Posts by rowdyraven112

I don't know what you're trying to say. Get to the point. The user said:
The guy’s out here cooking up his own theories on fraud. Sure, every now and then he stumbles onto something that actually makes sense, but honestly? He hasn't a clue what he's talking about. It's pretty obvious when someone has zero grasp of the basic institutions they're trying to critique.

He's right about the debt collectors, the buyers, or the repo men. It’s a classic application. Honestly, things are pretty straightforward here. But even when the path is clear, people still find ways to screw up the process.

The guy is just repeating exactly what’s written in that BlackRock letter. Look, what’s happening here is an employer being led astray by someone who clearly doesn't understand how garnishments work. They end up breaking the law by paying out unprotected funds to IBM or whoever else, while treating the rest like a standard bill payment—sending a third to the unprotected portion and two-thirds to the protected one. Why bother? Because they can. Nobody bothers reporting this kind of corporate misconduct to the Department of Justice. It’s blatant fraud. Why call it fraud? Because through this scheme, IBM is essentially trying to jump to the front of the line. The law on priority of payments is crystal clear across the board. What are they thinking?

This guy has mapped out the whole theory of asset seizure from top to bottom. You really think it's normal for someone to just... $333 The principals paid up. $1000 Interest rates? $1000 The only thing I can offer him is a recommendation to see a doctor—someone who can actually write him a referral to a specialist who handles this kind of mess. Honestly, I’d say the same about anyone else who just sits there and lets an attachment or a garnishment take them for everything they've got. $2333 What the hell is going on with this debt? $333And that's only when we're talking about the big money...

Let’s say I’m buried in debt. Massive debt. Interest rates have spiked through the roof, and I know damn well I’m never paying this off. I’ve got three options:
Stay quiet and let them bleed us dry.
File for personal bankruptcy and just let the government drain me dry? Is that the plan?
Fight back.

Some people just love picking fights over nothing. Look, under certain legal provisions, a creditor can go after someone's wages if they have the right authorization. It’s straightforward. To make it happen, the debtor can sign a statement in front of a notary alongside a reliable third party. This document confirms that the debtor is obligated to pay the debt to that third party within a seven-day window. Simple enough? $133 With interest rates sitting at 5% annually—meaning a cost of about... $67I need three copies.
Then have the same notary legalize it:
One promissory note from... $167
The Department of Justice issued a statement regarding seizing the protected portion of income up to the total debt amount. What does that even mean? The Department of Justice just dropped a massive update on the new regulatory framework. It’s a heavy lift. They’re tightening the screws on oversight and restructuring how certain financial audits are handled through the IRS. What does this actually change for the average investor? Not much in the short term, but the long game looks complicated. It feels like more red tape for the big players, while everyone else just watches the paperwork pile up. Is this about transparency, or is it just another way to increase the bureaucratic burden? Hard to say yet. We'll see who gets hit hardest when the dust settles.)

Toss those promissory notes straight to the IRS—specifically at the branches that accept them—provided there aren’t any active levies on file with the IRS yet. Make sure you also file that wage garnishment statement directly with the source, whether it’s through Social Security or your employer. That’s it. That puts you first in line. If you have an income... $2000 You won't be paying off those debts until somewhere around the year 2563.
Speed is everything here. You have to move fast if you want to beat the collectors to the punch.
If the creditor is already hitting up the IRS, then those promissory notes are basically useless. You’re better off targeting income instead. But even then, if they’ve already flagged your wages, an employer can dodge the whole thing pretty easily. They just fire you for one day and hire you back under a different position. During that gap, the boss sends the garnishment notice over alongside your termination notice. Then the creditor can go hunt somewhere else. In that scenario, you make sure your administrative filing takes priority. Obviously, you need to be on good terms with your boss for this to work.
Sure, some guy on this forum will probably claim the creditor is going to be jumping for joy because they can try to squeeze those costs out of the employer next. I disagree. The employer actually wins here. If you sign a statement admitting you blatantly violated labor laws and company policy, the employer gets ironclad proof that the termination was legitimate. It’s a clean break. And if they decide to rehire you later? They can just play the empathy card once your weeping wife, kid, or mother-in-law shows up at the office the very next day.

Regarding movable property and real estate—assuming there aren't any liens or mortgages attached—it’s best to handle those via sales contracts with close family members. Don't even think about using gift deeds. They’re too easy to challenge in court. Like rowdyraven112 mentioned, creditors are just sitting there waiting for an excuse to sue you just to collect more legal fees.

So, essentially, the unprotected portion gets moved to a trusted person who simply withdraws the cash from their account and passes it on to you.

Sure, there’s a provision in the law that allows a third party—in this case, the actual creditor—to contest all of this. But does it actually happen? If I recall correctly, rowdyraven112 said creditors love when this happens because they can bill for extra costs. But there's a difference between contesting something and actually proving it. If anyone asks where the money came from, you can always point to a grandfather saying, "Yeah, he needed it, so I gave him my life savings I kept under the mattress." Or if they ask about the payment, a neighbor could swear, "Yeah, it was paid for with my moonshine stash." You can find witnesses as needed. It’s honestly stupid to argue about this; it's obvious only one out of a thousand creditors will bother. Claiming they're just looking for extra profit is just noise. I've seen two court rulings where the creditors ended up losing the battle and having to pay the debtor for the lost lawsuit. A simple "yeah, sure" backed by a witness signing under penalty of perjury regarding the source of funds is plenty.

By the way, this idiot going by "rowdyraven112" has had the same seizure order thrown out three times. Not a stay of execution—the seizure itself is rejected and the order is invalidated. So much for your expertise, dear colleague. For the beginners out there: a seizure order goes straight to collection; you don't wait for an appeal. I'm looking forward to seeing this creditor try a fourth time, but they'll run out of time. Even the last judge didn't just uphold my objection; he added his own little commentary that basically pinned the creditor to the wall. So, I'm in the driver's seat now since the counter-seizures are already in motion. Sent them on time. Let's see how much the creditor whines once they become the debtor. I've tried offering settlements before, multiple times. Every single time I ended up looking like a fool, nearly getting hit with a misdemeanor charge for interfering with possession and disturbing the peace. My creditor was just too stubborn. Now, I'm just waiting for his accounts to get frozen so I can hear him start crying.

Bottom line. All of this only works if you use it to force a settlement with the creditor and wipe out the debt (make sure you document everything with notarized statements). The idea that creditors have empathy is nonsense. At least I haven't met a creditor with enough heart to forgive most of the interest and principal. Besides, if I were the creditor, how stupid would I have to be to write off interest that I am legally owed, unless I was forced to? That pretty much sums it up. Offer a settlement, but do it face-to-face on your own turf, not over email or phone.

That's it. Use the legal options available to you first. Only then do you sit down at the table with the creditor. And don't you dare settle without a follow-up letter stating that by making this payment, the creditor confirms that the debt related to specific accounts and contracts—including all interest and fees—is fully satisfied. Why do people rarely do this? To quote a friend of mine: "People are sheep. When a sheep grows too much wool, you shear it and wait for it to grow back." It reminds me of that old literary quote... "When grandma said this, the whole forest groaned; the magic vanished, because grandma loved her misery more than all the happiness in the world."

Found it.

So, Chapter 26 covers determining execution based on authentic documents (Sections 278 - 289). Under Section 284, Paragraph 2 of the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor can go straight to an employer—like a corporation or a pension fund—to demand debt repayment based on an out-of-court execution (meaning one made legally binding through a notary).
Let’s say someone already has an existing garnishment order through the Federal Reserve, and their employer is dutifully sending the unprotected portion of their paycheck to a blocked account.
Now, a new execution comes in, validated by a notary. What happens then? Who takes priority?
The part where EOS claims this type of document takes precedence over existing administrative freezes or child support is what really interests me.
Here’s the specific breakdown:

http://i65.tinypic.com/256z2j7.jpg

Then there are those debts tied to various credit cards where users signed a blanket statement allowing wage garnishment from their employer. Section 203 of the new Bankruptcy Code allows for this kind of execution, and Paragraph 8 says the Department of Justice dictates the format and content. Looking at those requirements, it's obvious how the document needs to look. According to the legal definition, it doesn't even need to be notarized; it just needs to be affirmed or solemnized.
What does EOS do? They send a letter like this along with that blanket garnishment statement.

http://i66.tinypic.com/wgq6x1.jpg

I agree with Darcy that people are mostly responsible for their own messes. But I'm not talking about that. My motives are different. It isn't true that all creditors are easy to negotiate with. You have an elderly woman walk into an AT&T store and they tell her she owes three installments of $333. Meanwhile, her pension is only $833. It's hard to generalize, especially when you look at that situation we saw where employees won a judgment to get paid, only to get another judgment saying they had to return the money before they even received it. The first person I'd go after is the lawyer. And I’d approach him with a "7.62 mm" type of argument.
I've seen plenty of cases where creditors basically prey on people.

Regarding these wage garnishments. Article 202, Section 8 states that the format and content are dictated by the Department of Justice. They’ve already issued the specific regulation covering this, so here's the link:

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/example-regulation-link

Article 2 of this regulation requires the statement to include the exact amount being claimed. So, any vague declaration—even if it's notarized—that allows for a garnishment without specifying the debt amount is just scrap paper in my book. Thoughts?

ruggedmaker2 said:Honestly, this feels incredibly weird to me.
I’m handling payroll right now, and the only wage garnishments I’m seeing are those voluntary ones—you know, where someone actually signed off on a consent for a loan repayment or something similar.
(Thankfully, I don't have any of those messy child support garnishments to deal with.

But man, it’s been ages since we had a straight-up wage garnishment pass through here. Everything else goes through the clearinghouse. Usually, they move fast on those, trying to get everyone lined up for collection according to the records held by the central processing agency.

Read the bold text. It’s over. There is nothing left to do here, aside from a few specific seizures. An attachment. On the clock. Let’s be crystal clear here. This is how the agency—FIFA—actually operates. No one can just waltz into an employee's workplace and hand a garnishment notice to accounting without a certified court order. That isn't how things work in America. All those filings go directly through FIFA's branches—like the ones over at the New York Botanical Garden area or near Memorial Square—as strictly dictated by Article 2 of the Regulations on the Method and Procedure for Implementing Garnishments on Monetary Funds. Simple as that.

There’s a legal provision somewhere—I can't pin it down right this second—stating that an employer is personally liable with their own assets. But there's a catch. It only kicks in if they fail to follow the Bankruptcy Code regarding garnishments or if they refuse to transfer the unprotected portion of wages to the blocked account.

Let’s get back to wage garnishments. Under Section 202 of the Bankruptcy Code, you can garnish someone's paycheck, but there's a catch. You can't just do it on a whim. It requires a certified document from a notary public, following the specific format set by the Department of Justice under subsection 8 of that same article. You can find the template online if you actually bother to look.

Any other interference in the bankruptcy proceedings is just a scam. Look at what Matrix is doing with that letter. It’s pure fraud.
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Darcy, you work in accounting. You get a letter, and then what? You wire a third of an employee's paycheck directly into a Matrix checking account and process the rest according to the Bankruptcy Code?
Which laws are being broken here? And what can an employee actually do about it?

Give me a break...

"In accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, standard accounting practices, and Social Security Administration guidelines, a valid Writ of Garnishment carries the weight of a final court order. This holds more authority than an administrative freeze or a Wage Garnishment Consent (in instances where the notary receives the garnishment request prior to the employer receiving the Consent). It takes precedence over all other documents. Should an employer fail to comply, legal proceedings will proceed against the employer via seizure of their own corporate accounts."

This is a snippet from a letter certain companies receive from the Matrix agency. What do clueless employers do once they hit that last sentence?
They start paying one-third of the debtor's wages directly into the company's own checking account and the other two-thirds into a protected account. Or they pay a third to Matrix and split the rest—two-thirds to a protected account and a third to a frozen one.

By any logical standard, this falls under

Fraud.
Section 236.

(1) Anyone who, with the intent to secure an unlawful financial benefit for themselves or another, misrepresents or conceals facts to deceive someone, or maintains a deception, thereby inducing them to act or refrain from acting to the detriment of their own or another's property,

shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to five years.

Why is this misrepresentation and deception? Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the method for paying out protected portions of a salary into a shielded account is clearly defined by the Agency. Federal regulations clearly define what constitutes the "Agency" handling the garnishment. Article 2 of those regulations defines the submission process, while Article 5 and Section 180 of the Uniform Commercial Code establish the priority of execution.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code (can't recall the exact section), the debtor is responsible for notifying the agency regarding income exempt from garnishment. Based on that, the agency notifies the relevant institutions to ensure non-exempt funds are deposited into the protected account. EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T PROTECTED MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO THE FROZEN ACCOUNT UNLESS THE LAW STIPULATES OTHERWISE.

Wage garnishment based on consent only exists under Section 202 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Paragraph 8 states that the format and content of such a statement are prescribed by the Department of Justice. That specific format was published in the Federal Register back in 2014 (if I read that right).
Bottom line: if there isn't a signed statement from the debtor, nobody—not even Superman or Batman—can stop the non-exempt portion of the salary from going straight to the frozen account.

The notice Matrix sends to employers is a clear attempt to mislead them into thinking the legal action will pivot to their own business accounts.

Am I wrong here?

hollowmason64 said:Ignorance isn't really a legal defense here. Even if she did pay the bill, since the court order was already drafted, those legal costs still have to be covered—it’s just a matter of how much they end up being.
If that garnishment has been legally binding for over 10 years without any action taken on it, it should be past the statute of limitations.
Seriously, you need to get your hands on the full paperwork.

The part that doesn't sit right with me at all is the telecom provider refusing to renew the contract because of these attorney fees, especially if there aren't any outstanding debts left.
That sounds like a direct violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
I’d suggest sending them a formal written inquiry asking exactly why the contract renewal was denied. I'm genuinely curious to see what they come back with. If they try to blame the client's debt to a third party, then you definitely need to report that.

Article 172 of the Uniform Commercial Code:
When a debtor owes principal plus interest and costs, the costs are paid off first, then the interest, and finally the principal.

Anyone who actually reads the law will get it.

But let's assume the debt is expired. Suppose the guy wants to settle up and restart the service. As a consumer, he has rights, sure, but the service provider also has the right NOT to sell to him. Show me the specific law stating an operator MUST sell you a service upon request.

Someone (someone pretty spiteful, if you ask me) described it like this a few years back: The debt might be expired, but my response will be, "Look, you might need me again down the road, but you aren't getting anything from me because you still owe me."

In these situations, the guy is actually in the driver's seat. He can pay off the debt without interest and demand a paper from the relevant company proving the collection/bill/notice is fully settled.

Regardless, the service provider has the right to refuse the sale.
It's like walking into a law firm and having an attorney tell you they don't want to represent you. It's their choice.

silverbear56 said:Look, it's obvious we don't all have the exact same rights. I have a friend who actually works at a major bank, and she told me personally that while foreclosure or garnishment is possible, it usually doesn't happen if you aren't ignoring them for months or even a year... but she also emphasized that making *any* kind of payment makes a huge difference. If there are absolutely zero payments being made, that’s a whole different story, because once a payment history exists, they can't just trigger an immediate seizure! That is exactly why I posted this question here, but it seems everyone has a different opinion on how the process works. In my specific situation, Discover is obviously going to try to demand the full balance or maybe offer a three-month installment plan at $1000, but my paycheck is actually less than that amount.

How old is that Citibank debt anyway?
I've pulled people out of impossible garnishments by dragging the process until the court order was vacated. Don't get too excited, though—those cases make up less than 1% of what happens. It’s not about denying the debt; it’s purely about procedural errors. For example, one guy had his garbage collection fine overturned simply because he proved in court that the sanitation crew didn't actually drive his route. Literally. Sanitation can't prove anything except that they have a schedule. Just throw some news clippings in there showing they missed pickups during a snowstorm and you're set.
The employees at the local water utility are so incompetent they don't even update their records for installed meters. Compare the serial number on your meter to the one on your bill. Match? 80% chance they won't. If the serial numbers don't match, then technically, that bill isn't yours (this doesn't apply to those big apartment complexes in Washington, D.C., where the water bill comes bundled with the Berkshire Hathaway management fee).
Yeah, sure... looking at credit card debt... let's assume you aren't the only one... swiping cards for all kinds of useless crap. jbmu, is it really that hard to pay the utilities first and divide the rest into daily spending limits? Make a grocery list. But no... some mindless consumer sees something on sale and suddenly they need it. Pure consumer psychology.

Brandon Hill8 said:

I don't even know where to start with this mess. It’s one thing to deal with bureaucratic nonsense, but when you realize how much they're trying to skirt the rules, it's infuriating. Honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen wondering how anyone can sleep at night knowing this kind of stuff is happening under our noses. It feels like every time you think you have a handle on the situation, some new loophole pops up. It’s exhausting. You try to follow the law—you try to do things by the book—and then you see people playing games with the system. It makes you want to throw your laptop out the window. There’s zero accountability, and frankly, that's the most insulting part of the whole ordeal. We deserve better than this constant runaround. kaže:
Look, if you’re operating in Marvel’s world and you actually have someone reliable on your side, you solemnize a loan agreement with a repayment term spanning a few years. But here's the kicker: you bake in a clause stating that the first installment has to be paid within 10 days of the solemnization. If they miss even a single payment after that? The creditor has the immediate right to trigger enforcement under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. You don't need me to walk you through it—all the details on how solemnization works are easily available online.
What's the catch?
Look, people need to get this straight: there is a massive difference between a certified document and an enforceable instrument. You can’t just lump them together. If you’re trying to go after someone using a certified document, you aren't hitting up the IRS for immediate collection. It doesn't work like that. But once you have an enforceable instrument? You're straight to the collection phase immediately, regardless of whether the judgment is final or not. Get it right.
Once you get that loan agreement notarized, it becomes an enforceable instrument. I’m pretty sure the IRS would even allow for direct collection if you file the right paperwork—though I might be slightly off on the exact technicality there. Either way, if you can't go through the IRS to settle it, your next move is hitting up the courts to file for a judgment.
Once the court hands down that ruling, your judgment goes straight to the IRS for collection. You need to move fast—immediately file through the court to switch up the payment method and get that lien recorded. If the value of what they owe you actually exceeds the value of the property itself, you can use that lien to secure ownership of the real estate. Don't just sit there waiting; take control of the process.
That’s exactly how things work in the comic book world. Here’s the catch. Let’s say someone abuses the system because a close relative doesn't have the cash to cover a loan they secured with a lien. The silver lining here? A third party can’t come along and challenge a contract made between two other people. So, if you just keep your mouth shut and don't go blabbing about it, you could actually save a piece of real estate by having that relative transfer the title into your name.
Why on earth are there three separate contracts? You’ve got one for the property, one for the IRS, and then another one just to verify where the income is coming from. It makes zero sense.
It’s a little late in the game to be reacting once the creditor is already gearing up to pull the trigger on an enforcement action. You really should have moved much faster than this.
It’s pretty obvious this whole thing is going to tank if there’s already some kind of lien on the property.
A gift contract isn't the silver bullet everyone thinks it is. Here’s why: any third party can come out of the woodwork and challenge that agreement for up to three years. After that window slams shut, they're out of luck because the statute of limitations kicks in. It’s a massive loophole you have to account for.
Sure, I’m just talking out of my ass here. But this is just a tiny glimpse into the playbook these big shots use when they borrow billions and then just walk away from the debt. This is exactly why we’re sitting on $50 billion in non-performing assets. Those bottom-feeders? They probably account for maybe a billion of that total.

And you still haven't actually answered my question.

Look, your line of reasoning opens the door to massive civil liability—we’re talking huge payouts—for at least three different reasons. Plus, you're staring down potential criminal charges. Honestly? It’s basically a dream scenario for any lawyer.

To actually dismantle your entire little scheme for dodging an enforcement action, I’d need to sit down and write a medium-length essay—but let’s just keep it brief for now.

Look, an enforcement instrument isn't the same thing as a legal basis for payment under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. Period. That means just because you have an enforcement document doesn't mean it automatically serves as the grounds for a direct seizure of funds. Take your notarized contract, for example—that’s an enforcement instrument, sure, but it isn't the specific basis that allows the IRS to go straight for your bank account. And honestly, even though you're tripping over your own feet here—one second you say they are, then you say maybe they aren't, then you act like you aren't sure—you're actually heading in the right direction.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: all the payment basics don't just need to be legally binding—they have to be enforceable. There's a massive difference. You can't jump the gun here. Finality comes first, then enforceability follows. It works like this: once a judgment becomes final, you wait out the grace period for voluntary payment. Only after that window slams shut does the order actually become enforceable. That grace period is usually spelled out right there in the legal instrument itself, but if it isn't? Then you fall back on the standard provisions under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. Simple as that.

If you’re trying to stop a foreclosure on your property, listen up. You need to act fast before things go south. If you want to protect your real estate from being seized, there are specific legal maneuvers you can pull, but you have to know the rules of the game. Look, if you're staring down the barrel of a judgment, you need to understand how the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act works in this country. It’s not just about waiting around for a process server to show up at your door; it’s about knowing your rights under the law before the hammer drops. Most people just sit there and let it happen because they’re paralyzed by fear, but that’s a losing strategy. I've seen people try to hide assets or shuffle paperwork at the last minute, thinking they're being clever. It rarely works, and honestly, it usually just makes the legal headache ten times worse. You need a solid plan, not a bunch of half-baked excuses. Get your ducks in a row, look into the exemptions available under our laws, and for heaven's sake, talk to someone who actually knows their way around an American courtroom before you lose everything.Look, let’s be real here—it’s physically impossible to pull that off without the debt being backed up. Period.Look, you don't go to court just to run to the IRS, only to end up back in court again. That’s a massive waste of both time and money. If you’re sitting on a fake contract that you're trying to pass off as an enforceable instrument, you can skip the runaround and head straight to the courthouse to file a fraudulent lien against their real estate. But hey, let's actually break this down for a second.

First off, you aren't recording a lien; you're filing a notice of levy, which just gives you priority in the repayment queue based on when it's recorded. Hmm. Hmm...

The question that pops out of nowhere from your little "plan" is this: Are you trying to block a foreclosure on real estate or a seizure of cash assets while the actual creditor starts collecting?

Look, if you follow your plan and use some fake contract to hit the IRS, they’ll go after your real estate. But if you target the real estate first, the creditor will go after your bank accounts (assuming they haven't already secured a lien on the property, in which case they're definitely going for the house). Now, if you don't have any liquid cash, the creditor is going to start hunting for your properties—the very ones you've already tried to "foreclose" on using your sham contract. Then, they pull that notarized agreement out of court. They see how you signed after you already owed him the money, and boom—your fake foreclosure gets frozen and you're stuck in litigation. You'll face a challenge to the validity of your contract, you'll get slapped with legal fees, and you'll end up having accomplished absolutely nothing except being liable for the entire debt plus interest, plus attorney fees that are now five times higher, plus whatever you spent on the notarization.

Furthermore, there's the bright side: a third party can contest an agreement between two other people and argue that the whole thing is void. Especially in your specific scenario involving a fraudulent contract that the law explicitly deems null and void—call it invalidity or whatever makes you feel better. If a third party could never contest a contract between two other parties, then a wife whose husband mortgaged or sold their joint furniture (or the house they built together) without her knowledge would have zero legal protection.

Also, statutes of limitations don't apply to void contracts.

And another thing: you're confusing a notice of levy with the registration of a real estate lien. It's not that surprising, honestly. Registering a lien is a completely different legal mechanism with totally different consequences. A notice of levy is an enforcement action carried out by the court automatically the moment a levy petition is filed. But here's the kicker: regardless of whether we're talking about registering a lien (which you consent to by signing a loan agreement, for example) or a notice of levy, neither can be stopped. You can't stop the first because you agreed to it, and you can't stop the second because it's a mandatory enforcement action. Even if you somehow beat the creditor to the punch with the second one, the truth comes out (that you signed the deal after you were already in debt), and we're right back to what I said before.

Get it? Or don't. That's the reality.

Bottom line: draw your own conclusion about how much nonsense you're talking. If nothing else, go back to the second and third sentences of my post and let them sink in—for you and for anyone else who thinks your "strategy" is actually a solution. But hey, I've already told you this on this forum before, so do whatever you want.

I already deleted most of it because your essay was too long... I just left this bit.

Here’s the reality. For starters, I can't even define who would use this or how, since what's $167 a fortune to one person is peanuts to someone else.
The facts justifying the process are pretty clear-cut:
- Creditor arrogance
- Lawyer arrogance and their fees
- Notary arrogance and their fees
- Court arrogance and legal costs
- Statutory arrogance
- IRS arrogance
Statutory arrogance:
An interest rate of 12% is nothing short of predatory—pure usury. I won't even go into historical rates, otherwise some pregnant woman reading this might go into premature labor. Long story short, if you had a debt from 1997 for, say, $333, applying those old rates means it's an order of magnitude higher today $67 (and yes, those kinds of judgments exist; I've seen them personally). Anyone who thinks this kind of collection is fair... Let's be clear: half of the $33 billion owed by individuals is just interest. I fully agree that people who don't pay should be penalized. However, the recent Consumer Protection Act addresses the disparity between individuals and corporations by setting corporate penalty rates at "savings account" levels. Unfortunately, the law defines what makes a contract usurious, but doesn't address usurious interest rates specifically.
Creditor arrogance:
Every creditor waits until the absolute last second to file a judgment, just so they can squeeze out extra profit through these predatory interest rates. Of course, the creditor claims they warned the debtor via notices (which, mind you, they actually charged fees for), but they never bother to check if those notices ever actually reached the debtor. The creditor's mail logs are considered "proof" that the person received everything.
Arrogance of courts, lawyers, notaries, and the IRS:
It's an open secret that the courts are in bed with lawyers and big capital. Judgment filings sit in drawers for years (though I'll admit they've gotten faster lately). And now someone is telling me that nobody is held accountable when a debtor gets hit with a judgment after ten years??? It's hard to wrap my head around the fact that there's no accountability, no agency where you can report what is essentially a crime. Collection costs??? Per the law, the debtor pays the lawyer, the notary/court, and finally the fees for the IRS to freeze the accounts. On top of all that, there's tax. The debtor is lucky they aren't also being billed for US Chamber of Commerce or American Bar Association fees.

Because of all this, it isn't just necessary—it's a duty—to force this arrogance toward a settlement. Because if a judgment hits property or a checking account, let's be real: even I would ignore any whining coming from the debtor side.

How and in what way? There are several ways, and I won't waste time explaining them all, because people are terrified of exactly the kind of posts written by people like you, and they won't dare take action. What I wrote is just one method, and I didn't even finish detailing it because I ran out of time.
The legal rights for creditors you listed are correct, but let's get one thing straight. You’re claiming the people pushing these fake foreclosures could practically sell their own organs just to pay off a lawsuit. Well, I’d say the person filing the suit is just as likely to end up in that same spot. What you missed in your argument is this: once a ruling is final, only another binding court order can overturn it. There is a massive, uphill battle between merely contesting something and actually proving it. Claiming anyone is 100% in the right is reckless. Even lawyers will tell you that if you actually bother to ask.

Jack Edwards5 said:Isn't there some other way?
I’d rather not go on TV right now—I'm far too shy, and let's just say the camera doesn't exactly love me.

This is exactly why I’m losing the will to comment on anything at all. First off, you claim the debt is paid off. On what basis are you making that claim? Your own math? How did you even make the payments? Based on what? A verbal agreement?

Of course there's another way. But that route requires specific investments—buying gear for an assault or self-defense—and actually using it, which pretty much runs afoul of several sections of the Penal Code.

Brandon Hill8 said:In what kind of Marvell-inspired fantasy world is it even possible to prevent a "notation" (I'm assuming you mean a lien on property) once the proposal for property garnishment has already been submitted?

John Clark6 said:She's just talking nonsense... honestly, she hasn't got a clue—so please, don't go fooling yourself thinking otherwise...

In the Marwell world, when you’re dealing with someone reliable, you sign a loan agreement with a repayment term spanning a few years. But there's a catch: that first installment? It's due within ten days of notarization. If you miss even one payment, the creditor can move for immediate seizure. You can find all the details on notarization online.
What's the catch?
There’s a distinction between a certified document and an enforceable one. A certified document doesn't trigger immediate collection through the IRS, whereas an enforceable one goes straight to them regardless of whether it's final.
Once you notarize that loan agreement, it becomes an enforceable instrument. I’m pretty sure even the IRS would allow for direct collection if filed correctly—though I might be slightly off on that specific detail. Either way, if you can't go through the IRS, you just take it straight to court to initiate the seizure.
Once the court issues that ruling, your garnishment hits the IRS immediately. You need to move fast. Initiate the change of payment method through the court right away and register that lien. If the claim value exceeds what the property is worth, you can use that lien to secure ownership of the real estate. Why wait?
That’s how the comic book world works. Here's the catch. Say someone abuses the law just because a close relative can't pay back a loan they used to secure a lien. The upside? A third party can't challenge a contract between two people. If you just keep your mouth shut and don't go blabbing about it, you can legally save a property by transferring it into the name of someone close to you.
Why three separate contracts? One for the property, one for the IRS, and one for the income source.
Better act now before the collection agency pulls the trigger.
It’s obvious this whole thing falls apart if there's already some kind of lien on the property.
Gift agreements aren't the answer. A third party can still challenge one for up to three years. After that? Statute of limitations kicks in. Case closed.
Sure, I'm talking out of turn. But this is just the standard playbook used by the big shots when they borrow billions and never pay it back. That’s exactly why we’re sitting on $50 billion in illiquid assets. The small fry? They probably account for maybe a billion of that total.

Henry Stewart2 said:Back in 2003, a local parking authority was illegally charging me for parking near my apartment building. The actual facts were never established in court; it was just a classic move where they took their internal documents straight to a notary, who then issued an enforcement order.
I haven't received any official enforcement order. I suspect they pulled some trick involving a public notice.
A few days ago, I got a notification stating that a process server came to my door looking for me but couldn't find me.
This case doesn't even show up on the IRS registry for priority collection against liquid assets.

Questions:
1. Can I claim the statute of limitations?
2. Can they skip straight to sending people to my house without even attempting to collect from my bank accounts first?
3. Since an Appeal might not be an option, what's the best way to seek restitution and somehow get this matter back before a judge to establish the actual facts? My goal is to stop these process servers from showing up at my door again.

Thanks in advance.

It's clearly an old enforcement case handled by the court. That’s likely why it’s not appearing in the IRS registry. They can't just hit you with new laws; they have to follow the legal procedures that were in place when the order was originally issued.
I can't say anything more than that. There isn't enough info here to dig deeper.

Bradley Reyes3 said:A question regarding enforcement proceedings.
Fortunately, I find myself in the position of the creditor...
I hold two final court judgments in my favor, both at the trial and appellate levels.
My goal is to recover the legal costs plus five years of accrued interest, covering the period while the appellate court was reviewing the appeal.
An attorney handled the litigation for me, and since we prevailed, I decided to hand the collection process over to him.
I have already paid him for his services regarding this specific enforcement matter.
1. Will the court add these additional costs to the amount I already paid for legal representation?
2. I’ve discovered that the debtor has an outstanding loan, which the Bank has likely already placed under garnishment—though I suspect he may have orchestrated this intentionally...
It seems I will simply have to wait my turn in the queue of creditors. Is there any way to pursue his physical assets instead, as I highly doubt collecting against his wages will be that straightforward?
Thank you.
How long might this entire ordeal take... (I realize every case is unique, but I am looking for some kind of rough estimate.)

You’re a textbook example of a greedy creditor. You sat on this for five years just waiting to jack up the interest. If you had moved to collect immediately, you probably would’ve been paid by now. Now that you're stuck and looking for advice online—don't expect much. Even if there is an answer, you won't find it here. And clearly, you have an incompetent lawyer; if you didn't, you wouldn't be asking a forum, you'd be getting answers from him.
My advice? Settle with the debtor and take whatever you can get. If you keep being greedy, you'll end up with zero, or worse, your lawyer might screw up and leave you as the victim of the enforcement process.

bluecrane18 said:I have a quick question about how this works.

Let's say one of my parents acted as a guarantor for someone who stopped making their payments—meaning we could potentially be facing an enforcement action now.
Does that mean my own funds could be subject to seizure, or does it strictly stick to my parent's assets?
It just doesn't seem right to me that they could freeze my account when I'm out here working my own job.

One more thing. If your parents own property or assets, transfer everything to your name via a gift deed immediately—provided they didn't use those specific assets as collateral for the guarantee.
There are ways to shield their income so you can legally collect from them for certain amounts. Since this topic has been chewed over a thousand times already, just go dig through the last hundred pages for the answers.

ruggedmaker2 said:The statute of limitations is governed by the Obligations Act.
If they initiated the enforcement within the timeframe specified by law, there isn't much room for an Appeal based on the statute of limitations because everything was done legally on time.
Honestly, I don't believe a major Bank would ever let a debt like this expire.
I've never heard of that happening.
If the debt started in late 2010 and the statute of limitations is 5 years, then the deadline to start enforcement was the end of 2015. So, it looks like they timed it perfectly.

Once the enforcement order becomes final, a general statute of limitations kicks in, which in this case is 10 years.

And seriously, why hasn't your sister tried to deal with this or work out a settlement with the Bank all these years? Thousands of people do it every day... they know they owe money, they know life happens and they can't pay according to the original terms, so they go to the Bank and cut a deal.

As for the assignment, it sounds legit to me. The Believer (the Bank) transferred the receivables from your sister to another company and sent her a notice about it.
She doesn't need to give consent for that. Legally, all she needs is to be notified that someone else now owns the debt, and she already got that notification.

She should just reach out to the company, give them a call... and try to negotiate something.
Dragging your feet like this only serves to pile on more interest and extra costs.

Besides, how does someone rack up that much debt on a checking account and then assume the Bank is just going to write it off? 🤦
I mean, would your sister lend a neighbor a bunch of cash and then just sit there doing nothing while waiting for them to pay her back?

This qualification is completely useless. I've seen people pull money from American Express and Diners without any issues. $13Hello !!! $40,000. That’s not some small change. You want to tell people they're irresponsible while credit card companies are handing out massive lines of credit like that? What’s the point? Responsibility lies with both sides here. And who even authorized those overdraft limits on checking accounts in the first place? Look at my balance—I'm already in the red. $433Wait, what kind of negative balance? Who even authorized that? Did they just approve it themselves? Then you get to court and the Card institution or the Bank claims the person was being irresponsible, when they were actually the ones who encouraged that behavior in the first place. Would there even be an enforcement if she wasn't allowed to go into the red? No way. Use some common sense.

Not sure if this has come up on the forum yet:

Anyway, check that site every 10 days...

rowdypilot18 said:Following this thread... honestly... it makes me sick.
It feels like we’re actually turning into modern-day slaves!🙂
Maybe someone who actually managed to win a fight for justice could inject a little optimism here...
But have there been any? Anyone out there who filed an Appeal, a petition, or even just a complaint and actually achieved something?.. A bit of closure, or at least some relief from the misery?..

I did. The garnishment started in 2011. By using administrative freezes and redirecting the garnished portion of my paycheck to a trusted person's account, I prevented the money from bleeding out. Total garnished so far: $6.75.
I drafted the Appeal to the county court myself, and the garnishment was overturned because the creditor screwed up the procedure. The creditor sent a review to the Supreme Court, which in my opinion should fail anyway—even if the court decides to deliberate, legally there's nothing to discuss because the creditor messed up.
Two months ago, that same trusted person blocked my account and assets with a fictitious garnishment.
It took me six months of studying the Obligations Act and enforcement laws to figure this out. My next step is suing the creditor for the recovery of the garnished amount from $6.75 since the garnishment order was vacated.
The problem is that people who get garnished need to hand themselves over without being shot. When they don't, it's not just them who lose—it's also us, because we end up sharing models for escaping garnishment in vain. There is only one relevant group on Facebook that deals specifically with garnishments and escape strategies.
But first off, if you were foolish enough to let the creditor enter those notes and file salary restrictions, not even all of Marvell's heroes can pull you out of those predatory interest rates.

Douglas Green31 said:Hello! Quick question. Does the notary drafting an enforcement proposal have to be the one with jurisdiction over the debtor's residence, or does that even matter? For example, is it legally fine if a notary from Oakland sends an enforcement proposal to someone living in San Jose? I used to work for a company that handled their own collections, and I know the woman in charge always insisted on using a notary based on the debtor's address.

The court must be based on the place of residence, but for notaries, I don't think it matters. So, a notary from a different city can send you a garnishment. On the bright side, notaries have become pretty efficient with this lately; you usually get the proposal within three months at most. Once an objection is filed, the first available court handles it to keep the caseload down.

Lawrence Clark2 said:Oh, wonderful. So now we’re supposed to ditch XP, move to Windows 7, and then deal with the headache of reconfiguring everything—certificates, settings, and all that other nonsense...
They are making things incredibly complicated. It's as if the IRS system itself is some massive, impenetrable labyrinth, though clearly, it's only "complex" because they're constantly patching it with updates and extra configurations just to keep it functioning properly.
Just lovely. At least twice a year, we get to struggle through retraining ourselves on how to use the IRS site.

Don't get mad at me, but if we don't, someone will eventually try using Windows 3.1 and complain when the IRS site won't load. Besides, a licensed version of Windows shouldn't cost more than $1000. Sure, it's a hit to the wallet now, but over ten years? It pays for itself.
And you can always mess around with Linux. It's free and doesn't require a high-end rig... I think there are even guides out there on how to prep a system for the IRS. The only catch is whether your accounting software provider actually supports Linux 😉
.
Check this out:
http://www.ubuntu-us.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9212

George Peterson4 said:Fair point.

But look, I already tried that. I did a full uninstall and then reinstalled everything, but it’s still acting up. I cleared my Chrome cache and basically everything else I could think of. Still nothing. They're being "polite" about it, though—just stuck on that "Please wait" screen indefinitely. 🙂

Wait... did you roll back to the old Java?
Meaning the Java prior to version 8 update 60
Yeah, I did that before I even started working with this stuff. Seems like they haven't actually fixed the issues with the new Java yet.

Robert Martin27 said:So, it looks like everyone still clinging to Windows XP might as well just pack it in, if you catch my drift.
I actually received a direct response from the folks over at the IRS:

"Dear Taxpayer,

You are currently using Windows XP, which hasn't received official manufacturer support since April 2014, and consequently, it is no longer supported by the IRS system itself.

It is necessary for you to upgrade to a more modern operating system.

Best regards,
The IRS administrator".

Isn't that just wonderful? Honestly, I couldn't even get the IRS website to function on my Windows 8 machine, which is exactly why I was forced to stick with XP in the first place!

Simply marvelous, isn't it? What can one even say about this situation? 🙂

Yeah, they started making these adjustments back in April last year...
I still don't get how they even let us submit forms until now.
You can't install the new Chrome extension for the IRS on XP. To put it simply, it's like trying to bolt high-tech brakes onto a rusted-out junker and expecting a mechanic to make it work.
Besides, you haven't been able to file anything through the IRS site since Java 8 went out.
My advice? If you're buying a new PC, shell out the cash $433 for a Windows 10 license, since from what I hear, that's the end of the line. There won't be an 11, 12, or 13... just constant updates to what we have.
Also, grab a machine with at least 8 GB of RAM so it actually lasts longer than three or four years.
If you're currently on Windows 7, Windows 8, or Windows 8.1 Professional, you should be able to upgrade to Windows 10 for free. Anyone else, according to what I know, will have to call Microsoft support. 😉

George Peterson4 said:Money well spent, I guess.

Is anyone else running into issues with Chrome? Everything installs perfectly fine, but whenever I actually try to load a web form, it just sits there indefinitely on a "Please wait" screen. I'm running Windows 7.

😁

Sometimes the simplest fix is the best one. 😁