PeoplesRecorder.com

[ezrhythm]

A public place to file documents.

http://www.peoplesrecorder.com/

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

A public place to file documents.

http://www.peoplesrecorder.com/

OMG, this is freaking hilarious! A website for the nutballs to post their self-granted "notices of default" that are "100% guaranteed" to wipe out those pesky mortgages and other debts!

Might as well be posting statistics on the playmate of the month, for all the legal effect this gibberish will have. But I can't WAIT to show this stuff to other attorneys. Pure comedy!

Thanks, ez, for helping me start my day with a good chuckle!

[Livefire]

Not much different than posting notices in the newspaper.....Lawyers do that all the time. Those folks could do that too I suppose.

[Shoonra]

Actually, the notices posted in the newspaper, to have any legal validity, have to be in compliance with the applicable court's rules for the choice of newspaper (usually by geography and size of circulation), format of notice, purpose of notice, etc. Just putting some announcement in the classifieds of the Penny Saver on whim has no legal signficance - except to raise questions about why this obviously irregular method was used.

This is a con's con. worthy of Leroy Schweitzer and Ronald Greisacker; instead of swindling honest people, swindle people who have larceny in their hearts.

This scam collects real money (via Paypal) to "post" documents of no legal validity (except to raise suspicions) which try to claim that the proferring of something other than legal tender somehoe qualifies as a valid tender of payment and, the funny money being rejected, these guys are now deadbeating altogether. Oddly enough, most of the documents posted seem to emanate from one word processor, which repeats the same badly copied and inapposite quotations from the same amateurishly cited court decisions. The supposed "sight draft", "drafts" and other substitutes for money being mentioned in the documents are not, themselves, shown so we cannot see the full absurdity of the situation.. The people running this scam refuse to show up at the Post Office to sign for anything, and certainly won't accept payment in the same sort of funny money that their documents claim paid off other debts.

As far as I can tell, this "Peoples Recorder" has not yet been mentioned in a court case but I think we can expect it within a couple of years. At which point the perpetrators will take the money (from Paypal) and run.

As I said before, using this "service" not only is legal unavailing but probably will be used as evidence of dishonest intent.

[Lawdog]

Accidental double post deleted

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Not much different than posting notices in the newspaper.....Lawyers do that all the time. Those folks could do that too I suppose.

The difference, dear boy, is that when lawyers run legal notices in newspapers for their clients, THEY DO IT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW. As I previously mentioned, in my state, foreclosure notices must run at least one day a week for at least four weeks in a row in the OFFICIAL county newspaper where legal notices run. Any other paper does NOT suffice.

This website is a scam, aimed at the kind of morons who think law is something you can make up as you go along, and that you alone have the power to put someone in default if you disagree with them and they refuse to play by your silly, made up rules.

Not so. The legislatures make the rules (laws), and the courts interpret and enforce them. Posting stuff like this on a website has no legal effect whatsoever. They might as well be posting their favorite recipes, it would have the same effect.

[Shoonra]

Looking at many of the postings on this Peoples Recorder website, it seems a very considerable number - certainly a plurality, possibly a large majority, are the same document churned out again and again from the same word processor. All that changes are a few personal details such as names, account numbers, addresses, etc. this form is being used by and for postings from a multitude of states.

In each instance it reports that a "sight draft" (or sometimes a "draft" or "promissory note") was sent to the creditor (a bank or credit card company) and was rejected.

There is then the citation of a pointless provision of the UCC (namely 3-603(a)). there is no mention UCC sec. 2-511, which states that payment by check (or draft) is conditional and is defeated if the check bounces, and that the creditor may insist on payment in legal tender.

Nothing to indicate that the "sight draft" or other substitute for legal tender supposedly proferred by the debtor was an acceptable instrument that would be successfully processed by a bank to collect real money in the normal way.

There is then a quotation (actually a double quotation) from the US Supreme Court, both of them involving the very peculiar situation whereby the State of Virginia issued state bonds with coupons that were, according to the state law under which they were issued, valid instruments of payment for state taxes. Subsequently, the litigants tried to use these coupons to pay their Virginia state taxes but for some reason the tax collector refused to accept the coupons. The lawsuits were over this evident flipflop by the state government; a situation not likely to occur in our time. The first decision -- Poindexter v. Greenhow (1885) 114 US 270, 29 L.Ed 185, 5 S.Ct 903 -- sided with the tax payer. This was quoted approvingly in the second case -- Ex parte Ayers [et al.] (1887) 123 US 443, 31 L.Ed 216, 8 S.Ct 164. --- But .... at this point the Supreme Court adds a comment which flies in the face of the evident theory behind these Peoples Recorder posts (and also some arguments by DiM), to the effect that having offered a purported payment in some unconventional and suspicious format which was either rejected outright or bounced by the bank, they are forever relieved of paying the debt with actual money. The Supreme Court said, "There is nothing in the {Poindexter} opinion to indicate that the party making the tender was relieved from the operation of the rule of law, making it necessary to keep his tender good, or tht a subsequent action at law ... would be unlawful, reserving, of course, in such a case, the admitted right of the defendant to plead the fact of his tender, and bring it into court, in pursuance of the usual practice in such cases, as a defense."

In other words, even if the debtor had offered payment with, say, a perfectly good check which the creditor, for some reason either good or bad, refused to accept, the debtor has to continue to be able to make a valid tender of payment if the creditor comes back later and demands payment. In particular, if the debtor wants to roll back the interest payment or lateness penalties to the whatever they were when he made the previous offer of payment, he should be able to bring into court the very same document (check or whatever) that had been refused, so the court can see that it should have been accepted back then. Naturally, if the document he offered was bad paper, the court will not give him a break on the accrual of interest and lateness penalties.

Now the document being posted on Peoples Recorder does not mention this. although it is still applicable law. And it's still applicable law even though it's not mentioned in the posting. But the document being posted is not, itself, legally valid and it won't impress anyone trained in business law; it's written this way, with crucial legal facts not mentioned, to fool the people paying to post these documents, 'cause it won't fool a bank or a judge.

The insistence of Peoples Recorder on being paid via Paypal is very clever. Peoples Recorder does not want to have any hassle with the "sight drafts" or whatever else they are pretending were tendered to the bank.

[Livefire]

Lawdog,

I wonder about your comprehension level. I never said anything about that method being "my rules", however I dont think some of the "kangaroo kourt" rules make any more sense than the website in question. Like allowing a plaintiff to petition a court (in MI) to allow newspaper notice in lieu of personal service in a civil case. Nothing like a sham trial in absentia. Criminal cases of that nature are another matter. This is an example of what a group of manipulative liars, to lazy to do anything productive, promulgate in their spare time!

The bar and courts are most definately guilty of collusion when it comes to creating a priestercraft designed to keep out and shaft without Vaseline the poor and the common man. Its no wonder that the US judicial and legal community is a joke in the eyes of their international colleagues!

BTW little man, in MI the State Supreme Court is the agency responsible for creation and modification of "kourt rules" They delegate much of that to the State Court Adminstrative Office (SCAO) much like your Judicial Council does in GA. You probably missed that one on the ol' bar exam! Legislature created it but it is operated by your SC. Damn legislators are too busy taking payola from the bar liars lobby to have time to create something like "kourt rulez" (mispellings intentional)

I often think the whole legal system in this nation should be declared void for vagueness because of its BS. Too bad Joe Six Pack is too lazy and dumbed down to do something about it!

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Lawdog,

I wonder about your comprehension level. I never said anything about that method being "my rules", however I dont think some of the "kangaroo kourt" rules make any more sense than the website in question. Like allowing a plaintiff to petition a court (in MI) to allow newspaper notice in lieu of personal service in a civil case. Nothing like a sham trial in absentia. Criminal cases of that nature are another matter. This is an example of what a group of manipulative liars, to lazy to do anything productive, promulgate in their spare time!

The bar and courts are most definately guilty of collusion when it comes to creating a priestercraft designed to keep out and shaft without Vaseline the poor and the common man. Its no wonder that the US judicial and legal community is a joke in the eyes of their international colleagues!

BTW little man, in MI the State Supreme Court is the agency responsible for creation and modification of "kourt rules" They delegate much of that to the State Court Adminstrative Office (SCAO) much like your Judicial Council does in GA. You probably missed that one on the ol' bar exam! Legislature created it but it is operated by your SC. Damn legislators are too busy taking payola from the bar liars lobby to have time to create something like "kourt rulez" (mispellings intentional)

I often think the whole legal system in this nation should be declared void for vagueness because of its BS. Too bad Joe Six Pack is too lazy and dumbed down to do something about it!

My comprehension level is fine, little man. I scored a 710 on the verbal section (of a possible 800) on the SAT in the late 80s, when the SAT was harder than it is now. I also learned French and Spanish in high school and college. My command of the English language is excellent. More likely, you misunderstood something I said, not vice versa.

There are strict limits to the kinds of civil cases where you can serve the defendant by publication. I'm fixing to have to use it in a divorce case, because my poor client's wife left him (and their two young children) three months ago and hasn't been seen since. But since we won't be able to get personal service on her, the only thing we might be able to get is the divorce itself. Issues of property division, etc. might have to wait for another day. And by the way, service by publication, and when you can use it, is a statute passed by the legislature in my state (Ga. Code 9-11-4).

As for criminal cases...when was the last time someone in this country was convicted of a crime in absentia? Talk about rare. The only examples I can think of in recent years were where the defendant was present at the start of a trial that took more than one day, but then failed to show up at some point. Google "Ed and Elaine Brown." They are convicted tax protesters who abandoned their own trial in the middle of it, were convicted, and were eventually taken into custody despite their insistence that the feds would never capture them alive. And that's not really in absentia in my view, because the defendants were there and had every chance to continue participating in their defense. They chose not to .

Anyway....some court rules are promulgated by state Supreme Courts or Judicial Councils, yes. But many are legislature-passed statutes. Just depends on which ones you are talking about.

And how the hell would you know what questions they asked on the July 1998 Georgia bar exam? You sure as hell weren't one of the folks who took it with me.

Joe Six Pack is indeed dumb. But that goes with the territory when you're a beer swilling redneck. Hard to blame the legal system over the fact that you're an inbred hillbilly, you know?

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

My comprehension level is fine, little man. I scored a 710 on the verbal section (of a possible 800) on the SAT in the late 80s, when the SAT was harder than it is now. I also learned French and Spanish in high school and college. My command of the English language is excellent. More likely, you misunderstood something I said, not vice versa.

There are strict limits to the kinds of civil cases where you can serve the defendant by publication. I'm fixing to have to use it in a divorce case, because my poor client's wife left him (and their two young children) three months ago and hasn't been seen since. But since we won't be able to get personal service on her, the only thing we might be able to get is the divorce itself. Issues of property division, etc. might have to wait for another day. And by the way, service by publication, and when you can use it, is a statute passed by the legislature in my state (Ga. Code 9-11-4).

As for criminal cases...when was the last time someone in this country was convicted of a crime in absentia? Talk about rare. The only examples I can think of in recent years were where the defendant was present at the start of a trial that took more than one day, but then failed to show up at some point. Google "Ed and Elaine Brown." They are convicted tax protesters who abandoned their own trial in the middle of it, were convicted, and were eventually taken into custody despite their insistence that the feds would never capture them alive. And that's not really in absentia in my view, because the defendants were there and had every chance to continue participating in their defense. They chose not to .

Anyway....some court rules are promulgated by state Supreme Courts or Judicial Councils, yes. But many are legislature-passed statutes. Just depends on which ones you are talking about.

And how the hell would you know what questions they asked on the July 1998 Georgia bar exam? You sure as hell weren't one of the folks who took it with me.

Joe Six Pack is indeed dumb. But that goes with the territory when you're a beer swilling redneck. Hard to blame the legal system over the fact that you're an inbred hillbilly, you know?

I suppose a 710 score means you're capable of verbally fellating any judge or jury with virtual volumes of verbiage at the very tip of your tongue. I'm sure that gives the court and the client a warm fuzzy feeling all over and that's cool! As for me, I tend to be the silver tongued cunning linguist type. I got in touch with my feminine side some time ago and found out the broad was a dyke! :-)

On the more serious side, when I looked at MI service of process rules, they allowed a plaintiff to petition the court to allow service by publication if personal service was unsuccessful. No classes of cases were given, it seems that the judge is given the latitude to decide if that mode of service is appropriate. A lot of latitude there for arbitrary and capricious behavior if you ask me.

As for Joe Six Pack, you ought to be grateful to him.....he keeps you in the lifestyle you've become accustomed to. May he ever remain drunk and stupid!!! Its people like me, who will study my enemies so I will best know how to destroy them with their own weapon, that the system despises. My earlier comments about "legal process" were never intended to mean I subscribe to posting private administrative process to the internet as a "legally binding process" But hey, the courts give silent notice to unanswered dunning letters on the part of a DC agency and that of course is a default, go figure!

One more thing, Lawdog.....I'd be careful about the inbred hillbilly comment if I were you. That probably describes a good portion of the Georgia bar and judiciary! Dale Carnegie would say that's real bad juju when it comes to winning friends and influencing people in high places. The judge might have his cousin on the state disciplinary board, Billy Ray bring you up on charges of slander. I'd hate to see you get disbarred over such "legal" matters and maybe end up in a cell with Billy Ray's black sheep nephew, Bubba Bocephus!!!

We all love you here and will do our best to support you should those inbred redneck bastards ever mess with our little Lawpuppy! David Merrill has already pledged a case of soap on a rope and a sternly worded LoR and counterclaim in admiralty on your behalf. Weishaupt and mrg can put together a kicka$$ album to keep your spirits up! (that aint no joke there!). I'm sure you could count on Shoonra to write an amicus curae brief or two describing tireless efforts at reprogramming the rebels who stand against the accepted paradigm of da Man! As for me, Ill bake you some cookies and encourage you as you pursue a new career as a jailhouse lawyer.