How are public records placed on cr

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by OtherTerri, Oct 26, 2001.

  1. OtherTerri

    OtherTerri Well-Known Member

    Hi everyone!

    I have a question about public records, in my case judgements and tax liens.

    Do the cra's search for them and place them on your record? Or are they reported somehow by the court system?

    I have had some of them removed, and I am wondering if they will be placed back on the reports.

    The tax liens are paid, I do not think I should be punished for 7 more years. The judgements are part of a "group effort" to hurt my husband.

    BTW - as an example of info posted earlier I think by Bkev, the #1 score factor on a new report was "recent public record." It is actually the fact that the liens were paid this summer, not a new item....Not fair.....
  2. doodyhead

    doodyhead Well-Known Member

    I wish I knew. Let me know if you find out, I also have a tax lien, paid, but it's there - for the wrong amount-- ten times what I actually owed. Looks worse than it really was. Then again, maybe not... maybe easier to explain I couldn't pay $5000 instead of $500 -- could be an explanation for my other derog, too, come to think of it--- look, I paid off $5000 in 12 months! Wow!
  3. OtherTerri

    OtherTerri Well-Known Member

    I will certainly let you know! It is so irritating to have (in my case, at least) spent over a year making payments on something, then have it lower my score for being "recent."
  4. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

  5. OtherTerri

    OtherTerri Well-Known Member

    Of course, I should have known that!!!!!
  6. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    CRA's have to search for public records, they are not automatically reported. Usually, but not always, when you request an investigation, and you see "complete reinvestigation" under the inquiries section. Also, if you apply for insurance or in background investigations, or pre-employment screenings, if the company is checking your credit.

    I have not had much luck getting paid tax liens off my report, although I have heard people say it is easy. :/

    With my TU report, I disputed and their scoring apparently picks up the date it was reinvestigated. If I could prove it, of course, I would do something about it. But I can't prove it. It is one of the top 3 reasons for not having a higher score on TU, but not on Equifax. I believe Equifax is using the date paid (1996) for score, and TU is using 2000 (date investigated) for score, making it seem like a recent entry.

    I agree, 7 yrs from date paid is not fair. Just be careful if you dispute, and keep this in mind. Your dispute better be a little more effective than "not mine."
  7. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    What about unpaid due to not owed?
  8. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Unpaid is reported forever. If it is not owed, you must take it up with the municipality or entity that placed it there. They think it is owed.

    In this case, lb, a public record is a public record. You cannot blame a CRA for reporting it if it really exists. You must deal with the source - the agency or taxing authority that put it there. I have been there.

    So, if the IRS says "you owe us $2,000." and you tell the IRS "no I don't." and they audit you, and say "yes you do." and you don't pay it right then and there, the IRS will go to court and get a tax lien against you, no matter what you think they should do.

    Then when Equifax or TU searches the court record, and sees your tax lien, and reports it they are not doing anything wrong. You think you don't owe the IRS any money, so you think they should not report the tax lien. Wrong.

    It is the IRS you have to deal with not Equifax or TU. If it is because you are one of those who believe that income tax in unconstitutional, then I guess you have to live with the bad credit.
  9. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Where is your right to defend your self before the court on this?

  10. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    No,what I'm saying is why should there be a lien in the public records before the legitimacy of the claim is ever proven?
  11. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Well, Breeze, one should never let an IRS audit proceed that far in the first place. Although a few million people don't want to believe it, there is no requirement in law that one even keep books and records let alone produce them. Make them come up with the law that says you must keep books and records or produce them and then let them talk about an audit. If they can come up with the statute requiring one to keep books and records, then it's time to produce them. Not until.

    No, they have never yet gone to court and got a tax lien against anyone. They simply march down to the county court clerk's office and file a notice of lien. A notice of lien is not a lien. An IRS notice of lien is never adjucated in a court of law and is therefore not a legal document. A lien is a lien and a notice of lien is a notice that you might owe a tax if a court of law says you owe a tax and didn't pay it. In actuality, it's no different than a motion for summary judgment. It has no more force than a motion because that's all it is in reality. If the lien is challenged in a court of law other than an IRS kangaroo tax court, it's whole different ball game. Most people just don't know the difference and therefore just capitulate out of fear. Banks tie up one's money on notice of lien too because they too fear the IRS and want no trouble out of them.

    That's exactly right, Breeze. Right on target for this discussion too because the same exact thing you have said here applies not only to IRS tax liens, it also applies in all other situations of credit reporting except inquiries, incorrect addresses and a few other things. But when it comes to the actual derogatiories, one should not dispute with the credit bureaus at all. They should go directly to the creditor or the collector to resolve their woes. While they can go to the credit bureaus if they can find errors in reporting proveably committed or allowed to occur by the credit bureaus or other error in reporting, if the problem deals with adverse reports that one does owe then just as the credit bureaus keep on trying to tell us, we need to deal with the original creditor or the 3rd party collector whichever the case may be. What makes sense in one situation usually makes sense in all other similiar situations. If it makes sense to go to the source of the problem (your reference to IRS above) then it also makes sense to go to the source of the problem in other similiar situations. Or at least that's what makes sense to me.

    Funny you mentioned that. Just so happens that I was contacted by an attorney over in Alabama who is a good friend of mine and he is working with a client whom I also personally know who has filed a lawsuit against the State of Oklahoma which in net effect demands that the State of Oklahoma admit that they never ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution back in 1910 when they claim that the State did ratify the 16th. Larry called me Friday afternoon and asked me to go down to the courthouse here in Oklahoma and pull the court papers on CJ-2001-425-65 which is the case in reference. I had to go to a fund raiser for Drew Edmondson, another long time friend of mine last night in Tulsa and Larry had called me so late that I had to put him off until Monday on his request.

    So Bill Ben---'s case is moving forward not only in Oklahoma but in several other states as well. He intends to prove that there never were enough states that had legally ratified the 16th to have allowed it to proceed, so he calls it the law that never was. But until he gets his cases all won, if indeed he ever does, we will never know if the 16th is or is not constitutional.

    Personally I doubt that he can actually win even if he does prove it because the government will probably claim it's been in effect for so long now and the effects of eliminating it would be so devastating to the government and the people that it could not be allowed to go forward in any case. Whatever, they will figure out some way to defeat him or pass a new law or something. They may pass a new flat tax or some other form of taxation, but they aren't going to lose all that money no matter what.

    There is lots of new stuff coming out in taxation matters anyway. We now have discovered that in order for employers to lawfully withhold at the source, the employer must be authorized to withhold by the Treasury Financial Management Service. See &#154 from the January 1999 edition of the Internal Revenue Manual. The Financial Management Service must certify the appropriate agency officer as a "Reporting Agent" via the Form 8655. Until certification is complete, the employer isn't authorized to withhold at the source.

    Until certification is complete, the employer isn't authorized to withhold at the source. For further research on this subject, consult all of the Chapter 24 of Title 26 of the United States Code(Internal Revenue Code), the Treasury Financial Manual available on the Financial Management Service web page, sections 5512 through 5520a of Title 5 of the United States Code, Parts 202 through 215 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and Part 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    So, while it may or may not be true that the IRS and the whole tax scheme is unconstitutional, it is in full force and effect at the present time and so we should demand that it be lawful at the very least for our employers to withhold money from our paychecks. If they cannot prove via a properly authorized U.S. Treasury Financial Management form 8655 that they are legally and lawfully authorized by the U.S. Treasury then they are not withholding money from you, they are illegally garnishing your wages without benefit of due process of law.

    Up until these recent discoveries, it was always assumed that the proper remedy was the IRS Form W-4, but even newer discoveries reveal that the proper form to use for that purpose is actually a newly invented or re-invented (by IRS) form W-9. If your employer does not have either a duly authorized form 8655 form for you to fill out and present to him demanding cessation of illegal withholding by him nor the IRS Form W-9, it's available on the IRS website and I will have a copy on in the very near future. There will be a total of 26 pages which all go together into a concise package which you should print out and present to your employer in order to put a stop to those employers illegally withholding your money from you until such a time as they do become lawfully authorized by the government to do so.

    In another post, it was suggested that folks ask me if I have an EIN number so that I am properly registered with the IRS. The reason I don't have one is that I am not a lawbreaker any more than I am a credit repair company. And if I had an EIN and was illegally garnishing my employee's money without being lawfully authorized to do so by the Treasury Financial Management Service via Form 8655 then I would be violating the law and I'm just not the kind of fellow who goes about knowingly breaking the law.

    Is your employer authorized to withhold money from your paycheck by the U.S. Treasury Financial Management Service via Form 8655? Count on the fact that he never heard of such a form and has no idea what it is nor that it ever existed!!!

    Wanna know why? Because the U.S. Treasury Financial Management Service has never been asked for one and has none on file!!!! IRS has never told anyone about this little hitch in the git-along and as a result, they've made lawbreakers out of every single solitary employer in the entire United States of America.

    I don't think that's necessarily true. There may be other options.

    Bet that knocks your socks off! LOL
  12. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    no, bill, I know all about it. I am on the mailing list for it. However, I am not interested in taking on the IRS. If I ever need to I will hire a tax attorney. I find it interesting that one of the leaders of the internet group was taken in by the biggest scam going - the offshore investment deal that was a total scam.

    As far as your question lb, to my knowledge, if the IRS says you owe money and you don't believe you do, there is a tax court. I don't know a lot about it, but my lawyer does.
  13. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    So why should something that isn.t a proven fact be allowed to be filed or included in ones credit report?
  14. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    We all have opinions about the way things should be. I am talking about the way things are. You can live in your preferred world if you like. I find that I live in the real world, and I must adjust my activities accordingly. Anything else is unrealistic.

    You can engage in consumer movements, and use the system to change the system. But you cannot simply defy the system without paying a price that I do not wish to pay.

    If I felt that way, I would simply become an ex-patriot, and leave the system.

    I hear your frustration - and I hear it from people around me every day. I do not choose to live my life in constant frustration. The rules apply to me. The choices are mine. The responsiblity is mine. I choose to live with peace of mind. I have been a renegade and a rebel, and I have made the conscious choice to change that and live within the rules, even as I try to change them.

    Or to use some rather famous words "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
  15. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    In most cases, people don't want to go around poking lions, caged or otherwise with sharp sticks. Can't say as I blame them in the least. The durn thing likely to get you bit somehow.

    Let's assume you take the 26 page kit I'm going to put up telling people how to put a stop to withholding. He takes it into his employer and slaps it down on his bosses desk and a nicely filled out W-9 form pinned right there at the top and the employer ignores it. Now he's gotta sue his boss for illegally garnishing his wages. That's not a real whuppy way to keep groceries on the table and the credit cards paid up.

    Maybe he don't want to poke his boss in the nose with the proper documents so he files suit on the IRS only to find out he don't have standing with the courts to sue the IRS for anything because he's not a taxpayer. (See Radinsky v U.S. 10th Cir. Court of Appeals, 1964) It's crying time again.

    I know of a man who did take the papers to SWBell and they didn't even argue about it. They not only quit withholding, they called him into the office and gave him a check for all the money that they had ever illegally withheld from his wages. Did they do the same for all SWBell employees? Fat chance. They probably figured that since he had only worked for them for a few months it was easier to give him his money and shut him up and then let him fight it out with the IRS rather than to worry about it. They didn't fire him over it though. That would have put them in the deep fat fryer too since such matters are between the IRS and the employee.

    As a couple of the ladies have so eloquently pointed out already, most people don't want to live their lives constantly embroiled in legal fights with the IRS or anybody else.

    I just posted what I did because I happen to think it may be interesting to some, not because I think it's for everybody or anybody to go around fighting everything just to prove some point, wise or otherwise.

    The more you fight, the less you win. Sooner or later you will run into somebody bigger and meaner than you are and you will end up making a fatal mistake. Personally, I tend to think the IRS qualifies as being bigger and meaner than most.

Share This Page