Posts by Brandon Hill8

rowdyraven112 I can't even begin to process this. It’s honestly mind-blowing how some people just refuse to see what's right in front of them. I've been sitting here staring at this for ten minutes, trying to find a shred of logic, and there isn't any. None. Zero. It’s the same old story every single time. You try to have a rational conversation, you bring up actual facts, and then you get hit with this absolute nonsense. It’s like talking to a brick wall, only the wall might actually have more common sense. And don't even get me started on the "logic" being used here. It’s completely circular. It’s a loop of pure delusion. How do people live like this? How do you wake up, look in the mirror, and think, "Yeah, that take is totally solid"? It’s embarrassing, really. Just deeply, profoundly embarrassing.
Let me make this simple. I used the example of a mother just to bring it closer to how American law actually functions. A mother owes a debt to a creditor. $33 (let's say).
I’m suing my mother for the abuse she put me through. And if I don't get a judgment against her, I’m going to make sure I enforce it. I'm taking this all the way.
Even my mom and I could sit down with a notary right now and draft a legal statement confirming that I lent her some cash. $67 And they’ve only got seven days to pay me back? Please. This correction is valid for a full year. With a document like this in my hands, I’ll certify the promissory notes, fire them over to the court system, and then take the legal heat straight to the parent company. Once I’ve certified that correction under the relevant sections of the enforcement act, I’m going to register liens against every single piece of property they own. Watch me.
For every one of these corrections, my mother’s creditor only has a single year to file a lawsuit. I’ve said this before, but honestly? One year is an absurdly short window. That’s barely enough time for a creditor to even get their judgment secured—not that anyone expects much from our legal system, given how glacially slow the courts move around here.

Since everything is past the statute of limitations, what are you even going to do as a plaintiff? Honestly, I can’t wait to get this legal process moving. I’m just going to hit them with that Statute of Limitations defense, and the whole lawsuit gets tossed before they can even open their mouths.

Do I actually need to draw this out on paper?
Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: every single one of my posts is based on examples that have absolutely zero connection to what I'm actually dealing with. Don't go trying to apply my logic to your own life—it just doesn't work that way. Read between the lines here. Don't just take everything I say at face value—I'm not looking for a literal commentary on my exact words.

By the way, here are a few quick facts about me.
That judgment became final and enforceable back on September 20, 2006. Honestly, I don’t think I even need to spell out exactly what that means for everyone here. Bottom line? If the creditor doesn't pull the trigger on legal action within the next five days, they can basically kiss it goodbye. They're running out of time, fast.
Ten years. That’s how much of my life I just threw down the drain. It’s enough time to settle everything, clear my name, and still have enough left over to go visit the guy who ruined me just to look him in the eye. All I wanted was for the decision to be fair. For there to be some shred of justice. But instead, I'm left staring at nothing.
The final ruling on the dismissal was three full pages of pure legal jargon. Honestly, looking at what the court advisor wrote in that last justification, I don't think the creditor is even going to bother trying to restart the collection process. It’s just not worth it anymore—they'd be throwing good money after bad just to chase those legal fees.
If I were the one in charge of the collections agency, I’d take a massive cut of the settlement just to line the pockets of the lawyer who filed the claim. Honestly, though, I can't even blame them—I brought this on myself.

No way... I’m not even touching my check until my formal appeal—which I filed exactly when the law says I have to—is actually processed. I’m in no rush at all on this one. Let the creditor enjoy reading these lines for now, because they’re going to need every bit of it. I’ve still got a few more aces up my sleeve.

I’m saying it again: is what I did basically criminal? Because for the hundredth time, I’m telling you, it absolutely is.
Look, what I’ve dealt with is nothing compared to the absolute mess they made when they slapped that seizure order on my family. You start to realize pretty quickly that the entire judicial system is a complete joke when they have these kinds of tools at their disposal—tools that were used first to strip me of my rights, and then immediately turned around to block the creditor from getting what's theirs. It’s a rigged setup.
If we’re going to sit here and talk about crime, let's actually start with the root of the problem: reforming the damn system itself. Otherwise, we aren't even talking about real criminal activity—we're just discussing how the government gets to engage in legalized usury against people who are already under their thumb.

Legal advice that actually makes it to the bottom of the food chain. Sounds about right.

Look, I’m done arguing about this whole mess with my mom. You think you're winning by pushing through the foreclosure, but you're missing the big picture: once you're finished, her creditor is going to swoop right in and foreclose on her too, since the debt hasn't hit the statute of limitations yet. It’s a cycle. Even if I stop harping on about that Paulian action lawsuit—which, honestly, either you don't get or you're just choosing to ignore—the reality remains exactly the same.

Look, I’ve got nothing against you personally, but let’s remember there are other people reading this thread. You seem to think you're the first person on earth to realize that forced collections—or what we call wage garnishment here—didn't just pop into existence in the modern era. My buddy Frank’s legal claims go all the way back to Roman law. That whole system was established two thousand years ago specifically to deal with "geniuses" like you who think they can just manipulate their debts and get away with it.

To all the scammers out there: I’m with you on this one. But let’s be real—in an era where we have Google-level lawyers running the show, these kinds of shady cases are only going to become more common.

Dennis Jackson6 said: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?

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.

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.

rowdyraven112 said: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.

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.

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.

rowdyraven112 said:

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.

Like I said before.

Plus, the statute of limitations for an enforceable instrument is ten years. That applies to the collection orders issued by a notary public too.

As for suspending a collection because it can't be carried out (though your question doesn't clarify if that's actually why things were halted), calculating the timeline gets tricky. We can't tell from your post if the suspension happened because the creditor messed up. If it wasn't their fault, the clock starts ticking again once the suspension order becomes final. Article 241 of the U.S. Code, along with 242 and 245, is crystal clear on this.

Henry Stewart2 said:Quick question.

If there’s a final ruling to stay an execution on personal property because collection isn't feasible, can the creditor come back for those assets later? I mean, after they've already tried hitting bank accounts and real estate?

👍

As long as the judgment or court order hasn't hit the statute of limitations, they can go after pretty much anything. A ruling to stop a seizure on personal property just means *that specific* action is paused. It doesn't mean they're done. If the underlying debt isn't expired under the law, they can restart the whole process against any of your assets—personal stuff, real estate, cash, rights, whatever.

So, yeah, the answer is yes, provided it hasn't timed out. And they don't even have to follow a specific order; they don't have to try the money or the personal property first. They get to pick their target.

hollowmason64 said:Wait, what specific part of the Bankruptcy Code gives an execution order more authority than an administrative freeze?

Look, this guy is out here spinning his own little theories about debt collection. Every now and then he might accidentally stumble onto something right, but honestly? He hasn't got a clue what he’s talking about. It's pretty clear he doesn't even grasp the basic legal concepts he's trying to write about.

He’s actually spot on regarding the role of collectors, receivers, or debt enforcers, though. That’s textbook stuff. Things are actually quite straightforward. But even when things are crystal clear, you can still screw up the process.

Chris Doyle4 said:Hey everyone!
I need some quick, straight-to-the-point answers on two things... I just got hit with a garnishment notice and I'm definitely going to fight this! But what I really need to figure out is how they calculate those 8 days allowed under the law for filing an appeal...

Does that 8-day window start the actual day I received and signed the notification for the garnishment proposal, or does the clock only start ticking the day after I officially received it?

Also, can I just hand my objection directly to the notary public (since we’re in the same city) or am I strictly forced to send it through the mail? It feels absolutely insane to have to deal with the postal service when the guy is right here in town.

It starts counting from the day after you sign the confirmation. For example, if you sign it on the 1st, then the 2nd is day one, and your deadline would be the 9th at midnight (count it out on your fingers or check the calendar). If that ninth day happens to fall on a weekend—say, a Saturday—then the deadline pushes to Monday, but honestly, I wouldn't risk playing games with that kind of math.

hollowsailor5 said:Bottom line: can I just send the payment using that voucher even if the deadline passed? Will they just eventually hit my account for whatever interest is left over?

Look, just call the person who sent you the garnishment proposal. Ask them to run the full numbers for you, get a specific account number to wire the money to, and boom—done.

If you just pay using that old slip, you’re only hitting the principal. You’ll still be left hanging with all the interest and legal fees.

hollowsailor5 said:Hey, I picked up an enforcement notice a few months back regarding some utility costs from an unpaid bill dating back forever, and I missed the deadline to pay it. Nothing has happened since then. Now that I actually have the funds to cover it, can I just use the original payment slip and pay the amount listed? Will that be enough to clear the debt, and is it even the best way to handle this? I want to make sure I don't pay it, only to have them hit my bank account for the exact same amount anyway...

If you only pay off the principal, you're still on the hook for all the interest that's been racking up since the bill was originally due.

Kenneth Brown5 said:What actually happens with an enforcement order if the person being sued passes away?
Does the whole process just keep rolling along, or am I basically just spinning my wheels here?
It’s regarding a court judgment about returning land to its rightful owner.

How does the enforcement part actually work, and how long does it take, especially since the ruling says "return to possession and original state, under forced enforcement" within a 30-day window?

I gave the court clerk a call to see what was up, but they basically told me our case hasn't even hit their desk yet and that those deadlines aren't really set in stone.
They suggested I file an expedited motion because the person seeking the enforcement is getting pretty old and dealing with some health issues.

The process moves to the heir. But don't hold your breath. There’s going to be a stay in the proceedings while the probate process wraps up. Only then can things move forward based on your motion or via official duty (which, let's be real, is unlikely). This won't happen overnight, and it sure as hell isn't happening in 30 days. That 30-day window was the deadline for the defendant to comply voluntarily—which clearly didn't happen, forcing you into enforcement in the first place. That 30-day period isn't a countdown timer for the Court to finish the enforcement; that clock has already run out.

An expedited motion \"might\" help, if you're lucky.

John Clark6 said:Vitality... honestly, I think Brandon Hill8 has more than adequately broken down even the parts that were tripping me up—he really drew a clear line between direct collection methods, specifically what can actually be requested and under what legal grounds, and then everything else...
ps. Let's not drive away the people who clearly have professional expertise in this stuff from the forum! We really need those folks who can provide concrete help and actual answers!!!! BYE BYE 🙂
ps. 2. I'm leaning towards thinking the Notary Public's response was 🙂

Exactly. And that’s because when you're talking about establishing an enforcement based on a credible document, that falls under a Notary Public. But the actual execution of the enforcement—specifically when we're talking about real estate—is carried out by the Court.

The same logic applies to the IRS. They handle the collection of funds, but they don't decide if the enforcement happens. There was a time when the Court handled everything the IRS does now.

Chris Carter10 said:Forget about that part regarding "notarized contracts."

An enforceable instrument is a final judgment—basically anything listed under the CIA guidelines. If you're asking for a garnishment of bank accounts, they’ll go through with it regardless of which instrument you use because the Court doesn't just ignore those requests. I’ve got a court ruling right here in front of me proving it.

Look, a notarized contract is definitely an enforceable instrument, but the IRS won't just swoop in and grab money from a debtor based solely on that document. Why? Because that kind of instrument doesn't qualify as a "basis for payment" under the enforcement of judgments act. So, if you want to use a notarized contract to freeze someone's cash, you can't go straight to the IRS; you have to file a motion with the competent Court.

Check out Article 3 of that Act:

"A 'basis for payment' consists of an enforceable decision or settlement from a domestic Court or administrative agency mandating a specific monetary obligation that has been certified as enforceable, an employer's payroll record showing unpaid wages, salary, or severance, an enforcement order, a security order, a promissory note, a directive from the Department of the Treasury for collection via activated government guarantees, a seizure order for a finalized fine from criminal or civil proceedings, or any other decision by a competent authority that accepts an enforcement proposal in whole or in part."

Notice anything? A notarized contract isn't on that list, even though it's undeniably an enforceable instrument.

Final judgments aren't the only things that count as enforceable instruments.

The point is, not every enforceable instrument qualifies as a "basis for payment." If it’s not a direct basis for payment, the CIA dictates that the Court must oversee the enforcement process.

You—and honestly, a lot of people here—are getting tripped up by the distinction between "ordering enforcement" and actually "carrying out enforcement" (which includes those direct collection requests).

Let's try a different angle. Say you have a valid legal document and you want to seize a debtor's real estate. Who do you take that proposal to?

Chris Carter10 said:Yeah, obviously. It’s an enforceable instrument once the judgment becomes final and binding. I think hollowmason64 was talking about a court decision in general, not necessarily a specific order 🙂 though you can still appeal the actual verdict during the proceedings

When you're seizing funds from a bank account, there isn't even a formal "order of execution" involved because the court won't just act on a request—they'll toss it out immediately due to a total lack of jurisdiction.

They won't. If you file a motion to seize funds based on an enforceable instrument held by Knedla (like a notarized contract), it's a non-starter. That document simply isn't a valid basis for payment.

Moonie managed to get a waiver for court fees, specifically those filing costs tied to his own actions during the litigation. But here’s the kicker: since he lost the case, he’s still on the hook for every single cent of the opposing party's legal expenses. We're talking attorney fees, the court costs the other side had to front, expert witness fees, and any other miscellaneous expenses they racked up during the proceedings. Basically, Moonie was only exempt from the specific administrative fees triggered by his own filings—like his answer to the complaint. Getting a waiver for your own procedural costs doesn't mean you get a free pass on paying the other side's damages if you lose. It has absolutely nothing to do with the obligation to reimburse the prevailing party.

I have no idea why Moonie hasn't settled this judgment within the year. Maybe he was too busy reading some nonsense fairy tale.

hollowmason64 said:Look, the garnishments follow the order they were received. Basically—it’s a bit of a "you snooze, you lose" situation regarding when you actually filed for the seizure. 🤷
On the flip side, though—how would you even go about proving that the loan was just some fake paper trail?

Yeah, but I’m talking about real estate here, not some IRS seizure. You can't stop an IRS levy once it's moving; honestly, even a judge can barely touch that in practice. But after the fact, if the whole thing was baseless, you can sue to get your money back. We've actually seen cases recently where people were hit with fraudulent billing statements.

Besides, from the start of this debate with Knedla, I've been focusing on property assets—specifically his liens on them.

We're talking about using any available evidence allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

hollowmason64 said:Hold on a second. Are you actually suggesting that one creditor can just step in and freeze another creditor's ongoing collection process simply because they lent money to the debtor *before* the current person started collecting?
Under what part of the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act does that even happen?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m just mapping out how a fraudulent scheme might play out in the real world—scenarios that would eventually lead to civil lawsuits, or even criminal charges depending on the debtor's status, regardless of how the seizure itself is handled.

Also, the fact of who lent money to whom first doesn't even matter legally. What matters is who owes what to whom and when those obligations actually become due. So, if this fraudster cooks up a fake contract after my debt has already matured, preventing me from collecting my due funds (even though his little setup ignores maturity dates—which is stupid, since you can't trigger an enforcement under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act until the debt is actually due), then both he and I end up in court.

But, to answer your question:

If one creditor successfully proves a contract is void, and that contract is indeed null and void, why on earth wouldn't that creditor be able to halt or delay the seizure? (And I'm talking about real estate or any other case where a judge oversees the seizure).

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.

rowdyraven112 said: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.

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.

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?