Posts by Dennis Jackson6

What kind of absolute nightmare stories are these? 😢 It’s basically just the American Matrix at this point. 😢

Brandon Hill8 said:So, I really want to know—why on earth don't they have the right to go after the heirs for repayment? Just a side note here: in a functional, modern country with decent digital infrastructure, the relevant authorities should actually be able to see when someone has passed away.

From what I can tell, Mom didn't own any real estate and was on social security. So, all this guy inherited was a pair of old sneakers. Honestly, it’s their own damn fault for making incorrect payments, and now they're trying to fix it with the bank. I mean, someone should probably sue them just for wasting all this time.

Brandon Hill8 said:What part of this is even "nonsensical"? It's just a plain old fact: our government agencies don't have a unified database. That's not a vague demand; it's just how broken the system is.

In all of it. The very foundation, the core, and the sheer arrogance of the whole thing.

It’s about time we stopped doing the heavy lifting for these incompetent bureaucrats who can't hold down a job to save their lives. Honestly, they should just be grateful they aren't getting slapped with private lawsuits or massive damages for their nonsensical demands and constant time-wasting. And let's be real—time is money.

ruggedmaker2 said:If you knew your mother was still getting social security benefits, why on earth didn't you notify the SSA that she'd passed? You had to let them know so they’d stop the payments. That was on you.
I’ve got a bad feeling you’re going to end up having to pay that money back out of your own pocket.

Look, when someone passes away, you can't just sit on that info. You have to report it to several different agencies... including the people actually cutting the checks.

Why would he even report it? I mean, the money goes straight into her account, not his. That's something you deal with at the bank, not with him.

Sing Street just snagged a nomination for Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes. Honestly, about time!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/sing-s...6-12?r=US&IR=T

Brandon Hill8 said:As if that wouldn't be enough. As if he should actually face criminal charges, even though his "brilliant" little scheme probably breaks half a dozen laws.

Sure, they might be codes, but without the key, they're just noise.

Nothing's been laid out clearly, so we can't really know for sure. I mean, it just looks like half-truths to me.

Brandon Hill8 said:I’m having a really hard time following what you're even talking about here. You haven't brought a single actual fact to the table regarding your situation, other than this vague claim of being "neglected" by your mother. Let's look at that word: neglect. I'm assuming you mean she isn't providing financial support. That alone tells me quite a bit. It suggests you're either a minor, a perpetual college student who can't graduate, or just someone who's completely incapable of holding down a job. Or maybe you somehow negotiated some kind of lifetime alimony deal with her? Look, if it's any of those three scenarios, there is zero chance you're getting a judgment based on negligence. In the US, we don't see judgments handed out for negligence in support disputes. Period.

If we’re talking hypotheticals, then yeah, you could technically get hit with a default judgment. But let’s be real—if you’re dealing with conscientious judges, that’s only happening if the damages are crystal clear and backed up by hard evidence attached to the filing. Otherwise, they aren't just going to hand out a win on a whim. Just a little side note here: a default judgment usually only kicks in if the defendant completely ignores the lawsuit. A couple of missed court dates isn't enough to trigger that; it takes more than just being a no-show once or twice.

Regarding that lawsuit from Paulian—look, we have to talk about the mandatory reporting law.

Article 66.

Every single creditor who holds a claim... It’s finally cleared for payout—doesn't matter when the damn thing was actually generated. It's hitting the account now. It’s pretty straightforward: a debtor can absolutely challenge any legal action they take if it was done specifically to screw over their creditors. If they’re moving assets around or pulling some shady stunt just to make sure you don't get paid, that's a fraudulent conveyance. You can fight it.
I honestly can't believe we're still having this conversation. It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes. You people act like the rules don't apply to everyone, but they do. Period. If you think you can just sidestep the mandatory reporting law because it's "inconvenient," you are dead wrong. That's how things fall apart. And don't even get me started on the way some of you are handling the paperwork with the Department of Homeland Security. It's a mess. A total disaster. You can't just wing it when federal regulations are involved. Get it together.Look, let me break this down for you because it’s pretty simple if you stop overcomplicating things. We’re talking about fraudulent conveyance here. It basically means someone pulls a shady legal move specifically to screw over their creditors. If a debtor intentionally shifts assets around just so they can claim they're "broke" and avoid paying what they owe, that’s a problem. Essentially, if those actions leave them without enough cash or property to satisfy their debts, the law isn't going to just sit there and watch. It's all about preventing people from dodging their responsibilities through legal loopholes.
(3) Legal action isn't just about what you actually do—it's about what you fail to do, too. If you sit on your hands when you're legally required to act, that counts as a legal act in itself. In other words, an omission is just as much a legal maneuver as an action. What exactly did the debtor lose in terms of material rights here? Or better yet, what kind of material obligation was actually triggered for them?

The assumptions surrounding these denials.

Article 67.

(1) I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole "discretionary spending" mess. It feels like every time I turn around, there’s some new layer of bureaucracy or a ridiculous regulation designed to tie my hands. You know what I mean? One minute you think you have control over your own resources, and the next, some government agency is breathing down your neck about how you're allowed to move your money or manage your assets. It’s frustrating. It’s not just about the math; it’s about the principle. When you work hard to build something up, you expect to have the freedom to use it. But instead, we get hit with these endless hurdles. It feels less like managing finances and more like navigating a minefield where the rules change depending on which way the political wind is blowing. Honestly, it makes me want to scream. Look, here’s the deal on how you can actually go after someone in court: you can sue if, at the time they moved the money or shifted those assets around, the debtor knew—or even just *should* have known—that their actions were going to screw over their creditors. It basically comes down to whether they were intentionally draining the tank while people were still owed money. If they acted with that kind of awareness, they aren't getting off easy. Third person. Who exactly stands to gain from this legal maneuver? I mean, come on—it’s pretty obvious who’s pulling the strings here, or at least it could be figured out if anyone actually bothered to look. It’s all about knowing whose pocket that specific legal action is lining.
(2) If that third party is the debtor’s spouse, a direct blood relative, or even an in-law up to the fourth degree, the law basically assumes they knew exactly what was going on. It's treated as a given that they were fully aware the debtor was intentionally causing damage through these transactions. Under the mandatory reporting law, you can't just play dumb when it's family. Presumed innocent, unless proven otherwise. So, regarding that little tip you dropped about how a purchase agreement is harder to overturn than a gift deed... honestly, you're spot on. It’s a massive difference when things actually go south in court.
When it comes to those "free" transfers—you know, when someone just gives stuff away for nothing—the law doesn't play around. If a debtor hands over assets for free, we just assume they knew exactly what they were doing: intentionally screwing over their creditor. And here’s the kicker: you don't even have to prove that the third party involved knew about the shady business. It doesn't matter if they were in on it or totally oblivious; the moment you give something away to dodge a debt, the court considers it fraudulent. Period.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: disclaiming an inheritance is legally treated as a free disposal of assets. It's not some minor clerical tweak; it's a major move.

There you have it.

We’re still sitting here waiting for an actual answer on how exactly you managed to "overturn" an enforcement order three different times.

The method you laid out earlier? It's clearly impossible, and honestly, it doesn't even align with how the legal process works technically. So, what does "overturned" actually mean in your world? If you want to explain yourself, feel free to take it to my DMs.

Maybe the guy just doesn't feel like handing out free lessons, but he's dropping hints in code for those willing to actually do the work. I mean, information isn't exactly free, is it?

rowdyraven112 said: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?

I mean, maybe it's because the guy doesn't actually have anything left to negotiate with. From what I can tell, he's unemployed. It really just comes down to whether he can manage to save these $6.75 months.

I assume there's some heavy symbolism behind the name of that firm—once you get caught in their Matrix, there’s just no way out. Anyway, here's a template for a letter you can use if you want to hit them back where it hurts:

http://zvono-istine.org/pismo-utjeri...vodnih-dugova/

Drive It Like You Stole It = spot on. 🙂Back to the Future

vivideagle7 said:The songs are just boring and unoriginal... it's actually painful to listen to.

Which is pretty much true for 95% of that 80s British alternative rock scene.

All five of them are great if you ask me, and honestly, the soundtrack is original, catchy, and just magnetic. I mean, the film is picking up amazing reviews and ratings everywhere, and even musicians like Bono are impressed by how well the movie captured the era.
http://goodmenproject.com/arts/sing-...terpiece-jsnk/

Then again, like any film, it’s probably not for everyone.

Grace Sanchez50 said:I've been listening to the soundtrack and singing that Up song for days now

wow. Okay, here's my take on it:

The first time I saw the film in theaters, I thought Brown Shoes, Beautiful Sea, Drive it like you stole it and Riddle were the best parts. But then, seeing it a second time in the theater... I don't know, I suddenly noticed how phenomenal Up actually is—the music, the lyrics, the whole message. It’s everything. Even that one scene where they’re practicing in the room and the camera just spins through time until they finally hit that point where the whole band is tight and playing like pros. There's also that other version of Up called the bedroom mix. You know, those scenes where Cosmo is sitting on the beach in the wide shot. It's absolute cult classic material. Honestly, it could work as a poster too. The Blu-ray comes out in two weeks. cant wait.

And here is the first performance of Up. Seriously cool:

vivideagle7 said:Good grief, what a cliché, sugary mess. It's obvious Once was Carney's peak, because the mediocre Begin Again and now Sing Street are pretty weak by comparison.

The film is watchable, I guess, but nothing special. The songs are really weak—even weaker than Begin Again (Once is several classes better than those two, where the music is just forgettable and monotonous). It's disappointing, honestly. Way too many sappy scenes, and the characters are just total stereotypes...

If you want a good film about an American band, you're better off rewatching The Commitments.

To me, it's a masterpiece. All three are great, but Sing Street is the top for me. I simply adore this film. The soundtrack has been on repeat for weeks, and I bet Carney will be working on a musical soon, just like he did with Once.

The link for Riddle of the Model from the earlier posts isn't working anymore, so here's a new one


Riddle of the Model at Sundance:

A columnist over at the Chicago Tribune just put Sing Street on his list of the best films of 2016

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...30-column.html

Ferdia and Mark are smoothing out the YouTube comments on the film 🙂

This film is just straight-up genius! Honestly, it’s easily my favorite film of the year so far, and I'd say it actually tops his previous two.

Noah Roberts46 said:It hit the torrent sites.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, I really do, but we should probably point out that watching stuff via torrents instead of hitting up the local AMC theater is basically illegal viewing. We really ought to be promoting legitimate ways to watch movies. Personally, I’m just sitting here waiting for the Blu-ray release in three weeks because this is a must-watch movie.

Honestly, your post kind of highlights a massive issue. People downloading torrent releases are starting to treat them like actual premieres—like if it isn't on a torrent site, it didn't even happen. I guess that goes against everything the cinematic medium is supposed to be about. It just ruins the anticipation and the whole ritual of watching a film; it turns movies into nothing more than fast food consumption.

I'll probably post some more info about this great film soon.

silverbear56 said:We can dream all we want about getting a raise... personally, I just want to get out from under my debt, but in America, you basically have to starve yourself until the next paycheck just to stay current on what you owe.

I know. That’s why I say 😢 It’s honestly pathetic how they ruin people's lives 😢

Sent from my Android using Reddit

Maybe if they actually raised taxes to normal levels like we see in other developed countries, then they could finally start treating debtors according to their actual circumstances. Everything else they’re doing right now just feels pathetic.

Sent from my Android using Reddit