County. but rather the fraudulent method respondents have used to cloud his title to property and his good name in commerce. or in interest of such foreign principal 4. or dispense contribution.S.S. Respondent (Name) did not follow lawful procedures in perfecting a lawful lien. Treasury Delegation Order No. State of Florida and a resident of (Name) County and a Citizen of this State whose business address is (Address City.A. U. 3. 4. 150-10). for. 7701(a)(II). Petitioner does not now nor has ever disputed any underlying tax liability.C. Statement of facts 1. pages 480 and 481.C.A. §286 and 286a) 3 (22 U.A.S. §611 (c) (iii) 3 . disburse. 2. The filing and recording of the “thing” is a cloud upon the title of the subject property and petitioners good name in commerce and is an egregious denial of due process of law. (Name) respondent."Secretary of Treasury" 1 and the corporate "Governor" of “The Bank” 2. denying petitioners the right of due process of law when they mailed or placed a Notice of Lien. Said agents acting as 3 “information-service employees” and have been and do now solicit.S. to the detriment of the petitioners and possibly in violation of Federal and State RICO Statutes. Page 5942. is presumed by said thing (Notice of Lien) to have been a lawful lien by respondent. Said “thing” purported that the subject property as a parcel of real estate. Respondent (Name) is the Registrar of Records for the County of (Name). The issue before the court is not a federal question. in the 1 (Public Law 94-564.C.A. but is rather a question of denial of due process of State law. (Exhibit A). 26 U. Florida Register of Deeds.C.S. Government Manual 1990-91. State). 2 (22 U. loan money or other things of value.
(Exhibit D) 4 .C. Respondent has not filed any “Financing Statement UCC-1” with the Secretary of State of Florida. evidencing a claim against the petitioner. The Uniform Commercial Code requires the filing of the UCC-1 Form to verify the existence of any Claim arising under the Uniform Commercial Code against a party. (Exhibit A) 5. Petitioner has requested and received a certified “Certificate of no U. Florida against petitioners. Petitioner has no knowledge of any factual contract upon which a claim of lien or debt would be valid against petitioner in intercourse with the respondents. Petitioner requested and received a letter from the Clerk of Court of (Name) County. 10. Petitioner has requested and received a “Certificate of no lien of record” from the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida. The absence of such UCC-1 filing is prima facie evidence of the non-existence of any Contract or Claim against the petitioner and therefore no controversy can exist and the respondent (Name)’ alleged claim has no legal sufficiency. dated (Date of Certificate). (Exhibit C) 9.Public Records of (Name) County. 6. a true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. The legal sufficiency of a Claim under the UCC is based upon the existence of a Contract between two parties and the only reason for any court action is a controversy caused by one party’s breach of contract. thereby clouding title to any present or future property acquired by petitioners and damaging their good name in commerce. (Exhibit B) 8. A true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. 7. Respondent filed no Affidavit in support of the “thing” Notice of Lien.S. D. a true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. Florida stating that petitioner is not recorded as being a judgement debtor by any action of the court. Tax Lien on Record” from the Office of Tax and Revenue in Washington.
Respondent has not submitted a response to the Clerk of Court rebutting the “Notice of Contest of Lien” or instituted any judicial action to enforce the “thing” lien or debt within the statutory time allocated and is in default. 17. Respondent (Name). (Exhibit F) 13. which would afford him due process of law and the opportunity to challenge the “thing” and his accuser in a court of law before a jury of his peers. he has “elevated” the power of a non-negotiable instrument to that of a negotiable instrument.11. and then receive from the County Recorder a “Certification” of the filing of the “thing”. Respondent upon filing the “thing” (IRS Form 668(Y)) rely on the County recorder to file the “Notice of lien” in an alphabetical Tax Lien Index. on to the Recorder and the County Commissioners. Respondent (Name) did record said “thing”. 5 . an alleged Notice of Lien. By the respondent (Name) filing the “thing” with the Country Recorder. Respondent (Name) under color of law did not afford the petitioners’ due process of law as is guaranteed by the National and State Constitutions. (Exhibit E) 12. 16. 15. he has shifted Civil and Criminal liability away from himself. Petitioner served upon the respondent a “Notice of Contest of Lien” which by Florida Statute afforded the respondent 60 days to file a suit to enforce the “thing”. 18. No action was initiated against the petitioner. 14. without requiring any demonstrable evidence be shown by the respondents that the petitioners had been afforded due process rights guaranteed by the State and National constitutions in the defense of his property and good name in commerce. By the County Recorders’ act of recording the “thing” in the alphabetical Tax Lien Index and issuing a Certificate. acting in the capacity of Registrar of Records for the County of (Name) recorded in the records of said County the “thing” Notice of Lien.
2d at 1055-56. Respondent knew or should have known the required procedure for a lawful lien/levy to occur. Effectively the respondent (Name) has laundered the non-negotiable paper of the respondent (Name). 5 Cf. the respondent then requests the Sheriff to seize property of the individual. evidencing that there existed a lawful assessment. which is sold at auction and the proceeds turned over to the respondent. completing the Securities Fraud scheme thereby placing the Recorder. 22." 5 24. ample opportunity was given by the petitioner in the Notice of Contest of Lien. Sheriff. 26. 1970) 6 . Swarthout. Berman. The next step in the Securities Fraud scheme as is demonstrated by past history. 825 F. for the respondent to bring an action in support of the “thing” Notice of Lien. The legal foundation of which is fraudulently based upon the “Certificate” received from the recorder of the thing “Notice of Lien”. Had the respondent a lawful assessment. Cause of action 27.19. 420 F. 25. 20. an alleged Notice of Lien. is for the respondent to issue a “Notice of Levy”. The “thing” Notice of Lien was served on the respondent (Name) by respondent (Name) in violation of procedural mandates of Congress as an "appropriate assessment is a procedural prerequisite to a tax lien. As is historically demonstrated. 834-35 (6th Cir. 21. Petitioner has never been served with a “23 C Assessment Certificate” or “Form 17 Notice and Demand”. 23. creating a Securities Fraud on the petitioner and the County of (Name). No action was ever commenced to enforce the “thing”. County Commissioners and the entire county in liability to the aggrieved party. 2d 831. United States v.
see also. 2d at 230-231. Cf. Swarthout.S. His suit cannot be dismissed if this issue has not been resolved.. Respondent with contemplated thought and fraudulent intent. United States v. 145 (6th Cir.6203-1 (1989). the taxable period. if applicable. 900 F. 2d at 1055-56. and the amount of the assessment. the character of the liability assessed. Cf Berman. 420 F. Planned Investments Inc. . 819 F. May God move the heart of the presiding Judge of this court to 6 7 Pollack v. rather than the amount of the underlying tax liability. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. 1987 William v.2d at 343. The United States of America is not a principle of this action. the respondents have no financial stake in the outcome of these proceedings or standing to counter-claim. shall provide identification of the taxpayer. 1970) William’s complaint raises an issue as to whether a proper assessment was made.28. 825 F. 2d 261.. 834-5 (6th Cir. United States7 wherein the court stated: The regulation that prescribes the method for making an assessment provides in pertinent part as follows: “The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers. Lexis 6042. App. 881 F. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. did cloud title to petitioners property and damage his good name in commerce and created a Securities Fraud upon the petitioner and the County. 31. 29. 499 F. 26 CFR 301. Essex. sovereign immunity is not a bar in the present case against the Internal Revenue Service employee as 28 USC §2410 creates a limited waiver of immunity in cases that challenge the procedural regularity of a lien. 2d 831.. 2d 144.-An appropriate assessment is a procedural prerequisite to a tax lien.6 30. 7 . that law may prevail over lawlessness. acting under color of law. For establishing res judicata and the law of this case. plaintiffs rely on Williams v. Therefore. United States." Prayer May the God of creation intervene in the hearts of men that truth may prevail over deception. This is an “in rem” action and petitioners are not suing respondents civilly or prosecuting them by this action and as such. The summary record.1990 U. through supporting records. United States.
(Agent Name) to produce lawful evidence to support the lien/debt claim or a judgement from a court of competent jurisdiction evidencing that the petitioners are judgement debtors. 2. Issue an Order of Cancellation to the respondents (Names of all respondents). State Phone # _____________________ (Your Wife) 8 . 1. Respectfully submitted. 3. as to the petitioners rights against the lien of his property and Quieting Title by. Granting petitioners such other and further supplemental relief as the court may deem just and proper as justice may demand. __________________________ (Your Name) Address City. 5.immediately issue legal determination. quieting title to petitioners’ property and good name in commerce. Granting petitioners the recovery of cost of this action. And of this he puts himself upon the country. requiring removal of said Notice of lien-levy from public and electronic record keeping systems. if the respondents can not produce evidence in support of their claim. Order the respondent.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.