I’m not sure I understand what this person is even trying to accomplish, and I’m also not sure where or how the person jumped off the deep end to start threatening someone who’s caught in the middle. if I was contacted unbidden by a private company contracted by the state to seize some part of my property, I’d probably start off similarly. I’d say to them that I understand they have their contract, and please send me a copy of the executed agreement, since I’m a party to said agreement. Then, since they’re a private entity contracted by the government, until my lawyer advises otherwise, I’d make it clear that I would prefer not to deal directly with them on the matter, and instead work directly with the police and the court. Then basically thank them for their time and say that I hope we can speak again under happier circumstances.
I wouldn’t threaten them, or involve them directly in the situation. I want the tow truck guys and the yard guys to just stay out of it while I deal with the cops. Personally, I think that’s a fair request - limit the number of parties involved. Because if I deal with the towing / storage company, and they release the vehicle to me without confirming with the court and the cops that they’re legally allowed to do so, we’re both in hot water. If I deal with the cops and they tell the yard to release it, either they’ll comply or they’ll have problems that don’t start with me.
This is a sovcit. In very brief terms, they believe that the US turned into a corporation several years ago and, since corporations can’t force you to do anything unless you agree to it, individuals don’t have to follow any law other than “common law”. We’re not gonna get into what they mean by common law, but let’s just say they pick which laws they like and decide those are the only ones they have to follow. With that said, this is probably what happened:
Their car got towed so they sent a letter to the towing company saying something like:
I’M AN INDIVIDUAL THAT NEVER CONSENTED TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE SO THEY CAN’T GIVE YOU ANY AUTHORITY TO TOW MY TRUCK AND YOUR VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW BY DOING IT
This letter was also full of legal-sounding nonsensical jargon so, understandably, the towing company called them to try to figure out what the hell was going on. After being unable to get anywhere with the sovcit, because that’s how it usually goes with them, the towing company just said “screw it, I’ll let my lawyer handle it”.
Oh, I figured that part out pretty quickly; and I can’t say that I’m unsympathetic to the cause. Threatening someone with action like a lien that requires the government to enforce that lien makes no sense. I do believe that there’s a lot of law that was passed in ways that mean we the people should be able to freely rescind consent, or which violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or which is in direct defiance of the British, French, and Spanish common law treaties that remain the basis of the US legal system.
That’s between me and the officials, though. Between me and everybody else (even cops, btw - they’re not elected officials, they’re just jackboots doing a job - if they didn’t enforce the laws, someone else would, and I’m under no misconception that the replacement would be any nicer), we’re all in the shit together and nobody gets out alive - so to quote one of the founding fathers, we must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.
Well, they’re certainly not getting it from me either. I didn’t agree to them being the ones to tow it, or having my vehicle stored in a private lot. They can sue if they like, but i wasn’t a deciding party to the agreement, and I would want to see in writing that I’m responsible for charges I never gave consent to. If it’s there in law, fine, I’ll pay it, but you can be sure I’ll make every possible campaign against it after.
This person got his car towed because he didn’t pay for it, it’s called “repossession” or “repo” for short. It’s often in finance contracts that the penalty for failure to pay is repossession. So, while it’s technically true the individual didn’t have the contract, they contracted with a finance company who does have a contract with the towing company.
Oh, I was assuming it was something like driving without registration, insurance, or a license; either that or it was a street sweeping thing. In other words, I thought it was a matter of the police pressing charges, ordering the car towed, and then subcontracting to a private company who contacted the car owner directly. In which case if I was the car owner, I’d tell the tow company that I’m dealing with the cops and the courts, and so should they.
If it’s a repo situation, then I would probably still ask for a copy of the paperwork, and tell them that I’d prefer to work with the original company who loaned the car to me and hired them, and they should deal with the company who contracted them.
Then again, I don’t understand how so many people fall into repo situations. Either pay your debts or give the car back. One or the other. Doing otherwise is just theft. Unless you have the means to remove the VIN, swap the plates, and remove all the tracking gear (which would be more expensive than just buying a cheap used car off Craigslist), it’s not even theft that there’s a possibility of getting away with. This isn’t like a house where the bank only forecloses when there’s no other way, a car lender could immediately turn around and make money about a day after you don’t have the car. Two, if you were particularly filthy
They were trying to keep a car they stopped paying for. So it’s the report company’s job to come pick up the vehicle and bring it back to the owners. Simple process.
Of course there could be repo scams. Those do exist. But this looks like the opposite. The sovcit tried to steal the car and failed, if we take the evidence at face value.
You were right to consider the registration problem as he pretty clearly mentioned registration in the original post.
How people get themselves into repo isn’t too hard to understand though. You don’t actually own the car until the loan is paid off. You’re fiscally responsible for it, but the bank essentially owns it. From the bank’s side, repossession is messy and expensive. If you’re quite late on your payment and you walk up to them and say here’s a pile of money let’s true up they’ll usually let you keep making payments. If they repossess it, It needs to have locks changed, rolling codes reset, they’re going to sell it on the used market, there’s a good chance it’ll see some damage in the repossessing, It will probably sell for a loss and then they have to come back after the person who didn’t pay their loan for the difference, that person is not likely to pay them.
The people that are in the repo situation, it’s not just the car they’re behind on. They’re probably juggling paying rent, electricity, water, food, the car, the gas. Once that vehicle goes away they’re more likely to be late to work and lose their job if they can even find another way to get there. Losing that vehicle is the edge of the cliff to which recovery becomes tricky. With transport you can get a second or third job. If you lose that transport and owe the bank even more money, you can no longer get a loan to get cheaper transport.
Even giving them the car back does not get you off the hook. You’ve been paying mainly interest on the first 2/3 of the loan. The amount of principal you have paid off is nowhere near the depreciation value of a car. It’s a racket. You bought a $40,000 used truck, paid it off for a year, hit hard times, you still owe $35,000 on the truck, and it’s only worth 30 grand. Your credit score is going to take a dump when they default the loan for you. You won’t be able to get another loan. You could try to sell it on the private market but they’re still going to require you to pay them the entire amount, so you’re going to need that extra 5 grand, and if you had that, you wouldn’t need to turn it back in.
Of all the shit going wrong in their life, being upside down $5,000 on a car they paid the bank $10,000 to drive for a year doesn’t exactly make them worry about being good to the bank and doing things the right way.
I’m not sure I understand what this person is even trying to accomplish, and I’m also not sure where or how the person jumped off the deep end to start threatening someone who’s caught in the middle. if I was contacted unbidden by a private company contracted by the state to seize some part of my property, I’d probably start off similarly. I’d say to them that I understand they have their contract, and please send me a copy of the executed agreement, since I’m a party to said agreement. Then, since they’re a private entity contracted by the government, until my lawyer advises otherwise, I’d make it clear that I would prefer not to deal directly with them on the matter, and instead work directly with the police and the court. Then basically thank them for their time and say that I hope we can speak again under happier circumstances.
I wouldn’t threaten them, or involve them directly in the situation. I want the tow truck guys and the yard guys to just stay out of it while I deal with the cops. Personally, I think that’s a fair request - limit the number of parties involved. Because if I deal with the towing / storage company, and they release the vehicle to me without confirming with the court and the cops that they’re legally allowed to do so, we’re both in hot water. If I deal with the cops and they tell the yard to release it, either they’ll comply or they’ll have problems that don’t start with me.
Am I being unreasonable?
This is a sovcit. In very brief terms, they believe that the US turned into a corporation several years ago and, since corporations can’t force you to do anything unless you agree to it, individuals don’t have to follow any law other than “common law”. We’re not gonna get into what they mean by common law, but let’s just say they pick which laws they like and decide those are the only ones they have to follow. With that said, this is probably what happened:
Their car got towed so they sent a letter to the towing company saying something like:
This letter was also full of legal-sounding nonsensical jargon so, understandably, the towing company called them to try to figure out what the hell was going on. After being unable to get anywhere with the sovcit, because that’s how it usually goes with them, the towing company just said “screw it, I’ll let my lawyer handle it”.
Oh, I figured that part out pretty quickly; and I can’t say that I’m unsympathetic to the cause. Threatening someone with action like a lien that requires the government to enforce that lien makes no sense. I do believe that there’s a lot of law that was passed in ways that mean we the people should be able to freely rescind consent, or which violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or which is in direct defiance of the British, French, and Spanish common law treaties that remain the basis of the US legal system.
That’s between me and the officials, though. Between me and everybody else (even cops, btw - they’re not elected officials, they’re just jackboots doing a job - if they didn’t enforce the laws, someone else would, and I’m under no misconception that the replacement would be any nicer), we’re all in the shit together and nobody gets out alive - so to quote one of the founding fathers, we must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.
I mean, they’re going to be billing someone for every day that car is there and they know they’re not getting shit from cops.
Well, they’re certainly not getting it from me either. I didn’t agree to them being the ones to tow it, or having my vehicle stored in a private lot. They can sue if they like, but i wasn’t a deciding party to the agreement, and I would want to see in writing that I’m responsible for charges I never gave consent to. If it’s there in law, fine, I’ll pay it, but you can be sure I’ll make every possible campaign against it after.
I can’t tell if you’re joking, so:
This person got his car towed because he didn’t pay for it, it’s called “repossession” or “repo” for short. It’s often in finance contracts that the penalty for failure to pay is repossession. So, while it’s technically true the individual didn’t have the contract, they contracted with a finance company who does have a contract with the towing company.
Oh, I was assuming it was something like driving without registration, insurance, or a license; either that or it was a street sweeping thing. In other words, I thought it was a matter of the police pressing charges, ordering the car towed, and then subcontracting to a private company who contacted the car owner directly. In which case if I was the car owner, I’d tell the tow company that I’m dealing with the cops and the courts, and so should they.
If it’s a repo situation, then I would probably still ask for a copy of the paperwork, and tell them that I’d prefer to work with the original company who loaned the car to me and hired them, and they should deal with the company who contracted them.
Then again, I don’t understand how so many people fall into repo situations. Either pay your debts or give the car back. One or the other. Doing otherwise is just theft. Unless you have the means to remove the VIN, swap the plates, and remove all the tracking gear (which would be more expensive than just buying a cheap used car off Craigslist), it’s not even theft that there’s a possibility of getting away with. This isn’t like a house where the bank only forecloses when there’s no other way, a car lender could immediately turn around and make money about a day after you don’t have the car. Two, if you were particularly filthy
They were trying to keep a car they stopped paying for. So it’s the report company’s job to come pick up the vehicle and bring it back to the owners. Simple process.
Of course there could be repo scams. Those do exist. But this looks like the opposite. The sovcit tried to steal the car and failed, if we take the evidence at face value.
You were right to consider the registration problem as he pretty clearly mentioned registration in the original post.
How people get themselves into repo isn’t too hard to understand though. You don’t actually own the car until the loan is paid off. You’re fiscally responsible for it, but the bank essentially owns it. From the bank’s side, repossession is messy and expensive. If you’re quite late on your payment and you walk up to them and say here’s a pile of money let’s true up they’ll usually let you keep making payments. If they repossess it, It needs to have locks changed, rolling codes reset, they’re going to sell it on the used market, there’s a good chance it’ll see some damage in the repossessing, It will probably sell for a loss and then they have to come back after the person who didn’t pay their loan for the difference, that person is not likely to pay them.
The people that are in the repo situation, it’s not just the car they’re behind on. They’re probably juggling paying rent, electricity, water, food, the car, the gas. Once that vehicle goes away they’re more likely to be late to work and lose their job if they can even find another way to get there. Losing that vehicle is the edge of the cliff to which recovery becomes tricky. With transport you can get a second or third job. If you lose that transport and owe the bank even more money, you can no longer get a loan to get cheaper transport.
Even giving them the car back does not get you off the hook. You’ve been paying mainly interest on the first 2/3 of the loan. The amount of principal you have paid off is nowhere near the depreciation value of a car. It’s a racket. You bought a $40,000 used truck, paid it off for a year, hit hard times, you still owe $35,000 on the truck, and it’s only worth 30 grand. Your credit score is going to take a dump when they default the loan for you. You won’t be able to get another loan. You could try to sell it on the private market but they’re still going to require you to pay them the entire amount, so you’re going to need that extra 5 grand, and if you had that, you wouldn’t need to turn it back in.
Of all the shit going wrong in their life, being upside down $5,000 on a car they paid the bank $10,000 to drive for a year doesn’t exactly make them worry about being good to the bank and doing things the right way.
High-interest car loans are a rather predatory.