Time: Fri Nov 14 06:30:12 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA15519;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:00:53 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA24018;
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:00:29 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:00:55 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Employee's Letter (fwd)
<snip>
>
> [ An Employee's Letter to his Company ]
>
>[Company]
>[Address]
>[City, State, Zip]
>
>[Date]
>
>Gentlemen:
>
>The intent of this letter is:
>
>1. To lodge my objection to your "compliance" with an "Earnings Withholding
>Order For Taxes" that has been allegedly issued to you by the state
>Franchise Tax Board;
>2. To demand that you stop withholding pursuant to that "order" and pay all
>amounts previously withheld;
>3. To place you on constructive notice that legal action will follow if you
>continue to withhold wages from me without legal authorization.
>
>In addition to the reasons provided you in my previous letter, the following
>reasons apply. For brevity, I designate "EWO" to mean the Earnings
>Withholding Order For Taxes that you have received, presumably from the
>Franchise Tax Board which I shall refer to as "FTB", and "CCP" shall stand
>for the California Code of Civil Procedure.
>
>The EWO states that it is issued under authorization of Section 706.074 of
>the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) however, this section falls
>within:
>
> Part 2, entitled "OF CIVIL ACTIONS",
> Title 9, entitled "ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS",
> Division 2, ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGEMENTS",
> Chapter 5, "WAGE GARNISHMENT"
>
>The reason that a Code of Civil Procedure exists is to give order and
>direction to those seeking to recover or make claims against others. The
>Code is written in such an order to lead one through the entire process,
>from beginning to end, required to make a claim valid and enforceable.
>
>That order of process is called "Due Process of Law" and is one of the
>rights specifically reserved in the Constitutions of both the United States
>and California.
>
>The legal procedure begins with the commencing of an "action" which is
>defined in CCP Section 22 as:
>
> "An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one
> party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement or protection
> of a right, the redress of a wrong, or the punishment of a public
> offense."
>
>The balance of the CCP provides specific rules to follow to proceed with
>that "due process" beginning with Title 1 and continuing until in Title 8 we
>find that the COURT is to "enter a judgement". The following of Title 9
>"ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS", which concerns us here, tells us what one can
>do with a judgement once it is entered. It is quite obvious that one cannot
>obtain rights in Title 9 without first beginning an action in Title 1 and
>proceeding a step at a time to get there.
>
>Oddly enough, the actions that the EWO states that you are "required" to
>perform, more closely constitute an "attachment", except for the judicial
>participation, rather than a "garnishment", although the EWO does not bear
>sufficiency in either case. I will attempt to explain the difference.
>
>Briefly, "ATTACHMENT" means to take or seize property by judicial order, and
>bring the property into a court for the purpose of satisfying a potential
>judgement. This can be issued only by authority of a court. The term does
>not actually fit this case in that there is no pending action or proceeding
>against means it is obvious by examination of the EWO that it was not issued
>or even authorized by a court. Further, as I mentioned in my previous
>letter, wages are not subject to attachment (CCP Section 4487.020). See
>attachment "A" for quoted definition of the term.
>
>"GARNISHMENT" means the the garnishee (you in this case) as required to HOLD
>the property until given release and instruction by the court. The term
>"garnishment" defined in 15 USCS Section 1672(c), "contemplates a judicial
>transaction" ... Atwater v. Roudebush 456 F.Supp. 622, 6 Am.Jur. 2nd Supp.
>131. See attachment "B" for quoted definition of the term.
>
>So you see, neither of those actually fit in our case; neither attachment
>nor garnishment; because there is no action pending in a court and not
>garnishment ; as you have been instructed by the EWO to send all withheld
>funds to the FTB, not to hold or appear in court. So the only thing that we
>have that describes the action is "confiscation". Quoting West's "State
>Constitution", Book 1, page 19, "confiscation":
>
> Legislature is without power to expropriate ones property by mere
> legislative enactment and the court has no power to do so without notice
> and a hearing. (Equitable Sav & Loan v. Superior Court of L.A. County
> 230 P2d 119 (1959))
>
>This lack of sufficiency is probably the reason that no signature was placed
>on the EWO, no one at FTB wants to take responsibility for issuing an
>erroneous order to confiscate my property.
>
>To quote from a legal publication of competent authority:
>
> "To avail himself of the remedy of attachment or garnishment, the
> plaintiff must commence an action upon his demand" (5 Cal Jur 2d,
> Section 42).
>
>"ACTION" is defined:
>
> "the legal and formal demand of one's right from another person or party
>made and insisted on in a court of justice" (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth
>edition).
>
>Now while it is probably not incumbent upon you to determine whether or not
>an action has taken place to obtain the "right" for the FTB to issue the
>EWO, the fact is that no action is pending or has taken place giving the FTB
>the authority to either attach or garnish my wages and I have not authorized
>you to withhold any amounts other than Social Security Taxes, Disability
>Taxes and those other personal items like insurance, bonds and the like. I
>have voluntarily, by special appearance, complied with your requests that I
>fill out W-4 and DE-4 forms and they have been marked with claim of "exempt"
>as provided.
>
>There has never been an action filed against me in a court of law, and since
>there has never been a judgement rendered in favor of the state, the FTB or
>the State Board of Equalization against me, and since I have no unpaid tax
>liability due this state; it is readily clear that the EWO has not been
>issued legally, but is issued illegally under "color of law". You can not
be
>legally bound to participate in an illegal act.
>
>The foregoing is explained so that I may make you aware that the FTB is
>attempting to abrogate my rights under the Constitutions and laws of the
>United States and the State of California, and is using you as their tool in
>the attempt.
>
>The EWO which you are relying upon to withhold my property is not a legal
>document, it bears no name, no signature, no name of court and does not
>refer to any judgement or judicial authority. A signature or subscription
>is imperative on any legal document for it to be properly executed.
>California Government Code states:
>
> Section 1933. Execution of instrument defined.
> The execution of an instrument is the subscribing and delivering it
> with or without affixing a seal."
>
> "Authentication" is:
> The authentication of a written instrument is such official attestation
> as will render it legally admissible as evidence" Mayfield v. Sears,
> 32 N.E. 816, 133 Ind. 86. (Words and Phrases, Pg 598)
>
>There is therefore the possibility that you could not even use the EWO as
>evidence to defend yourself in a legal action.
>
>Further, EWO does not even signify WHAT is due. The little box containing
>the number 16,874.03, topped with the words "AMOUNT DUE" has no sign which
>gives any indication What is due, only an amount. Someone at Pacific Bell
>has taken it upon themself to interpret that the thing is money, but nowhere
>on the EWO itself does it state that I owe money, although it may allude to
>it in some phrases where it speaks of my earnings.
>
>It is not my intention or desire to threaten or cajole you into complying
>with my demands. I have spent many hours attempting to determine how I
>could defend my rights without forcing this issue into court against Pacific
>Bell, my friend for over 20 years. I am however, left with only this one
>course.
>
>The FTB has issued an erroneous order, they refuse to withdraw it and
>"stonewall me" when I attempt to communicate with them. Oddly enough,
>unless they attempt to force you into compliance with the order they have
>done little wrong (although it would be called attempted robbery or
>extortion if I tried the same thing).
>
>The EWO lacks legal sufficiency because of those things which I have
>mentioned here and in my previous letter and a few other things that come to
>light. It therefore appears that the only real culprit in the case is
>Pacific Bell who is just trying to be a nice guy and comply with the "law".
>
>My only recourse, as I see it, is to seek relief against Pacific Bell and
>the individuals responsible for the illegal conversion of my property,
>ordering that you show cause why you should not comply with my demand
>instead of the EWO, and that you return my money to me and that you fully
>comply with the law upon any other present or future attempts by anyone
>attempting to take my property without proper legal authority. You are my
>fiduciary, not the Franchise Tax Board's or the IRS's for that matter. You
>are saddled with the job of protecting my money until it is paid to me.
>That is a tough job but a simple one, simply comply with the law and demand
>that anyone making a claim on my property present all of the authority that
>the law requires or give him nothing. See also United States Code, Title
>42, Sections 1983, 1985, 1986 and Title 18, Section 241, 242.
>
>I demand that you disregard the "Earnings Withholding Order For Taxes" until
>such time as it may be affirmed by competent subscription that judgement has
>been entered against me in a court of law.
>
>I demand that you immediately pay to me any funds that you have withheld due
>to the mentioned EWO. As a simple gesture from me, in the event that you
>have already transferred some funds to the FTB, I will not press for those
>funds provided that you comply with my demand to stop withholding except
>those amounts that I have specifically authorized.
>
>In the event that you do not comply with the above demands and continue to
>withhold unauthorized amounts from the next check for wages due me (being
>the second pay period for August, 1986), I must file a complaint and begin
>an action to recover.
>
> Dated:____________________ Authenticated by subscription,
>
> ______________________________
>
<snip>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail