SOL on unpaid ticket

[sjokinley]

I noticed on my CR that I have an old ticket (1997) that is still reporting. It is held by a CA, but they have never filed suit or gotten a judgement for this account. Does anyone know how long can this be reported to the CRA's?

[stancil1]

7 years, send them a C&D and tell them to FOAD.

[I love this game]

Research tickets around the forum....to my knowledge tickets if you are meaning parking, speeding etc....Are not legally considered debts therefore sol doesn't apply to them....

[someonesomewhere]

Ah, no.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258930

Traffic/Parking Citations, Library, and other fines

The real bad news with these is they count as public record judgments on your credit reports and they are not consumer debt under the FDCPA. Collectors are increasing being hired by local governments trying to collect on these penalty fines...and the collectors do not have to follow the FDCPA at all in going after these payments. Collectors can report this not only as a tradeline but as a public record if it has gone through an adjudication process at the local government level.

The only advice I can offer here is never ignore a citation. Dispute or pay it promptly to the issuing governmental agency. And don't try moving away to another jurisdiction as these things can follow you practically forever. Most states have statutes of limitations exceeding 20 years on unpaid judgments and most also allow those to be renewed indefinately. Unpaid judgments can stay on your report until the statute of limitations expires on them and most debts to the government are not wiped out by bankruptcy; So don't mess with this one. Deal with them as soon as possible.

[aachudneymiles]

I agree with some ...I am living proof that if you didnt pay it- it will sadly sometime in the near future be haunting you on your CR ...Traffic/Parking Citations, Library, and other fines pay them ... library fine usally go to collections (unqiue collections to be exactly) .. but mines didnt hit public record..) and the funny things is if you call to court /ticket part and say can we do a payment plan or make a settlement they will do it/ they will agree they just want there money .. since their not a CA I feel comfortable making an agreement by phone and get a name and phone number and speaking with manager to confirm..(then again I record all my calls sooo) I was lucky to get unique collection off my credit,, but I will never again under estimate a dang book.

Since its been 7 years I would C&D and tell them to be gone. Sadly if its public record it can stay up to 10 year (I think) which if this is the case this would be your 10 year so either way your good.. at worst you mite have to wait a few months . good luck

[someonesomewhere]

I noticed on my CR that I have an old ticket (1997) that is still reporting.

I used to work on contract at DOL in Olympia, Driver's Licensing Section. I know each infraction has an SOL for how long it remains on your Driving Record. Not sure about an SOL for payment on the infraction itself.

Was the ticket in Washington? Was it an infraction or a criminal violation? The ticket itself would indicate that (at least in Washington), assuming you still have it somewhere.

I nosed around DOL's website.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/

Didn't find anything of significance about an SOL, but you can request your Driving Record. If it's an infraction, and unpaid, it's possible the infraction has dropped off your record. You might request your Driving Record, and if it ain't on there, that might be good enough for a deletion.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/requestyourrecord.html

I seem to recall from my time at DOL that NOTHING goes away if it ain't paid, but I think your DL renewal would have been held up. This being 2007, I'm guessing your DL has been renewed at least once since 1997. It might have "gotten lost". Traffic citations were an entirely paper communication, absolutely nothing electronic or automated, between the courts and DOL until 2001. I think they still get paper citations from certain courts both inside and outside Washington.

If an SOL is in the statutes, I suspect it's in RCW 46.63

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.63

I've gone searching, but I've not yet found it.

[retmar]

The best way to resolve this is to contact the court, facility, wherever, and pay the ticket. Do not go there, send them a CMRR letter and play dumb by saying you do not recall this occurance, but, want to resolve. And, upon receipt of payment, will they delete the TL. OR, do call and ask if you can go before a judge and get this resolved. Again, you play dumb as to having no memory and how sorry you are for this to have occurred. Too many times someone has tried to get past a ticket and it came back to bite them.

A little trivia for all of you.

Did any of you know that a ticket is actually a contract?

Did you know that you can never be forced to sign a contract?

Think about it. If you refuse to sign the ticket, they haul you off to jail.

Constitutionally, this is illegal. Remember, a city is a corporation. They do not want you to know this.

[someonesomewhere]

Did any of you know that a ticket is actually a contract?

Umm, no, it's not. It's a summons to appear in court for a violation of law. Might be a criminal violation. Might be only a traffic infraction. But it remains a matter under law.

The specific rules will vary from state to state. You might not actually have to appear in court. You might be able to just mail in a check. However, if you contest, then you likely will have to appear in court.

In Washington, for Infractions, your choices on the back of the citation are:

- Pay - I'm guilty, here's the money

- Mitigation Hearing - I'm guilty, but I have an explanation and by appearing I hope to reduce the fine, points or both

- Contested Hearing - I'm not guilty

If you refuse to sign the ticket, they haul you off to jail.

If you refuse, then the officer has no choice. By not signing, you are saying you will not comply with the summons. The officer will take you to jail and you will be brought before a judge.

Constitutionally, this is illegal. Remember, a city is a corporation.

Doesn't matter is it's a city cop, county sheriff's deputy, state trooper, or something else. They are enforcing state or local statutes.

[aachudneymiles]

I agree. I have 3 parking tickets from michigan from 2003 or 2004 anyways not on my cr yet.... I call them as soon as I saw the paper ( my inlaws had forgot to give up my mail and I had long forgot about these parking tickets) anyways long story short they didnt do anything like cancel my license or I didnt have to see a judge but the fees just kept getting higher (although on the back of my ticket were choices like see a judge or blah blah)...My advice call try to get a paid for deletion and if they agree paid it .. good luck and I also agree dont act dumb they have heard that before.

[retmar]

You all need to read your Constitution.

A city or local government is no more than a corporation.

For anything to be a crime under the Constitution, there must be a victim and an assailant.

Any law or statute written, must hold up to the Constitution, period.

The only real law in this country is the Constitution. All else is either "Color of Law", Maritime Law, or Roman Law, for example. Not one of them can hold up to the constitution. This is why, when you step into a courtroom and challange a judge as to his jurisdiction, he must stop proceedings until this can be proven.

As to a traffic ticket, you can do one of three things. Sign as most do, refuse to sign and demand you be taken before a District Court Judge, or sign your name, and add the notation "under duress, UCC 1-207 without prejudice. BUT, the biggest problem with this is you must know how to introduce this to the court or the judge will have you for sure. You can call it a summons, or whatever, but, it is nothing more than a contract. Do understand, that any court who has a Braided Flag is actually without jurisdiction, as a Braided Flag represents a Court of Court Martial. As my brother and I do, we do not pass the "swinging gate", nor do we call the judge "your honor". We address him/her as Mr./Mrs.

Too many people in this country today, and I am also one, though learning different today, have no idea of all of your rights as written in the Constitution.

To fully understand what I'm talking about, you need to find the books about Common Law and read them thoroughly. There are several available.

How many of you actually think that the dollar bill today is real money? WRONG!

The dollar bill is a Federal Reserve Note, or legal tender, used in place of, in lieu of, "Lawful Money", and is "redeemable" in "Lawful Money". Lawful Money of the United States is the DOLLAR (103 U. S. 792), and is a unit of measure and is so defined as: A silver coin of Spain and the United States, of the value of one hundred cents of four shillings and a sixpence sterling. The gold coins of the United States shall be one dollar piece, which at standard weight of 24.75 grains shall be the unit of value (31 U. S. C. A. 314). There is more to this, but, simply put, the only real dollar in the United States is a coin made of metal usually gold, silver, or copper stamped by public authority. Lastly:

"Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation." - Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1870, page 192

Article 1, Section 10, of the U. S Constitution states:

"No state shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of debts."

This, in itself, is quite deep, and all of you will be so upset if you read all there is about this and how the government and banks screwed each and every one of us on June 5, 1933, when they passed House Joint Resolution No. 192. To add, if you want to get real technical and have an attorney who has a pair, you could get out of paying your debts, but, again, you must know what you are doing.

[someonesomewhere]

I think you neglected to state that we don't really have to pay income taxes to the IRS.

[divemedic]

Retmar- you are WAY, WAY wrong here. A ticket is a summons for an offense, and has nothing to do with contract law.

[retmar]

divemedic, you can call it what you want. It is no more than a contract. Promise to appear or promise to pay.

Here is an example from the book:

The state in which you live has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code for its operation. The Uniform Commercial Code is Contract Law. The state has given up its constitutional sovereignty in exchange for simple administrative contract law. It has become nothing more than a corporation acting under corporate law. This being the case, the state has become a fiduciary under Federal Government's granted privilege of incorporation. All "state" employees are technically federal employees beholden to the Federal Government and wholly under the Federal jurisdiction and thus liable for Income Tax, Selective Service, etc., none of which are lawful in any state of the Union not subscribing to federal dictates.

As I said earlier, until you read what I'm talking about, you will not be able to fully understand it. I've been doing this for over a year now and still learning every time I open the book. I've been through it three times now and still learn something new each time. the authors of this book are outstanding in that they did their homework. Yes, there are other books available, but, I do not know their titles or authors. Go to your book store and ask about books regarding Constitutional, or Common Law.

If any of you have an attorney friend or judge handy, ask them about the year 1938 and Erie Railroad v.Tompkins, and Swift v. Tyson in 1840. If they know, and will tell you, you will not like the answer, trust me.

As to the taxes, that is so correct. Too many do not realize that taxes are voluntary, not mandatory. The tax laws, when set side by side take up a space of 26 feet. I'm going to have to ask my brother again the name of a good book about this. The man was forced to take it off of the shelf, but, it can be ordered somewhere. I can't find my note with the title and name, but, do remember he dedicated the book to some people who lost to the IRS. One of them was a couple who, after losing everything, committed suicide. The book I have is very well written as to dealing with the IRS and beating them.

One of the authors of this book beat the IRS by proving, with use of the Constitution, and real law, he does not have to pay taxes. Here is how he explains the whole thing:

"It is that simple folks. It is and has always been a question of jurisdiction."

The book I have is titled:

"The History of American Constitutional or Common Law with commentary concerning Equity and Merchant Law" by

Dale Pond, Howard Fisher, Richard Knutson, North American Freedom Council

[aachudneymiles]

I noticed on my CR that I have an old ticket (1997) that is still reporting. It is held by a CA, but they have never filed suit or gotten a judgement for this account. Does anyone know how long can this be reported to the CRA's?

I love a good debate.. but above was the question.

[someonesomewhere]

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! We have a threadjacking, Houston. I repeat, we have a threadjacking.

Passenger aachudneymiles has confronted the threadjacker. I'm providing coverfire now.

[aachudneymiles]

you are crazy hee hee

[retmar]

Yes, as things stand in regards to a "traffic infraction", the FDCPA does not apply. BUT, I've found, (from a specific claim I'm on now), that IF a third party collector is assigned, they must abide by the FDCPA. This was told to me by a consumer attorney. To clarify more, a consumer received a letter from an assigned CA regarding a state tax bill. The letter did not include the mini, nor did it offer the 30 day. The only things on the letter, other than the normal BS, was that the CA claimed to know, by researching, that the consumer was employed. Actually, the consumer is retired, like me. Have not finished with this, as all is in limbo waiting for the response to consumer's letter.

[divemedic]

We are back to the tax protester garbage. Someone comes on here periodically with that nonsense. This discussion has been beaten to death on more than one thread and comes up about every 3 months.

This argument depends on a misunderstanding of the word “includes.”

I.R.C. section 3401©, which relates to withholding of income tax from wages, defines the word “employee” as follows:

“For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘employee’ includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ‘employee’ also includes an officer of a corporation.” I.R.C. section 3401©.

Notice the word “includes”? As defined by I.R.C. section 7701©, the use of “includes” does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of “employee,” so “employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.

A similar argument has been raised about section 6331, which specifically mentions levying on the wages of a federal employee. The Supreme Court explained the historical reason for this specific provision in an action challenging a levy on the salary of an employee of a state government:

“Nor is there merit in petitioner’s contention that Congress, by specifically providing in 6331 for levy upon the accrued salaries of federal employees, but not mentioning state employees, evinced an intention to exclude the latter from levy. The explanation of that action by Congress appears quite clearly to be that this Court had held in Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388, that a federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the employee’s salary, and, pursuant to that opinion, the Comptroller General ruled that an ‘administrative official served with [notices of levy] would be without authority to withhold any portion of the current salary of such employee in satisfaction of the notices of levy and distraint.’ 26 Comp. Gen. 907, 912 (1947). It is evident that 6331 was enacted to overcome that difficulty and to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a State.”

Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-113 (1959).

What have the courts said about the claim that only government employees are subject to income tax?

“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401© the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

“To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no ‘wages’ in 1983 because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401©, that contention is meritless. Section 3401©, which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of ‘employee’ includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986)

The income tax is voluntary is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers.

A quotation frequently taken out of context by tax protesters is the following by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment and not upon distraint.”

Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175.

This quotation is out of context, because the court first noted that the government could collect the tax by exercising its power of distraint, “but we cannot believe that completing resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent.” 362 U.S. at 175. In other words, Congress can collect taxes by force, but the court believed that Congress intended to give taxpayers an opportunity to comply before exercising that force.

This is better explained in Helvering v. Mitchell, (which was cited in the Flora decision), as follows:

“In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. This disclosure it requires him to make in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes sanctions. Such sanctions may confessedly be either criminal or civil.”

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938).

When confronted by claims that income taxes are “voluntary,” courts readily explain that the payment of income tax is mandatory, not optional:

“Appellants’ claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”

Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (6) the income tax is voluntary... “

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

Read more tax fallacies by clicking here

This thread has reached its end, and there is plenty of information showing this tax protester stuff to be incorrect.