Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,594 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 925,329
Pageviews Today: 1,225,806Threads Today: 230Posts Today: 4,672
10:08 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1418736
United States
09/07/2012 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Patrick Devine, Yahoo Group

[link to groups.yahoo.com]
humbleidiot

User ID: 23037352
United States
09/10/2012 06:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
humbleidiot

User ID: 23037352
United States
09/10/2012 06:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Hardgrove:
How should I word my motion to oppose summary judgement without alot of fluff
humbleidiot

User ID: 23037352
United States
09/10/2012 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Sorry...i meant Hardcover...how can I word my opposition n motion ti dismiss because no contract, witness needs to testify, statements are hearsay, and no docs showing assignment of debt, etc?
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/11/2012 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
HardcoveR

User ID: 668839
United States
09/12/2012 12:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Sorry...i meant Hardcover...how can I word my opposition n motion ti dismiss because no contract, witness needs to testify, statements are hearsay, and no docs showing assignment of debt, etc?
 Quoting: humbleidiot


Humble,

So you are answering a "Motion for Summary Judgment".

Here are some ideas. You will need to expand on it and change it according to your particular case. I suggest you run it by a good debt attorney in your area, pay him the few hundred bucks or whatever his fee is, it will be worth it.

So you would title it something like:

"Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment".

Comes now Defendant, and states and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff has no case, and moving for Summary Judgment is improper and premature in this case because Plaintiff has failed to provide the necessary proof requested by Defendant in its discovery requests... (Legalese here would be "Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted").

2. The amount stated in Plaintiff's Complaint is incorrect. Plaintiff has added numerous undisclosed fees and interest...

3. Plaintiff has failed to provide Defendant with an actual copy of the contract at issue. What Plaintiff has attached to the Complaint is an unsigned generic contract which is not the contract mailed to Defendant when the alleged account was opened...

4. Plaintiff has failed to prove ownership of this debt...

5. [Credit card company] has "charged off" and sold the debt and is no longer a real party in interest and lacks standing to sue... (check on the status of your account before using this -- look at your credit report, get a print out and bring it with you).

6. Plaintiff's Complaint does not show proof of who the current legal owner of the debt is...

7. Credit card statements and unsigned generic credit card agreements are inadmissible hearsay... Affidavit filed by Plaintiff regarding hearsay records is not based on personal knowledge and is a false affidavit...

8. Defendant disputes the Affidavit submitted by Plaintiff in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant requests the opportunity to cross-examine this witness prior to a hearing on this Motion.

Wherefore Defendant prays that this Court find in his favor and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,


_________________
John Doe, Pro Se
(address)



Also attach an affidavit, to be notarized:

"Affidavit in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment".

Comes now John Doe, the Affiant herein on this ..... day and after being duly sworn, states under oath as follows:

1. I received an unsigned printout of a Capitol One credit agreement from the debt collector (put name of debt collector here).

2. This is not the contract allegedly mailed to me when the alleged account was opened, and is a generic printout of a Capital One credit agreement. This is not *my* contract and is not relevant to this account.

3. Plaintiff has failed to produce a copy of the original contract for the alleged debt at issue, or any amendments to the contract...

4. I submitted a validation letter to the debt collector.

5. Debt collector failed to provide the documents requested in this letter, and has failed to prove the debt...

6. I filed discovery requests in this case, but the collections attorney has failed to provide the records necessary to prove the debt, including who the current owner of the debt is...

7. I am disputing this debt for the following reasons: I do not know whether this is a valid debt, the collections attorney has failed to provide the documents requested... I do not know who the current owner of the debt is, I deny that the amounts are correct... etc.

Respectfully submitted,

John Doe, etc.

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged...

Notary Public


Notarize the above second document and submit it with your response.


"I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, and is for discussion purposes only."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20740534
Canada
09/12/2012 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Trust law and probate court is the secret.
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 03:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Btw...my motion to extend to seek legal counsel got denied today. Cn I still oppose? Saw someone else in nevada lose to cap 1 also. Fck
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
I read similar arguments which cap 1 atty resonded using nevada cases and laws n it defendent lost cuz hw didnot answer back. Lame. Can I just settle before judgement? Or can I try promissorynotedude's way?
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
How can I settle before summary judgement? Judge denied my request for 30 day extension! Fck
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
If I owe about 5k, what should I offer to settle...1k? Or monthly pmts?
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Promissorynote person...any downsides to your method like jail?
humbleidiot

User ID: 5922318
United States
09/12/2012 05:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Anyon deal w cap 1
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334

I want to learn more on how you fought attorneys in open court regarding promissory notes after judgement because I'm sure this won't go well with capital one's attorneys?
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Can I really use a promissory note with a maturity date 99 years from now as payment for a capital one judgement for credit card debt? I've read the definitions of promissory notes and also hjr 192 but how do I argue it in a court of law? How do I get the judge to agree with me?
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Shibumi, I was denied extension. My summary jdgement court date is 9/24. What can I do now to avoid summary judgement? What do you suggest at this point?
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/15/2012 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
09/16/2012 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Can I really use a promissory note with a maturity date 99 years from now as payment for a capital one judgement for credit card debt? I've read the definitions of promissory notes and also hjr 192 but how do I argue it in a court of law? How do I get the judge to agree with me?
 Quoting: humbleidiot

A promissory note is a legal tender.

How do you argue it in court? The court accepts legal tenders for payment right?

Of course they do. Yet the Constitution states "no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender for payment of debts".

Therefore, the "$" symbol cannot be defined as a "dollar" without agreement (contract). The court cannot tell you (since they are the state) how you must pay the debt, nor what legal tender form to offer the credit company.

Nor can the court nor the credit company say promissory notes are not legal tender, so the court has to agree with YOU that you have paid with legal tender in the form of a promissory note.

As for the "can I go to jail?", how the hell can you go to jail for paying them with legal tender? The courts accept that crap paper every day, in direct violation the Constitution. They have to accept it and enforce it because they do it every day.

If the other side REJECTS your legal tender, the court has to tell them to forgive the debt, since they have refused legal payment.

Federal reserve notes are promissory notes, because they are not gold or silver coin, nor are they backed by anything but a promise (made by congress/US treasury) to pay the note.

its not that freakin difficult to understand, stop making it out to be.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
09/16/2012 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Shibumi, I was denied extension. My summary jdgement court date is 9/24. What can I do now to avoid summary judgement? What do you suggest at this point?
 Quoting: humbleidiot


You are asking for legal advice, I can tell you, this UCC sovereign stuff does not work in court, dozens of posters have said that already.

You are in court already, you have admitted to them you are not sovereign. You have a contractual obligation to pay the collectors.

The only question is "How can you pay when there is no gold and silver coin to pay with?"

The answer is with a LEGAL TENDER FOR PAYMENT.

so pay them their damn legal tender and stop acting like a child crying for help. Legal tender is legal tender is legal tender.

You cannot go to jail for it because the GOVERNMENT says its OKAY, and they have to since they cannot pay in Gold or Silver coin either.
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/17/2012 01:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Show me your case number and real proof this actually works! you act as if the courts have always supported theories and arguments like yours. Look, this is not about Ucc and sovereignty issues. Shibumi argues that the 3rd party collector has to prove I signed a contract. Read the beginning pages of this thread. No note, no debt, right? You act as if our justice system is always right and respects the constitution. Are there any cases at all whereby citizens are wrongly accused and thrown in jail? Ever? Hmmm...fuck yeah! When I'm the only income producer in my family as my wife can't find a job and stays home to take care of our very young children, you have to understand how I don't want make a serious mistake because some crackpot with no cases to support his theory says it's as simple as writing promissory note on a bill or judgement. Fuckin show me proof! Why ya have to act like an asshole?
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/17/2012 01:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Anyone else tried this cowards theories? If this works I sincerely thank you! If it doesn't, FUCK YOU!
humbleidiot

User ID: 22886093
United States
09/17/2012 04:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
What the fuck is this from another board?

"There is nothing in the Trebilcock decision that says that the debt was waived because Trebilcock couldn't force payment in one particular form of currency; Trebilcock could still collect his debt ... when he was willing to accept paper money. One of the intriguing questions of the case is why Wilson didn't use his paper money to get gold coin to satisfy Trebilcock instead of embarking on this litigation that must have been expensive in both time and money. Maybe this case was contrived to test the validity of United States Notes.

In any case Wilson was tendering money in the form of govt-issued United States Notes, expressly recognized in law as legal tender. Wilson wasn't trying to use some homebrew document like a promissory note. A promissory note, by the way, is NOT payment of anything; it's yet another promise of future payment, another expression of debt.

The Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-511, empowers a creditor to insist on payment in legal tender and reject any alternative instruments (such as checks or letters of credit). Which means that, yes, someone can refuse DVP's funny money and still insist on payment real money."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
09/17/2012 01:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
[link to www.co.jackson.or.us]

"How can I pay for the citation?
You can pay the fine by cash, check, debit or credit card, or a payment plan.

Do I have to pay all of the fine now?
No. You can sign up for a payment contract. There may be a finance charge for the fine payment plan, which is also called a promissory note. If you do not make your payments according to your plan, the court can ask the DMV to suspend your driving privileges, and can also send the account to a collection agency. Additional fees are added to the account if these actions occur."

There you go. Since I know you are not smart enough to figure this out, I will spell it out for you.

ALL legal tender are "promises to pay and evidences of DEBT" since the have NO value of and for themselves.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

"The notes have no value for themselves..."


From: [link to www.treasury.gov]

legal tender
n.
"Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept".

The Treasury official website clearly states that nobody is required by law to accept Federal Reserve notes (or any legal tender, for that matter, as payment for goods and services.

Yet the legal definition of legal tender REQUIRES that a creditor accept it for it to be legal tender.

That is because AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 parties CREATES LAW (contract).

There are 3 parties in your court case, YOU, the Collections company and the COURT. IF YOU know your promissory note is legal tender and the COURT knows it is legal tender (as evidenced by the court I linked which accepts promissory note VIA contract as payment) then what the Creditor believes or demands (a certain form of payment) is not relevant, the COURT MUST AGREE WITH YOU because any legal offer is acceptable.

There is your 2 (you and the court) party agreement, there is your LAW and the attorneys on the other side cannot do shit about it, because the court is bound by legal TENDER LAWS which define a properly constructed promissory note AS A LEGAL TENDER, the same as any other legal tender paper DEBT.

The case you cite is irrelevant to this discussion because it is talking about United States NOTES, which is a whole different form of paper money (backed by Gold coins). Not the Federal Reserve notes you think are "money".

Since Federal Reserve notes are NOT US Notes, the cite is out of context and clearly written by an attorney trying to play games.

Now, you know legal tender promissory notes are accepted by the court. You will notice that the promissory note is part of a CONTRACT with the court. Who sets the terms of the contract? YOU DO. They cannot tell you when or how to "pay" the contract with more debt notes, or when.

YOU make the legal tender offer of a 99 year promissory note payment date, then you can negotiate from there. THEY (the court nor the Credit company can FORCE or DEMAND a certain form of payment nor the terms of payment (when it is due) because public law 73-10 makes that against the law.

If you are really hung up on paying with Federal Reserve notes or a credit card, make the terms of the agreement (contract) backing the promissory note that you will pay $20 a month (or a year or whatever) until the promissory note is "paid for", but still make the note payable in 99 years. That is the deal the Federal Reserve and Congress made, after all, which comes due in 2012, by the way.

You need to get it out of your thick skull that Federal Reserve notes are money or have some kind of value, they do not, they are, in fact, promises to pay and DEBT in and of themselves do not and cannot pay anything.

The judge knows this, just because you do not and the attorneys do not does not mean its not true.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
09/17/2012 02:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
Show me your case number and real proof this actually works! you act as if the courts have always supported theories and arguments like yours. Look, this is not about Ucc and sovereignty issues. Shibumi argues that the 3rd party collector has to prove I signed a contract.
They do not have to 'prove' that, they simply must supply EVIDENCE you signed a contract with another party and provide evidence that party is allowing them to collect. Shibumi is dead wrong, you are dealing with a court of EVIDENCE not proof.

Read the beginning pages of this thread. No note, no debt
right?

No, that is not right. EVIDENCE of the debt is all the court needs to show there was a debt incurred or agreed to by contract, they have ruled on this question hundreds of times.


You act as if our justice system is always right and respects the constitution. Are there any cases at all whereby citizens are wrongly accused and thrown in jail? Ever? Hmmm...fuck yeah!
That is because idiots go into court and try to prove they do not owe something they clearly do owe. You owe the debt, end of discussion, the other side is authorized agent to collect that debt, so get over it. Unless you did not sign a contract or receive the credit offered?

When I'm the only income producer in my family as my wife can't find a job and stays home to take care of our very young children, you have to understand how I don't want make a serious mistake because some crackpot

I have plenty of cases to back up what I have posted, and if you want to hire me as your representative, I will be happy to go to court for you, but I doubt you can afford it, but let me know, I will be happy to do it.

with no cases to support his theory says it's as simple as writing promissory note on a bill or judgement. Fuckin show me proof! Why ya have to act like an asshole?
 Quoting: humbleidiot


I am acting like an asshole? You are on a public conspiracy forum, asking for legal direction from Shibumi (has he posted any case numbers on a public forum? I don't see any), so you can get out of a debt YOU signed up for, I am telling you how to get them off your back, legally, without getting your paycheck garnished.

Again, chances are, you have already lost this case so you better have a plan to legally tender them an offer or you are up shit creek, like hundreds of other who have tried to do what you are trying to do.

If showing you the truth about money, debt, legal tender and contracts, makes me an asshole, so be it, but you are acting like a child who got into a mess you had no idea how to actually handle. You can learn from this, or you can have your wages garnished or property taken from you.

you cannot be put in jail for issuing a promissory note any more than you can be put in jail for using a credit card, Federal Reserve notes, check or money order, they ALL are promises to pay and DEBT, they are also all legal tenders.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20901334
United States
09/17/2012 06:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
U.C.C. – ARTICLE 3 – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS , PART 6. DISCHARGE AND PAYMENT

§ 3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

THIS ==>(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, ***there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender***, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22532981
United States
09/18/2012 11:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?

[link to www.co.jackson.or.us]

"How can I pay for the citation?
You can pay the fine by cash, check, debit or credit card, or a payment plan.

Do I have to pay all of the fine now?
No. You can sign up for a payment contract. There may be a finance charge for the fine payment plan, which is also called a promissory note. If you do not make your payments according to your plan, the court can ask the DMV to suspend your driving privileges, and can also send the account to a collection agency. Additional fees are added to the account if these actions occur."

There you go. Since I know you are not smart enough to figure this out, I will spell it out for you.

ALL legal tender are "promises to pay and evidences of DEBT" since the have NO value of and for themselves.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

"The notes have no value for themselves..."


From: [link to www.treasury.gov]

legal tender
n.
"Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept".

The Treasury official website clearly states that nobody is required by law to accept Federal Reserve notes (or any legal tender, for that matter, as payment for goods and services.

Yet the legal definition of legal tender REQUIRES that a creditor accept it for it to be legal tender.

That is because AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 parties CREATES LAW (contract).

There are 3 parties in your court case, YOU, the Collections company and the COURT. IF YOU know your promissory note is legal tender and the COURT knows it is legal tender (as evidenced by the court I linked which accepts promissory note VIA contract as payment) then what the Creditor believes or demands (a certain form of payment) is not relevant, the COURT MUST AGREE WITH YOU because any legal offer is acceptable.

There is your 2 (you and the court) party agreement, there is your LAW and the attorneys on the other side cannot do shit about it, because the court is bound by legal TENDER LAWS which define a properly constructed promissory note AS A LEGAL TENDER, the same as any other legal tender paper DEBT.


I would prefer to avoid the judgement. So if I ask for settlement out of court and the plaintiff does not accept my promissory note am I back to square one? You had mentioned earlier that I could do this before the court date, but what usually happens after they've received my notarized promissory note? Will they take me back to court again, because obviously they'll be pissed. So it looks like either way, I'll end up in court to defend my promissory note to a judge. Again I'd like to avoid a judgement on my credit report if at all possible.

Thanks by the way and I really would like to see a couple of cases supporting this technique, please?
Humbleidiot
User ID: 22532981
United States
09/18/2012 11:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?

[link to www.co.jackson.or.us]

"How can I pay for the citation?
You can pay the fine by cash, check, debit or credit card, or a payment plan.

Do I have to pay all of the fine now?
No. You can sign up for a payment contract. There may be a finance charge for the fine payment plan, which is also called a promissory note. If you do not make your payments according to your plan, the court can ask the DMV to suspend your driving privileges, and can also send the account to a collection agency. Additional fees are added to the account if these actions occur."

There you go. Since I know you are not smart enough to figure this out, I will spell it out for you.

ALL legal tender are "promises to pay and evidences of DEBT" since the have NO value of and for themselves.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

"The notes have no value for themselves..."


From: [link to www.treasury.gov]

legal tender
n.
"Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept".

The Treasury official website clearly states that nobody is required by law to accept Federal Reserve notes (or any legal tender, for that matter, as payment for goods and services.

Yet the legal definition of legal tender REQUIRES that a creditor accept it for it to be legal tender.

That is because AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 parties CREATES LAW (contract).

There are 3 parties in your court case, YOU, the Collections company and the COURT. IF YOU know your promissory note is legal tender and the COURT knows it is legal tender (as evidenced by the court I linked which accepts promissory note VIA contract as payment) then what the Creditor believes or demands (a certain form of payment) is not relevant, the COURT MUST AGREE WITH YOU because any legal offer is acceptable.

There is your 2 (you and the court) party agreement, there is your LAW and the attorneys on the other side cannot do shit about it, because the court is bound by legal TENDER LAWS which define a properly constructed promissory note AS A LEGAL TENDER, the same as any other legal tender paper DEBT.


I would prefer to avoid the judgement. So if I ask for settlement out of court and the plaintiff does not accept my promissory note am I back to square one? You had mentioned earlier that I could do this before the court date, but what usually happens after they've received my notarized promissory note? Will they take me back to court again, because obviously they'll be pissed. So it looks like either way, I'll end up in court to defend my promissory note to a judge. Again I'd like to avoid a judgement on my credit report if at all possible.

Thanks by the way and I really would like to see a couple of cases supporting this technique, please?

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20901334


Woops! My bad on the previous post. But basically, it seems like no matter what, I (or anyone else) will eventually end up in court to argue to a judge why the creditors have to accept my payment, correct? Or is there a way to avoid courts?

News