Why the extra requests on the letters

by WiteTaurian Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:30 pm

Hello

i notice there a few more bits on the new letter than from the originals,

why would we ask

6. If you are not in possession of the Original Agreement I require to know why not,and be
provided details of where the Original Agreement is now.
They could be just honest i guess on this one like "oh dont worry we sold it lol to J.P morgan for a new investment fund there creating" or sent to the bank of England so we get reimbursed, sorry mate" lol!

But these two what is the significance, Why do we need to request these?
7. A signed statement that no Insurance claim has or will be made in respect of this account. (this one i can only think it may be fraudulent possibly)
8. A true copy of any default notice. (Cant imagine them selling this or do they, or is it just good to know so we know when we are statue barred or something, or are we just giving them some grief lol)

any feedback is greatly appreciated

Warm Regards
Wite

by **Lopsum** Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:00 am

hi , we updated the templates in line with feedback and some of the responses our members have had over time.
6 / They often provide reconstructed documents which have no evidence of the real agreement and try to pass these off in court if it gets that far, or just make the victim believe they have answered so they give up on the letter process.
These reconstructed documents can be picked apart in court so its good to get all info before hand (they were at one point using a tactic of trying to push through to court and ignore the letters process and hope for the courts to give them the win on acceptance of reconstructed agreements) Which then neutralises possible claims because they have been fairly asked for every point they could use later well before court. And of course this makes their case weaker because the letters offer resolution in exchange for all the information that proves their debt.

7/ Liability , funny ive never seen this honored. In case it has been claimed on insurance which would be fraud to continue trying to claim again.

8/ Not that they sell it but they send "notice" and not the original or copy of the original . Obviously to copy the original they must have it , this is not true of a notice.

Its always a good idea to make decisions based on ALL the info so that the right decision can be made. If they deny you this AND take you to court then they are stupid or hope and pray you are !

by **daveiron** Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:53 am

We now ask for these as they are important,you will note that these are the very
questions they do not answer, WHY ?

We ask for the original agreement because whether they class it as a promisary
note or a negotionable instrument . We should require its return to us upon
payment in full. If you gave someone an IOU ,you would want it back when
you have paid it would'nt you,
If they have sold or securitised it they cannot hold full rights and title to it.
What is to stop some other parasite from presenting the original at some time
in the future, its the original,you cannot argue with that.

We ask if any insurance claim has ever been made against the agreement,because
its believed defaulted accounts are claimed against by insurance.Therefore its
been paid and they are acting in fraud.

by WiteTaurian Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:10 pm

Ahh you both have brought some very interning points to light on top of the information from Mary Elizabeth Crofts book, i guess we have evolved since then lol, I guess if they made an insurance claim that would defiantly be fraud and easily defended, if they sell the original agreement after converting it in to an negotiable instrument again fraud easily defended they've already been paid, in both instances, its an unilateral contract not a bilateral contract that corporations cant sign any way because there a corporate fictitious entity and the agreement is unenforceable and there fore the agreement with them anyway is unlawful, 0 full disclosure, were not advised they don't use deposits to make loans due to the fraction reserve banking practice fraud fraud fraud, Yeah there is Alot of ammunition if they ever took it to court, however correct me if i'm wrong guys but i'm familiar with Joinder and if a bank sold it to an DCA then the DCA call you and you do not confirm your full name or address then they can not create a verbal contract with you or your Strawman leagally binding you to the name they have, is this correct still and does it still apply today has there been any changes to the legal structure?

Supper appreciate your responses guys you must have about 1000 notifications a day lol

real troopers Basketball

by **daveiron** Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:49 pm

Tbh I have been reluctant to progress further with the 3 letters (I believe we
should keep moving foreward) simply because whenever members use the 3
letters they just accept the responces they receive and dont bother with the
requests that have been ignored.

Its never a good idea to ignore letters from either the OC or later a debt purchaser
as it leaves them open to simply go and get a judgement against you.
The aim is always to try to defeat them long before it could get to court.
The questions they are ignoring are the very ones they will not want asked in court.

They are just my beliefs,others may not agree.

by Sponsored content

Why the extra requests on the letters

Why the extra requests on the letters

Re: Why the extra requests on the letters

Re: Why the extra requests on the letters

Re: Why the extra requests on the letters

Re: Why the extra requests on the letters

Re: Why the extra requests on the letters