Consumers must at least accept the possibility that There is no DEBT if they want to stop the wholesale theft operating in the American economy

I don’t think that is is unfair to say that much of the financial system as operated today is taking money, wealth and opportunity from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich (management and stockholders) of companies that label themselves as conducting “financial services.” But it is both unfair and unwise to advocate throwing out a system that has in fact served better than any other financial system devised in history.

But theft and deception are not the economic equivalent to capitalism or free market forces.

I also don’t think that it is unfair to say that we are not currently operating under free market forces. Most of our marketplace is dominated by titanic entities who have reached such levels of dominance mainly because they wanted to and the government refused to exercise the control that was established in the antitrust and Securities Exchange acts. Free market forces are not oeprating when the market is not free. If consumers are deprived of choices and information about the offerings in the marketplace, there are no free market forces.

Adminsitrative agenc ies, currently struggling with rule making are failing to simply inquire about the true nature of financial products. It simply does n’t ake long to inquire about whether a particular named creditor is reporting ownership of an unpaid loan account receivable or not. Public frustration with such   agencies stems precisely from the general awareness that something is wrong and that the government is neither clarifying the issues nor doing anything about the obvious injusticies.

Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman, admits that he placed too much confidence in free market forces correcting for any excesses promulgated by Wall Street. But he and his successors have failed to appreciate why free market forces failed to make that correction. It was because the government had been corrupted by Wall Street money — in the form of donations or future employment.

Many consumers are reluctant to pay an attorney or forensic expert to help defend against claims for administration, collection, and enforcement for money that is implied to be due from them. Thir reluctance is understandable since they honestly believe that their installment payment “Contract” is a credit contract and that any defense would only serve to delay the “inevitable” rather than avoid it.

Most such consumers could win the case simply because there is no legal debt. It is the failure of consumers, attorneys, and the courts to recognize this as a possibility that has led to the wholesale displacement and theft of wealth from most Americans who have been lured into executing legal instruments reflecting a credit transaction under false pretenses.

There is no credit transaction — not at the beginning in most cases, and certainly not at the time of enforcement. The legal instruments executed and issued by the consumer are an accurate reflection of the consumer’s intent but are not an accurate reflection of the intent of the parties who are serving up financial products by withholding vital, legally required information about the deal.

The courts routinely ignore consumer rights under Federal and State statutes because the true legal issues are never presented. B ut once the pro se homeowner/consumer or lawyer strips away or picks at the legal presumptions arising from the new instruments (assignments and endorsements), they will find that the lawyer for the debt collect or foreclosure mill has no capability or willingness to provide evidence of the existence, status or authority over the implied debt.

The main problem, as always, much of the use of the word “debt.” Much of the skulduggery that has been successfully pursued by conduits and intermediaries for Wall Street investment banks, has been achieved by use of that word  (debt) in oral argument without any direct allegation that it exists.

So my comment to this is that people who are involved in debt collection should be defined as those who are pursuing any debt or alleged debt. Further, the alleged and actual debt should only be accepted at face value if there is an allegation and an exhibit demonstrating the claim that an unpaid account receivable exists and is owned by the named claimant. If these corrections were inserted into financial protection statutes designed to prevent illegal or unconscionable behavior aimed at consumers, many “debt collectors” and attorneys representing such companies would be out of business.

 It should be up to the administrative agency to conduct sufficient investigation that would lead to a credible conclusion of fact as to the nature, existence and status of implied debts. The current adherence to the popular consensus results in a starting point that presumes the existence of an underlying obligation due from the consumer to the named claimant, creditor or collection agent.
But in nearly all installment payment contracts, securitization infrastructures and practices have eliminated the underlying obligation. Such practices allow the actors to sell multiple layers and types of securities without crediting any account receivable due to anyone.  And because the consumer intended to sign up for credit, the consumer assumes that the transaction is a credit transaction —  despite the absence of any unpaid loan account receivable at the conclusion of the transaction cycle.
 As a result of this misconception, the consumer tenders payment on an account receivable that does not exist. Those payments are a tacit admission that the transaction was a credit transaction. The absence of an account receivable or a creditor who had paid value exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation does not occur to either the consumer or the lawyer. As a result, these issues are not presented when the parties are in court. Instead, the consumer continues to admit the existence of the debt and the right to enforce it. Usually, the consumer will even admit the authority of the company named as the collection agent and the authority of the attorney to represent a named claimant who frequently has no knowledge or control over the litigation.
The current players escape liability and escape viable defenses that are available under contract law and federal and state statutes governing lending and collection practices. In the end, they do so because they are not, in fact, collecting a debt.  these actors should be subject to the strict application of statutes, rules and regulations governing collection practices. That will never happen until we include “the alleged debt” in the definition of “debt”.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: