machinebike

Attempting to collect a debt?

Recommended Posts

Clear your mind to allow understanding....

Burton's Legal Thesaurus:

*Debt --> account outstanding.

*Outstanding--> past due.

What is an account? (a count of) Numbers.

When you receive a letter from a Lender/Servicer stating they are attempting to collect a debt, it involves numbers and it involves being past due.

Your credit, accessed through your 'promise to pay' with your signature, is used to purchase your house (fee simple).

The Lender/Servicer fails to mention this in a clear manner, then they have you sign a dead pledge (mortgage). Instead of your 'promise to pay' only consisting of the cost for your house, you allow them open access to your credit. So they take the credit you unknowingly allowed and turn it into paper dollar bills (cash). Then they have you believe you received a loan.

Now you will be charged usage fees on the paper dollars (turning them into bills). They refer to the usage fees as 'interest".

Why this is NOT legitimate: The paper dollars are bills. They are NOT the real dollars (silver). If they were silver dollars, then you would have received a loan. BUT because they are VALUELESS paper dollars with 'usage fees' attached, what do they become? DEBT. There is nothing backing them, they just sold you debt through signing a "mortgage".

They have a lien on this paper dollar debt. So you also allowed them to place a lien on your house by unknowingly allowing them to turn your credit, a valueless number, into paper dollars with fees and this creates---> debt.

A lien on the currency (paper dollars) is how they can foreclose on you if you do not pay them back what they turned your credit into.

OK, here is an important note: You can only send them back the paper dollars AFTER you worked. YOUR time and labor is needed to give the NEGATIVE value paper dollars their value. So when they collect payments from you....they are collecting the debt but now it will CONTAIN VALUE.

The reserve and its branches in this country are from a foreign nation. They are a profit making agency, and we spend our time and labor making them profits.

Google: Ponzi scheme. Is it a Ponzi scheme? That is for you to decide.

Have you read about the Reserve injecting unlimited amount of printed "money" into the economy? Now that sounds like a good idea according to how they are wording it. HOWEVER, that is NOT what is happening. Remove the word "Money" and replace it with DEBT...Can you see and understand what is really being injected into the economy?

When their numbers increase, and ours decrease, or when they become rich and we become poor...Maybe this post can help you understand how.

Does anyone understand what I am trying to say within my posts? Reply with a smiley face or something to indicate you are understanding. I dont want to feel like my posts are in vain.

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont want to feel like my posts are in vain.

I think you already know they are. In any event, consider the following hypothetical:

Tomorrow, the value of silver goes to $0. What do your "dollars" become then?

If you're really interested in money, and what gives it value, may I suggest that you actually do some research. For instance, start with, "why was money created in the first place?" I can't be sure, but I think you'll find that there was money before there were birth certificates. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you already know they are. In any event, consider the following hypothetical:

Tomorrow, the value of silver goes to $0. What do your "dollars" become then?

If you're really interested in money, and what gives it value, may I suggest that you actually do some research. For instance, start with, "why was money created in the first place?" I can't be sure, but I think you'll find that there was money before there were birth certificates. :hmm:

Value doesn't come from the birth certificate, it comes from the live being, the reason for the birth certificate. Its not a "live" birth certificate, its a "birth" of a line of.....credit.

"America" is based on credit and debt, NOT money and loans.

The system has changed but the words are being kept the same, creating confusion and a life long sentence to slave labor to add value to valueless paper for the benefit of others.

You have been given control of a message board containing information you do not seem to fully understand...or you do understand but not sharing it?

Also note, Gold and silver backing of the paper dollars or the silver backing of of a birth certificate....was to keep the account regulated. It would be more difficult to take adavantage of someones labor if they have to justify the amount of gold and silver spent backing the certificate. But with gold and silver removed, its unregulated. Now its just numbers turned into paper numbers without backing. We can be easily taken advantage of without gold/silver backing.

Somone else could get a hold of our (account) numbers, spend them, and we we would be stuck laboring to give value to those numbers they spent. They no longer have to give an answer to justify the gold or silver missing if its already been removed. The real reason for the backing of real money.

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone understand what I am trying to say within my posts?

Yes, we all get it and we don't bother you when you start you own threads with this garbage.

However, don't take the fact that nobody comes to debate or discuss with you, when you start your own threads, as we don't understand you. We do, we just know you are full of it and we have better things to do. NO MATTER WHAT anybody says you will just throw the same arguments back or ask for definitions of words that have a clear definition and understanding in modern English.

Reply with a smiley face or something to indicate you are understanding.

xLoserx

I dont want to feel like my posts are in vain.

Like Nascar said, you already know the answer to this question. However, keeping it in its own thread does allow everybody to pass over your threads and does not clutter up real threads, so for that, I and I'm sure many others do thank you !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have been given control of a message board containing information you do not seem to fully understand...or you do understand but not sharing it?

That's merely an unsupported opinion on your part. However, of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Information we provide is supported by law and the courts.

You claim to understand certain things, but you haven't provided statutes or court precedent to support those claims. Therefore, any unsupported statements are merely that...claims that you can't support by law or any binding court precedent.

However, we have provided court precedent based upon some of your claims that prove the courts don't agree with you.

Edited by BV80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's merely an unsupported opinion on your part. However, of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Information we provide is supported by law and the courts.

You claim to understand certain things, but you haven't provided statutes or court precedent to support those claims. Therefore, any unsupported statements are merely that...claims that you can't support by law or any binding court precedent.

However, we have provided court precedent based upon some of your claims that prove the courts don't agree with you.

Exactly !! It's what I've been saying the whole time. Even if we assume you're right 100%, it's irrelevant, because the courts disagree. So spewing this garbage in a alleged attempt to help is not helping. Like BV80 said, we have case law (state supreme and federal appeals) that say it's irrelevant if you're right or wrong, you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if you are right or not to someone fighting a JDB that has sued them, none of this will help them win against a JDB.

You can talk about whether money is money if it isn't backed by gold, or the Trilateral Commission. Bilderberg Group, black helicopters, or a machine built by the government that watches your every move.

(you know that show probably glued a million paraniod schizophrenics to the ceiling after it aired)

None of it helps the person with 21 days to respond to a lawsuit

Will the Sheeple rise up against the Global Plantation, One Worlders, and 2 percenters that make the rules?

It doesn't matter when a person is trying to fight off a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Will the economy collapse and we fall into a worldwide depression because of all of this craziness? Probably but that is not today's problem, today's problem is how to write an interrogatory.

My response to it all is to take care of today

my investment strategy is;

Shotgun Shells and Canned Food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do not forget water purification for a diversified portfolio

we generally use hops as a part of the purification processxbeer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's merely an unsupported opinion on your part. However, of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Information we provide is supported by law and the courts.

My response:

BV, can you be specific concerning the law your information is supported by?

I know the courts are based on legal codes and commercial law.

Is the information provided based on truth and honesty?

What I've learned, I share because I understand it to be truthful and honest. But If I am mistaken, I will correct it.

If you share information on this site and And if later you learn its not truthful/ honest...do you still continue giving dishonest information, the same information as if it was truthful and honest? Are you willing to correct it so your reader can learn regardless of unpopularity?

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bv, can you be specific concerning the law your information is supported by?

Oh I can't wait for this answer. This is going to be good. xpopcornx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter if you are right or not to someone fighting a JDB that has sued them, none of this will help them win against a JDB.

You can talk about whether money is money if it isn't backed by gold, or the Trilateral Commission. Bilderberg Group, black helicopters, or a machine built by the government that watches your every move.

(you know that show probably glued a million paraniod schizophrenics to the ceiling after it aired)

None of it helps the person with 21 days to respond to a lawsuit

Will the Sheeple rise up against the Global Plantation, One Worlders, and 2 percenters that make the rules?

It doesn't matter when a person is trying to fight off a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Will the economy collapse and we fall into a worldwide depression because of all of this craziness? Probably but that is not today's problem, today's problem is how to write an interrogatory.

My response to it all is to take care of today

my investment strategy is;

Shotgun Shells and Canned Food

More guns, more bullets, more aware, canned food, trustworthy neighbors and above all................................a deadly aim.

Unintelligable threads------------------------------::BigGun:::<img src=:'>

Edited by saytar
Fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BV, you wrote

"Information we provide is supported by law and the courts".

I was asking what law are you refering to?

Concerning"supported by law"....but what law?

I know courts deal with commercial law, is that the law you are refering to?

Thanks Amerikana, for locking the other thread, I can get a fresh start with less confusion.

When I refer to 'common sense", Im using that term NOT in an insulting manner, but in a manner to be used as evidence. Common sense is part of natural law, not commercial law.

If we read something that doesn't "add up", that's what we should be questioning the lenders and servicers (or accountants).

I understand that's why 'legal" exists, to make it APPEAR as if it is lawful by trying to make it "add up" through a bunch of high tech sounding "legal wording".

Another common sense example as proof......

If you look at your mort docs, you may read

"For loan received, I promise to pay..."

OK, Here we go....What loan? It doesn't say. ALSO, if you were given a loan, it would say "I promise to pay BACK". Thats more proof for us if we choose to recognize it.

Can you see? When you ask me for proof, I am giving you proof by pointing out the "lack of proof" in the documents.

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not proof, that's conjecture and circular reasoning. This entire site is predicated upon helping other people with their credit and debt issues. I can count on one hand the amount of posts you have that follow that guide. Most everything you post is crackpot conjecture, based on NOTHING but what you "think" can be interpreted a certain way. You have been warned for it before, yet you continue to do so.

Give ONE instance in which anything you rant, hypothesize, or attempt to string together in bursts of illogical, unintelligible fodder has any merit.

And you're welcome for the thread lock. If you ask nicely, I'm sure another ban can be arranged. You don't realize how close to a perma-ban you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's not proof, that's conjecture and circular reasoning. This entire site is predicated upon helping other people with their credit and debt issues. I can count on one hand the amount of posts you have that follow that guide. Most everything you post is crackpot conjecture, based on NOTHING but what you "think" can be interpreted a certain way. You have been warned for it before, yet you continue to do so.

Give ONE instance in which anything you rant, hypothesize, or attempt to string together in bursts of illogical, unintelligible fodder has any merit.

And you're welcome for the thread lock. If you ask nicely, I'm sure another ban can be arranged. You don't realize how close to a perma-ban you are.

Amerikaner, and everyone,, I opologize to everyone , if unintentional insulting occurs.

Concerning proof, How can I give you proof of something, I have no proof it exists? The lack of proof...is the proof.

How can I prove a loan doesn't exist if I'm not told what the loan was, so i can prove it doesn't exists?

How can I prove paper dollars has no value if i'm not told what the value is? I need to know the value to disprove the value.

Amerikaner, BV, can you understand how I feel?

I would like for you to share something exists, so I can share with you why I feel it doesn't exist.

Words like "loan" is not the proof of a loan, etc.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amerikaner, and everyone,, I opologize to everyone , if unintentional insulting occurs.

Concerning proof, How can I give you proof of something, I have no proof it exists? The lack of proof...is the proof.

How can I prove a loan doesn't exist if I'm not told what the loan was, so i can prove it doesn't exists?

How can I prove paper dollars has no value if i'm not told what the value is? I need to know the value to disprove the value.

Amerikaner, BV, can you understand how I feel?

I would like for you to share something exists, so I can share with you why I feel it doesn't exist.

Words like "loan" is not the proof of a loan, etc.....

"the lack of proof, is the proof..."

NO. It is not.

I can understand how you feel, but you're attempting to spin yarn into gold and pass it off as gold, when it's just gold colored yarn.

Since this is the mortgage forum let's talk about mortgages. Keeping it simple: What is a mortgage? A mortgage is a promise to pay a certain amount for a house attached to a piece of land. In order to do so, the entity that gets paid holds the collateral (the house and the land). The person who pays every month for that piece of land with the house attached to it pays until the balance becomes zero. At that point, the entity who got paid every month, upon completion of payment, releases the house with the land to the person who bought it.

That's the simple version, would you agree?

Do you have any issues with the above? Perhaps your issue is "what makes the entity hold the collateral in the first place?" Well, remember that the person who "bought the house" didn't have the amount to fork over all at once, so he needed a loan. We all know the common sense definition of a loan. Someone borrows money and pays it back plus interest. The person is borrowing a piece of land with a house attached, and paying money back for it. The house with the piece of land attached represents an agreed-upon monetary value.

Does that make sense to you so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so this is the thread that has the post to which you wanted me to respond so that you wouldn't have a problem with my...honesty. You mentioned it in one of your other threads, but you didn't tell me in which thread my post was located.

"Information we provide is supported by law and the courts".

In your other thread, the above wasn't kept in context. Concentrate now. Look at the title of this thread:

Attempting to collect a debt?

Ding, ding, ding! Ever notice that has something to do with the vast majority of posts on this message board???

Then look at your statement that I quoted and to which I responded:

You have been given control of a message board containing information you do not seem to fully understand...or you do understand but not sharing it?

The information contained in this message board is in reference to debt collection. It is for those who are being hounded by collection agencies, junk debt buyers, and debt collection attorneys. It is for those who are being sued for those debts. It is for those whose credit reports have been trashed by the aforementioned collectors.

Just a quick recap in case you didn't get it. We provide information regarding debt collection.

Now, take a look at the first sentence of my response regarding the information you assume we don't understand:

"Information we provide is supported by law and the courts."

Keeping my response in context, to what information do you think I was referring??? Hint: It wasn't about hare-brained conspiracy theories that have been tried in court and which the courts have refuted. Our information is based upon the law.

Which laws??? State and federal laws. The FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, TILA, and state collection laws.

Those are the laws to which I was referring.

The information in this message board is NOT in reference to silver and gold vs. dollar bills. It is NOT about birth certificates or capitalized names.

Your statement about our information merely shows that you either cannot look beyond your narrow focus, or you have an ego the size of Texas. You are either so tunnel-visioned and delusional that you believe every detail of life involves your unproven, conspiratorial theories because the government is full of Reptilians from Area 51, or your ego is so huge that you feel every detail must involve your theories because your thoughts are just that important.

The lack of proof...is the proof.

Ok...

There is absolutely no proof, other than theory and conjecture, that:

Washington D.C. is run by aliens.

The world is going to end on December 21.

Donald Trump's hair is a living creature, probably alien, with a life of its own.

Elvis is still alive.

Therefore, based upon your statement, the above must all be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's get back to talking about beer, please.

xbeer)

:MoreBeer::justdrink:

My brother in law brews a good dark ale, really tasty, put down a half a dozen and this thread would make sense at least until morning.:lagerlouts:

take some of the quotes and comments he makes and google them, all kinds of strange sites about the fed and other assorted banking conspiracies come up.

BV if you were walking down the street and a dog barked at you would you get down on your hands and knees and bark back?

Admin I would bet that if you check you will find maybe 3 different monikers posting from the same address, (humor me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the lack of proof, is the proof..."

NO. It is not.

I can understand how you feel, but you're attempting to spin yarn into gold and pass it off as gold, when it's just gold colored yarn.

Since this is the mortgage forum let's talk about mortgages. Keeping it simple: What is a mortgage? A mortgage is a promise to pay a certain amount for a house attached to a piece of land. In order to do so, the entity that gets paid holds the collateral (the house and the land). The person who pays every month for that piece of land with the house attached to it pays until the balance becomes zero. At that point, the entity who got paid every month, upon completion of payment, releases the house with the land to the person who bought it.

That's the simple version, would you agree?

MY REPLY:

First, Id like to say thanks for replying, but I have to disagree.

My understanding of the following:

A mortgage is a dead pledge (according to its def).

A 'promise to pay' is part of the financial instrument/negotiable instrument used to purchase the house, that came from the buyer not the Lender.

Concerning 'balance',...They are attempting to collect a debt, how does the word 'balance' fit in? Debt is something negative value. How can they be collecting what is negative if the buyer is not behind on their payments?

Do you have any issues with the above? Perhaps your issue is "what makes the entity hold the collateral in the first place?" Well, remember that the person who "bought the house" didn't have the amount to fork over all at once, so he needed a loan. We all know the common sense definition of a loan. Someone borrows money and pays it back plus interest. The person is borrowing a piece of land with a house attached, and paying money back for it. The house with the piece of land attached represents an agreed-upon monetary value.

MY REPLY:

The person who "bought the house" could not have bought it if they didn't have the money to buy it. If he received a loan, then he didn't "buy" it. But if he didn't buy it, how could he own it to pledge it as collateral with a mortgage? And if he already owned it, why would he need a mortgage?

Concerning "borrowing a piece of land".....If someone borrows a piece of land (or anything else), they are expected to give it back. Does someone purchase a house with the intent on using the land, then give the land back...plus interest?

With a loan, you give back the value of the loan , you don't give something else back in place of the value of the loan.

Also note, If the state owns the land, we cant buy it anyway, we can only rent it. And if the land was borrowed, it would say

"For the land you received, you promise to pay..."

Edited by machinebike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.