Discharging a debt

[Jerseee]

Forum,

I have been in deep thought and study on discharging debt. And I have come to a conclusion on the matter.

Since I have been having success with CRAs deleting alleged debt entries from my commercial person's credit report....I have come to realize something very significant. You can say it was an epiphany of sorts. Here it is....

Before attampting to discharge an alleged debt, let's say a credit card. I believe that one should get certified verification from all 3 CRAs prior to doing any VOD package. The reason is this, once you have a public agency inquire about an alleged debt and they cannot verify it....they must delete it immediately (according to the code).

Once they have deleted it, that can be used as evidence that the alleged debt was unverifiable and thus a VOD may or may not be needed. The thought process is very simple on this one folks.....The reason some of us cannot move commercially is because of those pesky credit reports listing those alleged debts. Well if those entries are unverifiable and get deleted....you have just won. You can either stop making payments or you can tender a good faith payment for the entire alleged amount and consider the matter closed. Any attempts after that call for the enforcement of your CN.

Simply because the debt was unverifiable by a major CRA. the same CRAs that the alleged creditors report the same alleged debt to every month!!!

I am going to attempt a process here shortly and I will post my results when I am done. the process I speak of is discharging a car payment if it was financed through a third party! For example, lets say you go to Car City Inc and purchase a brand new vehicle. You get approved for financing. After reading the contract very carefully (usually the back side) you see that it is not Car City that is financing your loan, it is Chase Manhattan Finance Company--a third party. Your fudiciary!

This is major in my opinion. why you ask? Simple I respond. Because you never gave that third party any consideration....wait a minute, yes you did. You gave them the information that they needed to report to the CRAs and you gave them your exemption! That's right you already paid for the vehicle once you signed the contract.

How you ask, simple I respond. You gave them your signature on the contract/loan application. This is the important part. What did they do with the application after you signed it? Why they got paid of course. they turned the application into a negotiable instrument and got paid somehow.

that little stunt they just pulled is unverifiable by CRAs. So when you tell CRAs to verify a debt like the one described above--they can't. because if they do, the finance company will be exposed and the massive fraud will be let out the bag. So instead they retreat and do not respond and once the debt is unverifiable--that is when they will probably get a debt collection agency or in other words, hired help to threaten you if you pay up.

So, to sum up this post. My experiment with credit cards and other alleged debts have been successful thus far, using this method. Now its time to move on to car notes and mortgages. Mortgages will be in the future once I purchase a piece of property and then do a land patent. car loans and maybe even signature loans are currently on my hit list.

I will report back to the forum on my results. I do not plan to fail. I plan on success and I am using the code. Once this is done, i will ask Sui Juris to post my documents again. This may take a while folks--simply because I want to get the title in my hand to show that the process works and is final. the title will complete the transaction.

[rushpat]

Great work! I love to hear of your successes.

I was looking over USC 15, ch41, subsection V, 1692g, about validation of debt:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1692g.html

and I didn't see the exact requirement for what constitutes validation. I know the CTC3 VOD package lists:

1) Original paperwork and original signature
2) Sworn testimony of someone with firsthand knowledge
3) Evidence of the account where the money was removed to cover the 'credit' extended to the consumer

Is this actually documented in the code, or is it the conditions upon which the consumer is stating the he/she will accept validation, which the CTC3 authors decided?

Thanks!

[hulaimua]

Good luck Jersee,


After recently discharging one of my cc, the other's are past the 21 days, I started to think about what you just shared with us.& Why go for the cc company, work on the CRA which I'm doind at this time.


Mahalo for the reinforcement in this thought.


Hula

[Jerseee]

rushpat,


You will know when they have verified something.& but normally they can't since most of the things done with credit are fraudulent from the beginning.& remember, a thing void from the beginning does not become valid due to lapse of time.


hula,


You are starting to see the light!!& It is good to see someone use the easyroad.& doing it this way--totally eliminates the collection agencies since a public agency can't (or won't) verify their entries.& And when the CRAs delete the item, that is basically evidence that debt does not exist or has been satisfied.

rushpat, verification: Confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity by affidavit, oath or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of a party. Blacks 6th edition.

[hulaimua]

a thought:


To all three (3) CRA


A4V credit reports, respectively


VOD to each CRA


Negotiable instrument of choice pertaining to the deptor's information


Notice of Auth/Pre-Auth to CRA


What do you think?


I'm thinking about it.


Hula

[Jerseee]

Hula,

Why? Why are you thining about doing that to the CRAs when all they do is report information? They do not create it. It would do you no good to do that.

[Ice]

The only thing necessary is to request that the CRA's VERIFY the claims that they are making on the report.& If they cannot verify the claims then they are damaging you...


hmmm, sounds like good grounds for seeking "compensation".


&

[Jerseee]

To piggy-back on Ice's post,

If they fail to verify it and continue to disseminate fraudulent unverified information (can you say libel) they are acting aginst the code. You now have facts and standing to pursue compensation. blah, blah, blah, blah

[hulaimua]

thanks for the feedback.


Hula