credit card wins

[Ice]

rushpat,


Could you please show me where in HJR 192 it requires you to have a UCC1 or any other such do***ents before you may "discharge" a debt??


Don't worry about the UCC1 stuff...


The law doesn't say you gotta do that before you can avail yourself of HJR 192.& If you can find one "expert" to show us where it states in the law that&you gotta do the UCC 1 in order to use HJR 192... I'll pay for you to attend his seminar.


&

[Jerseee]

rushpat,

The wording is just what is says and you are right. But there is an offer mixed in there that most folks overlook.

The thieves offered to represent you. Read it again and find the offer.

Then ask yourself, did I ask for counsel? Did I retain legal counsel? So why are they offering to investigate an alleged debt for me when they are representing the creditor who is trying to extort me? Why would they ask me to dispute a debt that should be valid and verifiable? If the debt is verifiable and/or valid why are they making this offer to investigate it? Could this be my due process? If I dispute the alleged debt would I lose my due process by default?

I could go on and on but the real deal is "never argue" and ask them to send you certified verification so that you may satisfy the alleged debt or address the potential fraud underway that they may be a party of.

Then see what happens.

[rushpat]

Hey, thanks for the replies!

Ice: I wanted to do UCC1 form for the added protection, in the event someone tries coming after me and my 'stuff' later on.

Jersee: Yes, I see it now. You'd think I'd know this stuff from all the Rice McLeod audios I've been listening to. Yes, they want to represent me. I see that now.

[Jerseee]

rushpat,

LOL!!!

YOur last post defined this website. Brainstorming through brotherhood and collectively strengthening the body and mind of the forum!!!

Thinking this way will pay dividends to the next person you help! Glad to assist you in remembering what you already knew.

LOL

Here is a "blow by blow" of how someone used the FCBA to beat them on the regulations and keep the attorney from going back to the statutes and contract.

Michael is a recent addition to our weekly work-study group in South Denver. Great guy. Hope this success story helps and inspires you in dealing with issues you may be working on.
-Todd
----
From: "Michael S."

Todd, as requested, I'm sending you a bio of my event in the
court last friday (April 2nd.) Please feel free to post as
needed.

This case was a credit card lawsuit by an atty firm Citi and
Silverman. Silverman sued me on behalf of Citi. I did not
answer the complaint. Instead, I filed a motion to dismiss. It
was based on the fact that they never answered my dispute letter. (For those of you in this arena, I feel the dispute letter is the key to getting these parasites to disappear.) The FCBA allows me to dispute the account, and it requires them to answer in 90 days, which they seldom do.

Interestingly, because I never answered the complaint, I didn't give the judge jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the key element in every legal contest. Seems like if they have it, they will win, by hook or crook.

In court, I waited till the clerk invited me into "the box,"
that area where the judge sits, the jury sits and the
word-twisters do their commerce.

From the inception, the atty tried to overstep the issue of
jurisdiction, and get me to talk about the dispute. I refused
to go there, always going back to their violation of a federal
regulation, which voids the jurisdiction of a county court.

Because of the intricacies of my relationship with Citi ( I have two other lawsuits with these guys, one another Citi) when the judge offered to grant me the dismissal, or to wait to see what district was going to do with the other Citi case, I chose to wait and see. Here's why: the other Citi case is "closed." I'm certain that, after the beating the atty took on friday, he'll go back to the other slam-dunks and leave this hornet's nest alone.

The judge was certain the atty would appeal the case, and I felt that way, too. I would win the appeal, because the fact that they didn't answer the dispute letter would never change. I really wanted the dismissal. Still, I also like the fact that the case will probably stay in limbo forever, at least until I can order them to leave when the Cancellatura/sovereignty process is complete. I know that Silverman is way too busy with the plums to go after the cactus.

Here are some keys to this aparrent success. I call it aparrent because nothing is really certain in this day and age of commerce in court.

1.) I paid for a jury fee early in the case. This made the
Discover/Silverman case wilt on the vine. The clerk dismissed the case after Silverman didn't file any new pleadings. I think they're scared of juries.

2.) I did my homework. I knew what my pleading said, and
meant. I studied the regulation and could put it into my own
words. I also studied their pleadings. In fact, several
minutes of discussion centered around the fact that the atty
that showed up was not on any of their pleadings. Also, I
discovered that they had mixed up their evidence/complaint
writings regarding the two Citi accounts. When the judge asked me if it was indeed my account, I answered that I wasn't sure since the complaint listed one amount/account, and the attached evidence another.

3.) I kept track of the register of actions for the case. In
fact, I think I knew more about what the judge was doing on the case than the atty did. Case in point: the atty didn't know that the other Citi case was closed.

4.) I dressed up like a Babylonian word-twister, suit and tie.
I looked like I belonged in the box. The judge actually asked
me if I was a lawyer. Nice disguise, if I do say so myself.

5.) I kept it very simple. I answered every question with as
few words as possible, NEVER adding information not needed to answer.

6.) In deference to all the Patriot/Redemption/Sovreignity stuff out there, I didn't use any language that would make them think I was "one of those people." I'm proud to say that I'm a Sovriegn Man and I behaved outwardly and in my heart as such. However, I think the judges are trained to look for buzz words and this biases their ability to stay on point.

7.) Every time the atty tried to sidestep the issue of
jurisdiction, I brought the judge and him back. This is key and
can't be stressed enough. They want you in their contract, and you shouldn't go there until your offer (in this case a motion to dismiss) is rejected. The atty wanted me to explain what the dispute was about and I said "This involves my belief that my account wasn't properly credited, but that's not the issue here. It's about the plaintiff not complying with the regulations. The attorney should have known this, and not have brought this fraud into your court."

8.) Before I answered any question, I thought about my answer. I spoke slowly and loudly. (I'm told that it makes the other party think you're confident.) This is interesting: I kept
telling both the judge what I wanted; I only asked if I could
ask a question. Otherwise all of my statements were about what I wanted. I also stayed out of arguing anything with the atty. I just kept stating the one single fact that my motion hinged upon: No reply to the dispute letter, no collections, no
lawsuit, no jurisdiction.

9.) I think that the jurisdiction issue was about the fact that
the judge couldn't sidestep the federal regulation, and I was
adamant that he knew that I knew, and that the atty either
didn't know, or did and ignored it, thereby bringing a
fraudulent do***ent into the court.

Todd, that's about all I can think of right now. Hope this
helps anyone else on this path. Bless Your Heart

Michael S.

Thanks Todd,


And please thank your friend Michael S. too.


Jurisdiction, especially subject matter is everything.


Jim