Challenging Property Tax
Current time: 08-20-2017, 01:00 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: armando
Last Post: akseeker
Replies: 53
Views: 10798

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Challenging Property Tax
04-12-2017, 04:49 PM
Post: #46
RE: Challenging Property Tax
Okay.
It's obvious you're having fun with this and I am vicariously having fun watching.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2017, 06:33 PM
Post: #47
RE: Challenging Property Tax
(04-12-2017 11:35 AM)akseeker Wrote:  
To the Mayor, I Wrote:Date:04/12/2017 10:29

Hello, Mayor,

Again, I thank you for the reply. I appreciate thoughtful conversation with upstanding folks.

(Boy, I sure don’t recall Mr. Anderson ever discussing this, way back when, though admittedly, I wasn’t nearly as interested then as now. ☺)

Recently, I have been investigating many of the premises held in regard to the relation we all experience with a government, and it's raised many intriguing thoughts.

Consider:
  • “All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.”
  • Political power possessed by the individual is limited to that inherent within that individual.
  • That not possessed cannot be delegated.
  • Constitutions, statutes, ordinances, codes and court decisions are the written-down opinions of people.
  • Any claim, once challenged, requires the party asserting the claim to bear the burden of proof to establish the truth of the matter.

I don’t have the individual political power to go down to my neighbor and present him with a bill for an area tax I (and maybe several other people he doesn’t know) imposed, and then threaten to take his property from him if he chooses to not comply.

The borough’s claims appear to be based entirely on the written-down opinions of other people. I am induced to inquire, why am I subject to these other peoples’ opinions?

As neither you nor I, nor any other person, individually possesses the rightful power or authority to impose on anyone, I must ask: Where did the borough obtain these powers?

So. It’s my perception, and please correct me if I err, that the borough is claiming and asserting a right or authority, based on the opinions of other people with no more political power than anyone else, to place an obligation on me, under threat of lawsuits and/or other actions, that could, in the end, result in separating my property from me should I refuse to pay up said imposition.

I am merely asking for the facts relied on to justify, and to establish, that claimed and asserted right or authority.

If you would care to, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts, and would be especially interested in the reasons for disagreeing with any of them. I look forward to your reply!

Thanks,
(me)

I was hesitant to include mention of their CONstitution, but thought it would help illustrate their claims conflicting with the stated purpose in a document they hold up as worthy of allegiance…

And Mr. Anderson was the 'government' class teacher we had back in high school, if anyone was wondering…

Yep. I think you waited too long to ask the question. He has shit down now and won't keep communicating. You only have like three questions before their robotic minds shut down.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2017, 08:05 PM
Post: #48
RE: Challenging Property Tax
(04-13-2017 06:33 PM)Boxer Wrote:  He has shit down now and won't keep communicating.

Apropos Typo!

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2017 03:21 PM by akseeker.)
Post: #49
RE: Challenging Property Tax
To the Mayor, I Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 13:21

Hi, Mayor,

I was wondering if you'd received the below email; I haven't heard anything back, so thought it may have been lost in cyberspace.

Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Am I incorrect or missing something in my reasoning?

I have responded to your assessment notice with a clarifying question, so notice is still in progress, and is in the process of being resolved. I have not been notified as of yet. I look forward to your clarifying the boroughs position so I can be considered 'notified'.

Thanks for your time,
(me)

And of course, immediately after I sent it I realized I should have added "I can then determine whether I need to avail myself of the assessment appeals process" D'oh!

webmail@localhost Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 13:21

The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:21:47 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(mayor)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3ELLle0007558 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)

Hmmm...

To the Secretary, I Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 14:11

Hello Ms. secretary,

It seems my email was considered spam again, would you be so kind as to forward this to Mr. Mayor?

Thanks,
(me)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: RE: Request for clarification (Re: Assessment notices for 99999991, 99999992, 99999993)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:21:47 -0400
From: (me)@acsalaska.net
To: (mayor)@kpb.us

Hi, Mayor,

I was wondering if you'd received the below email; I haven't heard anything back, so thought it may have been lost in cyberspace.

Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Am I incorrect or missing something in my reasoning?

I have responded to your assessment notice with a clarifying question, so notice is still in progress, and is in the process of being resolved. I have not been notified as of yet. I look forward to your clarifying the boroughs position so I can be considered 'notified'. I can then determine whether I need to avail myself of the assessment appeals process.

Thanks for your time,
(me)

Well, at least I got to add in the stuff I didn't last time. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 03:59 PM
Post: #50
RE: Challenging Property Tax
(04-14-2017 02:27 PM)akseeker Wrote:  
webmail@localhost Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 13:21

The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:21:47 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(mayor)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3ELLle0007558 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)

Hmmm...

That's usually an automated function. Many email hosts sniff the incoming messages. The top hits of this search are spam filtering services that are offered to web hosts.

This one's an open source anti-spam service that runs on Apache servers.

And you can even spam block on your local machine.

Just depends on what the host defaults are and the user's preferences.

I wouldn't place to much emphasis on the spam block.

Take the time to examine ALL the info hidden in the headers.
I wouldn't post the entire list of computers that handled your email, but you could post them from the mayor's machine all the way back to the computer that handled your email just after your ISP's computer.

Each machine that handled your email puts its own stamp in the header.

For example, this is a header from Marc to myself.

Quote:Return-Path: <marcstevens x mail (dot) com>
Received: from mx-xxx1.atl.sa.(myISP).net ([xxx.xx.xxx.xxx])
by mdl-xxx2.atl.sa.(myISP).net ((myISP)SMTP Server) with SMTP id 1CXW4Z66J3Nl34L0; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailxxx3.(myISP).com ([xx.xxx.xx.xxx])
by mx-xxx2.atl.sa.(myISP).net ((myISP)SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1CXW4Z4tG3Nl36v0
for <(Habenae)@(myISPmailSERVER).com>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received-SPF: pass (mailxxx3.(myISP).com: domain of marcstevens x mail (dot) com designates xx.xxx.x.xxx as permitted sender) receiver=mailxxx3.(myISP).com; client-ip=xx.xxx.x.xxxx; helo=mout.gmx.com; envelope-from=marcstevens x mail (dot) com; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailxxx3.(myISP).com v3BDhT52027182
Received: from mout.gmx.com (mout.gmx.com [xx.xxx.x.xxx])
by mailxxx3.(myISP).com (x.x.x/x.xx.x) with ESMTP id v3BDhT52027182
for <(habenae)@(myHOSTEDwebsite).info>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:43:32 -0400
Received: from marcs-Mac-mini.local ([xx.x.xxx.xx]) by mail.gmx.com
(mrgmxus002 [xx.xxx.x.xx]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LvEe4-1byigs0FAw-010IM6
for <habenae)@(myHOSTEDwebsite).info>; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:43:28 +0200

SPF I guess Spam Protection Filter

domain of marcstevens x mail (dot) com designates xx.xxx.x.xxx as permitted sender) My email host server is on a whitelist so it doesn't get blocked.

http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ is actually in the header.

(x.x.x/x.xx.x) is a net mask identifying a block of ISP addresses.

With all that said... Upon a second look, I'm wondering if the mayor's email was blocked by your ISP's spam filter.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2017 05:09 PM by akseeker.)
Post: #51
RE: Challenging Property Tax
webmail@localhost Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 14:11

The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:11:15 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(secretary)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3EMBFmi015282 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)

So, stemmed another portal for my inquiry... Smile

Here's the message header info:

Header info Wrote:The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(secretary)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)
(expanded from: (secretary)@kpb.us)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to localhost:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

Final-Recipient: RFC822; (secretary)@kpb.us
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; localhost
Diagnostic-Code: @kpb.us; 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.
Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400

Auto-Submitted:auto-generated (failure)
Content-Type:multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="v3EMYY2G001326.1492209274/mail70c28.carrierzone.com"
Date:Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400

From:Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
Message-ID:<201704142234.v3EMYY2G001326@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
Mime-Version:1.0
Received:from localhost (localhost) by mail70c28.carrierzone.com (8.14.9/8.12.2/Submit) id v3EMYY2G001326; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400


View Source Wrote:Return-Path:<MAILER-DAEMON>
Subject:Returned mail: see transcript for details
Thread:<201704142234.v3EMYY2G001326@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
To:(me)@acsalaska.net
X-Ctch-Flags:256
X-Ctch-Refid:str=0001.0A020205.58F14E7A.023E,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,c​ld=1,fgs=256
X-Ctch-Rules:
X-Ctch-Score:0.000
X-Ctch-Scorecust:0.000
X-Ctch-Spam:Unknown
X-Ctch-Vod:Unknown
X-Spam-Flag:NO
X-Whl:LR

Make any sense of it?

Well, had a phone conversation (that I didn't record, dammit!), gist was the Constitution, statutes, etc. are opinions right up to the time they're 'enacted' by the legislature, at which point they're magically transformed into 'not-opinions-but-"law"'. Said it's my opinion they're no more than opinions written down, then told me this was a republic, then brought up that he'd sworn an oath (to whom remains vague at this time), and if you aren't satisfied, go hire a lawyer or talk to the State AG.

And I'm still not 'notified', dammit...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 08:56 PM
Post: #52
RE: Challenging Property Tax
Certified mall , return receipt.

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2017 09:13 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #53
RE: Challenging Property Tax
(04-14-2017 04:27 PM)akseeker Wrote:  
webmail@localhost Wrote:Date:04/14/2017 14:11

The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:11:15 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(secretary)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3EMBFmi015282 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)

So, stemmed another portal for my inquiry... Smile

Here's the message header info:

Header info Wrote:The original message was received at Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400
from webmail@localhost

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(secretary)@kpb.us
(reason: 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.)
(expanded from: (secretary)@kpb.us)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to localhost:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

Final-Recipient: RFC822; (secretary)@kpb.us
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; localhost
Diagnostic-Code: @kpb.us; 550 5.7.1 v3EMYYi7001327 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.
Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400

Auto-Submitted:auto-generated (failure)
Content-Type:multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="v3EMYY2G001326.1492209274/mail70c28.carrierzone.com"
Date:Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400

From:Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
Message-ID:<201704142234.v3EMYY2G001326@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
Mime-Version:1.0
Received:from localhost (localhost) by mail70c28.carrierzone.com (8.14.9/8.12.2/Submit) id v3EMYY2G001326; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:34:34 -0400


View Source Wrote:Return-Path:<MAILER-DAEMON>
Subject:Returned mail: see transcript for details
Thread:<201704142234.v3EMYY2G001326@mail70c28.carrierzone.com>
To:(me)@acsalaska.net
X-Ctch-Flags:256
X-Ctch-Refid:str=0001.0A020205.58F14E7A.023E,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,c​ld=1,fgs=256
X-Ctch-Rules:
X-Ctch-Score:0.000
X-Ctch-Scorecust:0.000
X-Ctch-Spam:Unknown
X-Ctch-Vod:Unknown
X-Spam-Flag:NO
X-Whl:LR

Make any sense of it?

550 5.7.1 This message has been blocked for containing SPAM-like characteristics.
Whatever spam filter they are using is being triggered.

554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
This just says the email wasn't sent because of the previous error code

Found this researching.
Quote:"Recipient address rejected: 5.2.2 Over quota
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable"
So there is a theme here.

SMTP = Simple Mail Transfer Protocall
Quote:Source

Error 550

Among all SMTP reply messages, error 550 is surely the most common. It generally comes with a side-message like "550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable" or "550 5 2 1 mail from refused spam site".

Simply put, a 550 error code means that your SMTP server isn't able to deliver the sent email to the user because his mailbox does not exist: either the customer has entered it wrong (a typical example is something like mail@otmail.com instead of mail@hotmail.com), or the account has been deactivated and replaced with a new one (but you didn't know it).

In any case, you must remove this address from your mailing list: keeping sending messages to it will just cause other 550 messages. This is not simply annoying; it is dangerous as well for your deliverability. In fact, it implicitly suggests to ISPs and reciving systems that you don't really care about your list hygiene - just like spammers: so with time you could be penalized and see your delivery rate decrease.

Of course the best practice here is not simply to erase the address that provokes a 550 error code, but to replace it with a new one whenever possible. How to do that? If you have another way to contact your user - a phone number, Twitter, Skype... - just send him a line to apprise him that his current email account is wrong, and to ask him a functioning one

There's some info here, but probably not of interest.
What Those SMTP Error Codes Mean and Why You Should Care
It's for the SMTP webmasters.



carrierzone.com is used by my ISP for email also.
mail70c28. is the sub-domain for carrierzone.com
My mail server is slightly different > mail?????.carrierzone.com

X- is likely for experimental functions.
X-Ctch-Rules: I assume is the traits and settings of the spam sniffer.
X-Ctch-Score:0.000 I assume would be how the spam sniffer is supposed to score the "SPAM-like characteristics" it finds in an email.
X-Ctch-Scorecust:0.000 could mean an ISP's score as a client of carrierzone or the ISP's end user.
X-Ctch-Spam:Unknown If this is a to be implemented spam sniffer, no rules set, no score, unknown makes sense to me.
X-Ctch-Vod:Unknown ???
X-Spam-Flag:NO So this sniffer found no spam.
X-Whl:LR ???

(04-14-2017 08:56 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Certified..snail
Certified...^...mail , return receipt.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-14-2017, 09:35 PM
Post: #54
RE: Challenging Property Tax
(04-14-2017 08:56 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Certified mall , return receipt.

Yeah, he said he'd already given all he had, just no answers Smile

And thanks, Habenae, pretty convoluted paths emails take, for sure. Funny thing is I was spam-stopped earlier, had to send to Secretary, then that stopped working, too. Wonder, what triggered it? Could it have been the attachments, i.e. previous email conversation sent with every message?

Hmmm.

Well, anyway, guess I'll have to ferret out when the assessment adjustment hearings are and pop on down and ask them
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)