Non filing attorney

[Demosthenes]

Saturday, May 26, 2007 — Time: 8:06:16 AM EST

Attorney charged with tax fraud

By Tribune Chronicle UPDATED 1:30 p.m.

WARREN — A prominent Warren attorney is accused of not filing federal income tax returns, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has announced.

A federal Bill of Information filed Thursday accuses John Large of Niles with not reporting more than $425,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for the years 2001 through 2004.

Large, 1227 North Road, faces four counts of willful failure to file a return. An initial court appearance has not been scheduled; however, the case has been assigned to federal Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh in Cleveland, according to William J. Edwards of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The maximum penalty is four years in prison.

‘‘This is failure to file, not tax evasion, it’s failure to file,’’ Edwards said Friday afternoon.

According to the information, Large didn’t report income of $107,361 in 2001; $181,924 in 2002; $109,299 in 2003; and $27,061 in 2004.

‘‘It’s an information, which actually is a misdemeanor,’’ Edwards said. ‘‘That’s why we don’t have to take it to the grand jury.’’

Edwards said that to the best of his knowledge no other local attorneys were being investigated.

‘‘This was not some project by the IRS looking at lawyers,’’ Edwards said.

A message left seeking comment with Large was not returned.

[David Merrill]

What state is Warren in?

[Demosthenes]

The same state as Cleveland.

[silversopp]

There's a Warren in at least ten states I believe. The largest being Warren, MI (pop. 150,000, third largest city in MI).

[Cobalt Shiva]

The same state as Cleveland.

Well, that rules out the states of Confusion, Hysteria, Panic, and Chaos.

[rightsofman]

David merrill,
What does it mean when you say the filing of a tax lien
is merely a perfections step?

[David Merrill]

David merrill,
What does it mean when you say the filing of a tax lien
is merely a perfections step?

That is not what I have said; exactly. So that may be why you have not quoted my post that says whatever I actually did say? And why you have transported the conversation here from the other thread?

Prof and Judge Roy Bean have both posted that a tax lien comes into being through filing it. Well... duh!


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I admit I would have concluded Ohio with a more careful reading. I was gisting for a State.

[The Observer]

Prof and Judge Roy Bean have both posted that a tax lien comes into being through filing it. Well... duh!

Really? Please link those quotes. I would love to see where Prof or JRB actually said that.

[David Merrill]

Prof and Judge Roy Bean have both posted that a tax lien comes into being through filing it. Well... duh!

Really? Please link those quotes. I would love to see where Prof or JRB actually said that.

Pay attention The Observer! I pointed out both instances emphatically as they occurred. Maybe you will recall I even got Wserra mixed up for that JRB quotation and he corrected me?

Clearly your distortions are welcome here both by myself and those in denial.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[The Observer]

Pay attention The Observer! I pointed out both instances emphatically as they occurred. Maybe you will recall I even got Wserra mixed up for that JRB quotation and he corrected me?

And I am asking you to provide specific links to where you claim Prof and JRB said that a tax lien comes into being through filing it. Regardless of how emphatic you are, your claim is hearsay at best.

Can you provide independent proof or not? Or are you just lying again?

[rightsofman]

David,
I am brand new to this site, do forgive the "transporting"
from one area to another. There seems to be a ready to
pounce on one attitude on this site. So that really was not
my intent.

[Prof]

David merrill,
What does it mean when you say the filing of a tax lien
is merely a perfections step?

Unlike Van Pelt, I can actually answer your question.

The first point is simple. A federal income tax lien is a statutory lien, created by section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code. The lien arises automatically, upon the happening of events -- a tax obligtion unpaid followed by a demand for payment and non-payment.

Here is the statute:

s 6321 Lien for taxes.


If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.

The lien attaches to the deliquent taxpayer's assets automatically. The lien is the effective to permit seizure, levy and exectuion, etc.

However, in recognition of the rights of other creditors, the tax lien is only effective against the debtor/taxpayer and is not effective against the rights of other creditors who either hold liens against the deliquent taxpayer's assets or acquire liens after the tax lien comes into existence but before the tax lien is filed for record.

This is no different from the priority scheme for an article 9 (UCC) lien (which is consensual) or a judgment lien arising from a judgment in a court. Until the UCC lien is recorded, or the or the judgment lien abstracted (and, in the case of personal property, there is levy on the personal property), the consensual UCC lien or the judgment lien has no priority over other lien holders.

The recordation step (or actual seizure as to some types of property and some types of lien) is called "perfection of the lien." At the very least, perfection beats out people who come along later and try to buy or takes liens against most assets.

See, e.g., sec. 6323 of the IRC.

Perfection by filing (or actual possession) is a pattern followed by the IRC because the commercial lending community demanded this approach. See, e.g., the so-called "choatness" cases which predate enactment of sec. 6323.

I'll give you an example: if you sell your home to your friend Joe, and he gives you (as is typical) cash and a note, the note is an unsecured claim until you file a deed of trust or mortgage (these are different devices used in different states, depending on state law). The deed of trust or mortgage will perfect the lien on the house for the balance due against the claims of buyers, other creditors, the IRS, judgment creditors, bankruptcy trustees, divorce issues, etc. So, if you do not file a lien to perfect your claim, Joe can sell, mortgage, or whatever with the house and you will now have to look to dead-beat Joe for payment. Joe still owes you the money; try to collect it.

[The Observer]

The first point is simple. A federal income tax lien is a statutory lien, created by section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code. The lien arises automatically, upon the happening of events -- a tax obligtion unpaid followed by a demand for payment and non-payment.

Better be careful there, Prof. David claims he has proof that you said that the lien comes into being when you file it. I am here holding my breath waiting for David to provide that proof.

[Prof]

The first point is simple. A federal income tax lien is a statutory lien, created by section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code. The lien arises automatically, upon the happening of events -- a tax obligtion unpaid followed by a demand for payment and non-payment.

Better be careful there, Prof. David claims he has proof that you said that the lien comes into being when you file it. I am here holding my breath waiting for David to provide that proof.

This is why I try to avoid Van Pelt -- he lies. And, his reading comprehension skills are so far below Steviepoo's that arguing with Steviepoo approaches being a rational act.

[LPC]

However, in recognition of the rights of other creditors, the tax lien is only effective against the debtor/taxpayer and is not effective against the rights of other creditors who either hold liens against the deliquent taxpayer's assets or acquire liens after the tax lien comes into existence but before the tax lien is filed for record.

The unrecorded (or "inchoate") tax lien is also effective against those to whom the taxpayer might transfer property for insufficient consideration. Only a "purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic’s lienor, or judgment lien creditor" is affected by the filing of a notice of lien.

So, for example, a gratuitous transfer of property to the taxpayer's children (or spouse) would still be subject to the tax lien even without recording a notice of lien.

[David Merrill]

David merrill,
What does it mean when you say the filing of a tax lien
is merely a perfections step?

Unlike Van Pelt, I can actually answer your question.

The first point is simple. A federal income tax lien is a statutory lien, created by section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code. The lien arises automatically, upon the happening of events -- a tax obligtion unpaid followed by a demand for payment and non-payment.

Here is the statute:

s 6321 Lien for taxes.


If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.

The lien attaches to the deliquent taxpayer's assets automatically. The lien is the effective to permit seizure, levy and exectuion, etc.

However, in recognition of the rights of other creditors, the tax lien is only effective against the debtor/taxpayer and is not effective against the rights of other creditors who either hold liens against the deliquent taxpayer's assets or acquire liens after the tax lien comes into existence but before the tax lien is filed for record.

This is no different from the priority scheme for an article 9 (UCC) lien (which is consensual) or a judgment lien arising from a judgment in a court. Until the UCC lien is recorded, or the or the judgment lien abstracted (and, in the case of personal property, there is levy on the personal property), the consensual UCC lien or the judgment lien has no priority over other lien holders.

The recordation step (or actual seizure as to some types of property and some types of lien) is called "perfection of the lien." At the very least, perfection beats out people who come along later and try to buy or takes liens against most assets.

See, e.g., sec. 6323 of the IRC.

Perfection by filing (or actual possession) is a pattern followed by the IRC because the commercial lending community demanded this approach. See, e.g., the so-called "choatness" cases which predate enactment of sec. 6323.

I'll give you an example: if you sell your home to your friend Joe, and he gives you (as is typical) cash and a note, the note is an unsecured claim until you file a deed of trust or mortgage (these are different devices used in different states, depending on state law). The deed of trust or mortgage will perfect the lien on the house for the balance due against the claims of buyers, other creditors, the IRS, judgment creditors, bankruptcy trustees, divorce issues, etc. So, if you do not file a lien to perfect your claim, Joe can sell, mortgage, or whatever with the house and you will now have to look to dead-beat Joe for payment. Joe still owes you the money; try to collect it.

There is the admission again.

The recordation step (or actual seizure as to some types of property and some types of lien) is called "perfection of the lien."

Prof knows exactly what he is talking about. Therefore he cannot explain it without making my point for me! And I especially enjoy the admission that tax liens are statutory liens.

What he has done is replace filing with its synonym recordation.

Within the scope of private contract, irrecusable obligation, it is possible for one party to seize property and have the equity courts support that action. That is what you all were calling an effective lien. But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law. It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... licMoney.w

Until now I thought I was mentioning the Masons regarding fiat currency in emergency but now maybe it was to clear out the bigots from ever getting through the 1984 Article within?

[Prof]

As I stated, David M. Van Pelt lies.

The following statement, quoted from his post, contains a series of lies and fabrications or statements so misleading as to be lies of omission:

Within the scope of private contract, irrecusable obligation, it is possible for one party to seize property and have the equity courts support that action. That is what you all were calling an effective lien. But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law. It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

Let's look at the statements:

Within the scope of private contract, irrecusable obligation, it is possible for one party to seize property and have the equity courts support that action.

This statement makes no sense. There are no "irrecusalbe obligations" -- this is word salad. True, by contract, such as under Art. 9 or in "non-judicial foreclosure" states, the courts of law (not equity) will enforce non-judicial foreclosure provisions of statutes and contracts. However, these provisions only apply to contractual liens like those under Art. 9 or those created by deeds of trust/mortgages.

The federal tax lien is different -- because the remedies created are statutory, not contractual.
Section 6321 does not require private contract or consent.

The next statement or set of statements are lies or completely misleading.

But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law.

Even if the whole title has not been enacted into positive law, sec. 6321 and following sections related to tax liens were enacted into positive law by act of Congress set out in the Statutes-at-Large. In fact, all of the provisions of Title 26 have been enacted into positive law by the acts of Congress and can be pieced together out of the Statutes-at-Large. Is the statement a lie? Or is the statement wholly and completely misleading?

It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

The statments contained in this sentence are lies, and this sentence is a complete fabrication.

[silversopp]

Prof knows exactly what he is talking about.

David seems to be making a lot of progress. First his admits a few times that no one has ever had their lien terminated using his method. Now he admits that he's wrong about liens and that Prof is correct.

Good job David. Step one is always to recognize the problem.

But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law. It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

Here we see David, immediately after admitting he was wrong, desperately try to change the conversation topic. The influx of truth has blown a circuit or two. I think he's so worked up that he was proven wrong to the point where he had to admit he was wrong that his brain started shooting out sparks, as we see below:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... licMoney.w

The fuses are misfiring that he cannot even compose a proper hyperlink. But that's not all...one of the misfires started a small fire in his brain, as we see below:

Until now I thought I was mentioning the Masons regarding fiat currency in emergency but now maybe it was to clear out the bigots from ever getting through the 1984 Article within?

The spark that caused an inability to post a hyperlink has now become a raging fire. David's unable to make any sense whatsoever. What do the Masons have to do with the subject? What "currency in emergency"? What 1984 article, and what is the article within? Who are the bigots?

David...

you have just admitted you were wrong and Prof is right. Just calm down for a second. Your brain is doing all sorts of funky things right now. It hasn't had a good dose of reality in a long time, and it needs time to process it.

This has been a very productive day for you. You have admitted that no one has had a lien terminated using your methods, and that you were wrong and Prof is right. This is enough progress for you in a day. Take a break and let's start curing you of your other delusions tomorrow.

[David Merrill]

As I stated, David M. Van Pelt lies.

You lie about my name Prof. Look at the name of the author of this post. That is my name. Bad Start.

The following statement, quoted from his post, contains a series of lies and fabrications or statements so misleading as to be lies of omission:

Within the scope of private contract, irrecusable obligation, it is possible for one party to seize property and have the equity courts support that action. That is what you all were calling an effective lien. But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law. It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

Let's look at the statements:

Within the scope of private contract, irrecusable obligation, it is possible for one party to seize property and have the equity courts support that action.

This statement makes no sense. There are no "irrecusalbe obligations" -- this is word salad. True, by contract, such as under Art. 9 or in "non-judicial foreclosure" states, the courts of law (not equity) will enforce non-judicial foreclosure provisions of statutes and contracts. However, these provisions only apply to contractual liens like those under Art. 9 or those created by deeds of trust/mortgages.

The federal tax lien is different -- because the remedies created are statutory, not contractual.
Section 6321 does not require private contract or consent.

The next statement or set of statements are lies or completely misleading.

But that is not a statutory lien outside the scope of Title 26 which has never been enacted into law.

Even if the whole title has not been enacted into positive law, sec. 6321 and following sections related to tax liens were enacted into positive law by act of Congress set out in the Statutes-at-Large. In fact, all of the provisions of Title 26 have been enacted into positive law by the acts of Congress and can be pieced together out of the Statutes-at-Large. Is the statement a lie? Or is the statement wholly and completely misleading?

It is a private agreement between Congress and the central bankers in the name Federal Reserve that private individuals can participate in by endorsing the fabrication of FRNs.

The statments contained in this sentence are lies, and this sentence is a complete fabrication.

I just had to get that quoted in case you decide to retract or edit such eloquent and revealing blurts.

The 1914 Bouvier's mentioned is not handy online:

Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."

I am only reading far enough of this protectionist diatribe to note that Prof is breaking his cardinal rule - Why? What nerve have I struck that he even cares what I think, even think of what he posted?

Yet here it is, right in front of you. I have inadvertently stolen yet another thread right off its topic, simply because somebody brought me into it. The upside is I am sure the Views has at least tripled...


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Prof]

To: Van Pelt
From: Prof:
Re: Post above

Pfui.