Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

In the (number) Circuit Court In and for the County of (Name) State of (Name) ( In rem: Case No: John-Robert:

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 petitioner can clearly and indisputably show the following elements: (a) petitioner must have a clear right to the relief; (b) respondent must have a clear duty to act; and (c) no other adequate remedy must be available. Administrative remedy exhausted Petitioners administrative remedies were exhausted the moment the respondents (Name), (Name) as Agents for the Internal Revenue Service and (Name) as the Registrar of Records for (Name of) County, 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, Notice of Lien in the Alphabetical Lien Index of (Name of) County. Said thing having the effect of clouding petitioners property or any future property acquired by the petitioner thereby slandering petitioners good name in commerce, without due process of law. Parties Petitioner Petitioners, (Your Name) and (Wife Name) are natural born Citizens of (State) and (State), respectively and Citizens of (State) state and have been domiciled within (Name of) County, State of Florida at (Address) for a period in excess of 5 years. Respondents Respondents (Name) is a natural born person and Citizens of Florida. Respondent, Revenue Officer (Name) is an Internal Revenue Service employee whose business address is (Address City, State and zip). It appears from documentary evidence, that Internal Revenue Service Agents, etc., are agents of a foreign principal within the meaning and intent of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The Internal Revenue Agents are directed and controlled by the corporate "Governor" of "The Fund", a.k.a.,

"Secretary of Treasury"

and the corporate "Governor" of The Bank 2. Said agents acting as


3

information-service employees

and have been and do now solicit, collect, disburse, or dispense

contribution, tax-pecuniary contribution, loan money or other things of value, for, or in interest of such foreign principal 4. Respondent (Name) is the Registrar of Records for the County of (Name), State of Florida and a resident of (Name) County and a Citizen of this State whose business address is (Address City, State). Statement of facts 1. The issue before the court is not a federal question, but is rather a question of denial of due

process of State law. 2. Petitioner does not now nor has ever disputed any underlying tax liability, but rather the

fraudulent method respondents have used to cloud his title to property and his good name in commerce. 3. On or about (Date of event) the respondent (Name) filed or mailed a document with the

(Name) County, Florida Register of Deeds, (Name) respondent. Said thing purported that the subject property as a parcel of real estate, is presumed by said thing (Notice of Lien) to have been a lawful lien by respondent. 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, to the detriment of the petitioners and possibly in violation of Federal and State RICO Statutes. (Exhibit A). 4. Respondent (Name) did not follow lawful procedures in perfecting a lawful lien, denying

petitioners the right of due process of law when they mailed or placed a Notice of Lien, in the
1

(Public Law 94-564, Page 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990-91, pages 480 and 481, 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(II), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), 2 (22 U.S.C.A. 286 and 286a) 3 (22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(ii) 44 (22 U.S.C.A. 611 (c) (iii)

Public Records of (Name) County, Florida against petitioners, thereby clouding title to any present or future property acquired by petitioners and damaging their good name in commerce. (Exhibit A) 5. 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. 6. 7. Respondent filed no Affidavit in support of the thing Notice of Lien. Petitioner has requested and received a certified Certificate of no U.S. Tax Lien on Record

from the Office of Tax and Revenue in Washington, D.C. dated (Date of Certificate), a true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. (Exhibit B) 8. Petitioner requested and received a letter from the Clerk of Court of (Name) County, Florida

stating that petitioner is not recorded as being a judgement debtor by any action of the court. A true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. (Exhibit C) 9. 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, a true and correct copy is attached and by reference is made a part hereof. 10. 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. 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 partys breach of contract. 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. (Exhibit D)

11. 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, an alleged Notice of Lien. (Exhibit E) 12. 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. (Exhibit F) 13. Respondent (Name) under color of law did not afford the petitioners due process of law as is guaranteed by the National and State Constitutions. No action was initiated against the petitioner, 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. 14. Respondent (Name), 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. 15. Respondent (Name) did record said thing, 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. 16. 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, and then receive from the County Recorder a Certification of the filing of the thing. 17. By the respondent (Name) filing the thing with the Country Recorder, he has shifted Civil and Criminal liability away from himself, on to the Recorder and the County Commissioners. 18. By the County Recorders act of recording the thing in the alphabetical Tax Lien Index and issuing a Certificate, he has elevated the power of a non-negotiable instrument to that of a negotiable instrument.

19. Effectively the respondent (Name) has laundered the non-negotiable paper of the respondent (Name), creating a Securities Fraud on the petitioner and the County of (Name). 20. The next step in the Securities Fraud scheme as is demonstrated by past history, is for the respondent to issue a Notice of Levy. 21. The legal foundation of which is fraudulently based upon the Certificate received from the recorder of the thing Notice of Lien. 22. As is historically demonstrated, the respondent then requests the Sheriff to seize property of the individual, which is sold at auction and the proceeds turned over to the respondent, completing the Securities Fraud scheme thereby placing the Recorder, Sheriff, County Commissioners and the entire county in liability to the aggrieved party. 23. 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." 5 24. Had the respondent a lawful assessment, ample opportunity was given by the petitioner in the Notice of Contest of Lien, for the respondent to bring an action in support of the thing Notice of Lien, evidencing that there existed a lawful assessment. 25. No action was ever commenced to enforce the thing, an alleged Notice of Lien. 26. Petitioner has never been served with a 23 C Assessment Certificate or Form 17 Notice and Demand. Cause of action 27. Respondent knew or should have known the required procedure for a lawful lien/levy to occur.

Cf. Berman, 825 F. 2d at 1055-56; United States v. Swarthout, 420 F. 2d 831, 834-35 (6th Cir. 1970)

28. Respondent with contemplated thought and fraudulent intent, acting under color of law, did cloud title to petitioners property and damage his good name in commerce and created a Securities Fraud upon the petitioner and the County. 29. The United States of America is not a principle of this action. Therefore, 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, rather than the amount of the underlying tax liability.6 30. This is an in rem action and petitioners are not suing respondents civilly or prosecuting them by this action and as such, the respondents have no financial stake in the outcome of these proceedings or standing to counter-claim. 31. For establishing res judicata and the law of this case, plaintiffs rely on Williams v. 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. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. 26 CFR 301.6203-1 (1989); see also, Planned Investments Inc., 881 F.2d at 343. - - - -An appropriate assessment is a procedural prerequisite to a tax lien. Cf Berman, 825 F. 2d at 1055-56; United States v, Swarthout, 420 F. 2d 831, 834-5 (6th Cir. 1970) Williams complaint raises an issue as to whether a proper assessment was made. His suit cannot be dismissed if this issue has not been resolved. Cf. Essex, 499 F. 2d at 230-231." Prayer May the God of creation intervene in the hearts of men that truth may prevail over deception, that law may prevail over lawlessness. May God move the heart of the presiding Judge of this court to
6 7

Pollack v. United States, 819 F. 2d 144, 145 (6th Cir. 1987 William v. United States, 900 F. 2d 261;1990 U.S. App. Lexis 6042,

immediately issue legal determination, as to the petitioners rights against the lien of his property and Quieting Title by;
1.

Order the respondent, (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), requiring removal of

said Notice of lien-levy from public and electronic record keeping systems, quieting title to petitioners property and good name in commerce, if the respondents can not produce evidence in support of their claim. 3. 5. Granting petitioners the recovery of cost of this action; Granting petitioners such other and further supplemental relief as the court may deem just and

proper as justice may demand. And of this he puts himself upon the country.

Respectfully submitted, __________________________ (Your Name) Address City, State Phone # _____________________ (Your Wife)