Several years ago, I had occasion (professionally) to learn a great deal about debt redemption-termination-elimination schemes. Regretably, I no longer have that research file, so what I relate here comes only from memory, unsupported by cites. Since this is only an “Is this a bunch of hooey?” kind of inquiry, though, I thought you might consider my comments worth having, at least a little bit.
Bottom line, yeah, it’s a bunch of hooey. I’ve not seen this particular site before, but it’s like most I have seen. What they do is stitch together (incorrectly) a bunch of legitimate legal concepts in a superficially credible way. An example of an error here which jumps out at me is the assertion that loan applications are endorsed as negotiable instruments (pay to the order of … ) and deposited with the Federal Reserve. Balderdash. Loan applications are filed in the lender’s records. The right to recover the loan is listed as an asset. That’s all. The rest, about what is “real” money and whose money it is, is nonsense. You borrow money and promise to pay it back. That’s a contract. If you default, you can be sued. Absent a defense at law or in equity, lender can get a judgment. This judgment can be collected by seizing assets, garnishing wages, etc. The debt (generally) can be discharged in bankruptcy, but otherwise there’s no silver bullet.
FWIW, this is one the less absurd debt elimination theories I’ve seen. Others assert, for example, that since there is no “real” money, you can write your own instrument of discharge. IOW, your fake money is as good as anyone elses. Yet others assert that your only real name is given in ALL CAPITALS, and so any alleged debt in mere title case doesn’t bind you. A third theory holds that if you write the lender denying the debt and they don’t respond within unrealistic parameters you define and with unrealistic proofs you demand, the debt is waived. And there are others. All of them share the notion that magic words can somehow make the debt go away. It’s worth noting that there has never been a case in which one of these theories was sustained in a court of law. If you were a prospective client and asked the sponsor for a citation to a case in which its particular theory was accepted, you would get a lot of words, but no citation.
What’s really going on, then, and why these schemes survive and get testimonials, is that debt collection is a practical business. If a hundred borrowers try the debt termination gambit, a substantial fraction of them won’t be worth pursuing because they don’t have assets. Every time a lender takes a pass, the sponsor will take the credit. The relieved borrower, knowing no better, will be happy to agree. And this is taken as evidence, by the next wave of borrowers, that there must be something to this. It’s like this pin I wear to ward off elephants. You don’t see any elephants, do you? Must be working.
