"Assignment" of Debt after Discharge "Charge-Off"

"There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. <u>When discharged the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation</u>..." Stanek v. White, 215 NWR 781 (1927).



Further,



There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of <u>the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred even though the transferee takes it subject to the disability incident to the discharge</u>. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a <u>new promise to pay </u>so as <u>to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation</u> makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. See: Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N.H. 361, 66 Am. D. 729; William R. Stank v. M.W. White, 172 Minn. Reports 390.



“<u>Money has value only by law</u> and not by nature so that a conviction of those who use it is sufficient to deprive it of its value and of its purchasing power.” Incitti v. Ferrante, 175 A 908.



So - if your debt has been "charged-off", and you are being pursued by any other "marauder of justice", it seems that if you refuse to comply with their request to obligate you again to a "debt" which currently has been "divested of its character as a legal obligation", then there has been no assignment of anything other than POTENTIAL. That debt has already been nullified in terms of anyone's legal responsibility to it! Correct?



If you disagree in writing to allowing the "Transferee" to creating a novation with you, whether with your permission, or via force/fraud before a court, it seems to me that there can not possibly be a legal obligation for you to pay - until the moment you agree again to do so.



Thoughts?



And how about this for the mix: ALL debt in 'Fed Land' is "Money", and all "Money" is debt. So - the payment of a debt, in this case, is merely discharging it. So when does anything ever really get "paid"? And how is this distinct from "discharge"?



This is an abstract twisting, but when exactly does a debt get discharged by another debt, when the means by which it was "satisfied" is simply another form of discharge?



Giving of a note does not constitute payment. See: Echart v. Commissioners C.C.A., 42 F.2d 158, 283 US 140; Noland v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C. Md. 38 F.Supp. 497. (See #70)



Someone save me... There's a nugget in here somewere.

Somebody propose a toast - to my second star.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face="tahoma">The toast is thus proposed. Congratulations!

-BT[/color]

Thanks, BT.



Any thoughts on the thread?

[Ice]

onemaster,



I just want to thank you for your contributions. You've shared a lot of really good info with the members.



Thank you!



Ice

So when does anything ever really get "paid"?





It gets paid when you send in enough debt notes equal to the amount of debt notes that is owed.



Discharge means that it is assigned to someone else-



I don't know how an assignment is made (paperwork involved) but I believe it is frequently done in bankruptcy cases.

Originally Posted by Tora

So when does anything ever really get "paid"?





It gets paid when you send in enough debt notes equal to the amount of debt notes that is owed.



Discharge means that it is assigned to someone else-



I don't know how an assignment is made (paperwork involved) but I believe it is frequently done in bankruptcy cases.

I GUESS THE ANSWER IS NEVER.I UNDERSTAND PER HJR 192 THAT DEBTS CAN NEVER BE PAID OFF. WE'VE BEEN DISCHARGING DEBTS (ASSIGNING NOTES) SINCE 1933.

[Jerseee]

PJ,



Good eye again!



That is why I state, "statisfy". I use the remedy to satisfy the purported obligation.



Think about it.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Agreed!



Since HJR 192 debts could no longer be PAID and so the government had to use "legal tender" which essentially is "forced acceptance" of a legally prescribed set of instruments (defined by the UCC) in the discharge, or satisfaction of any debt. Without Legal Tender, HJR 192 would've effectively stopped all commerce in the United States. We would've had to step back to some sort of barter system otherwise.



-BT[/color]

[Jerseee]

We still barter. We will always barter.



The system may not be prevalent but it still exists.



Good example, a garage sale, new car sale, home buyer and seller, and so forth.



Nice explanation BT. Couldn't have said it better. :-)