Does discharging debt mean I accepted it?

My husband wages were recently garnished.& It turns out that the&thieves got a judgement against us for medical debt. (They were only able to do this because I did not know my rights when this all started.)& It turns out they are going to take 25% of our income for quite a while.&


If I discharge this debt dollar for dollar, does that mean that I am accepting that it is valid?& I noticed on documents that I researched that all of the personal information entered was like, "alleged debtor SARA JANE DOE".& That tells me that we are not accepting the debt, but if we are not accepting it, then why are we paying it?& I know the obvious answer, but what is the general consensus?


I feel that if I am going to offer payment then I should say that I am paying a bill that I owe.& Or, are we saying that, even though we know they are illegal, we will offer them payment so that they will leave us, the alleged debtor, alone?

[Ice]

If only a valid debt can be paid... what makes you think that you can "pay" it?& "Discharging" a debt is your right under HJR 192.& No real 'property' is leaving your hands.& In the case of a money&judgment, there are several ways to go about cleaning it up.


First of all, the gov. OWES YOU.& When you "discharge" a debt your BoE should end up in the hands of the Treasurer.& It then becomes the responsibility of the Treasurer to ascertain whether or not to honor the "debt" as "valid" and see that the discharge is completed.& The gov. isn't going to "credit" anyone (collector) unless they can substantiate the debt is valid.


It seems to me that all we are really doing is shifting the responsibility to our debtor -- the gov.& Almost the same way in which a "creditor" shifts the responsibility of collecting a debt to the "collector".


Once a BoE is tendered to the collector, you would have to file a "satisfaction of money judgment" with the court.& In your case you may need to request a "release" from garnishment as well.


Another way to go may be to motion for the judgment to be vacated on the principle that you cannot pay a debt due to the fact that there is no money in circulation with which to pay a debt.& For this you would use a "Lawful Money motion to vacate".


&

Okay, it looks like I am going to get an exemption hearing because I acted in good faith.


If I go to the exemption hearing and lose, can I then ask use the "Lawful Money motion to vacate". Or is it one or the other?


I mentioned the "Lawful Money motion to vacate" to my sister as she is well versed in this stuff and she said that is what she would do.& She thinks that it wouldn't even go to court as the judge wouldn't want it to go public.


Switching topics, I would like to tell you that I have been practicing my "Queen" attitude and it seems to come pretty naturally.& If somebody calls me, and they are a debt collector, I tell them, "I did not give you permission to call me, I don't even know who you are.& Do not call my phone number unless I tell you that you can.& If you want to get in touch with me then send me writen correspondense."& This seems to be working nicely.&


Montana

[Ice]

If the "exemption" hearing will stop the garnishment... then you have achieved your goal... and it will be on the record that the BANK screwed up and caused you "damage".& That may be something of value that you could put to good use.


hmmmm, maybe you should hold off on the money motion... ??


&

[husky2kawi]

Montana-
I love your phone response........
husky

[Jerseee]

Montana,


good job!& Now when you get your first victory (which appears to be soon), that will solidify the attitude and your personal knowledge will soar.


speaking from experience.& i'm currently 3-0 with debt collectors/law firms and 1-0 with credit cards.

Just like ice is saying they cannot go outside public policy (hjr 192). I recently told ice that i was confused as to what approach to take sometimes with debt, bringing up the fraud or using hjr 192 and discharging. After thinking about it, i realized that using hjr 192 accomplishes BOTH, it notifies them of the fraud and gives you remedy. In other words, since THEY are committing fraud, this may sound crazy, BUT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW allows you to use the same instruments they are using&also by using the same thing are using which is fiat money. A boe,all notes,etc. are all in the same catagory.

kgod,


You answered my next question with your post.& I was wondering if I should discharge the debt according to hjr 192, or if I should bring up the fraud when I go in front of the judge.& I was told that would be arguing. (the person that told me that must know Jerseee.)& So thank you for posting what your learned.


Everybody,


I am going to list two aspects of my situation that add some serious thought:


1.& I signed a stipulation to judgment with the debt collector/attorney before I knew my right.& Therefore I do have a signed contract with the third party, which them makes them a first party.& However, I signed this not knowing all of the facts.


2.& Attorney received judgment when my bank sent agreed payment to the wrong address (no, I'm not kidding)


So, the more I think about these things, the madder I get.& I am a University student and when I have time between classes I go to the law library and read.& Today I was reading all about cases involving contracts that did not have full disclosure.& It seems to me that a pretty strong case in traditional courts, is one that can prove that harm came to the plaintiff because of the lack of disclosure by the defendant.


Now, I sure as hell wasn't informed of my rights before I signed the stipulation to judgment.& Did the debt collector have an obligation to tell me my rights because he in an attorney, or not, because he was an opposing party?


Also, it seems very obvious to me that debt collectors are illegal everyday.& So obvious that I am wondering if there is some other law out there making what they are doing legal.& Please don't think I don't believe everything that I have read in the code and in HJR 192, it just seems that something that clear would be easier to enforce.


So, what would happen if a person&went to a judge and explained these easy to understand things.& It is this kind of question that makes me crazy.&


Thanks everybody.


Montana

I want to follow up on my last post.& I just spoke to a lawyer friend of mine, (not an attorney), and he explained to me that before you go to court you have to exhaust your administrative remedy.& So that answers my question about just going up to a judge and saying what is wrong with the system.


He also explained to me that because the attorney/debt collector did not disclose to me that I could tender payment with anything except FRN's he extorted my labor and my human rights.& So, I will talk to him again tonight to get further clerification on this then, but I understand a bit better now.


We also talked about tendering payment subject to proof of claim.& He explained it very similar to others on this forum.& I also understand that better now.


King Jerseee, I would like to add that you have tried to explain these things to me before, but because of my scattered brain it did not sink in.& However, your efforts were not, and never will be wasted because when one& piece of the puzzle clicks, everything else we've talked about falls into place.& So, until I have another question that I am not understanding the answer to, our conversation should be much less repetative.


Later,


Montana

"Once a BoE is tendered to the collector, you would have to file a "satisfaction of money judgment" with the court.& In your case you may need to request a "release" from garnishment as well."& ICE


How do you&file a "satisfaction of money judgment with the court"?& Especially when you paid with a bond or BOE.


Also, where does it say in HRJ 192 that we can "discharge" our debts by way of our exemption?&It says we can discharge our debt "dollar for dollar",&that is, with legal tender, ie., checks, money orders or FRNs, but nowhere does it say we can discharge our debts via the U.S. treasury.


Also, HJR 192 has had a few amendements since June 5, 1933, so you'd be wise to insert&the date it was enacted in your documents,&e.g. HJR 192 June 5, 1933. Recently&someone ask me which&HJR 192 I was referring to.&


&


&