Garnishments

[weishaupt1776]

It seems like, companies & payroll departments just roll over & fork it over & ignore ANY reasonable pleading of why they can't do it. This is happening now to people with no hearing or anything. Is the only remedy left to sue employer's?

[Neo]

No. Whenever you sue someone, you are using the very system that is robbing you. One alternative possible remedy is found here: www.buildfreedom.com/economic/

If you want to learn more, say so here.

[rushpat]

First, check your state's rules about garnishment. Here in Georgia, the state statutes state, under the debtor section, that no part of someone's earnings will be withheld before a summons of garnishment (something that comes out of a court judgment) is received, except in some child support incidents. I don't know about your state. You should check.

Carefully, and courteously notify your payroll officer that, if there is not a signed court order, on file in your state, that they will be breaking the law if they withhold money and could be personally liable. I believe the FDCPA allows for 3x the amount taken from the person taking the money without the proper authorization from a signed court order (assuming you didn't contract with the employer to allow this type of withholding).

Just a thought.

Is this the right forum for these types of questions?

[marc stevens]

Guest-rushpat said:

Is this the right forum for these types of questions?

I think it's fine as long as we keep in mind there is no "state" and men and women dba a government have no legitimacy whatsoever.

I do file special actions (petition for writ of x) to stop traffic court judges if I believe it is the only way I can stop them. It is the same as using a car with license plates; I am avoiding further violence.

[Help Weis]

I have prepared a memoranda of law with short expositions in an exhibit w/outline type format regarding levies, authorities, etc . .. state garnishment laws, etc. . I do not intend on using it for pleadings as most of it is statutory.

It contains an affidavit of me affirming those points as true, etc. . .

I was wondering if I could present that to an attorney, have him write a professional recommendation to the attorneys of where I contract & instruct them that it is legitimate for them to present the exposition/affidavit to the IRS in the event of the 668's and ask for a rebuttal..

HERE's MY REQUEST:

Does anyone know of any attorneys w/decent credentials who would draft such a recommendation ?

[Winston Ward Johnson]

marc said:

I think it's fine as long as we keep in mind there is no "state" and men and women dba a government have no legitimacy whatsoever.

I do file special actions (petition for writ of x) to stop traffic court judges if I believe it is the only way I can stop them. It is the same as using a car with license plates; I am avoiding further violence.

I haven't had any form of license from any non-existent governmental agency since 1993. I certainly haven't experienced any violence from those men and women dba as government while exercising my natural, inherent and inalienable claimed rights. Sure I was arrested and hauled off to their dungeon back in September of 1994, but I wasn't shot, tazered, beaten or otherwise physically harmed.
I could file a Writ of Mandamus in Circuit Court to force the county government to 'lawfully' acquire road right of ways but since I'm not a party to the non-existent social compact and therefore don't recognize their non-existent 'authority' I simply couldn't bring myself to file any paperwork with them.
This is one thing that really has me confused about your tactics Marc, since your goal is to expose the scam aren't you actually participating in the scam by asking permission (Black's Law Dictionary defines 'license' as: "Permission from conpetent authority to do that which is otherwise unlawful.") to travel in your private property?
I understand not wishing to shot or otherwise physically harmed by those thugs pretending to be public servants. I wasn't shot when stopped in September of 1994 or when stopped at the Kentucky State Police roadblock on May 22, 2001.
If we don't stand up for our claimed rights who will? If not now, when?
What's beyond exposing the scam? Are you saying that it's not possible to actually live one's freedom?

[Darren Dirt]

Guest-Winston said:

This is one thing that really has me confused about your tactics Marc, since your goal is to expose the scam aren't you actually participating in the scam by asking permission (Black's Law Dictionary defines 'license' as: "Permission from conpetent authority to do that which is otherwise unlawful.") to travel in your private property?
I understand not wishing to shot or otherwise physically harmed by those thugs pretending to be public servants. I wasn't shot when stopped in September of 1994 or when stopped at the Kentucky State Police roadblock on May 22, 2001.

Great to hear you haven't experienced much (any?) violence in your standing for truth. Good on you.

Marc has said elsewhere that if they do end up resorting to violence, it only makes the case for us.

Here's my take on things, IMHO of course...

- - -

From what I have seen and heard, Marc is primarily interested in *exposing the hoax*, and what better way than to make the bureaucrats be exposed as either lying, stealing, murdering criminals (according to their own "laws" in their own system!) or by making them (publicly) give up on maintaining the pretense of fairness (when their criminal actions and/or self-contradictions and/or broken promises are exposed)... Hence the reason many judges (oope, I mean black robed lawyers) are quick to say, essentially "get out of my courtroom! (before others pick up on where you are going with these questions...)"


Marc and the rest of us recognize this is a game; it is a serious game with major stakes, and our potential opponents are heavily armed and typically antisocial. Yet if we play their "game" then they will let their guard down, and the truth can and will get out.

The buraucrats are confronted with simple questions, and they are essentially backed into a corner because they claim that they are willing to allow the public masses to view the proceedings, read the discussions and transcripts, etc. and when contradictions/violent actions or threats reveal themselves, more and more people will start questioning reality. And that's the real goal - waking up the Superbore-watchers and the comfortably-numb types.

In the end, we must remind ourselves that we can only try to persuade others to the truth... But what better medium than in the universally-accepted-as-authoritative venues?

You can lead a sheep to reality, but you can't make him think. ;D

[Winston Ward Johnson]

Darren,
If you read the certified court transcript of my 2 minute trial back on January 10, 1995 you'll see that I exposed their scam, that's why 'Judge' Donald L. Sanderson stated, "if Mr. Johnson would appear and wish to have a trial, further sanctions will be taken at that point, but we're not going to forceable detain him on this."
A few weeks later 'Judge' Sanderson actually ordered me to stay out of his court. The irony was he then issued a warrant for my arrest - go figure! ;D

[The Average Joe]

...but would the "Joe Average" understand in simple terms what was "exposed"? Would he be intrigued and/or empowered to start investigating and asking controversial questions because of that transcript?