Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
KC Johnson on Report Claiming Seligmann Owes Taxes; Detroit News Says IRS Lien for $6.5 Million
Topic Started: Feb 25 2011, 08:58 AM (7,213 Views)
cks
Member Avatar

There is probably no government entity feared as much as the IRS. They have it within their power to make one's life miserable. The assumption is that one is guilty. It is not that one is innocent and that the IRS must prove that one has done something wrong - rather one must prove beyond all doubt one's innocence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

We now have the Seligmann lien being discussed in a YouTube
(although the tax lawyer, Wood, appears to try to note that he
knows nothing about the specific Seligmann case)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ40BeFgB-I

Nonetheless, I consider this is still more adverse publicity, resulting from
a likely spurious document generated by a malicious
plant.


(MOO)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://blogs.forbes.com/robertwood/2011/03/16/tax-liens-means-irs-thinks-you-owe/

Tax Liens Means IRS Thinks You Owe


Mar. 16 2011

(snip)

Less splashy but still interesting was news that exonerated Duke Lacrosse player Reade Seligmann got a one-two punch from an IRS tax lien claiming he owes nearly $6.5 million in tax. (See Ex-Duke Lacrosse Star Insists Tax Bill a ‘Mistake’.) [link] An IRS tax lien filed Feb. 17 in New York City claims $6,492,377 in tax from 2007, the year Seligmann and two others settled with Duke. See Duke Lacrosse Tax Lien Highlights How Lawsuits Are Taxed.

(snip)

But what are tax liens all about, and is it possible for them to be a mistake or surprise? Yes, but not usually. The IRS can file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien only after:

IRS assesses the liability;

IRS sends you a Notice and Demand for Payment telling you how much you owe; and

You fail to fully pay the debt within 10 days after that notice.

Once these requirements are met, the IRS has a lien, whether or not the IRS files anything. The IRS then files notice of the lien to notify creditors to beware, that the IRS has a claim against all your property. Yup, all of it. That even includes property you acquire after the lien is filed. This notice is used by courts to establish priority, as in bankruptcy proceedings or sales of real estate.

Releasing a Lien. Getting IRS to release a lien usually involves: (1) satisfying the tax, interest and penalties by paying it or by having it adjusted; or (2) posting a bond guaranteeing payment. Even after such events, the IRS may take 30 days to release it. State or local government charges to file and release the lien are added to the amount you owe. See IRS Publication 1450, Request for Release of Federal Tax Lien.

Mistake? Do liens get filed by mistake, because you didn’t really owe the amount and didn’t receive the IRS notices? Yes, this happens, but not all that often.
At a minimum, the IRS thinks you owe it and haven’t paid, which suggests there is a pile of paperwork somewhere to which you must attend to straighten it out.

Suit? If the IRS knowingly or negligently fails to release a Notice of Federal Tax Lien when it should be released, you may sue the federal government for damages. However, you can’t sue IRS employees.


You can probably prosecute IRS employees if they do something egregious.

And, you can SUE, if this was a phony document and the IRS did not immediately
take steps to announce it as such.

Otherwise, it is a party (even if unwillingly) to an attempt at DEFAMATION.

No excuse that "it can't discuss a taxpayer's records" will suffice if
there has been an illegal act performed

And the Commissioner of the IRS (as well as the Treasury Dept. IG)
ought to say so

It shouldn't take more than a phone call from the above gentlemen
to find out if the document was actually approved and sent out;

and if so, why required procedures were not followed;

and why there is (I assume) nothing in Seligmann's files which
would indicate he has not paid his taxes and is subject to a lien.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/irs-sticks-former-duke-lacrosse-player-and-accused-rapist-65m-tax-bill

IRS sticks former Duke lacrosse player and falsely accused rapist with $6.5M tax bill

Celebrity News on 03/16/2011 - 12:06


For some reason this is posted as a current item on this site--with 774 reads thus far.

(the smears continue...)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nyesq83
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Mar 16 2011, 05:14 PM
Quote:
 

http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/irs-sticks-former-duke-lacrosse-player-and-accused-rapist-65m-tax-bill

IRS sticks former Duke lacrosse player and falsely accused rapist with $6.5M tax bill

Celebrity News on 03/16/2011 - 12:06


For some reason this is posted as a current item on this site--with 774 reads thus far.

(the smears continue...)

Falsely Accused Rapist makes it sound like he's a rapist who was falsely accused of something.
Disgusting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/06/ronald_hoodenpyle_gets_jail_time_for_bogus_lien_on_irs_agents_home.php


COLORADO SPRINGS MAN FOUND GUILTY OF FILING FALSE LIEN AGAINST IRS EMPLOYEE

DENVER -- A jury in U.S. District Court in Denver yesterday found Ronald Roy Hoodenpyle, age 68, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, guilty of filing a false lien against an IRS employee, U.S. Attorney David Gaouette and Special Agent in Charge of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Denver Field Division, Greg Jaramillo announced.

(snip)

According to the indictment, as well as facts presented to the jury during trial, on April 2, 2008, the defendant, Ronald Roy Hoodenpyle, filed a false lien against the real property owned by an IRS Revenue Officer. The false lien was filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, and stated that the Revenue Officer owed the defendant in excess of $1,000,000. Hoodenpyle knew that this statement was false.

(snip)

The government presented evidence that the defendant filed the false lien in retaliation for the IRS Revenue Officer's performing his professional duties.

Hoodenpyle faces not more than 10 years in federal prison, and a fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gain or loss from the offense. He could also be ordered to pay restitution to the IRS.

(snip)

"I am very pleased with the guilty verdict," said Greg Jaramillo, Special Agent in Charge of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Denver Field Division. "This should send a strong message to those individuals who would use intimidation and harassment against IRS employees to attempt to impede tax administration."

(snip)


This sentence was because an IRS agent was threatened in the line of his duties.

But there should be an equally strong "message" sent if a private citizen is intimidated or
harassed through the use of a phony lien (perhaps in order to intimidate him in the process
of civil litigation).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Someday, Reade and his family will be able to write a TRUE story that will rival anything John Grisham ever wrote. But I find myself fearing for the safety and well being of all the LAX players. Something in my gut tells me that some of the people who will eventually ( hopefully ) be exposed in this investigation have very deep political and financial pockets and will stop at NOTHING to intimidate and ?????
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

dsl
Mar 17 2011, 10:32 AM
Someday, Reade and his family will be able to write a TRUE story that will rival anything John Grisham ever wrote. But I find myself fearing for the safety and well being of all the LAX players. Something in my gut tells me that some of the people who will eventually ( hopefully ) be exposed in this investigation have very deep political and financial pockets and will stop at NOTHING to intimidate and ?????
I absolutely agree, dsl.

I hope someday the Seligmanns will write the real story of this ordeal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Of possible related interest:


Quote:
 
http://www.accountantforums.com/federal-tax-lien-recorded-after-liability-has-been-paid-full-t11315.html

I have a very interesting case in San Mateo County, CA. IRS
requested a lien filing a few weeks ago. Apparently, San
Mateo County is taking 45 days to actually record those
liens. . .

Couple of weeks ago, the
taxpayer sold their home and voluntarily paid off the
liability in full (the lien had not been recorded when the
home closed so it wasn't paid off through the escrow).

(snip)

We strongly
believe that if the San Mateo County Recorder records this
lien, we have a very strong case against the IRS for an
illegal lien filing. We believe the IRS MUST find a way to
physically pull the lien so that it is not recorded. A
release isn't acceptable. It must not be recorded at all.

Since the sole purpose of a lien is to protect the
government's interest and there is NO liability remaining
and thus no interest to protect,
it would be a very serious
violation of the taxpayer's rights to record this lien
. It
is not the fault of the taxpayer that it is taking a very
long time to actually record the lien.

(snip)

Comments?



COMMENTS:
Quote:
 


If as of the date that the IRS had presented the lien at the
County Recorder's Office for filing, the liability had not
been paid, then the IRS HAS THE RIGHT (within the limits of
the other rules) to have it recorded even if it has been
paid since. However, they also now must have a document
pending indicating that the liability is paid in full
(either a release or other statement indicating such) since
it has been.

The recourse that you want is proper ONLY if the payment of
the liability occurred before the date that the lien was
presented for filing.


(snip)


Quote:
 


IRM 5.12.3.5 has the language that provides for a situation
like yours. It actually happens all too frequently. As you
indicated, it is a timing problem. . . It takes a
certain amount of time for the lien to be prepared, the
check to the county to be written and the information to be
submitted to the county for the recording. Then, as you
stated, the county takes their time to do the actual
recording. Your client got caught in that timeline problem.

If you can prove that the lien was recorded AFTER the tax
was paid,
you have the right to ask for a manual release
that you or your client can go record yourself. You also
have the right to ask for a letter from the IRS to the 3
credit reporting agencies to notify them that the lien was
filed inadvertantly and is now released.



What is the responsibility of the IRS (and its LIABILITY) if it
proceeds with a lien which is not only invalid (in that
it was not filled out properly)

but which turns out to be fraudulent?

Does the IRS have procedures to catch such potential frauds?

If not, is it negligent?

If so, why did it not (as I assume) follow them, since it permitted
a lien which was improperly filled out?

Can the taxpayer sue the IRS for its complicity in defamation,
and compel it to issue a public recantation and apology?
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 20 2011, 10:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
2006 Alabama Code - Section 13A-9-12 — Offering false instrument for recording.

(a) A person commits the crime of offering a false instrument for recording if, knowing that a written instrument relating to or affecting real or personal property, or an interest therein, or directly affecting contractual relationships contains a material false statement or material false information, and with intent to defraud, he presents or offers it to a public office or a public employee, with the knowledge that it will be registered, filed or recorded or become a part of the records of that public office or public employee.
(b) Offering a false instrument for recording is a Class A misdemeanor.


Many states have similar provisions.

ETA: NEW YORK:

Quote:
 

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article175.htm

S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree.

A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the second
degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone
entitled to grant it, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys,
conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other
written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a
record of a public office or public servant.
Tampering with public records in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.
A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the first
degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone
entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes,
mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters
any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or
otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.
Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony.

S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the
second degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false
statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public
office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be
filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the
records of such public office or public servant.
Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.
A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the
first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false
statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or
any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit
corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office,
public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the
knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded
in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office,
public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.
Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class E felony.

S 175.40 Issuing a false certificate.
A person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public
servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or
other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive
or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the
same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false
statement or false information.
Issuing a false certificate is a class E felony.

S 175.45 Issuing a false financial statement.
A person is guilty of issuing a false financial statement when, with
intent to defraud:
1. He knowingly makes or utters a written instrument which purports to
describe the financial condition or ability to pay of some person and
which is inaccurate in some material respect; or
2. He represents in writing that a written instrument purporting to
describe a person`s financial condition or ability to pay as of a prior
date is accurate with respect to such person`s current financial
condition or ability to pay, whereas he knows it is materially
inaccurate in that respect.
Issuing a false financial statement is a class A misdemeanor.

Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 20 2011, 10:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_of_title

In law, slander of title is normally a claim involving real estate in which one entity falsely claims to own another entity's property. Alternatively, it is casting aspersion on someone else's property, business or goods, e.g. claiming a house is infested with termites (when it is not), or falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright (what allegedly occurred in the SCO v. Novell case). Slander of title is a form of jactitation.

Slander of title is a one of the "specialized" Common law intentional torts. The State of California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in section 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: "One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another's property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused."

The term slander of title is somewhat of a misnomer as slander refers to that which is spoken yet the tort slander of title requires publication. A more accurate term would be "disparagement of title"

A slander of title suit can be pursued with merit in a variety of circumstances including but not limited to" the filing of an invalid lien against real property[color=#ee4a2d] or virtually any type of recordable instrument recorded against a property by one without privilege which is untrue....[/color]It is not a requirement that it be recorded merely published, and in the broadest sense of the word. Published can even refer to the placement of a lawn sign in front of someone's property upon which is conveyed an untrue disparaging statement.


Quote:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jactitation

Legal jactitation

In English law, jactitation is the maliciously boasting or giving out by one party that he or she is married to the other.

(snip)

In addition, this term may refer to acts such as slander of title or other similar misrepresentations of the ownership of physical or intellectual property.
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 20 2011, 10:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3(a)(2).htm


NEW YORK PENAL LAW
CHAPTER 40 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS
PART THREE--SPECIFIC OFFENSES
TITLE K--OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD
ARTICLE 170--FORGERY AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 170.00 Forgery; definitions of terms

1. "Written instrument" means any instrument or article, including computer data or a computer program, containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, used for the purpose of reciting, embodying, conveying or recording information, or constituting a symbol or evidence of value, right, privilege or identification, which is capable of being used to the advantage or disadvantage of some person.

2. "Complete written instrument" means one which purports to be a genuine written instrument fully drawn with respect to every essential feature thereof. An endorsement, attestation, acknowledgment or other similar signature or statement is deemed both a complete written instrument in itself and a part of the main instrument in which it is contained or to which it attaches.

3. "Incomplete written instrument" means one which contains some matter by way of content or authentication but which requires additional matter in order to render it a complete written instrument.

4. "Falsely make." A person "falsely makes" a written instrument when he makes or draws a complete written instrument in its entirety, or an incomplete written instrument, which purports to be an authentic creation of its ostensible maker or drawer, but which is not such either because the ostensible maker or drawer is fictitious or because, if real, he did not authorize the making or drawing thereof.

5. "Falsely complete." A person "falsely completes" a written instrument when, by adding, inserting or changing matter, he transforms an incomplete written instrument into a complete one, without the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, so that such complete instrument appears or purports to be in all respects an authentic creation of or fully authorized by its ostensible maker or drawer.

6. "Falsely alter." A person "falsely alters" a written instrument when, without the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, he changes a written instrument, whether it be in complete or incomplete form, by means of erasure, obliteration, deletion, insertion of new matter, transposition of matter, or in any other manner, so that such instrument in its thus altered form appears or purports to be in all respects an authentic creation of or fully authorized by its ostensible maker or drawer.

7. "Forged instrument" means a written instrument which has been falsely made, completed or altered.

8. "Electronic access device" means a mobile identification number or electronic serial number that can be used to obtain telephone service.


Section 170.05 Forgery in the third degree

A person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.

Forgery in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 170.10 Forgery in the second degree

A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:

1. A deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, credit card, as that term is defined in subdivision seven of section 155.00, or other instrument which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status; or

2. A public record, or an instrument filed or required or authorized by law to be filed in or with a public office or public servant; or

3. A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality; or

4. Part of an issue of tokens, public transportation transfers, certificates or other articles manufactured and designed for use as symbols of value usable in place of money for the purchase of property or services; or

5. A prescription of a duly licensed physician or other person authorized to issue the same for any drug or any instrument or device used in the taking or administering of drugs for which a prescription is required by law.

Forgery in the second degree is a class D felony.


Section 170.15 Forgery in the first degree

(snip)

Section 170.75 Fraudulent making of an electronic access device in the second degree

A person is guilty of fraudulent making of an electronic access device in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters two or more electronic access devices, as that term is defined in subdivision eight of section 170.00 of this article.

Fraudulent making of an electronic access device in the second degree is a class D felony.

(snip)

Section 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree

A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the first degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony.


Section 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree

A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.

Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.

Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class E felony.


Section 175.40 Issuing a false certificate

A person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being a public servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates or other official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same with intent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or false information.

Issuing a false certificate is a class E felony.


Section 175.45 Issuing a false financial statement

A person is guilty of issuing a false financial statement when, with intent to defraud:

1. He knowingly makes or utters a written instrument which purports to describe the financial condition or ability to pay of some person and which is inaccurate in some material respect; or

2. He represents in writing that a written instrument purporting to describe a person's financial condition or ability to pay as of a prior date is accurate with respect to such person's current financial condition or ability to pay, whereas he knows it is materially inaccurate in that respect.

Issuing a false financial statement is a class A misdemeanor.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Evidently forgeries are not unknown, even though a forgery with only the intent to defame
may be less common than a forgery for financial gain:


Quote:
 
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/937/447/192838/


Ticor Title Insurance Company (Ticor) brought suit for damages resulting from its reliance on a fraudulent federal tax lien release that had been forged by Shepard and Florida. The district court, following a bench trial, entered a judgment in favor of Ticor after concluding that Shepard and Florida had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1968, and had engaged in fraud. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964(c). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm.

Shepard and Florida were partners in Realty Information Systems (Realty), a business which invested in real estate, particularly distressed properties in foreclosure. In August 1987, they purchased a San Francisco condominium. The condominium was encumbered by a federal tax lien, recorded in 1986, in the amount of $39,487.52. Shepard and Florida subsequently offered the condominium for resale.

Landis contacted Shepard and Florida as an interested purchaser in September 1987, but advised them that title to the property would have to be delivered free of any liens. The parties agreed on a purchase price, but a title search performed by Ticor revealed that title to the property was clouded by the tax lien, which gave the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a right of redemption on the condominium.

Shepard and Florida tried to persuade the IRS to release its right of redemption so that the sale could be consummated, but they met with no success. Fearing that Landis might retract his offer to purchase, a Realty employee notified him on November 15, 1987, that Shepard and Florida were close to obtaining a release. The next day, a forged certificate of release, purporting to release the IRS lien for unpaid taxes, was recorded in the office of the San Francisco County Recorder. In reliance upon this fraudulent release, Ticor agreed to insure Landis's title to the property without an exception for the IRS's right of redemption, and Landis purchased the condominium.

Five days after escrow had closed, the IRS discovered that a fraudulent release had been recorded and notified Landis.


[IT ONLY TOOK FIVE DAYS FOR THE IRS TO DETECT A FRAUD? HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE
IN THE SELIGMANN CASE?]

After learning from the IRS that it intended to redeem his newly purchased condominium, Landis contacted Shepard and Florida. They told him not to worry because he had a title insurance policy, and they made no attempt to clear the title on the property. Landis then made a title insurance claim against Ticor. Ticor paid him $190,041 under the policy, and in return received title to the condominium.

Two days later, however, the IRS exercised its right of redemption and took the property from Ticor for $75,000, the amount paid by Florida and Shepard, at the trustee sale held for the benefit of the first lienholder. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410(d).

Ticor sued Shepard and Florida, alleging fraud, RICO violations, and other claims. It based its RICO claim on the Landis sale forgery and two prior tax lien release forgeries. The district court found that Florida, assisted by Shepard, had perpetrated the three forgeries, and entered a judgment in favor of Ticor on the fraud and RICO claims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Not all states are as advanced as Colorado or have a spurious lien law. However,
what is the policy of the IRS if there is a spurious lien issued? What is the procedure?

And why should it be more complex or time consuming than the Colorado process?

Quote:
 
http://www.foreclosureindustry.com/tag/forgery/


Colorado Foreclosure Defense – Spurious Documents & Lien Statute

January 18, 2011 by Mark ·

Some of the foreclosure cases surfacing around the country involve outright forgery, misstatements, or other actions that clearly invalidate the lender/servicer’s right to foreclose. Examples would include alleged “robo-signers,” fabricated notes or deeds of trust or assignments, and in some cases, attempted foreclosure on the wrong promissory note or deed of trust. Coloradans facing foreclosure should examine the recorded documents in the context of the Spurious Documents and Lien Statute. The document or lien may be voidable pursuant to this remedy.

Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) Section 38-35-201 defines spurious documents and liens as follows:

“(3) ‘Spurious document’ means any document that is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise patently invalid.

(4) ‘Spurious lien’ means a purported lien or claim of lien that:

(a) Is not provided for by a specific Colorado or federal statute or by a specific ordinance or charter of a home rule municipality;

(b) Is not created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the owner of the property it purports to encumber; or

(c) Is not imposed by order, judgment, or decree of a state court or a federal court.” (emphasis added)

Pursuant to C.R.S. 38-35-204, any person whose real or personal property is affected by a recorded or filed lien or document that the person believes is a spurious lien or spurious document may petition either the state district court of the federal district court for an order to show cause why the lien or document should not be declared invalid. The order to show cause may be granted ex parte – this means that no notice to opposing parties need be given prior to issuance of the order to show cause. The order to show cause then directs the asserted lien holder or filer of the alleged spurious document to appear as a respondent after they are served with the order.

Here’s what the court can do if the respondent fails to appear, or fails to satisfy the court that its lien or document is valid:

“(2) If, following the hearing on the order to show cause, the court determines that the lien or document is a spurious lien or spurious document, the court shall make findings of fact and enter an order and decree declaring the spurious lien or spurious document and any related notice of lis pendens invalid, releasing the recorded or filed spurious lien or spurious document, and entering a monetary judgment in the amount of the petitioner’s costs, including reasonable attorney fees, against any respondent and in favor of the petitioner.

A certified copy of such order may be recorded or filed in the office of any state or local official or employee, including the clerk and recorder of any county or city and county and the Colorado secretary of state.”

This remedy provides an expeditious and quick remedy for cases in which there is clear invalidity, fraud, falsity, or forgery.

[Now why doesn't the IRS have such a quick remedy?]

One must be careful and sure of oneself before advancing this remedy, for “ [a] lien or document affecting real or personal property is ‘groundless ,’ within the meaning of the statute authorizing the owner of the property to petition for an order to show cause why the lien or document should not be declared invalid, if it is one for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law. “ Westar Holdings Partnership v. Reece, App.1999, 991 P.2d 328. If you win, the court orders a monetary judgment for your costs, including your attorney’s fees and costs. If you lose, the court orders you to pay the respondent’s attorneys fees and costs.

And so, like all legal remedies available for persons facing foreclosure, we must examine the individual facts of the case. In cases in which the lender/servicer can advance “no rational argument based on evidence or the law,” the spurious lien or document remedy is appropriate. If the deed of trust is found to be spurious, the lien is effectively stripped from the property. If the promissory note is found to be spurious, there is no debt. If a recorded assignment of the note or deed of trust is found to be spurious, the lender/servicer’s right to foreclose in its own name becomes questionable.

Mark Wm. Hofgard, Esq. is a Colorado attorney specializing in foreclosure matters.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/118552984.html

Abele was hit with lien for unpaid taxes
IRS says he owed more than $2.3 million for 1999 tax year


March 23, 2011

Millionaire philanthropist Chris Abele, one of two candidates for Milwaukee County executive, was hit with a federal tax lien in 2003 over millions in unpaid federal taxes.

The lien, filed in November 2003, said Abele owed the Internal Revenue Service more than $2.3 million in income taxes for the 1999 tax year, according to records obtained from the county Register of Deed's Office. The lien was placed on his condo on N. Prospect Ave. at the time.

Records show the lien was released a little more than a month later, meaning he either paid off the sum or set up a payment plan acceptable to federal tax collectors.

(snip)


Quote:
 
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/118608989.html

Abele, Stone Come Under Fire
By Shelley Walcott
MILWAUKEE - The accusations are flying in the county executive race and today both candidates were defending themselves.

Milwaukee County Executive candidate Chris Abele is defending himself against another unflattering news item.

The Journal Sentinel reports Abele was hit with a $2.3 million tax lien in 2003, because of unpaid taxes. But Abele says, the IRS and his tax preparers simply had different ideas about his home assessment, and that it was eventually resolved.

Abele told TODAY'S TMJ4's Shelley Walcott: "That lien was dropped, not paid, everything's fine, it hasn't been audited since. No obligations, nothing illegal, nothing improper."

But it is the latest in a litany of bad press against the Milwaukee Democrat including revelations of unsettled OWI's, setting off fireworks within city limits, and nearly 100 unpaid parking tickets. Abele says the timing of all this bad press is no accident.

(snip)


Quote:
 

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/118608989.html

In defense of Chris Abele

March 24, 2011 at 8:25 am --by Cindy

Today’s news from the I-never-endorsed-Chris-Abele paper of Milwaukee is that Abele had a tax lien on his home in 1999. There’s the potential for this to be one heck of a story. There’s also the chance the story went something like this:

IRS worker opens payment document. IRS worker puts payment check in the wrong pile. IRS worker processes return as not paid. IRS worker processes lien.

You see, I have personal history with a story much like that one. Then one day, out of the clear blue sky, a letter came thanking us for the payment and explaining that penalties and interest might, MIGHT be cleared soon. They were. Still the follow up letters offered no explanation or apology.

I imagined some IRS worker getting canned, someone cleaning off the wreck of a desk and thinking, “oops, better cash that.” For the three months in between it was darn near terror. The IRS aren’t very fun playmates.

No, I don’t know for sure that’s what happened to Abele. Sure, he’s not the guy I want in the Milwaukee County Executive’s seat. I am saying there’s no smoking gun.

It sure is interesting to watch the MJS build a case against Abele now that they’ve decided that’s what they want to do.


Want to bet that the IRS only says that the Seligmann lien was 'released'; and that it never apologizes?

That it's not going to apologize for anything unless its feet get held to the fire?

And that if there was a phony document involved, it's going to spend months-to-years formally investigating;
so that whatever intended damage to Seligmann has been done (ie, influencing opinion against him during a civil
case; and perhaps--if it ever gets that far--a jury)?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply