Acceptance/discharge question

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Acceptance/discharge question

liberated
wouldn't an alternative way to discharge any claim be to accept the claim, then say or write.. "I assign any/all interest in the matter to the United States and accordingly see the matter settled under 12 USC ยง 95a (2)"? Doing this alternative rather then accepted for value or who/what/where is ones claim, 4 corners or other process?

Appears if one assigns, conveys, transfers their interest all matters are discharged with full acquittance.  and seems much simpler
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Acceptance/discharge question

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
go for it.

You can write whatever you wish on whatever you want.

You can do or not do whatever it is you think you need done or not be done.

If you have a better way along with the procedure on how it gets done without learning how to enforce what you are doing or understanding the nature of the same, then by all means, post away. I'm all ears because I tire of people not listening and questioning everything yet never offering a "better solution." It is easy to criticize from the sidelines; Monday morning quarterbacks and water-cooler jockeys do it all the time.  

So now is your moment to shine, post away. The floor is all yours and Don't let me get in the way of your happiness and success.



But in the meantime, when you need to enforce (ie: operate) when some one says "Ok, so what?," you can come back here for some tips or better yet, keep wasting people's time and energy by asking these same questions on other forums fifteen different ways because it is becoming quite obvious from not only this posting, but others authored not only from you but others, that people fail to comprehend that AFV/RFV is EXACTLY the same as "12 USC 95a (2)" ... in fact, AFV/RFV thru CR(tm) and the Turnabout is the operation of such.

You are accepting the debt obligation and then TRANSFERRING your INTEREST in such (right of subrogation), because you are the PRINCIPLE, as donor of the CREDIT (ie: Surety, by accommodation) , and INTEREST returns to principle, the AFV/RFV accomplishes the Transfer: "pay to the order of ... without recourse" IS transfer/assignment language.

Why do you think the language is written the way it is on the "updated acceptance language" posting?

You would know this, even upon a simple Google search of that phrase: "pay to the order of ... without recourse" ... hell, here is the result from such a search done while typing this posting:

From Avvo (second comment)

The "pay to the order of" language identifies the new owner of the note. The "without recourse" language says that the person or company executing the endorsement cannot be sued for the amount of the note or for any deficiency. Without this language, every endorser guarantees the collectability of the note.

There you go, a simple Google search has just confirmed that AFV/RFV is EXACTLY the same as "12 USC 95a (2)" for it is a Transfer of an "any" interest: The interest is 100% irrelevant, just as long as it is ANY.

Now, how do you get "them" to AGREE with you? I wonder, if only there were a safe, effective means by which this could be done.

If only it existed.

Man, that would be awesome.

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Acceptance/discharge question

liberated
I was not suggesting a better way nor criticizing any process or teachings and merely asking a question as it seemed logical from what 12 USC 95a(2) stated as being a reference or authority. You have pointed out they are one an the same. I also never connected that "pay to the order of" was the same as "I hereby assign" or is an assignment but realized after you pointed it out it is as a special endorsement similar to what does when the sign over a check to another. Thank you for that and the other clarifying info.

When I ask a question it is never to challenge but rather to get clarification so as to not go and do anything stupid or open doors that should not perhaps be opened. I apologize if my question appeared to be challenging or antagonistic as that was not the intent,