You Don’t Own That: Widow’s Paid-Off Home Seized by the Govt for $6.30 Debt

| |

house

If you think you own your house, think again.

Even if you pay off your mortgage in full, or buy a house outright with cash, you don’t truly own it.

All you have to do is miss a tax payment for the harsh reality of home “ownership” to slap you in the face.

Eileen Battisti of Aliquippa, PA, found that out the hard way. When Anthony, her husband, died in 2004, she paid off the mortgage with proceeds from his life insurance.

In September 2011, she lost her home, valued at around $280,000, over an unpaid interest charge of $6.30.

Her house was sold at auction for $116,000.

She has been fighting to get her house back ever since. Last week, Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis rejected Battisti’s request to have the decision reversed.

Joe Askar, Beaver County’s top solicitor, defended the court’s decision:

“The county never wants to see anybody lose their home, but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn’t give a whole lot of room for error, either.”

Post-Gazette provided the details:

The Central Valley School District notified the county tax claim bureau in March 2009 that Mrs. Battisti owed back taxes on her property, according to the court. Mrs. Battisti sent the bureau a check for the $897.19 that she believed she owed. But in the interim before the check was received in May, the bureau added an interest charge of $6.30.

According to the court filing, the tax bureau then sent Mrs. Battisti a notice of the unpaid amount, adding postage and costs for a total of $28.25. That notice was returned to the bureau as unclaimed, the court stated. No further notices were apparently sent to Mrs. Battisti, according to the court.

While Mrs. Battisti was notified of unpaid taxes the following year, and paid them in full, she received no additional notices about the original $6.30 shortfall, the court stated.

Mrs. Battisti could have paid the fees as late as the morning of the tax upset sale, Mr. Askar said. But she did not show up that morning, and her home was sold to S.P. Lewis on Sept. 12, 2011, for $116,000, or less than half its value, according to the court. Most of that money will be paid to Mrs. Battisti if her appeals fail.

Battisti said she didn’t know about the sale until the new owner contacted her two weeks later.

She filed an objection to the sale within the required 30-day time period in an effort to undo it. But the basis of her objection was that she had not been given proper notice of the outstanding debt or the pending sale, while the court found otherwise:

Two certified letters were returned as undeliverable, but at least two first-class letters sent by the tax claim bureau were not returned.

“The law is clear that if a first-class letter goes out and doesn’t return, it’s deemed received,” Askar said.

Battisti still lives in the house, and said she plans to appeal to the Commonwealth Court. She shared her perspective on the issue:

“I paid everything, and didn’t know about the $6.30. For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.

“Yes, I had issues. I’m a widow. I’m raising three kids on my own, trying to put them through college. Yes, it took me a while to get the bills, but I pay my bills. To steal a house for $6 is ludicrous.

“I’m going to fight it until my dying day.”

To add insult to injury, the new owner told Battisti he would sell the house back to her – but not for the amount he paid:

“They wanted $250,000, and they would give the house back,” said Battisti’s attorney, Joseph M. Spratt.  “I found them repulsive — their approach toward this.”

So, here we have a woman who paid off a $280,000 house, only to have it seized and sold over a tiny unpaid amount of interest.

To many people, part of the “American Dream” is home ownership.

But the word “ownership” in this context is a misnomer, as Pete Sisco so eloquently explains in his article You Don’t Own Your Home and Never Will:

Even if you think you own your home free and clear, you really don’t own it at all. You lease it from the State and it sets the terms and conditions that allow you to occupy the house or sell it to another lessee. The State owns the house and land in perpetuity and you can not alter this arrangement.

The terms and conditions under which you occupy “your” home are a further burden to you. You can’t add onto the home without permission, you can’t subdivide the land without permission. You can only have certain pets and only a certain number of them. You must maintain the home to a certain standard. Violation of any rule can cause you to lose the home and be evicted for repeated non-compliance with State orders. (After all, they are the true owners.)

Depending on your tax jurisdiction, when you die a large portion of your home’s value can be claimed by the State and your heirs would either have to pony up the cash or sell the home to pay the inheritance taxes. Then the State resets the clock with the new “tenant.”

Throughout the long life of the home the State does not contribute a penny to the expense of the home’s upkeep or the costs of complying with the myriad of regulations concerning things like fence heights, swimming pool regulations, tree trimming, wildfire regulations and dozens of other ordinances or bylaws.

Moreover, the State-granted monopoly utilities provided to the home – water, phone, gas and electricity – are further taxed at constantly increasing rates which you must pay in order to occupy the home.

Claiming to be an “owner” under these unilateral and coercive terms and conditions begs the definition of the word ownership. I have briefly lived in a communist country and I can tell you there is very little practical difference in home ownership there. Oh, plus their kids didn’t have put their hand over their heart and pledge allegiance to the State every morning at school – I guess that would be too Orwellian for communists.

Battisti’s plight is a terrifying and heartbreaking example of just how much control the government really has over us, and of the ever-increasing disintegration of our civil liberties.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

    taxes are voluntary, remodeling requires no permission from your slave/servants.

    • Furor Teutonicus

      They really aren’t. That’s the sad part.

      • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

        taxes are voluntary, combined with deception / extortion : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA

        • Furor Teutonicus

          While I sympathize with Tax Protesters, their arguments are silly and without merit.

          • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

            Godless puke BAR members know better. I am not a tax protestor. I am simply not in your category of TAXPAYER. Validate the debt and we can talk.

            all laws passed by puke vomitstain lawyers are void, null, without merit, without any force of law.

            See the original 13th amendment , And the Act of 1871.

            now go screw your clients and then die and go to hell in a blink of an eye

          • berrybestfarm

            Easy there Tim. You are correct. Since the powers that be are not following the people’s supreme law these incidents are going to keep happening. The real question is how to help once the “system” rolls over their rights.
            Dennis Patterson–Deer Park,WA

          • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

            they really aren’t the powers that be, they are usurpers intruding on our land.

          • Furor Teutonicus

            Again, I sympathize. But none of that flies in court.

          • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

            It flies in my private court, with 12 deregistered former sheeple voters with an affidavit of obligation / commercial lien

    • Furor Teutonicus

      They really aren’t. That’s the sad part.

  • farmhat

    This case defies logic, and begs for justice…you would think that there may have been just one person within the Beaver County’s bureaucracy who had a heart and contacted the homeowner or just thought..I will pull $6 out of my pocket and send her a note. Just one person who gives a damn, just one..

    This reeks of fraud and corruption because taking away someones $280,000 home to collect $6 doesn’t make sense–there isn’t a person alive that would believe this was plausible and reasonable- unless it was planned in advance. Not one person in that bureaucracy saw how absurd this was and sought to communicate with her? Not one person stood up and said…Hey, wait a minute?

    I think this theory bears out when you consider that Judge Gus Kwidis denied her appeal…for $6. It seems that the judge is either extremely prejudiced, incredibly dumb, or just corrupt. I say corrupt. Why?
    Because i saw such a thing happen where a lien was put on a persons property to settle a small debt and the sheriffs deputy seized some items from their house, then had a auction which was supposed to be announced publicly but wasn’t, and it was revealed later that the seized items were sold to one of the deputies friends for pennies on the dollar.
    Was the “new owner” part of a such a scam when he offered to sell the house back to Ms Battisti for an extra $100,000?

    I call for a investigation of solicitor Joe Askar, Judge Gus Kwidis, and every other person of Beaver County who had a hand in this absurd and surreal heartless confiscation…for corruption and collusion. Please, there must be one human being in that county that is civilized and without fear of these pathetic bureaucrats to initiate such an investigation of these state employees personal and professional conduct..

    My heart bleeds for Ms Battisti and I pray for justice.

    • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

      justice would be eternal hell for liars, thieves,extortioners,
      well, justice WILL be served. just takes time, all these pukes will most likely fry

      • Lee

        Agreed, justice will be found in the hereafter if people manage to escape it in this life.

  • CharlesH

    Have you ever wondered what makes a person suddenly snap and go find a bureaucrat and kill them? Now you know. My heart goes out to this lady. One would think – in the past I guess – that SOMEONE, ANYONE in the tax office could have taken the time to call this woman personally and ask her about this situation seeing as they were only talking about $6.30 and they were going to foreclose on her. I just think it’s bullshit of the highest order.

  • Undecider

    Communist Manifesto: Plank #1, in effect.

  • Doccus

    this made me cry…

  • capitalistpig2

    Government unions should be abolished

    • garyamusic .

      Our entire government as it exists today should be abolished! It’s time for a do over……………

      • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

        it isn’t a gov’t, just an unlawful corporation

  • Cracker122049

    To sum it up to the lowest common denominator,and I do mean the LOWEST,it the LAW! Are you starting to see why so mean members of law enforcement wears a mask when they go out on their raids? Criminals and thrives have done that for a long time now! The criminal courts back this kind of thing and the pigs enforce it.

  • http://www.whyisthesubsinking.com Tim Brown

    CONFUSED ABOUT TAXES?

    .

    REGARDING CEASE AND DESIST

    WITH-HOLDING TAXES
    Employers take with-holdings, referred to as “income taxes” from your payroll check. It is important for you to know that your Salary, or labor compensation is NOT INCOME. Income is PROFITS from a Capitol investment. Many agree that their labor compensation or Salary is Income by signing W-2’s and W-4’s. Thus they contract through the With-Holding Agent (employer), with the IRS (a private corporation).
    You are contracting with the IRS, via your Employer, and giving them the authority to continue taking finances from you. To pay, or not pay these taxes is voluntary, therefore it is YOUR decision. When you violate the contract you made by not terminating it properly, the IRS threatens to take you to TAX COURT, of which there is no such thing as Tax Court. It is usually an administrative hearing, held in some room or office. Thus, in actuality they are taking you to “court” for breach of contract. See Book: “Confused About Taxes”, and Book: “How And Why Not To”
    Below Is A Letter Submitted To a Payroll Department, after they were supplied with the W4T form (termination form), and were given a Certification Of Exemption (non-obligatory) from Federal With-Holdings. The payroll department, who by the way has no judicial power, nor do they have the authority to make decisions regarding your personal financial affairs, will often respond asking if the forms you sent in to Cease With-Holdings were Genuine IRS Forms. These are a matter of “pattern and practice” for them and are intimidation tactics that are with-no-standing lawfully. The following response has been utilized, and can be utilized by you, compliments of Auset and Ausar, as they have already demonstrated successfully.
    Horizontal Divider 12

    Regarding Validity of Termination Forms

    Almost undoutbtedly, you will get resistance, if not due to curiosity alone, from your fellow work mates, even the one who is in charge of making adjustments to your pay check. Don’t take it personally, they are often following through with their limited instructions, and sometimes there exist a bit of jealousy, as to why YOU don’t have to pay taxes, and they do. Their capacity is limited and they are not used to the request, and the employer gets tax kick-backs, as well as interest quarterly on the finances collected from your pay check. (that may not be brought out, admitted, or even discussed, and it doesn’t have to be). This is not a fight with your employer, it certainly is not supposed to be. These are YOUR financial affairs, not theirs. You have not asked them to be your personal financial advisor, only to make a change regarding your finances, of which they have no real authority to refuse your personal request. Upon asking them to provide a delegation of authoirty, you will see that this is true. They cannot provide it, becuase they don’t have it. They may talk about policies, however you are talking about Law, of which they are obligated not to break the law. Do not engage using email correspondence. Be sure to utilize the mail, certified return receipt requested. Also be sure to send a carbon copy to whoever is over the department, over the person who has the title to handle your request, and be sure to request in writing, a copy of your correspondence to be placed into your employee file. .
    1. Willie Lynch TEST

    10. To Employer Regarding Validity Of Termination Forms

    ..Address to your Employer

    With regard to your request to “prove validity that the form submitted is an actual I.R.S form”, it is not an I.RS. form, the only requirement from me, Under Title 26, Chapter I, Part 31, Section 3402(p)-1, to terminate withholdings, as an employee incurring no income tax liability (non-obligatory), I am only required to provide you, which you should be aware of as the “withholding agent”, with the following:

    1. The termination date of that agreement, the W-4. The W4-T provided
    presents said termination date and releasing employer from any liability in writing, as provided under Internal Revenue Code, 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p)-1. Such request (to terminate) shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee’s form W–4 (already in place) and as mentioned in this section, an agreement under section 3402(p), which is the W-4, shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, as either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement (W-4) prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.; and

    2. A Withholding Exemption Certificate in lieu of form W-4, as provided under Sec. 3402(n)-1, CFR §31.3402(n)-1 and 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402 (n)-1(f)(2)-1. The Withholding Exemption Certificate previously provided clearly contains the needed statements to show its validity, which is my declaration that the foregoing is true and correct. Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, §3402(n)-1, CFR §31.3402(n)-1 – Employees incurring no income tax liability. – Not withstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon
    a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to the payment a withholding exemption certificate furnished to the employer by the employee which contains statements that – (a) The employee incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code for this preceding table year; and (b) The employee anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed by subtitle A for his/her current taxable year.

    Withholding requirements is located in the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle C – “Employment Taxes”. The “Withholding tax” is not the same as the income tax; it is a separate entity.” Central Illinois Publishing Co. v. U.S., 551 Ed. 22d. 82. As a private sector employee, I have affirmed that as a “nonresident
    alien” I am exempt from the withholding provisions of IRC 3402 and 3101(a), and furthermore, I have never made, with any “knowingly intelligent acts”, any voluntary withholding agreement under IRC 3402(P), and as a private sector employee I am NOT an IRC 3401 “employee” making “wages” and will be filing for a refund for all past erroneously withheld sums. Be advised of the consequences of withholding in violation of a Certified Exemption, it will expose you, personally and the employer,

    the “withholding agent(s)” to liability in this matter, as I have provided the needed under Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Chapter I, Part 31, Section 3402(p)-1.
    P.S.

    IRS has no authority to assess an American with a Subtitle A through C income tax liability. Only the Citizen can assess himself with an income tax liability. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 that: “The system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” Voluntary assessment means self assessment in this case. The affiant is neither a “citizen” nor a “resident” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, because of his/her declared status as a “Moorish American National”, Continental United States.

  • blacksunshine84

    How can two non-returned first class notices be determined as delivered? My mail person routinely delivers my neighbor’s mail to my address and often I don’t receive mail that I am expecting. I’ve filed numerous complaints with the post office which have resulted in no action being taken against my incompetent mail person. I had to get a post office box for important mail and packages.
    I’d be willing to testify to this for Battisti if she thinks it would help her case. I’m sure there are others who have similar problems with their mail delivery who could possibly help.

  • garyamusic .

    I don’t even know what to say…………………

    These Godless, heartless friggin criminal bureaucrats have got to go! And that judge, really! What the hell has become of our society, oh that’s it…………..it’s going to hell…………that can be the only explanation.

  • Lee

    When are people gonna overthrow the corruptorment?
    Its no big deal until they take your house for $6 and guess whose next?
    Just utter bs.

    Land of the fee and the home of the slave.

  • Herman Nelson

    I can bet you dollars to donuts that the auction winners either work or know employees at the tax office or they know the judge. I’ve seen this scam before on a larger scale.