Posts by rowdyraven112

The Supreme Court already weighed in on these kinds of auctions back on January 25, 2017. Look up ruling number U-IIIB-7101/2014. We’re talking about a woman who moved out, only to have an enforcement action hit her apartment for $970. They sold the place, and they didn't even break even because the sale proceeds went straight toward covering a mortgage she was paying on time.

And this part matters:

Regarding the claimant's argument that "to recover the debt of $970, the sold property—the apartment—was worth far more, nearly a hundred times more than $84380, while she still owes over $83333 on the mortgage for that very apartment," the Supreme Court points back to its own legal precedents established in rulings U-lll-488/2001 from January 22, 2004 (published in The New York Times, issue 11/04) and U-lll-1 112/2001 from February 19, 2004 (published in The New York Times, issue 27/04).

Bottom line? The Supreme Court has already issued final rulings regarding these enforcement auctions triggered over "pennies."

Bryan Fowler42 said:Is PBS considered a legal entity with public authority?
If they are, could a payment order issued by PBS for an unpaid fee—which would count as an enforcement instrument (there’s actually a proposal to change the laws to allow this)—extend the statute of limitations from one year to ten? My thinking is if they have that power, the payment order would qualify as a "decision from another competent authority" under section 233 of the enforcement act, pushing the statute of limitations to 10 years instead of just 1.

Laws shouldn't contradict each other. In this country, they do. Take the enforcement act, for example. It defines protected and unprotected portions of a salary. Then you look at the tax code, which defines the protected amount, and it's in total contradiction with the enforcement act.
In this specific scenario, such a decision would be in direct conflict with article 232, paragraph 2 of that same law, which explicitly defines the statute of limitations for the radio and TV receiver tax.

Nicholas Kelly6 said:I've got a question if anyone knows
My kids are supposed to receive child support from their father, which comes from overseas. I have a protected account set up, but since the payment should hit in a few days, the Federal Reserve won't protect this specific foreign currency account yet because I don't have the final court order in hand. They say it might be delayed. Is there any way, or any specific method, to get this child support money protected?

It sounds like you're dealing with an ex-husband working abroad. So we aren't talking about a government benefit here, but actual alimony/child support. Banks only unlock protected accounts when the Federal Reserve orders them to, and legally, you have to produce the court order proving the amount.

If you don't have the paperwork ready, just open a foreign currency account at a local branch under the child's name and send those details to the payer so they can wire the money directly there. You can still access the cash since it isn't a locked savings bond. My nephew gets his survivor benefits sent to a checking account that my sister manages at a local credit union without any issues. Once you get your legal papers sorted and the protected account is set, you can just close the temporary one.

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:Hey everyone,

So, if a long-standing debt is being collected through the Federal Reserve, does that 10-year statute of limitations start running from the moment the promissory note is submitted, or does the fact that they're actively withholding funds affect that clock?

In other words, to prevent the debt from expiring (that 10-year mark), do you need to change the method of collection even if the Federal Reserve is already collecting, just because those 10 years are about to run out?

I'm a bit stuck on that last sentence in this link here:

"There is no statute of limitations for account freezing procedures carried out by the Federal Reserve."

Let’s look at how this actually works. Suppose the District Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court all uphold a payment order issued by the Court or a Notary Public—even if those higher courts just use boilerplate language to claim the case doesn't meet the necessary criteria. Once that District Court confirms the order and sends it over to the Federal Reserve, the process is set. The Federal Reserve doesn't check for the statute of limitations on its own initiative. They’ll just keep executing the order as long as money keeps hitting that frozen account. And here's the kicker: from what I've read, the law is vague on whether it applies to forced payments or not, but every single time a deposit hits the account, that ten-year statute of limitations starts running all over again. It just keeps looping like that until the entire order is paid in full.
Let’s look at the second payment order that hit the collection queue a day later. Under Section 233 of the San Diego Zoo enforcement guidelines, claims established by a court decision or a notary public have a 10-year statute of limitations. But here’s the catch: the enforcement act only allows for an objection once the enforcement order has actually been served. Once it’s sent for collection—unless we’re talking about some rare exceptions—wasting time objecting to the statute of limitations is just pointless.
In my view, you have to file a private lawsuit against the creditor in court to get that enforcement order tossed based on the statute of limitations. I honestly can't think of any other legal remedy. The enforcement act doesn't even define one—unless you count the stay of execution, but that still ignores the statute of limitations anyway. And does it even make sense? The court already handed down a decision on the merits of the case.

Logic says this whole attempt to dodge debt is completely pointless. Why bother? We already have personal bankruptcy laws that provide a way out in no less than one year, but no more than five. What’s the point of all this extra drama?
Stop the nonsense.$267 "Enough to live on"? That’s just nonsense coming from creditors. They know perfectly well they aren't getting paid during that window. Why? Because under Article 63, Section 2, those living expenses are strictly tied to the amount protected from enforcement. It's basic math.

What’s the move when you've got a wife and kids? You get divorced, set child support at 50% of your paycheck, and that's that. Period. Since when does some judge have the authority to interfere with that? Child support shouldn't even be part of the bankruptcy estate. That means from a salary of... $1667 It stays. $833 Which court is supposed to prioritize payments for housing, utilities, food, and drinks before anything leftover goes to the creditor? That’s the rule. Period. 😉

Brandon Fox9 said:I have a feeling this might $833 end up hitting the real estate, but who knows...

That court ruling is basically the green light for payment. The easiest way to handle it is just through the IRS or some federal agency to freeze all their bank accounts...

Please... if I were the receiver, I’d move on the lien immediately and start the foreclosure process on that property. Why wait?
Look, I’m telling this guy: go back and actually read a few pages of this thread. There’s a perfectly good, constructive debate in there about exactly how I managed to get my garnishment stayed. Just do the work.

Ryan Ramirez24 said:Morning, everyone,

I’m not even sure if I’m in the right sub here since I don't hang out on this forum much, so I could really use some help regarding an enforcement action threatened by my internet provider, BTNET.

Here’s the deal: I canceled my contract with them back on September 1st, 2016, and returned all their gear. It was just an internet plan. The only thing left unpaid was the bill for August, which was due on August 25th.

Then, early this week—Monday or Tuesday (the 26th or 27th)—this notice shows up in my mail from their accounting department. It lists the outstanding August charge ($52) along with a "Notice of Commencement of Enforcement Proceedings." So, naturally, I call them up to ask what kind of law allows them to jump straight to legal enforcement barely a month after the due date. I have no clue myself, obviously. The woman on the phone basically told me she didn't know either and said someone would get back to me. Then, yesterday, the 29th, I get a call from a lady at BTNET telling me I need to pay the balance yesterday or they’ll start the enforcement process today, the 30th.

Can anyone tell me if they can actually legally pull this stunt on such short notice? Is there anything I can do, or any rights I should be leaning on? I wonder if canceling the contract gave them some weird legal loophole to fast-track this stuff. Their statement just says: "The debtor is warned that in the event of failure to meet the due monetary obligation, the creditor may request the determination of enforcement based on a credible document."

Look, I’m going to pay the damn bill, but it’s the principle of the thing. They’re acting like straight-up loan sharks. I’ve never dealt with this before; usually, if I had two bills sitting open, I’d just settle them both at once. This is aggressive.

If anyone actually understands how this works, please give me some advice or a hand.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Best,👍

Answer: They can. Stop overthinking it and just pay the damn thing$52 if you don't want that total ballooning to $700 or $800.

Loan agreement with a real estate lien.
What’s the deal here? You and your sister sign a loan agreement plus an addendum to record a lien against the property (you probably have $67 enough for the notary fees)

Here is how I know this works:
Liens are recorded in the order they arrive (just like foreclosures). So, if a creditor starts collecting against assets, they'll file a lien too, but they'll be second in line. Regardless, being second doesn't stop them from starting legal proceedings to sell the property to settle the debt. The first lienholder has tools to block that, but not enough to stop the process itself. Basically, if the first holder's lien value exceeds the property's total value, they can propose taking ownership of the property. If that happens, all other liens get wiped out.

I’ve seen this play out before when a bank filed a lien based on credit card debt totaling $1400 (if I recall correctly). There was already a lien on the house from the same bank for a separate loan that the lady had been paying off perfectly. How did the new lien get recorded? Through public notice, because she moved to Canada to start over. The bank triggered a collection based on the credit card debt. They could have gone after the title directly, but instead, they allowed an auction where the house ended up being sold to the bank's own subsidiary for a third of its value (about $40 for a 400-square-foot apartment).
Epilogue: There is currently a constitutional challenge underway by the woman, who only found out her place was sold when a friend told her the subsidiary was listing her apartment for 60,000 euros. Since the friend is also the guarantor, she’s still paying off the rest of the loan. The credit card debt remains unpaid. This was all in the papers a few years back.

Look, one solution is to sign a loan agreement, sign the addendum, and take everything down to the county recorder's office. Given the circumstances, that's likely your best bet.

@Benjamin Taylor6:
The police don't go around interviewing neighbors; they establish the facts. And the facts are: the owner has the paperwork, has the key, and is inside the house. Under the Constitution, nobody enters a home without a warrant. Go ask Drot on the forum. You'll get the exact same answer. It would be the same thing if the cash was in the house, the owner was standing outside calling the cops, and Peter had the key and was inside. The police just write up a report and leave. You really haven't heard of this before?

And yeah, of course it's more than 3,000 dollars. Are you living under a rock? If the lady says they've been in court for years, I'm assuming the costs are well above $13.

The police are just there to establish the facts. Even our fellow forum member Drot can confirm that 😉. The cops show up, see who actually holds the key to the lock. Since the locks have been changed, the police are going to politely escort our friend Peter off the property. And honestly? Peter should be happy if he manages to walk away without getting slapped with a disorderly conduct charge. At that point, the owner can simply testify that they’ve never seen this guy before, the unit was completely vacant when they moved in, and they’ve lived there for a year and a half already. The police aren't there to hold town hall meetings with the neighbors or take statements. I shouldn't have to spell out that under the law, if an apartment is vacant, a life tenant loses their right to occupy it. Plus, the neighbors get rid of the problem easily. It's better to stay on good terms with the new owner than to end up in a feud with the neighbors.

Sure, Peter can try to fight for his rights in court, but the reality is that Peter will never step foot in that apartment again.
The owner can also invest some $17 into replacing tiles, fixing walls, or upgrading the interior woodwork.
In any potential lawsuit, what is Peter going to ask about? The color of the tiles? The walls? The woodwork? When the expert witness rules that Peter is in the wrong... not only does Peter lose the apartment, but he'll be paying off legal fees for the rest of his life.

If anyone thinks this is impossible, let me bring up that collection dispute decided by an overturned judgment involving a sanitation department in Chicago. Basically, the sanitation department initiated a collection action; the debtor appealed, and a lawsuit followed. During the trial, the debtor argued he had been managing his own waste disposal during that period—he even had a few receipts from scrap metal and paper recycling centers and organic waste pickups... man was practically an eco-freak—claiming the city wasn't picking up his trash. The city tried to prove the waste was collected, but all they produced was a pickup schedule, which isn't actual proof to a judge that the trash was actually hauled away. So, out of nowhere, the debtor pulls out a newspaper article showing the city hadn't run garbage trucks for three weeks due to snow. In the end, the collection action fell apart.

Look, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that both Peter and the sanitation department are morally and ethically in the right. But legally? Courts are stupid. And judges are forced to follow that stupidity. Citizens are too, based on the letters the Department of Justice sends to dissatisfied people. You can call me a theoretical conspiracy theorist all you want, but the facts in numerous court rulings say otherwise.

When you buy an apartment, you inherit all the rights and obligations that existed before the sale 😉.
We could argue based on mandatory relationship law here, but let’s save that for later. Basically, the seller is legally obligated to disclose every single right and liability the buyer will take on by closing the deal.
So, you just have to suck it up, Frank 😉.

But since this is technically a defect, there's a way to deal with Frank subtly. Sometimes Frank has to leave the unit empty, right? While he's out, you break in, grab everything he left behind, dump it at some landfill only you know about, and move your own furniture in. Change the locks and act casual when the cops show up. Under the Constitution, nobody can enter a residence without a warrant, and once the police see that Frank doesn't have a key while you do, they'll just back off. If the cops ask who Frank is, tell them you've never seen him in your life and ask them to remove him from your property, since you're one of the co-owners of the building.
In that scenario, Frank might try to sue to enforce his rights, but all you need are three witnesses to testify that the apartment was empty when you moved in. You should also update your residency to that address. And don't forget to change the locks on the storage unit and the basement too 😉.

Sam Wright21 said:Yeah, thanks, I gathered from that article that she’ll have to report it to the IRS, though obviously not to the county recorder's office since you have to pay the $83 just to get anything officially filed, or at least that was my understanding.

Sure, the principal amount itself is mostly just a fairy tale, but then they tack on the interest, the astronomical legal fees from the property manager’s attorney, the notary costs, the court fees... the whole works.

I don't have any kids; my mother is actually my only immediate family left, but unfortunately, her health situation is... complicated. It’s like she’s caught in some sort of prolonged state of limbo, a kind of living expiration. 😢

It’s all just a complete nightmare...

Alright, let’s satisfy that curiosity regarding the lawsuit in French Polynesia. If you want the full breakdown, just scroll back through the last couple of pages—I’ve already gone deep into my discussions with the guys here about it. So, what’s the deal? What are we actually looking at?
Look, here’s the bottom line: under the mandatory relationship law, a creditor can sue you. If they think you’re abusing the law just to dodge what you owe them, they’ve got grounds. Short and sweet. That's it.
Since you're planning to dodge taxes by using a gift agreement instead, just a heads-up: you're looking at a three-year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. That clock starts ticking the moment the agreement is notarized or signed before any other official institution. Think about that.

And another thing—none of you guys on this forum can actually warn anyone about the fallout. Why? Because you haven't lived it. You don't have the experience. I do.
So, based on what everyone here says, transferring just half the apartment is a stupid move. Why? I can DM you if you want the full list of reasons, but there are plenty. It’s also incredibly reckless to transfer everything to your mother when she’s practically on her deathbed—especially since some random aunt or uncle could swoop in later and demand their legal share during probate. The real question you need to ask yourself is: how much do you actually trust your sister? And if she’s married, how much do you trust her husband? Think about it. If things go south between them, that apartment becomes marital property. You want to be protected? Get a notarized agreement or statement from the husband where he explicitly waives any right to the property. Simple as that.
And I won't even get started on the situation where your sister could end up facing a garnishment order.

Look, from what I can see, you need to act—right now. It’s basic legal strategy. An attorney's first move is always to go after liquid assets through garnishment. They don't even touch real estate or personal property until they've exhausted every single avenue to collect cash. By then? Three years have already slipped by.
Since there’s a real risk the creditor might actually file that lawsuit on time, here’s what I’d suggest: sign an agreement dated the day before you buy the apartment. State clearly that your sister lent you the money for the place and that you guarantee repayment within ten years. If you fail to pay her back, she has the right to claim ownership via a gift deed. Because you're signing this retroactively, just type it up and have it signed by you, your sister, and three witnesses—your friends. For the court, this is a valid legal action that serves as the foundation for your future gift deed. Between two private individuals, you don't need a notary. A notary only provides official authentication if you end up in a legal battle over the document itself. Adding those witness signatures gives the agreement more "weight." Just remember: witnesses can't be family members.
If they decide to sue, they'll just claim the statute of limitations has passed. They might even drag in some "witnesses" to swear the contract was signed. To a court, that’s just a calculated legal move made long before the family ever found out about a potential foreclosure. What else would you expect?
This isn't just theory. It’s based on actual court cases—one of many, really—where a loan agreement scribbled in ballpoint pen and signed by two witnesses was upheld. It gave a predatory lender the green light to evict an elderly couple from their home. Do a little digging if you don't believe me.
I’m probably going to get crucified for this one by people who clearly can't grasp basic elementary law, so do whatever you want with it.

Interest rates are sitting at 7.88% right now. My bad on the error.

Joseph Sullivan32 said:Hello there.

I’m currently in urgent need of a legal professional or an attorney who specializes in drafting appeals against enforcement orders.
If anyone here has experience in this area and might be able to lend a hand, please feel free to send me a direct message so we can discuss the specifics.

The situation involves some inherited debts left behind by my late father, and in this particular instance, the creditor is the FDA.

Since the amount involved has grown to something quite substantial, and I simply don't have the means to settle these debts on my own, I really need some expert guidance.

Thank you all in advance for any help you can provide.
Best regards,
Frank.

Debts are inherited up to the value of the estate. You can't file any appeal or objection without seeing the full picture first.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:The bottom line is, your mother is liable, and she knows full well she’ll be facing garnishment if she doesn't pay up.
So, you two just dream up a fake debt between yourselves.
If you’re the first one to demand enforcement, that creditor is going to have to sit on their hands until you’ve been fully compensated. But honestly? I doubt she’ll stay calm once she realizes there’s no immediate way to collect. She’ll probably try to file a fraudulent conveyance suit or just wait for your mother to pay off that "fictional" debt—assuming your mother actually works or has a pension. That could take forever, since they generally cap wage garnishments at a third of the income.
In the meantime, her debt will just keep piling up with interest. And the creditor will be filing renewed lawsuits every single year just to prevent the statute of limitations from running out.

I actually suggested something similar once to a colleague of mine who had gone bankrupt after co-signing a loan for his wife. He was supposed to sit down with his sister and sign a document stating she had supported him for ten years and he owed her for it. But, well, she wasn't interested in playing those games. Now, he’s just staring down yet another garnishment for $233, which is pretty much the limit since he’s already juggling a credit line.
The one smart move he made—really the only thing he did right—was having his sister take the inheritance from the sale of their house and giving him power of attorney so he could access the funds.

Exactly! But now imagine you're looking at a figure of $100 and an income of $1167 (say, a decent average pension). What you forgot to mention is that interest applies to my debt too, right? The current garnishment interest rate is 7.14%. That comes out to $7.25 annually.
One third of that "pension" is $389, which rounds out to $4.75 per year. Clear enough?
Now explain to me how that debt gets paid off early? Especially since I have priority liens on both the "pension" and at the IRS.
Particularly when you consider the fact that "mother" has nothing to leave behind that would allow the debt to be transferred to me under any law? By the way, I'll mention your response to Fatal Error regarding writing the appeal when I reply to him.
Anyone telling me this kind of collection method is fair? I'm done arguing with them.

If this country were normal, the debt would already be paid. But since the government isn't normal, my resistance to this kind of usury is a necessity.

The creditor can file a fraudulent conveyance suit, but like I said, I'm going to invoke the statute of limitations. In fact, the statute of limitations on the first levy expired yesterday.

Brandon Hill8 said:

I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just ridiculous. Honestly, I’m sitting here staring at the screen, shaking my head because some people clearly have no clue what they’re talking about. They just throw things out there without a second thought, expecting everyone else to just nod along. Well, newsflash: I’m not nodding. It’s always the same story, isn't it? A bunch of noise, zero substance. You see these arguments popping up everywhere, and it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. People get so worked up over nothing, yet when it comes to the actual facts, they suddenly go silent. It’s exhausting. It’s frustrating. And frankly, it’s getting old fast. I’ve spent enough time looking into this to know that the logic just doesn't hold up. It’s flimsy. It’s weak. If you want to debate me, at least bring something to the table that isn't built on sand. Until then, don't expect me to sit here and validate nonsense. I'm done being polite about it. kaže:
Spot on. I said it before and I’ll say it again: these judges are idiots. Legally speaking, they’re morons. Look, they probably have high IQs or whatever, but they couldn't care less about actual justice or what's right. They just blindly check boxes to see if a ruling follows the letter of the law. That’s it. Take this story that just aired on ABC—or maybe it was CBS, I can't remember which network broke the news—about a guy who just got slapped with eight months of probation for killing a stray dog that was tearing up his sheep. The judge didn't give a damn about the fact that this man was defending his livelihood. He didn't care that nobody listened to his complaints, or that the local town council exists solely to collect a paycheck while doing absolutely nothing for the citizens. Instead, the judge went straight for the throat and handed down an eight-month suspended sentence for animal cruelty. A damn stray dog. Sorry, admins, but my blood is absolutely boiling after seeing that.

Think about the allegory of Lady Justice for a second. She’s got the scales in one hand, the sword in the other, and a blindfold wrapped tight around her eyes. But here’s the thing: that blindfold isn't about being impartial. It means she isn't actually looking for what's *right*. She’s just looking at whatever laws happen to be written down in the books and judging based strictly on those rules. It’s a rigged game. If you’re the one who manages to pile the "heavier" laws onto the scale, you win the case. And the person on the losing side? They don't just lose the argument—they get the sword.

Let’s get back to reality here: how do you actually secure an enforceable judgment? Say I’m suing someone close to me for physical assault, looking to claw back some damages. Because our court system is so obsessed with blindly following the rulebook, the judge isn't going to sit there questioning who did what or why. They aren't interested in the nuance. What that means is simple: if the defendant fails to show up twice after being properly served, the judge—completely devoid of empathy or curiosity—is just going to hand down a default judgment in my favor. It’ll validate every single one of my claims, and boom, I’ve got an enforceable order in my pocket. It’s exactly like that famous scene from Inglourious Basterds where Hans Lange makes that face and goes, "uuuuuuuu... That's a Bingo !!!" 😉 ).

At the end of the day, you can eventually reach a final judgment through expedited motions within about six months. Honestly, I can't believe how incredibly efficient these judges become the second they see an opportunity to boost their stats on closed cases. It's almost funny. 😉 Look, if you want to move fast, here’s the play: rush over to a notary to get those promissory notes notarized. Get the wage garnishment agreement signed alongside an immediate family member officially solemnized too. Once that paperwork is airtight, you just drop it on your employer's desk and file it with FIFA. It’s straightforward, it’s concise, and it’s all backed by US law—I don't even need to start listing the specific statutes to prove I'm right.

And now, your Highness, you conveniently forgot to mention that right after those mandatory legal provisions comes the absolute gem of Article 71—it wouldn't have killed you to scroll down a bit more. It clearly states that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit under Article 67 is exactly one year. And let me tell you, 365 days flies by incredibly fast. If you play your cards right, by the time the creditor even realizes they’ve been played, that three-year limit defined in the same article will have already expired too. And please, don't even start with me on this. Don't bother debating it. It's common knowledge that if a timely objection is filed, it takes at least a year just to get a ruling from the county court. So, my response to any potential lawsuit from a creditor would be simple: quote Article 71, blah blah blah, blah blah blah—statute of limitations. Boom. I drop Article 71 on my side of the scale and that's it, guys. Case closed. Meanwhile, the judge can just sit there happily wiping the sweat off his forehead because he settled the dispute and gets to collect his performance bonuses. 😉.

My documents—whatever they actually count as these days—are four years old. So, if you ask me, anyone who wants to lecture me about that can go ahead and shove it. And honestly? They should probably go brush their teeth first. (Apologies to the admins again, I’m just riding a massive adrenaline high because of that clip I saw on TV.)

Of course I’m going to be the first one to condemn this—let's call it what it is: a criminal act. But look, I didn't sit down and write the laws of this country. These regulations were drafted by the very same people who rigged the system to create these loopholes in the first place, all so they could carry out their own shady business. It's a closed loop. I always tell people: just sit down with the creditor and work out a deal. Pay what you owe in a way that's actually reasonable and human. But companies like Equifax? They don't care about "reasonable." They just bark "pay up" and leave you hanging. $3.25 Honestly, whether you're a saint or a sinner, it’s crystal clear to everyone what that means.

But on that same note, I consider it straight-up criminal how a debtor gets hit with all these extra costs on top of their existing debt: drafting the seizure motion, notary fees, actual attorney expenses, notary processing costs, getting certifications of finality and enforceability, obtaining those certificates, drafting the service of notice, subsequent mailing of the decision + sales tax, and then, just for kicks, you get slapped with the processing fees from FIFA.

I also find any foreclosure interest rate higher than a standard savings account (which, BTW, retailers pay out if they cause you damages) to be predatory and usurious. And we all know that until a year ago, those rates were a dizzying 15% annually. Today, they're at 7%. This means an elderly woman living on $583 facing a seizure of $33 could spend the rest of her miserable life paying off nothing but interest without ever touching the principal. In any other type of legal relationship, that’s called loan sharking, but under the enforcement laws here, it’s perfectly legal.

Let's get back to me. I have successfully "defeated" a seizure three times—meaning the creditor submitted a motion based on the exact same instrument three separate times, and three times the court ruled that "the seizure order for _____ and all actions taken are vacated, and the seizure motion is dismissed." I believe that terminology might be more familiar to you. How? Well, let's say even the creditors are "stupid." They have the manual, but they don't put in the work when drafting the seizure and they make mistakes. It is precisely in the objection where the debtor can argue to defeat the seizure because it doesn't match the actual facts.

It's interesting how you aren't even aware of what you're saying. If you sue your mother and end up with an enforcement order stating she owes *you* money (and I won't even get into how your plan for damages, regardless of judge statistics, faces much steeper hurdles), what does that have to do with the debt you owe your creditor? Look, if you try to screw over your creditor by inventing a non-existent obligation, you're actually establishing an obligation toward a third party—meaning you're screwing your mother. Because in order to cheat your creditor, you have to be the debtor, get it? And now you've just enabled your creditor to collect from your mother or a close relative.

So, you owe the money. And to avoid forced collection, you sue someone else for a fake debt. Now we have a situation where a non-existent debt exists for a third party, which doesn't affect your debt or the creditor's ability to collect from you, except that you've paved the way for your creditor to go after your debtor. Brilliant.

As for contesting the enforcement instrument, you haven't defeated anything because you didn't even get the chance to contest it. Since we are talking about a dismissal, the court isn't even making a merit-based decision on the validity of the claim. That’s exactly why, when a motion is dismissed, they can just file it again. The only thing is, the statute of limitations doesn't stop running. Also, the enforcement law doesn't even recognize the concept of "contesting" an enforcement instrument. In fact, it contradicts the very nature of an enforcement instrument when it's meant to function as a legally binding judgment.

We haven't gotten any smarter, and frankly, your idea of a "counter-seizure" is just as interesting to me.

Do you even realize what your plan is?

I am screaming.

To put it simply. I used the mother example just to stay close to fraudulent conveyance principles. The mother owes a creditor $33 (let's say).
I sue my mother for abuse. And, not to repeat myself, I get a judgment against her, and based on that judgment, I enforce it.
My mother and I could even sign a notarized statement saying I lent her $67, and she has to pay me back within 7 days (this type of document has a one-year statute of limitations). With a document like that, I certify the promissory notes, hit up FIFA, certify the instrument under section 202 of the enforcement code, and go after my mother's business. Based on those enforcement orders, I record liens against all her property.
For every one of these instruments, the creditor has one year to file a lawsuit. Like I said, one year is a tiny window for a creditor to even attempt collection (luckily, our courts are incredibly sluggish).

Since everything will be past the statute of limitations, what are you going to do as the creditor? Oh yeah, I can't wait to start the litigation. I'll throw out Section 71 regarding the statute of limitations, and your lawsuit gets dismissed without a hearing.

Do I need to draw this out on paper for you?
All my posts are based on examples that have nothing to do with my actual situation. Read between the lines instead of taking my words literally.

BTW, here are the facts regarding my case.
The enforcement order became final on September 20, 2006. I don't think I need to explain what that implies. Basically, if the creditor doesn't start proceedings within 5 days, then they can... well, I won't say.
Ten years of my life. Enough time to visit the creditor with a baseball bat once everything is done. If only that decision had been fair and just.
The last decision to vacate was three pages long, and judging by what the court advisor wrote in the final reasoning, I don't think the creditor will even bother starting the enforcement anymore; they'll just be wasting their own money.
If I were the creditor, I'd take my cash and hire the lawyer who was filing these enforcements. Then again, they brought it on themselves.

Not happening. I’m holding off on any payments until they deal with the objection I filed within the legal deadline. I'm in no rush. Let the creditor read these lines carefully—they're going to need them. I still have a few aces up my sleeve.

I’ll say it again: is what I did basically criminal? For the hundredth time, yes.
But what I did is nothing compared to how that seizure order was slapped against my family. You realize the entire judicial system is corrupt when they use these tools to first block me from my rights and then prevent the creditor from exercising theirs.
If we’re talking about crime, let's start by reforming these institutions. Otherwise, we might as well just call it legalized usury against people under foreclosure.

Spot on. I said it before: these judges are stupid. Legally stupid. They might be smart people in their private lives, but they couldn't care less about actual justice. They just stare blindly at whether a rule was technically broken or not. Take this recent news story on ABC—or maybe NBC, if I have my networks mixed up. Some guy got slapped with eight months of probation for killing a stray dog that was tearing up his sheep. The judge didn't give a damn that the man was defending his property. He didn't care that nobody listened to his complaints, or that the local town council is basically just a bunch of bureaucrats collecting paychecks while doing zero work. Instead, they ruthlessly handed him an eight-month suspended sentence for animal cruelty. A damn stray dog. Sorry, admins, but my blood is still boiling after seeing that.

Think about the allegory of Lady Justice. She holds scales in one hand and a sword in the other, eyes blindfolded. It’s telling. She isn't looking for what's actually right; she's just weighing whatever laws happen to be "on the books." If you can stack the scales with heavier, more dominant laws? You win the case. If you lose? You get the sword.

Let’s get back to reality: how do you actually secure an enforceable judgment? Say I’m suing someone close to me for physical assault, seeking damages. Since the courts follow the letter of the law blindly, the judge isn't going to question the who, the why, or the how. It’s simple. If the defendant fails to show up twice after being properly served, the judge—devoid of any empathy or curiosity—will just hand down a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Everything I asked for gets granted instantly. It’s like that scene from Inglourious Basterds where Hans Lange makes that face and yells, "uuuuuuuu... That's a Bingo !!!" 😉 ).

Bottom line? You can reach a final judgment within six months if you push them with expedited motions. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if judges suddenly become incredibly efficient the second they see a chance to boost their clearance rates. 😉 If you want to move fast, get the promissory note notarized immediately. Get that wage garnishment agreement signed by a close relative too. Once that’s done, hit the employer and FIFA with the paperwork. Short, sweet, and legally airtight. Why overcomplicate it?

You missed one tiny detail. After those mandatory provisions, you’ve got Article 71 sitting right there—just scroll down if you can manage it. It defines the statute of limitations for legal claims under Article 67 as exactly one year. And trust me, 365 days disappears fast. If you play your cards right, by the time a creditor even realizes they've been burned, that three-year limit from the same article will have already lapsed too. And please, don't even start debating this with me. It’s common knowledge: if a timely objection is filed, it takes a full year just to get a ruling from the district court. So, when a creditor eventually tries to sue? I’ll just cite Article 71, scribble some nonsense about the statute of limitations, and call it a day. Case closed. I drop Article 71 on the table and walk away. Meanwhile, the judge gets to wipe the sweat off his forehead, happy as can be, because the dispute is settled and he gets to collect his performance bonus. 😉.

My documents—whatever they're worth at this point—are four years old. So, if anyone wants to lecture me about it, they can go ahead and brush their teeth first. Apologies to the admins, by the way; I'm just riding an adrenaline high from that commercial on TV.

Of course I’m going to be the first one to call this criminal act what it is—let's call it a textbook case of corruption. But look, I didn't write the laws in this country. They were written by the very people who created these loopholes just so they could exploit them. It's a rigged system. I always tell people to sit down and negotiate with the debt collectors to find a way to pay that actually makes sense for a human being. Instead, you have companies like EOS just barking orders and demanding payment without any flexibility. $3.25 God, devil, you, and me—it's all crystal clear what that means.

It’s straight-up criminal. They take a debt that already exists and then pile on all these extra costs just to initiate an enforcement action. You’ve got notary fees, actual attorney expenses, notary processing costs, getting certificates of finality, filing the service papers, postage, plus VAT. And then, as if that wasn't enough, you get slapped with the processing fees from the Fed. It's predatory.

I also consider any foreclosure interest rate higher than what you'd get from a standard savings account—the kind banks pay out if they mess up your transaction—to be straight-up criminal usury. Just a year ago, those rates were a staggering 15% annually. Now they're sitting at 7%. What does that mean? It means a grandmother living on $583 facing a foreclosure of $33 could spend the rest of her miserable life just paying off the interest without ever touching the principal. In any other type of mandatory contract, that's predatory lending. But under the current laws? It's perfectly legal.

Back to my own experience. I’ve successfully fought a foreclosure three times. Three separate times the creditor filed for foreclosure based on the exact same document, and three times the court ruled to "vacate the foreclosure order _____ and all actions taken, and reject the motion for foreclosure." I think that term might ring a bell for you. How does it work? Well, let's assume the creditors aren't geniuses. They use templates and don't put much effort into filing, which leads to mistakes. That's exactly where a debtor can step in during an objection—by challenging the foreclosure because the facts simply don't line up.

John Clark6 said:... before they actually publish anything, they require a proof of residency—and then, naturally, they attempt delivery to that specific address listed on the document—before finally moving things along to the public notice phase...

There are thousands of those online notices out there. Look, I disagree here. Sure, I agree with how the law is written on paper, but actual court practice is a different beast entirely. Most judges will just try redelivering to the same address, and since they don't feel like requesting records from the Department of Homeland Security, they just post it on the public bulletin board.
But honestly? It doesn't even matter.
I'm certain the people whining about this are the ones who have one address on paper, a mailing address somewhere else, and actually live at a seventh location. Then they start screaming about corrupt courts when their assets get frozen.
I'll bet my pinky toe that user peva2307 isn't even dealing with that kind of mess.

mellowrider66 said:So, here’s my current situation.

I'm expecting a garnishment to hit soon. Right now, I’ve only got about $6.75 left in my checking account, and I'm currently unemployed.
What's actually going to happen here???

I don't own any real estate, I don't have any stocks—honestly, there's pretty much nothing in my name at all. So, how are they even going to collect from me?

And, I guess, will I be able to set up some kind of installment plan to pay this off over time??

You can only talk about repayment terms with the creditor directly. And "a judgment is coming"? That's a hell of a way to put it. Why wait until they're at your door instead of just settling things with them now?

Ashley Young7 said:So, here’s the situation: I’ve got some unpaid taxes owing, roughly $1,500. I'm currently between jobs right now. I was just wondering, if I manage to land a new position soon, will I actually see any of my paycheck? Or is a chunk of it going to be snatched up immediately for garnishment? Like, how much of it would I actually get to keep? Thanks so much in advance for any help or insight you guys can give me.

There are actual procedures in place to request tax debt relief. Do some digging.

http://www.irs.gov/payments/relief-for-taxpayers

Brandon Hill8 said:

To get this moving, the debtor can sit down with a reliable third party to sign a formal statement. Once that’s signed, they just need to have it notarized to make it official. This basically guarantees that the debtor is legally bound to pay up the full amount to the creditor (or their designated representative) within a strict seven-day window. $133 With interest rates sitting at around 5% annually—which is basically just throwing money down the drain—you're looking at a massive cost... $67I need three copies of this.
After that, have the same notary handle the solemnization:
I'm looking at one specific credit agreement from... $167
The Department of Justice issued a statement regarding the seizure of protected income up to the amount specified in the debt declaration. (link:)I can't believe I actually had to sit through that entire legal document just to confirm what everyone already knows: the system is rigged. I’ve been looking over this section regarding Article 241 of the U.S. Code, and honestly, it’s enough to make your blood boil. It’s the same old story. They write these massive, convoluted regulations that look like gibberish to anyone without a law degree, all while burying the fine print that strips away our rights. It’s calculated. It’s deliberate. They want us confused so we don't realize how much they're overstepping. I was reading some comments earlier—and yeah, I know Brandon Hill8 thinks this is all just "standard procedure"—but let me tell you something: standard procedure shouldn't feel like a trap. When the rules are this opaque, it’s because they don't want you seeing the teeth behind the legislation. We’re talking about fundamental stuff here, the kind of stuff that affects how we operate every single day, and yet it’s treated like some dry, unimportant footnote. It makes me wonder how many more of these "updates" we're going to have to stomach before someone finally stands up and says, "Enough is enough." You can't just keep moving the goalposts and calling it progress. It’s not progress; it’s a power grab. Period.)

Aside from the fact that I wouldn't even sign a promissory note for my own mother, let's talk about this mess. $167It’s just common sense, isn't it? You have to look at the person you're handing a promissory note to and ask yourself if they're actually reliable before you hand over that kind of money. It’s a massive risk. And honestly, if we're talking about a close family member, the U.S. Code is crystal clear on the matter when it comes to Paulian actions. There's no ambiguity there.

Of course, our friend Brandon Hill8 is going to chime in and say the creditor will be jumping for joy because they’ll try to squeeze those costs out of the employer instead. But let me tell you something: the employer is actually going to be the one winning here. If you sign a statement admitting that you blatantly violated the terms of your employment contract and the company's internal policies, the boss gets a rock-solid piece of evidence. It proves they had every legal right to fire you on the spot. As for rehiring? Well, an employer can always play the "empathy" card if they want to look like a saint. They can just claim they felt bad after your weeping wife, kid, or mother-in-law showed up at the office the very next day.

They won't get a single cent out of the employer; instead, they’re going to try and squeeze it out of some poor guy just doing his job.

Of course there’s a legal loophole for this. Under Article 241 of the U.S. Code, a third party—in this case, the actual judgment creditor—has every right to challenge the whole thing. And honestly, if it even gets to that point, they probably will. I mean, if I recall correctly, Brandon Hill8 mentioned earlier on the forum that creditors absolutely love it when this kind of mess happens because it just gives them more excuses to tack on extra fees and costs. But look, there's a massive difference between just disputing something and actually proving it. You can claim whatever you want, but when the question comes down to "where did the money come from?", you're going to have a much harder time making that stick. Grandpa. Who’s going to say, "Yeah, sure, he saved his whole pension in a sock just to use it for this," when asked if the payout actually happened? Even my neighbor Peter could step up and testify, saying, "Yeah, that's exactly how my whiskey supply arrived." He can be a witness if needed. Honestly, arguing about this is just a waste of breath. It’s obvious that maybe one out of a thousand debtors might try something like that. Suggesting that people are just sitting there itching to grab extra cash is nothing but beating around the bush. I’ve personally looked at two court rulings where debtors were practically forced to fight the debtor over a lost lawsuit. A simple "yeah, it happened" is a perfectly valid statement when it's backed by a witness signature—someone who is confirming under "material and criminal liability" that the payment was made.

Look, Article 241 of the U.S. Code is crystal clear on this. It basically lays it all out: relatives already know damn well that disposing of assets like that is just a direct hit against the creditor. That means the burden of proof is entirely on them. They’re going to have to prove otherwise.

As for those other witnesses, it’s pretty obvious you haven't spent a single day sitting in a courtroom on the stand. Let me tell you from experience: even the toughest guys out there end up breaking down and sobbing once they're under oath.

Debt collectors who go after you over some pathetic cell phone bill, an overdraft fee, or any other bottom-feeding vultures are organized in two specific ways. First off, they’ve got massive call centers packed with staff. But more importantly? They do nothing else. That entire operation exists solely to harass people. It won't be a problem for them to track you down because that's their entire damn job description.

Look, this idiot going by "knedlaugrlu" has already had the exact same writ of execution thrown out three times. I’m talking about a full rejection and having the execution order declared void—not just a temporary stay. So, dear colleague Brandon Hill8, maybe sit this one out if you don't know what you're talking about. For the beginners out there: an execution order goes straight to collection immediately. You don't sit around waiting for the debtor's appeal. I can't wait for the creditor to try a fourth time, but they'll run out of time first. Even the last judge, on top of upholding my objection, basically cornered the creditor with his own little ruling. Now I'm sitting pretty because the counter-suits are already in motion. Sent them off right on schedule. Let's see how much the creditor whines once he finds himself on the receiving end. By the way, I didn't just offer a settlement once; I offered it multiple times. Every single time, I ended up looking like a complete moron, almost getting slapped with a misdemeanor charge for disturbing the peace and trespassing. And my creditor? A stubborn beast. Now, I'm just waiting for his bank accounts to get frozen so we can hear him start crying.

Nobody ever told you that you were a fool.

To get an execution order declared void, you just need to file an objection, and then the proceedings move forward before the court that issued the judgment.

Come on, lay out the facts of your case. Let's see if you actually used the tactic you're preaching or if this is something else entirely.

So, you have three counter-suits? Does that mean they pulled money from you three separate times based on that writ?

To wrap this up. Of course, all of this only makes sense if you manage to settle with the creditor afterward, force their hand, and settle the debt (provided everything is backed up by notarized statements). The idea that creditors have empathy is total nonsense. At least in my experience, I've never met a creditor with enough heart to waive most of the interest and the principal. Besides, if I were the creditor, how much of an idiot would I have to be to write off interest that I am legally entitled to under the U.S. Code, unless I was forced to? I think that says it all. If you want to offer a settlement, do it face-to-face on your own turf, not over email or a phone call.

Well, look at you, admitting you didn't actually pull it off.

And my creditor? A stubborn beast.

I'm talking about the execution writ. Unlike a credible instrument that gets invalidated through a timely appeal, appealing an execution based on a writ doesn't stop the enforcement.

Facts? I'm not stupid enough to just throw them out there. But the way that writ was issued gave me this idea. How? I realized the courts are clueless and judges are just puppets blindly following legal frameworks without giving a damn about anything else.
Say I sue my mother for neglect and demand damages from $167. She misses court once, twice, and the court issues an ENFORCEMENT writ stating she owes me $167 due to her default. So much for your "Paulian law."

And I've looked into all of this, so your "Paulian law" is a minor issue to me. By the time the creditor even tries to pull the trigger, the writ will be past the statute of limitations...

And that statute of limitations is getting very, very close. The creditor is going to have a hard time swallowing that one.

Quick question.

If there's a final ruling to suspend an execution against personal property because they can't collect, can the creditor come back for those assets later (after trying bank accounts or real estate)?

👍

Specifically, your seizure was suspended under Section 72(2) of the enforcement code. That means the underlying legal instrument used to demand payment is treated as if it never existed for the purpose of calculating the statute of limitations. You calculate the clock from when the bill actually became due, not from whenever the enforcement process ended. We're talking one, two, three, five, or ten years depending on the type. Since nobody here can read your mind to know which specific debt or contract we're talking about, you'll have to figure out the expiration date yourself.
If the debt hasn't hit the statute of limitations, then yeah, the creditor is absolutely going to restart the process against whatever assets they choose. Sitting around waiting for them to strike is your choice.