Chase redeems their coupon!

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I just handled the verbiage on the coupon. It turned out that the actual tear-off did not even say coupon. Sometimes a coupon is just a statement of how much is owed too. So you have to understand how credit is used and abused to get double-enrichment in a criminal syndicalism before you can call a voucher a coupon.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how double-enrichment works, at least in the private sector viz say a credit card company.

Let me know if I'm on the right track here:

John walks into Bob's store. John is a U.S. government agency, b/c he has a credit card (need SSN to get one of those), and Bob (or at least his store) is a US government agency b/c he needs an EIN to be in business. So when John "buys" something from Bob, no "money" ever actually crosses the counter. John may hand Bob Fed notes, or a check, or a credit card, but no matter what John hands to Bob, it's simply an instrument that is being used to "balance the books" and to make sure the credits/debits from one US government agency (John) balance and reconcile correctly w/ the other US government agency (Bob).

There is no need for "money" in the economy b/c the entire economy is predicated on the notion that EVERYTHING is some kind of US government agency, and all that's happening in "commerce" is that credits/debits are being swapped around between various U.S. government agenices.. "Commerce" in this system is more about bookkeeping ledgers and accounting than it is about value exchange.

Now suppose Johnny uses a credit card to complete this transaction. The only thing Visa is there do to is to make sure the accounting/bookkeeping closes properly.. to make sure the credits are deducted from Johnny's ledger and applied to Bob's ledger. For this "service", Visa will gladly charge Bob 5% (or some %) of the price of the item purchased.

But Visa was there only to facilitate the transfer of credit from Johnny's account to Bob's account. They did nothing more.

So when Visa turns around and comes after Johnny, demanding that he pay them (again) for something he already bought the first time (i.e., when the credits were initially transferred from Johnny to Bob in the store), this is where the "double enrichment" comes into play, b/c Visa is trying to charge Johnny again for something he already paid for.

Is that the correct line of logic, or am I way off base?

thanks..

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

I'm trying to wrap my head around how double-enrichment works, at least in the private sector viz say a credit card company.

Let me know if I'm on the right track here:

John walks into Bob's store. John is a U.S. government agency, b/c he has a credit card (need SSN to get one of those), and Bob (or at least his store) is a US government agency b/c he needs an EIN to be in business. So when John "buys" something from Bob, no "money" ever actually crosses the counter. John may hand Bob Fed notes, or a check, or a credit card, but no matter what John hands to Bob, it's simply an instrument that is being used to "balance the books" and to make sure the credits/debits from one US government agency (John) balance and reconcile correctly w/ the other US government agency (Bob).

There is no need for "money" in the economy b/c the entire economy is predicated on the notion that EVERYTHING is some kind of US government agency, and all that's happening in "commerce" is that credits/debits are being swapped around between various U.S. government agenices.. "Commerce" in this system is more about bookkeeping ledgers and accounting than it is about value exchange.

Now suppose Johnny uses a credit card to complete this transaction. The only thing Visa is there do to is to make sure the accounting/bookkeeping closes properly.. to make sure the credits are deducted from Johnny's ledger and applied to Bob's ledger. For this "service", Visa will gladly charge Bob 5% (or some %) of the price of the item purchased.

But Visa was there only to facilitate the transfer of credit from Johnny's account to Bob's account. They did nothing more.

So when Visa turns around and comes after Johnny, demanding that he pay them (again) for something he already bought the first time (i.e., when the credits were initially transferred from Johnny to Bob in the store), this is where the "double enrichment" comes into play, b/c Visa is trying to charge Johnny again for something he already paid for.

Is that the correct line of logic, or am I way off base?

thanks..

Thanks for that post. It gives me a perspective from which to work with.

You are right on but within the scope of limited perception by limiting the parties to being government agents.

You exclude international bankers. That is the double enrichment there. To take and trade on the credit used to make the FRNs being exchanged, and demand that Johnny pay back the credit card company in FRNs too.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...y_of_Money.zip

The ability to create money from nothing but loans (reflection of credit) is enrichment. To make the true creditor, Johnny pay too is double enrichment.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[kstahley]

Someone who authorized redemption of the coupon with Chase found they went directly to foreclosure; without even a 20-Day Notice. That if you were reading is what happened with the suitor who got the debt cleared. I hope you note the Refusal for Cause process upon this Notice. You have to do it within 72 hours according to the UCC.

Where exactly does this coupon redemption lay right now in the above mentioned situation with Chase? Please pardon my ognorance. Also, how does the Refusal for Cause process fit in?

Thanks!

[David Merrill]

Chase has redeemed the coupon. I started the thread after Chase had redeemed the coupon. Check the images at the bottom of the opening post and there is a Statement for some dreg charges of less than $50.

[kstahley]

I recognized that Chase redeemed the coupon. However, in the aforementioned quote, you said something went to foreclosure. Can you clarify this for me?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by kstahley

I recognized that Chase redeemed the coupon. However, in the aforementioned quote, you said something went to foreclosure. Can you clarify this for me?

The first thing Chase has done in two instances is to recall the entire amount, without any intermediate process. That is what I loosely called "foreclosure".

Chase just moved ahead as though there was foreclosure on the debt and moved it directly to collections. However that was simply a request to move it to collections. By Refusing for Cause, the "debtor" fired any proposed collections agent.

In other words if you authorize the coupon in full, expect you will have to terminate the foreclosure proposed by Chase.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[kstahley]

Thanks, David.

How is this Refusal for Cause process done? Where can I learn about it?

[David Merrill]

In an honest world write Refusal for Cause across the paper in a conspicuous manner and give it straight away back to the presenter. But in this world you want to keep a record somehow and we have discussed evidence repository for R4C extensively in threads.

Search "Refusal for Cause" or "R4C" here on Suijuris.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[kstahley]

It seems that RFC is used with legal papers. ie. . . getting served with papers for a lawsuit. Is this the case? Is this to be used when the "creditor" tries to file suit to collect?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by kstahley

It seems that RFC is used with legal papers. ie. . . getting served with papers for a lawsuit. Is this the case? Is this to be used when the "creditor" tries to file suit to collect?

Presentments.