REMOVE YOUR PROPERTY from TAX ROLLS Steve from Florida
January 14, 2013
Mr. Tony
Tax Assessor for xxxxx County
300 E. Fremont St.
P.O. Box 67
xxxxxxx, NC 28425
Subject: 1) NOTICE AND DEMAND TO REMOVE PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM TAX ROLLS; 2) AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS; and 3) PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
RE: PIN (Non Assumpsit): 2267-11-5661-0000; 2267-02-1001-0000; 2267-01-1899-0000; 2267-01-2783-0000; 2267-01-3569-0000; 2267-01-4415-0000; 2267-21-8241-0000; 2267-31-5245-0000; 2248-94-8392-0000; 2258-04-2631-0000; 2360-60-1950-0000; 2258-04-4526-0000; 2258-04-5601-0000; 2258-04-5676-0000; 2360-62-3714-0000; 3274-54-7535-0000; 2266-29-3983-0000; 2267-20-0204-0000; 2267-30-3824-0000; 2267-40-4037-0000; 2267-50-0767-0000; 3283-87-8121-0000; 3283-87-9454-0000; 3284-01-6865-0000; 3283-97-0605-0000; 3283-88-4155-0000; 3283-87-9873-0000; 3283-87-8861-0000; 3283-87-8652-0000; 3283-87-7749-0000; 3283-87-7508-0000; 3283-87-7381-0000; 3283-87-6725-0000; 3283-87-4448-0000; 3283-87-3514-0000; 3283-87-1481-0000; 3283-87-0457-0000; 3283-78-3000-0000; 3283-77-9388-0000; 3283-77-8463-0000; 3293-77-7310-0000; 3283-77-5396-0000; 3283-77-5214-0000; 3283-77-3299-0000; 3283-67-7697-0000; and 3283-57-8511-0000.
Dear Tony:
As promised a couple of months ago, I am submitting the following information on the subject of removing one’s private property from the tax rolls. You and I have discussed much of this previously, but I want to make sure that you have a clear understanding of what lies before us with this tax on private property issue. I cannot in good conscience allow my children and grandchildren to inherit land upon which annual rent must be paid to the State of North Carolina, to Pender County or to any State created entity. While I initially believed the problem to be with the Tax Collector, it now appears to me that it actually begins with the Tax Assessor. It’s the Tax Assessor who determines whether or not a property/land is included on the tax rolls or not. All the Tax Collector does is follow up on the recommendations and renderings of the Tax Assessor. Therefore, the purpose of this correspondence is to provide you notice of my beliefs on this matter of property taxation and to demand that the lands identified by the referenced parcel identification numbers be removed from the rolls of taxable items in the Pender County Assessor’s list of taxed property. So, “the ball is in your court”, so to speak.
Therefore, now come I, Donald Sullivan, hereafter “Affiant”, a private man who is free; who is over 21 years old; who has the rights to which all men who are free are entitled; who is one of the men living free on the land of the original State of North Carolina; who is not under the power of another; such as the implied jurisdiction of any Corporation or Government; and who has the right to make valid, or not, any contract by his actions. In short, I am possessed with the unalienable right to liberty; and living in honor, I do now provide the following evidence for the record in this witnessed declaration of facts. I am free to declare that all my property in the original State of North Carolina is not used in any licensed taxable commercial activity and is not an article of commerce known as real property, but in fact is private property outside of the jurisdiction and control of the Corporate STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and its chartered, created subdivision Corporate COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNSHIPS or any of their agencies and agents.
I hereby submit the following information in the form of a supporting affidavit, duly sworn, notarized and sealed, with proper legal service provided such that, should it be necessary to move this action forward to litigation, the contents herein serve as notice and evidence of the crimes committed against me, my land and my rights thereto. Notice to agent is notice to principal: Notice to principal is notice to agent. Said affiant attests that:
1. I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that the Corporation called STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA or its chartered municipalities and subdivisions COUNTIES, TOWNSHIPS, CITIES and VILLAGES or their agents, has now or ever has had jurisdiction over this living, natural man or his private lands and properties located in the original State of North Carolina, as evidenced by:
A. “Jurisdiction”: A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory. (Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition).
B. “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (emphasis mine) West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
- I am not in receipt of any verified evidence contradicting that the right to own private property is a common right that existed long before the States and the United States existed, or that the land or the common right to own it can be taken away, taxed by a vote, or be the object of a forced tax or take statute, without the owners consent. Again see: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943); and the North Carolina Constitution.
3.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that Affiant is not a taxpayer as defined by law and that no Township, County or State Assessor has the authority to determine whether a land owner is or is not a taxpayer. See Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972), “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws”; or, “... the power to make regulations does not extend to making taxpayers of those whom the Act, properly construed, does not tax”; Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Colpaert Realty Corp., 231 Ind. 463, 109 NE.2d 415, where the State has “no power to render taxable a transaction which the statute did not make taxable”; Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. State Tax Com., 242 Iowa 33, 44 NW.2d 449, 41 ALR.2d 523. "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to...enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." (Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).
4.There are clearly two very distinct presentations of evidence to be made regarding the illegal taxation of private property based upon the laws of the United States and North Carolina. The first comes down to this, and I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts, that only property used for commercial purposes is subject to tax, unless the owner voluntarily “lists” such property for taxation; is receiving a benefit from the State on the property; the property is owned by the State; or the owner is a “legal entity”. The Pender County lands in the referenced PIN list above are examples of this first presentation. This land is non-business, private land used only for my private use and not involved in any taxable trade, commerce, business or industry. I hold title to most of this said land in bills of sale upon which no revenue stamps were required to be paid. There are no liens or other forms of commercial paper outstanding on this land which would grant the tax office the jurisdiction to tax or assess it. I have not listed the property for taxation with your office and do not voluntarily agree to pay the tax.
5.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that, as far as these specific lands are concerned, I am not a taxpayer as defined in the “Machinery Act” at Section 105-273 (17), “Taxpayer. – A person whose property is subject to ad valorem property taxation by any county or municipality and any person who, under the terms of this Subchapter, has a duty to list property for taxation”, where “Person” is defined thusly at paragraph (12) “Person. – An individual, a trustee, an executor, an administrator, another fiduciary, a corporation, a limited liability company, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a company, a firm, or another legal entity.” I am not a “legal entity” and, thus legally, and morally, not a “taxpayer”. “Taxpayer” is a status given to a man which converts him to an artificial entity, aka a “legal entity”, over which a corporation, the State, may exert authority and demand responses. If the General Assembly had intended for my private property or me to be taxed, it would have defined “taxpayer” simply as “the people” and avoided all this confusion.
6.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts thatproperty not involved in commerce is simply excluded from the tax base unless voluntarily submitted by its private owner by his own actions and of his own free will. Otherwise, it is revenue fraud. NCGS 105275, “Property classified and excluded from the tax base”, states “the following classes of property are hereby designated special classes under authority of Article V, Sec. 2(2), of the North Carolina Constitution and shall not be listed, appraised, assessed, or taxed: (16) Nonbusiness Property. – As used in this subdivision, the term "nonbusiness property" means personal property that is used by the owner of the property for a purpose other than the production of income and is not used in connection with a business.” (Emphasis mine) Thus, “non-business” property is exempt from taxation and no application for exemption is required. (See NCGS 105282.1(a)(1), No application for exemption is required for “special classes of property excluded from taxation under G.S. 105275(16)”.)
7.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that “Property Tax” is a “Generic term describing a tax levied on the basis of the value of either personal or real property owned by thetaxpayer.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 6thEdition pg.1458). To illustrate, Mr. Robert Hugh Corbett, the Pender County Tax Attorney, has notified me in his official correspondence as part of a foreclosure proceeding that I am not a “party” in the actions of the County against my property for non-payment of taxes. He specifically indicates that I am not the “taxpayer” and that I am not involved in the action, yet the Pender County Tax Collector intends to proceed with a foreclosure proceeding based upon the fact that my property has been identified by the Tax Assessor as being the subject of an Ad Valorem tax. He did, however, indicate that I may stop the foreclosure actions against my property by paying the tax myself.
8.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that “Man” and “person” cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a “person”, or a “legal entity”. The law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest a man with artificial attributes; this is the personality which we see “legally”, by which he is affected “legally” and against which our “equity” and “admiralty” courts can act. The word "person" denotes certain conditions of rank or status with which man is clothed by law so that he becomes subordinate to the law. Government can only control what it creates.(The power which is derivedcannot be greater than that fromwhich itisderived.) It has no lawful control or authority over a natural man unless and until he offends the rights of others.
9.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that words have meaning. It is important to note that, when interpreting codes and statutes, we are no longer dealing with words, but legal “terms”. When a definition is given for a “term” in a statute, it must be interpreted very specifically. When a term is defined, it means only what is in its legal definition. One example is “person”, as in a “taxpayer” is a “person”. The term person has a very specific meaning. The definition of “person” as a “legal entity” given in Section 105-273(12) always applies in the law unless a specific section says it does not apply. If there appears to be a conflict between the use of the term in one chapter and the definition of the term in Section 105-273(12), a conflict is not to be assumed if there is a way to get the two to work together. Thus, the word “person”, because it is defined as “legal entities” in Section 105-273(12), must be limited to only “legal entities” in exclusion of all others, since Section 105-273(12) is the controlling terminology..
10.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that the Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act and the State statutes support the process of establishing a just value of how much a given property is to be taxed, if at all. However, “[a] state may not tax persons, property or interests which are not within its territorial jurisdiction to applicable federal law. State taxation is authorized, limited and regulated by the State Constitution and by State statutes enacted thereunder.” Gray v. Winthrop, 115, Fla 721 156 SO 270, Page 94 (1970). In other words, the State must have “situs” before it can legally tax land or property.
11.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that “situs” is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as “…situation; location. Generally, property, in order to be the subject of taxation, must be within the jurisdiction of the power assuming the tax.” Buck v. Beach, 206 US 400. In Dept of Revenue v. Brookwood Associates, Fla District Court of Appeals, SO Established 184, we find, “Since the State can levy a property tax only on property having a situs within the State, provisions requiring all property within the State to be taxed will not be construed to include property which has no situs…The taxing statutes and statutes conferring authority to impose taxation are to be strictly construed.” This statement becomes very important in the determination of just what assets the State may tax.
12.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that taxable situs is “business situs”; or, according to the courts, the situs acquired for tax purposes by one who conducts business in the State more or less permanent in its nature. (Business Situs, Black’s Law 6). “A situs arises when notes, mortgages, tax sales certificates and the like are brought into the State for something more than a temporary purpose and are devoted to some business use there and thus become incorporated with the property of the State for revenue purposes. A situs arises where possession and control of property right has been localized in some independent business or investment away from the owner’s domicile so that it is substantially used and the value primarily attached to it and becomes an asset of the outside business.” State v. Atlanta Oil Producing Co., 174 Okl, 61, 49 P 2d, 534, 538, [Emphasis mine]
13.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that, without a contract, license or consideration, there is no government jurisdiction as the property does not “reside” in the colorable fictitious territory as evidenced in this Supreme Court cite following: Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox , 298 U.S. 193 (1936) says, “Property taxes can be on tangibles or intangibles. In order to have a situs for taxation [a basis for imposing the tax], tangible property [physical property] must reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority…”
14.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that, when a man’s property is not used for any commercial purpose, he has not rendered it to the State for taxation. As explained by the US Supreme court, “... [i]n one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois 94 U. S. 113, [ L. Ed. 77] , it is said: ‘When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.’ But so long as he uses his property for private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its control. Other cases to the same effect are Budd v. New York 143 U. S. 517, [ L. Ed. 247, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468] ; Weems Steamboat Co. v. People’s Co. 214 U. S. 345, [ Ann. Cas. 1222, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661]; Monongahela Nay. Co. v. United States 148 U. S. 336.”
15.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that “they” play with the words and, by so doing, convince us that up is down and white is black. In that regard, one of my favorite quotations is from that prophetic 1948 work by George Orwell entitled 1984, "’How's the dictionary getting on?’ Winston asked his comrade Syme, who worked with him in the Research Department.‘We're getting the language into its final shape,’ Syme answered. ‘By the year 2050 at the very latest not a single human being will be alive who could understand the conversation we are having now.’”
16.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that one need only look at the definition of “Private Property”, for example, to clearly see the error of taxation on a man’s dwelling, shelter and land – “As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition.Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such ashouses, lands,and chattels.”Scrantonv. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6thEditionP.1217).
17I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that “ownership” of such “private property” is defined thusly – “The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by law. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal. Ownership of property is absolute or qualified.The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has absolute dominion over the property.The ownership is qualified when use of the property is restricted." (Black’s Law Dictionary 5thEdition). My ownership of my property has not been “qualified”, and it certainly has not been rendered for taxation to any lord or fiefdom.
18.I am not in receipt of any verified evidence that contradicts that, addressing the issue from a common sense perspective, the recognition that property taxes may not be collected against truly private, non-commercial land is not that hard a pill to swallow. It only applies to land and property which is not encumbered by commercial paper and is not being used in any commercial activity, privilege, license, occupation or calling. Thus, land with deeds of trust, and mortgages, or used for commercial purposes, may not be eligible for this “non-business property exemption”, because these commercial instruments fall under the jurisdiction of our equity courts and are, therefore, involved in business by definition. The promise of exemption from property taxation would, however, be a grand incentive for people to pay off their mortgages and stay out of debt. The needs of the State would be met by its taxes on commerce and other types of taxes and revenue sources, but the peoples’ right to private property would be safe from encroachment by the State.