866-758-3984

Bank of America telemarketer who gets on the line to inform me that as an authorized user of a card for a company that has closed that I have liability for it as I have signed myself as a guarantor. I informed them that I have not signed as guarantor. I was then given a supervisor who advised me that I am liable because I used the card and so using the card indicates that I am liable. He then proceeds to ask me about another company that I am with in which I am in good standing and then indicates the threat of using this against me.

Boy - these guys have quite a track record don't they. The message I received was very rude though 'Ms. Jennings' was prepared to make a 'lucrative offer'. Oh yeah, made some overt threat about a friendly resolution to this matter. Right - Ms. Jennings (866-758-3984 x3466), bite me!

This woman called and said she wants to know why I think I should get away with not paying my debt . She said she will MAKE TROUBLE for me . I recognized her voice on my trap call account . That is how I know who she is . I don't think I can use these recordings to take them to court though. She told me she would call my wife and tell her all about us "there is no us " . What a bunch of dumb ass's

Ok my phone call said " He represents BofA and my contract is legal and binding. Each call is recorded and time stamped. I had to call to make  a settlement on a business account that I was an authorized user. I see you have accounts with Bof A and I would check into those accounts"  He called back and said I would be receiving a 1099c (Cancellation of debt and I would have to include this on my taxes). I have never talked to Richard Malcolm so both of his calls are saved on my phone.

they are driving me crazy!

Yeah, these people call and call but just always remember that these debts can be taken out
in bankruptcy.   What most people don't know is that a 1099c will be filed for any amount that is
not paid back in a debt settlement agreement.  You just have to wait until the irs contacts you
with this horrible truth and demands that you declare the amount unpaid as income for the
total year that the debt settlement was made in.  It won't matter that the unpaid amount was
accumulated over several years, you will have to declare all of the unpaid amount in the year
that the debt settlement was made.   Wait for all of the above to happen and then BK our of
all of it.   Alternately one can declare insolvency which makes it hard for collection to
take place but a BK  flattens it all.   This should be used in negotiating a good debt settlement
because if the collector sees the above as one of your stated intentions, they will be much more happy to
get whatever they can in a debt settlement rather than get nothing.  Your credit is already hacked up
with not paying the creditor so what's there to loose?  You will suffer for a while with a low FICO score
but many credit lenders see a BK as a positive because you can't BK again for 7 years.

Always remember the bank, especially money center banks like Bank of America, DID NOT
HAVE THE MONEY TO LEND TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!    Why do I say this? Why is
this so because one can always go to the bank to get cash, right?   Here's the conundrum:   all deposits
in a bank are carried as a minus, a liability.   This means that your deposit in a checking or savings
account is a minus, not a plus, like it is to you in your personal checkbook or savings book.  What does
this mean?  It means dear friend, that the bank is just writing in another deposit minus IN THE BANKS
OWN ACCOUNT and then writing a check on the other side of the ledger as a plus ;or opening
a credit line for someone on a credit card; or making a loan as a plus; or just buying things with
this plus check.   In this way the bank FRACTIONALIZES the existing checking and savings accounts
held in the bank, which is OPM(other people's money).   Other terms used are MONEY MULTIPLYING,
LEVERAGE, OR FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.  THE CHECKING AND SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
ARE NOT TOUCHED FOR LENDING, THEY ARE JUST LEVERAGED OUT "IN THE BANK'S OWN
ACCOUNT" WITH CREATED NEW MONEY IN BOOKKEEPING INK OR A COMPUTER ENTRY!!!!!

One might ask how do they get away with this?  Well for one, it's been going on since midway through
the Civil War.  President Lincoln had to pass the National Bank Act of 1863 to began the process of
the fractionalizing of money.   Why this far back?  Because the minions of the international bankers of
Europe were backing--providing money--to both the south and the north until this time.  These bankers
figured out that the south was just a big cotton field and the north had 3 times the population, 5 times
the industrial might, and 3 times the railroads to conduct the war.  In other words the north had the implements to win the war.   So with the National Bank Act, the fractional banking system was started. Prior to this time when the people caught a banker fractionalizing money, that is watering down the checking and savings account deposits with the bank issuing new "created money" in the bank's own account,  the banker was usually summarily hung from the nearest lamppost by a vigilante mob because  fractionalizing, leverage, or money multiplying was TOTALLY CRIMINALLY ILLEGAL until 1863.

Lincoln realized the folly of letting the banks create money out of thin air with bookkeeping ink in the banks own account because the leverage or fractional rate was set at approximately 5 to 1.   This meant that by law any bank could create 5 dollars in created money for every 1 dollar held in the bank in checking, savings, cash, cashiers check accounts.   Imagine that the bank could legaly create a 500% mark up on the real wealth of the bank held in the real accounts just mentioned above.  When Lincoln realized this disproportionate watering down of the money he issued UNITED STATES NOTES to repay the bankers
for the created money that the bankers had created.   The debt created from the Civil War was approximately  $325,000,000.   The bankers refused to take the United States Notes because they were
not borrowed from them with the bankers own created private bank notes.   Lincoln in effect said nuts to them and said United States Notes would be legal tender and would be taken in payment of any and all taxes.

Well, history prevailed and the $325,000,000 in United States Notes to pay the bankers debt substantially ran the country until 1913.   In my opinion Lincoln did pay for this with his life because he was killed by John Wilkes Booth, a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle, and organization backed by the international banking cartel and Queesn Victoria.   If you can get the book, "One Mad Act," by Iseola(sp?) Forrester, Booth's great great niece, she relates in the book that Booth was never killed and burned in a barn by Union troops but a drunk was put in Booth's place with Booth's ID and Booth was whisked away to live in Europe until 1919 at the behest of the bankers that financed the plot to kill Lincoln.

Why is all of this important?  Because, successively, the leverage rate initially legalized under Lincoln grew to 6 to 1 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act in 1913,  then to between 8-12 to one with the Cash Vault Bank Act of 1958 under President Eisenhower, and finally in 1980 with the Monetary Control Act under then Fed chairman Paul Volcker it went to 20 to one.   This is what has gotten us into the economic troubles we have today.  It's like a loaf of bread with the leverage created in two places, One at the Private Federal Reserve Bank and Two in all of the commercial banks.   The money center banks like Bank of America, Chase, Citibank, Wells, have this high leverage rate, the medium sized regional banks have a leverage rate of only 9-10 to one, small banks have a leverage rate of 5 to one.

Just look at this for a moment.  The banks of any size are creating money out of thin air with bookkeeping ink and loaning it out, buying whatever or giving you a credit line on a credit card. It doesn't matter that the banks have just created more leveraged paper in the bank's own account and bought other banks, lent to other banks in foreign countries or given the new created money to their own executives as bonuses because our congress and our president just go along with it.  These money center banks like Bank of America have a 20 to one mark up rate on the real wealth of the bank held in OPM(other people's money
in checking and savings accounts).   This is a whopping 2000% markup on yours and my money and the bank wants it all back plus interest, penalties, late fees and whatever.  How can anyone justify paying all of this back when the bank only entered a computer or bookkeeping ink strike to create it in the first place?
There's no widget or whatever  in any type of productivity going out the door of the bank.  The bank just writes in the deposit minus to support your credit line plus for you on a credit card.  With this type of money creation with no substantial productivity on the part of the bank for a 2000% increase in the banks wealth, it means that the bank has a virtual money tree and nobody is talking about it in the current money crisis that we have in our country

Remember the loaf of bread mentioned above?   The FED is one half of the problem.  The last president
to do anything about it was John F. Kennedy with his executive order #11110 when he, like Lincoln, issued United States Notes.  This is what the government should be doing today and eliminating the Private Fed Bank.  United States Notes would still be leveraged in all of the commercial banks but United States Notes are at best only 1/2 as inflationary as are the Federal Reserve Notes that we now carry around in out pockets.   United States Notes are "spent into circulation" not "borrowed into circulation" as is the case with
Private Federal Reserve Notes.   They are simply owed back to ourselves, the American people and would freely circulate as a medium of exhange instead of being a medium of extortion as debt money which is the case with Federal Reserve Notes.   All the President has to to is issue his own executive order to do so.
So far he hasn't had the courage to do so like Lincoln and Kennedy before him.  Perhaps the fate of both Kennedy and Lincoln are on his mind.  Remember our president has surrounded himself with FED people like Volcker, Summers, Ram, and Geithner.

Good luck to anyone out there.  I hope this information is useful

Follow up to my post above
Just take what you owe on a credit card, loan or whatever you got
from a money center bank like Bank of America and divide it by 20
which is the stated leverage for a money center bank like Bank of America.
When you divide 10,000 dollars by 20 you come up with 500 dollars. The
9500 dollars you got above the 500 was all bookkeeping ink.  Do you
really want to pay back to the bank 9500 dollars that the bank lent you
with the entry of bookkeeping ink on the bank's books?  If you got 20,000
on a credit card, loan or whatever, the bank only lent you 1,000 dollars
in real wealth from a checking or savings account.  Whatever amount
you were given in a loan or credit line on a credit card, the bank just
wrote the amount in on their books.  The bank didn't have to work for
it at all like you and I do to produce something real for either goods
or substantial services to make the money to pay back to the bank.
For whatever amount you got from Bank of America just divide it by
20 and that's the real amount that the bank lent you.  In this current
economic crisis the leverage rate went up to 25 to one, which means
you would be dividing the amount loaned you by 25 to get the true
amount the bank lent you out of checking or savings accounts, the
balance is all bookeeping ink or a computer entry that the bank
didn't have to work for like you or I had to.  Most people have a hard
time understanding this but this is the sorry state of affairs with the
nature of banking and money.   I've said that checking or savings
accounts are not touched when a loan is made.  The correct way
to put it is there is only a fractional amount in checking and
savings accounts to back up your loan at 1/20th of the amount
that you were loaned. For a medium sized regional bank you would
divide the amount loaned you by about 10 to get the amount
loan you and for a small bank you would divide by about 5.
You don't see it talked about at all
because the banks own the media corporations, the big businesses,
educational institutions and everything else with stock ownership
or loans that these entities get from the banks and they would not
get the loans or the stock holders  that represent the banks
will keep it from happening if the true nature of banking and money creation was
divulged.