What Bank Lawyers Are Saying

[wirlwind]

So where can I go to learn about FBOE's. You mentioned earlier about IBOE's. I assume tht one is Foreign Bill of Exchange and the other is International Bill of Exchange. I've got CTC3, but haven't read it in a whille. Is this in there? I feel as dumb as a stump. And I have got to do something pretty quick because I have a court date coming up soon where I tried VOD, and now I am going to court, and I really have no idea how to defend this.

[iamfreeru2]

Wirlwind,

The FBOE and the IBOE are built around the same premise and that is they both cross International boundaries. There are differences in formats, but I do not really know much about the IBOE yet. This why we are having the seminar in March. The FBOE is foreign because it crosses state lines, but also because it goes from flesh and blood man/woman to a fiction. Also if the Bill of Exchange goes through the Secretary of Treasury to the exemption on the private side it crosses an international border between two law forms, public private, real imaginary.

The FBOE when used properly can be very effective. It is like anything else we do. If you know what you are doing and how to do it it works. The problem is most of the people that have been hurt have been because there are so-called gurus out there selling stuff they have no idea how to use. People are buying it without kicking the tires so to speak. It takes study and research and learning from a trusted source. I do not know all the answers and far from it and I will be the first to say do not use it if you do not know what you are doing. I also say do not listen to me. Investigate everything and never do anything until you are comfortable you know you are doing it right.

I just know that the VOD is not working and I have found that out first hand. I also know remaining in honor and not questioning the validity of a debt, but using my exemption to discharge it does; at least it has for me.

A good source to go to to learn about FBOEs or IBOEs is Jack Smith, Cyndie Beers, Jean Keating. Read the UNCITRAL that Vanton posted and study, study, and then do some more study. Like Vanton has said there are those that have studied this for years like Jean Keating who know what they are talking about. There is a wealth of knowledge to be tapped into if you just go to the right places. It is unbelieveable the amount I have learned in the past few years, because I am willing to be open and not shut my mind. There are others on this site that are stuck in one mode, God love 'em. I am intersted in what works and I am sorry folks, but it is not being lost at "C." I have heard how we must use the Constitution and the common law. Give me hard evidence this is true today and I will turn, but I have not seen it. I see a lot of people crash and burn by using the VOD and other methods that just put them in dishonor and a lsoing situation. I will continue in the path that I have been led. I will help those I can, but like I said I do not have all the answers.

[wirlwind]

I just don't see much of anything working. It just seems like the legal system ignores everything. I will be looking up some of these folks that you mentioned and see what I can learn. Thanks for the info.

[EnSabahNur]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

For informational purposes only:

http://creditcollectionsworld.com/cg...201CCRN875.xml

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm....first off :

Through twisted logic, some credit card debtors claim in court that they, not the card issuers, lent themselves the money in their revolving line of credit. Is there an expedient defense against such bogus claims?

If they are in fact a bogus claim, then why would they require a defense to it?

They just validated our position for us......****heads. Do these people even think or have a non-dip**** thought in their heads?

i simply raised the issue to be a devil's advocate. the cc/irs issue is a complex one to which there is no one right answer. what is apparant is that VoD in some cases works, and in other does not, just like the BoE approach for some. i have personally used the VoD approach successfully, provided i got to it in time. HOWEVER, when i did NOT respond timely (thereby going into dishonor), the VoD no longer "functioned."

so, currently, my thinking is this: if the fraud can be caught timely, then use the VoD, otherwise, you have two routes: attempt to prove the fraud (which, in this climate, isn't easy to do), or settle and close the matter. this is on a case-by-case basis.

i am currently thinking that VoD & UCC are both correct approaches when used within the proper context & timeframe. there still exists the discrepency as to when and exactly how to apply each appropriately, as we are all seeing.

so i believe it IS valid to ask for proof of claim, and i also believe it is valid to tender a CPN/BoE/FBoE/IBoe/NI when the time is past for getting a VoD accomplished.

asking a question does not an argument make, however, disagreeing with the answer would.

imho,

jon

[iamfreeru2]

Jon,

Thanks for being devil's advocate and asking the questions. You are correct in saying it is complex. You are also correct in that some VODs have worked, but most do not as I believe this is what Wirlwnd is saying and rightly so. All I am saying is it is much better to accept and discharge a debt than try to claim the debt is not mine. Especially in light of the fact that I asked for it and then turn around after using it and saying it is now not mine. Using my exemption (remedy) and accepting, then discharging, leaves them no place to go. The tender has been made and it is settled. Now if they can issue a NOD that would be different, but none do because they can't. John Snow is not talking and is prohibited from it (Privacy Act). IMHO it is always better to settle and close than to fight and lose. Again, when you ask for validation of the debt you are saying prove it to me. If you are asking for proof you are arguing and you can say you are not all you want, but that does not change the fact that you are. You are saying I disagree with you now prove to me I owe it. That is a dishonor. Dishonor = loss.

[seeker]

Well, my thoughts on this have been in two places, as I can agree with both Jon (why pay something we hae no proof of?) and with iamfreeru2, (Don't argue and hence dishonor), but... perhaps it takes a bit of both ... from jon's point of view, why would you pay something just because some one presents you with a statement they claim is correct? (I didn't say valid;-) I could present such a statement to you even if we had never contracted, never transacted, never met, but you would voluntarily offer to honor the statement. hmmmm
On counterpoint, iamfreeru2 has a logical point stating that it would put us into dishonor by questioning the validity of the statement, and the IBOE doesn't 'cost' us anything to issue, but contributes to the discharge of the public debt, so it would allow us to remain in honor, regardless of the validity. But does that encourage honor or dishonor? Haven't we sat down and rolled for the bandits long enough without encouraging them to issue statements with charges that we DID NOT incur? Did NOT agree to? Did NOT contract for? By agreeing and honoring their statements, are we not creating a greater dishonor to ourselves and our Maker by agreeing that a falsehood is a truth? Kind of like plea-bargaining in a criminal case -- what part of "I am agreeing with your lie." would be honorable?

Okay, so that may be a bit philisophical, but I felt I was at a point where it might make some sense on paper...

JMHO.

Seeker

[RickA]

iamfreeru2: What is it about the exemption that leads you to the belief that is the correct path to take? I ask because you appear to be strict with it.

Also, if we "accept and discharge" in this manner, are we not bearing false witness? We all know that charges(accusation) of debt go out to people when it is clearly false.(could be a simple oversight.) If we "accept and discharge" are we not then bearing false witness?

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

I am in total agreement here with Vanton. I have never challenged the validity of a debt since I decided to remain in honor. I have discharged the debt using my exemption and a Foreign Bill of Exchage and all have gone away except the foreclosure of our home. This is because we did not have the stipulation and agreement that the FBOE was sufficient, in form, substance and amount regarding the foreclosure. I have learned much since then. Since I have been getting the agreement and using a Florida Supreme Court Cite regarding lack of Notice of Dishonor all collection actions have stopped on everything else since.

Everyone that I have seen use a VOD (Dishonor) has had and continues to have trouble making the creditors/debt collectors go away. I say dishonor, because when you challenge the validity of a debt you are arguing any way you slice it. I have heard the reasons on this site for the VOD and that you are just asking for validity and verification of the debt and that is not arguing. If you are challenging the validity of a debt that is arguing that you do not owe it people. That is dishonor.

When you accept and discharge the debt and you know what you are doing you are getting their agreement, thus ending the controversy. If this was not working for me I would not be saying this, but the fact is it has worked for me so far every time.

I have posted stipulation letters I have used for all to see and not one that I have sent has had a negative effect. The letters do not challenge the debt, but are accepted fully upon proof of claim the matter has not been settled and closed via the tender. The only way that can be done is to provide the Notice of Dishonor from the drawee, which has never been done. Without that there can be no prosecution resulting in a successful conclusion.

So like Vanton says, quit arguing and "do the honorable thing." "Tender without condition (which is what the UCC says)."

Iamfree,

I have to differ with you one this. Just because you want proof of the validity of an alleged debt is not an argument. there is no debate in asking someone to prove their claim. By not asking them to prove their claim, one agrees in silence that there is a valid debt since they did not ask the debt to be proven.

An argument is "I don't owe you." A demand for proof is, "Please prove that I owe you and I will pay in full immediately." There is no argument with the latter.

This is why I tender the PN with the demand for proof. there is no condition with this method because they have already received payment--you just want them to verify the debt.

Its like this, they say I owe 10.00. I say, please prove that I owe 10.00 and enclosed is 10.00. Now if you cannot prove that I owe 10.00, please send my remittance back. If you can prove that I owe 10.00, you already have payment.

All I want is for them to put in writing that I owe it or I don't. they will do neither. the only thing they will do is continue to ask for a payment---this is dishonor. It is not dishonorable to ask for someone to prove their claim.