New employee thinks he doesn't have to pay taxes

Disilloosianed · Post by **Disilloosianed** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:31 pm

I noticed (I think) that no one posted it, so I'll give Dan the gratuitous plug. There's a lot of good information in his FAQ at
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It looks daunting, if this isn't your business, but you will see that some version of most of your guy's arguments are dealt with there.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:31 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:I can't believe there are people like this out there. My husband has had his business for 20 years and never met ANYONE like this.

There's an estimated 250,000 - 500,000 of these loons out there. The good news is that your payroll company realistically has had some experience, and that it sounds like your employee probably needs the job badly which is why he capitulated on signing the forms.

If he tries to play follow the legal argument with you, don't play back.

And yeah, we've all heard of Alex Jones. Yuck.

ThirdTimeCharm · Post by **ThirdTimeCharm** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:32 pm

Disilloosianed wrote:I noticed (I think) that no one posted it, so I'll give Dan the gratuitous plug. There's a lot of good information in his FAQ at
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It looks daunting, if this isn't your business, but you will see that some version of most of your guy's arguments are dealt with there.

YES!! I found that page already. I think I found the link here. I bookmarked it and am trying to look at it a little at a time. That is a great FAQ!!

Disilloosianed · Post by **Disilloosianed** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:33 pm

On second viewing, dan already gratuitously plugged himself

Oh well, it bears repeating.

Post by **webhick** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:38 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:
I feel like crying.
I really hate this guy. He has already been nothing but aggravation, and now you are telling me that he will likely file a case against us in court? I would think that a judge would throw the ridiculous case out on his own, but I guess it doesn't work that way.

I thought you had to have an attorney to file something like this in court. But what do I know.

No guarantee he'd harass you with a lawsuit. I've butt heads with a few TPs in a similar fashion. They threatened to sue, tried to report us to the labor board, attorney general, etc. Nothing came of it and we never had to hire an attorney. There was only one that I had a continuing harassment/stalking/threat-to-life-and-well-being problem with. He popped up again when I started posting on Quatloos, but he's calmed down quite a bit from before.

Just so that I can show my husband, does anyone have links to anything about an employee doing something like this to a business? I mean the part about filing in court.

I remember something posted (can't remember if it was lost on the old board or is sitting on this one) about an employee that basically tried to bill the employer for the taxes withheld plus trumped up items like emotional distress plus an exorbitant amount of interest on top of that. It was pretty juicy. Mostly a happy ending to the story. Someone help me out here?

ThirdTimeCharm · Post by **ThirdTimeCharm** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:38 pm

Demosthenes wrote:
ThirdTimeCharm wrote:I can't believe there are people like this out there. My husband has had his business for 20 years and never met ANYONE like this.
There's an estimated 250,000 - 500,000 of these loons out there. The good news is that your payroll company realistically has had some experience, and that it sounds like your employee probably needs the job badly which is why he capitulated on signing the forms.

If he tries to play follow the legal argument with you, don't play back.

And yeah, we've all heard of Alex Jones. Yuck.

This has definitely been an experience. It was funny.....when we first found this guy and he filled out his strange paperwork and gave it to me, I was flabbergasted. I had no idea what was up with him. Then my husband said "well, he did give me some web sites to look up". He wrote them down and one was Prisonplanet.com! I said "Oh terrific. That's Alex Jones." My husband hadn't heard of him. I told him right then that our new hire was out of his tree, and we really needed to find someone else. Unfortunately, the only other option we had fell through. Sometimes it's hard to find employees in this industry.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:39 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:
webhick wrote:
Demosthenes wrote: Tax protesters don't hire attorneys. They file hundreds of pages of gibberish documents in court against their employers and then you have to hire an attorney to get the idiot nonsensical lawsuit thrown out.
Don't forget my favorite part: That the judge orders the TP to reimburse you for your trouble..but the TP won't do that because "the courts are corrupt". So, now you're out pain, aggravation, time from work to appear in court, and the cost of your lawyer.

I feel like crying.
I really hate this guy. He has already been nothing but aggravation, and now you are telling me that he will likely file a case against us in court? I would think that a judge would throw the ridiculous case out on his own, but I guess it doesn't work that way.

I thought you had to have an attorney to file something like this in court. But what do I know.

Just so that I can show my husband, does anyone have links to anything about an employee doing something like this to a business? I mean the part about filing in court.

I wouldn't say he's likely to do it. But it definitely happens quite a bit when a person is in as deep as it sounds he is. He's more likely to harass you with documents and such and file fake liens against you. All in all, the shorter the period of time you must retain him the better.

ThirdTimeCharm · Post by **ThirdTimeCharm** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:04 pm

Post by **LPC** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:07 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:What does it mean when he signs his name and puts "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207"?

Legally, nothing.

But as a practical matter, it means you should *run*.

Weathervane · Post by **Weathervane** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:12 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:What does it mean when he signs his name and puts "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207"?

Truthfully, its a cry for help.

My guess would be male insecurity brought about by a neglectful father.

I'll bet if your husband took him to a couple of ball games and bought him a couple of beers, he could talk him down from his ledge.

Disilloosianed · Post by **Disilloosianed** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:15 pm

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 1- GENERAL PROVISIONS
..PART 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§ 1-207. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So basically, he's signing he's signing, but only because you made him

P.S. Thanks for the cool title, whoever is in charge of that, by the way. It's applicable to the job as well.

Post by **grixit** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:53 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:What does it mean when he signs his name and puts "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207"?

Basicly, it means he had his fingers crossed and therefor did not really agree to anything on the text he signed, consequently he cannot be held legally accountable for it. You should tear it up and tell him that your lawyers have advised you that you cannot acxcept an altered document.

Post by **webhick** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:40 pm

Hehehe, I wonder what he'd do if you signed his paychecks "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207".

By his own little logic, he couldn't sue you for anything it said on that paystub - and perhaps by extension the withholding of taxes.

I'm kidding of course. But it'd be funny to see what his reaction would be.

Nikki · Post by **Nikki** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:47 pm

No, the paychecks get endorsed "exchanged for Treasury notes in the form of federal reserve notes" or some crap along that line, ala David Merrill.

This guy has swallowed every current anti-tax theory and a huge amount of the world-wide-conspiracy crap to boot.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were one of the resident morons at Sui Juris. In fact, I recall someone there whining about an employer being nasty and mandating that he sign the documents you've mentioned.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:06 pm

ThirdTimeCharm wrote:What does it mean when he signs his name and puts "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207"?

That he's bought a book or CD or some such based on already disproven and discredited non-legal nonsense.

I wouldn't stay awake at night worrying about him actually filing some kind of suit. Most of these people are little more than blowhards who are basically dealing with buyer's remorse for paying a scam artist to "learn the secrets" that are nothing more than utter mythology.

First experience where he gets cited for contempt for filing a frivolous suit should deter him.

Oh, and when (not if) he tries to "recruit" other employees or your customers into non-compliance with the tax code, that's a criminal matter and the folks with the dark suits and no known sense of humor will handle him for you.

Weathervane · Post by **Weathervane** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:17 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
ThirdTimeCharm wrote:What does it mean when he signs his name and puts "all rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207"?
That he's bought a book or CD or some such based on already disproven and discredited non-legal nonsense.

I wouldn't stay awake at night worrying about him actually filing some kind of suit. Most of these people are little more than blowhards who are basically dealing with buyer's remorse for paying a scam artist to "learn the secrets" that are nothing more than utter mythology.

First experience where he gets cited for contempt for filing a frivolous suit should deter him. Forget that! It'll probabaly only stiffen his resolve.

Oh, and when (not if) he tries to "recruit" other employees or your customers into non-compliance with the tax code, that's a criminal matter and the folks with the dark suits and no known sense of humor will handle him for you. Surprisingly, the CID that showed up at my office the day my world came crashing down were two hotties in business casual. As far as lacking a sense of humor, they almost laughed when I took the 5th.

Post by **Quixote** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:23 pm

A lot of the stuff comes from sedm.org, which is some kind of religion or ministry or something, but I haven't been able to take the time to look into it much.

You should read sedm.org for amusement only. But read it soon. Eventually the federal injunction against Chris Hansen, the site's owner, will be enforced.

ThirdTimeCharm · Post by **ThirdTimeCharm** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:57 am

I like the idea of signing his checks that way.

I found that Sui Juris site.

There are people on there swearing that they never get a traffic ticket because of the way they signed their driver's license. Are they crazy, or just lying?

. · Post by . » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:08 am

Both.

ThirdTimeCharm · Post by **ThirdTimeCharm** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:10 am

I really appreciate all of your thoughts on this. I have learned a lot already, and I'm not finished reading. This topic really fascinates me. I had heard of people who didn't think they had to pay taxes, but I had never met one until now. I didn't realize there was this entire subculture of people who really believe they don't have to pay taxes, or obey any laws, for that matter.