Liberty Debt Elimination System Questions and Answers

To find exact matches in the Q&A, put your question in “quotation marks”.

Please type in one key search term per search query

Debt Elimination

Because the money lenders were not the sources of those goods and services. The merchants who provided the goods and services were paid, but the money lenders produced nothing. Furthermore, the money lenders never loaned anything. No money ever came out of their accounts to issue your lines of credit. They pretended to make loans, when actually nothing was ever loaned. That is called fraud. That is why this Liberty debt cancelation system legally works. “La Vérité” means “the truth”. We are simply confronting them with the truth, and they cannot deny it.

We strongly recommend that everyone read the book The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. It is available at That book reveals the fascinating story of the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, and how what the banks of today are “loaning” has never been true money, but rather just fictions created out of thin air, in a sophisticated strategy for the bankers to take over and enslave the world.

If the “investors” you speak of — and the term would be more accurately stated as “lenders” — but in any case, if they are individuals, then the money they are lending is coming out of their accounts, and reducing their accounts by the amount loaned. Those are real and legitimate loans that should ethically and legally be repaid.

The loans that can be cancelled are really magic tricks. They are the vast majority of instances where Visas, MasterCards, and other unsecured lines of credit received money that the financial institutions created under the Federal Reserve system, and never had any deduction out of their accounts. Rather, they simply did a computer entry, where they created it out of thin air. This is called the Mandrake Mechanism. They have nothing at risk. The fact that they pretend otherwise is fraud.

Thus the reason we have a 100% success rate in cancelling those debts is that we challenge them to prove that they really loaned something, that money really came out of their accounts, and that they had something at risk. They can’t do it.

The type of loans you are talking about would legitimately be repayable, UNLESS they were made by banks or financial institutions under the Fed system, using the Mandrake Mechanism.

It doesn’t work to cancel debts that are legitimately owed — such as money your friend or father loaned you, or say a department store credit card where you received merchandise from that store AND the store did not sell the paper to another loan servicing company. If the department store kept the loan paper in-house, then that is a legitimate debt. The invalid debts, which this set successfully cancels, are the money-out-of-thin-air debts under the Federal Reserve system such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and other institutional credit issues.

The reason is because out of the three parties to the transaction, only one of them is fraudulent. That is the so-called lender. You, the customer, are producing value with the hard earned money you are paying; and we, the merchant, are providing value with our hard earned product. It is ethical and sound thus far. We should be paid and you should receive good value, rightfully so. It is when the international crime syndicate called the money lenders insert themselves into the middle of the transaction and attempt to extort their cut, that we draw the line. No money came out of their accounts to issue the loan — it was created out of thin air using the Mandrake Mechanism — and no value came out of them either, in the way of goods or services.

One could argue, well, they provide the medium of exchange — i.e. the money, and administer that system. If so, then the honest way to do it would be for them to charge a small nominal fee, such as 0.01% of every transaction worldwide, for maintaining the money system. That might be fair. It would be open, honest, transparently visible, and mutually agreed upon by everyone. But paying “back” 100% of the value of the transaction PLUS usurious interest, is nothing less than outright theft and extortion. It is a parasitic influence on the global economy and has destroyed countless lives. That is wrong and must be stopped.

We are not harming anyone or taking anything that isn’t offered, by accepting credit cards to pay for our products. On the contrary, as sovereigns, we are exercising our God-given right to transact in commerce and provide our goods and services using whatever medium of exchange society has most agreed upon. The fact that a corrupt cabal has tried to insert itself as a fraudulent party to the transaction is the reason for our withdrawing our support from that behavior.
Further, for every debt cancellation system we sell, and for every debt cancellation system a new customer implements, the economy is improved by that much. The economy is improved because money that was otherwise going to the international crime syndicate — which they then use to hire armies of mercenaries to organize the banking and court systems against us — is money that is now going instead to one’s own (presumably) harmless and life-supporting home living and household expenses and perhaps education or creative and constructive projects. It is withdrawing money from what is harmful in the world and redirecting it to what is helpful. That is a most beautiful fulfillment of the purpose of ethics.

Good question. A few months after the dispute process has begun, or at least after the debt has been cancelled, the credit card institution will close out that account. So no, that card will not be useful anymore. As a matter of fact, that institution would probably not want you again as a customer. After all, they’re making a pretty lucrative racket by pretending to loan money when nothing — not a penny — EVER came out of their accounts to ANY credit card customer! So when they realize you’re not going to play that game anymore, you’re no longer a viable source of free money for them.
They can’t prove that they didn’t commit fraud . . . and so that is why they will let the debt go away when you challenge them head on. But on the other hand, they’re going to keep their free gravy train going as long as possible. Customers who wise up to it are no longer welcome.

Further, in good conscience, it would not be ethical for the customer to deliberately create credit card debts and then cancel them, knowing in advance that it is a fraud. The action outlined by the Liberty system allows you to act in good faith, showing that you have learned about the fraud only AFTER having already unwittingly allowed the so-called “debt” to exist for some time, and after having mistakenly honored it by making payments to it.

These customers have felt hurt, guilty, and accused by such statements, and have wondered how to respond. The key principle in law to be aware of in this context is this:

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments” [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65]. That is a Supreme Court ruling, and it has never been overturned.

This means you can rely on the Supreme Court for your justification. When you originally signed the loan agreement, they had committed fraud by failing to disclose to you that they were not loaning any money at all, out of their accounts. They further failed to disclose to you that they were in violation of various lending acts and failed to perform under those definitions.

They play on your conscience, by avoiding answering to those allegations, and instead distracting your attention over to your so-called “promises” — just like a magician trick. DON’T FALL FOR IT!! If they had truly, genuinely, actually, and authentically loaned real money out of their accounts, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD PROVE IT AND THE COURTS WOULD UPHOLD THEIR EVIDENCE?

Thus it is through no fault of yours that these facts were not fully disclosed to you at the time of signing. Since opening the account, YOU HAVE COME INTO NEW INFORMATION. Hence do not fall for their tear-jerking pull at your honest heart strings.

Why do you think the Liberty system has been undefeated? Why do you think it has never failed to eliminate the debts to which it is addressed, if the one implementing it followed its instructions totally and didn’t give up? Do you think this would happen if there were a genuinely moral, ethical, or legal obligation on your part to repay something?

Basically, YOU OWE NO RESPONSE TO THEIR DECEPTIVE STATEMENT at all. Just continue with the Liberty system, wherever you happen to be in following the Instructions and the Flow Chart.

This does not address the foundation, which is that no loan ever existed. All the Truth in Lending Act cite is referring to is if there are errors in the charges. If there are erroneous charges on the account, then one is required to notify them within 60 days. That has nothing to do with the fact that no loan ever existed in the first place, and the fact that they are in default on proving otherwise. And the Liberty documents do not request “receipts”. The above effort on the pretender lenders’ part to try to distract you into thinking you did something wrong, is just a sleight of hand – anything to get your attention off the central issue – that they never loaned anything. That’s why in an instance like this, your job is simple: to just “rinse and repeat”. Remember, it is the CONSTANT REPETITION of our central allegations that eventually makes them give up and go away. Stay firm and focused like a laser beam on following the Liberty instructions. No one who has ever done so, has lost.

You can get started immediately upon receiving the documents from the website. Most people only need 20 or 30 minutes to create the customized versions of the documents for each debt that is to be cancelled. Then after sending them registered mail (return receipt requested), within a few weeks a rebuttal will come from the pretender lender or their collection agent. The rebuttal will show that YOU HAVE WON, because it will FAIL COMPLETELY to even address any of the points in your dispute letter . . . much less answer them or prove that the debt is valid by fulfilling your demands for compliance with the law. Their letter will beat around the bush, claim this and that, but will strategically avoid answering the allegations made in your dispute letter. They are now caught, and they cannot escape. But, they hope that you will be intimidated and will acquiesce, or will get distracted and get off point.

So, you very calmly just print out, sign, and send registered mail (return receipt requested) the very same letter, as you will see in the instructions. Just follow the simple instructions that come with the program. Very simple. Like washing your hair, “rinse and repeat”. A few weeks later, they will probably send another silly rebuttal. Once again it will completely fail to even address any of the points. So, repeat the same process. Send the letter again, according to the instructions. Very simple, very easy, and it doesn’t take much time to do.

This process may go on for a few months. Gradually you will hear from them less and less. Most customers stop hearing from the pretender lender and their agents within 3 to 6 months. It is when you have not heard from them for a while, that you know they have given up. They know they are beaten, but they will never admit it in writing. You did see the Transunion report on our website showing the debt of one customer deleted, but the lenders themselves won’t admit in writing that they were wrong . . . because then they would be liable for billions . . . trillions . . . of dollars worth of fraudulent debts to hundreds of millions of people over decades. It’s a big thing. So, they would much rather just let you go, quietly.

It sounds like you are referring to procedures like those provided by Divine Province or Gold Shield Alliance / Freedom Club. They have the right approach and I applaud them for their efforts to make the cabal do the right thing. The problem is, as you know, that their success rate is very low. The cabal has just not been allowing those procedures to work most of the time.

Yes, you could engage the Liberty process simultaneously, and it would create a win-win-win situation for you. On the one hand, in practically all of the many hundreds of previous cases, it has resulted in the pretender lender ceasing their collection efforts. They go away and the card holder no longer is harassed or bothered by the phony bogus debt collection attempts.

On the other hand, in your case, it would also box the pretender lender into a corner. They have the choice of either honoring the process of creation of funds under public policy to liquidate the debt, as you are trying to enforce via the World Court; OR, they face being confronted with the alternative — which is being caught in their fraud — which the Liberty system does. So the Liberty system would both add to your enforcement, as well as liberate you from their collection attempts.

Why would the two be related? Are your supposed debts, or your payments on them, presently tax deductible? I am not a taxpayer, nor a tax advisor, so you would need to consult a tax professional for such answers. All Liberty does is cancel your unsecured debt. Unless you are a taxpayer and the debt is tax deductible, I don’t know what implications the cancelation would have.

The good news is, the answer to your question is most likely YES . . . potentially . . . because all countries in the world operate under the same general monetary system as the US, more or less. The problem is, the legal cites in the Liberty system have never been adapted for other countries.

The Liberty system has laws cited, like “USC § 1692 et seq”, and people in other countries would have to have a lawyer or paralegal find the equivalent for their nation and replace it in the Liberty documents. “USC” is the United States Code, and that only applies in the US — that’s why the introduction said at the top “Mainly for card holders in the USA”.

However, this system SHOULD work for people in other countries 100% successfully, just as it does in the US, if one replaces the US laws in the set with the laws from that country. Do you have a lawyer or paralegal who can do that?

So to clarify, it’s not the citizenship of the card holder that matters. It is from what country the card itself was issued. For example, if someone is Canadian but has a Visa from a U.S. bank, then that qualifies. The cardholder agreement must be under the U.S. jurisdiction, thus meaning the card has to have been issued in the U.S. for the Liberty system to apply as is, without legal modification.

Also, another method that can possibly work for non-US citizens and residents, is if the card holder in the foreign country can transfer the card balance to a US card. For example, if someone from Australia has $7000 AUD in Visa or MasterCard debt on an Australian card, and if that same person were to acquire an American Visa or MasterCard from a US bank, that person could ask the US institution if it would transfer the $7000 AUD balance from the Australian card to the US card. Most institutions are more than happy to do so . . . because it gives them more business, and therefore more revenues. To them, it really doesn’t much matter what country the debt comes from.

Then once the debt is on the US card, it can be cancelled using the Liberty program.

You only need to buy the docs once. The rule is, one purchase per household. For friends and other households, another purchase is required.

No, you can only use the Liberty system for yourself and a spouse or someone in your household who shares your accounts and household expenses with you. The reason is that there is ongoing customer service, and we can’t afford to provide customer service to people outside your household who didn’t buy the program. If we allowed everyone to do that, it would mean we would have five or ten times as many customers to support, with no extra income to pay for it. So the others outside your immediate family and household each have to buy their own Liberty system. If you were to share it with them without our permission, then when they run into questions or perceived problems and need help, they would have no access to us to help them. You wouldn’t want that to happen.

We have never heard of any institution confiscating the checking account of a customer who is cancelling their credit card debt with the same institution. And at the same time, to prevent any possibility of it happening, we have recommended that they consider removing their checking account . . . or at least most of the money in it . . . from that institution and moving it to another institution. That is just simple wisdom to be prudent and cautious. “Better safe than sorry.”

It works the same on AMEX as it does on the other cards. We just don’t talk about it as much because a much smaller minority of our customers have AMEX and need to cancel the debts on it. Usually most people pay off their AMEX balances each month, as you know, but the “credit” AMEX issues is the same money-out-of-thin-air fraud that the Visas and MasterCards do. So yes, it can be cancelled just the same.

Yes, if it is an unsecured loan . . . meaning signature only — not a mortgage secured by real estate or other hard assets. In other words, was a boat, a car, real estate, or other asset pledged as collateral, such that they could “legally” take that item from you if you don’t repay the so-called “loan”? If not, then yes — the Liberty system can cancel it.

Not really. Even if they give a deadline, you’re not legally bound by it if you don’t owe them anything. But just for maintaining the effectiveness of the campaign, it makes sense to respond within a reasonable time, like a week or two. In my own case, I usually responded within 2 or 3 days. In controversies like this, the one who is on the offensive usually has the advantage, so I hit right back quickly . . . to give them the strong impression that I am absolutely on top of them and We are neither wavering, unsure, wishy-washy, or lenient towards them. If you take too long, they might get the impression that you’re weak, or apathetic, and you might be easier to push over.

Your strategy is simple. One a 1:1 basis, for each thing they send you, you send one response right away. The response will always be the first dispute letter and affidavit, until and unless they get more belligerent and threatening. Then use the second letter. That’s it. It’s as simple as that. If they don’t respond point-for-point to the dispute letter and satisfy what it demands, and if they fade away from contacting you, then you have no need to pursue them any further.

There is no change to make. The first sentence is “Thank you for the statement of [date], that your institution recently sent me, expecting payment for an alleged debt.” That remains true whether you are current on your payments or not. In any case, do NOT include a payment with it, because that would contradict the point of the dispute letter and remove the credibility of your challenge.

Yes. Once you have the system, you have it for life, to use on as many unsecured debt cancelations as you wish.

There is no limit. In fact, it wouldn’t make sense to cancel just a portion of a debt. It’s all or nothing.

Send your Liberty documents always to the top management of the parent company. This takes care of all parties connected with it. Notice what is at the end of the dispute letter — this sentence: “Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent, and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal.” “Principal” in this case not only refers to the parent company, but also to the entire hierarchy of the Federal Reserve system. Thus your letter to the superiors is simultaneously, legally, also notice to whoever is collecting.

We have never heard of Visa or any other credit institution cancelling, freezing, or restricting any remaining cards that you have not cancelled, for any other Liberty customers. The logic is this: even if they learn that you have challenged the illegitimate debt on the other cards, as long as you’re still paying on the one card, why would they shoot themselves in the foot? It’s pure gravy to them . . . so they’re not going to stop you from keeping that account open and continuing to send in those payments.

We will certainly refund your money if the documents don’t get delivered to you for some reason. This has never happened. But once they are delivered to you, either by download or e-mail, whatever the method, you cannot return them. Now the information is yours. We cannot control what you do with the information. Nor can we control how the pretender lender institutions will respond to your filing of the documents with them. Thus once you have received the Liberty documents, there cannot be any refund thereafter. The good news is, since 2002, only about 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the Liberty customers have asked for a refund. And their reasons were invariably because they lost courage and didn’t have the mettle to confront the bankers. That is testimony to the success of the Liberty program.

Yes, thank you for asking . . . we haven’t had many people with student loans, so we haven’t modified the letter or the affidavit for that purpose. But as you have suggested, just use common sense . . . modify it wherever necessary. Wherever either document refers to a “bank” or “credit card”, etc., just change it accordingly. It is important that this be your own document, your own wording, because we’re not providing legal advice, or legal services, paralegal services, etc. We’re just providing a product, and the intelligence in it WORKS. So yes, adapt it as needed, without altering the basic concepts in it, and you should be fine.
As to whether to put the name of the originator of the loan or the loan servicer, normally it is best to put the name of the servicer – the one who is corresponding with you, sending you statements, and trying to collect. This is because, as stated at the end of the dispute letter, “Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent, and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal.”

The concept of debt consolidation is contradictory to the debt CANCELLATION that Liberty offers, because it assumes that the debt is valid, and therefore merely negotiates how to pay it. Hence if you wish to switch from consolidation and negotiation to complete cancellation and elimination, you will simply have to completely cancel all involvement with the consolidation company.

It is probably best not to even mention to them the existence of Liberty or its cancellation product, because the people who do consolidation make their living and their livelihood from the philosophy that the debt is valid. That is the foundation assumption on which their whole industry is based. It is an assumption which the Liberty system disproves, which could be frightening to the consolidation people. When they are frightened, they will react with any kind of frivolous arguments to try to refute what Liberty is doing and discourage you from doing it. In other words, like any animal, they will defend their territory. It is sad.

Liberty rises to an entirely higher level of truth and success. It is at once more freeing, because it eliminates 100% of the debt, AND quicker, AND easier, AND more successful . . . PLUS is usually much less expensive than consolidation.

So being, if you wish to switch, you would have to simply abandon, cancel, and withdraw from the entire consolidation relationship. Give them any reason you feel is truthful but not too revealing — just something vague like “I’ve found another approach I prefer to pursue — thank you very much.” Then come back to our website and enroll.

No, because those are not loans. Even though the words “debt” and “debit” are similar, they are opposites. A debit card simply accesses what is in your checking account. There is no debt to cancel.

Yes of course, providing they are the kind of unsecured debts for which the Liberty system is designed — as specified elsewhere — i.e. issued by U.S. institutions, not secured by collateral, etc. Just because it went to a 2nd or 3rd or 4th party collector means nothing. It doesn’t matter who bought it and who is trying to collect on it. If it was a fraud in the beginning, it continues to be a fraud. Fraud nullifies debt ab initio (from the beginning).

Yes, the 100% success rate still exists. It is simply important to understand how this claim is justified. What we mean by the 100% success rate is first of all only applicable to the PAST, NOT to the future. We can only honestly and accurately comment about what has already happened in the past. What will happen in the future is not ours to predict. That’s why we don’t offer any guarantee. We don’t offer a guarantee because we have no control over how well the customer implements our instructions, and we have no control over the response that the banking system will send. It’s like selling you a car: we can guarantee that it is well made, but we can’t guarantee that you won’t drive it poorly and get into an accident.

What the 100% success rate means, then, pertaining to the past, is that out of thousands of customers since 2002, not a single one of them who completely followed its instructions to the letter, and did not give up, has failed to have the debt collectors go away and leave them alone. Further, the 100% success rate means that not once has Liberty’s essential argument been shown by any lender or any court or any attorney or anyone else, anywhere, to be invalid. The essential argument and allegation in the Liberty dispute letter has thus proven to be invincible.

In about 1% or 2% of the cases, the customer was sued by the lender or a third party junk debt buyer after implementing the Liberty system. Thus it is a very small number — and of those, we also have a 100% success rate, AGAIN on the same basis: that those who utilized our Legal Resources Package, followed its instructions perfectly and completely, and utilized the lawyer to whom we referred them, have had their cases dismissed. That means they won. They were victorious. This is because the pretender lenders and their agents have no defense to our allegations, but the defendants had to use the documents our lawyer provided them to file into the case, and they had to follow his simple guidelines. These basically consist of not letting the court or the opposing counsel intimidate oneself; not letting them distract one off into their line of questioning; and most importantly, it consists of holding firm like a laser beam to the essential allegations. It’s as simple as that.

So it’s not really hard . . . but some people failed because they got scared, they got confused, they listened to the wrong outside advice, they detoured off the proven path to success that we gave them, or they got stressed and tired and gave up prematurely, without persisting through to their victory. In other words, once again, our system has been 100% successful — both for the 98-99% who accomplish it administratively — and for the 1-2% who went to court — IF they stayed on the tried and true path of what we have given them to follow.

We hope that this has clarified your concerns. Thank you for asking and giving us an opportunity to make it clear. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask any time.

Yes. Previously we used to say that this is an administrative process only, and that we don’t assist with litigation, because it was so rarely ever needed, and we are not lawyers. However, in recent years we have had an unusually powerful and successful legal team to assist with such matters, and we have only wins and victories with no failures or losses – – on the condition that the client fully cooperates, follows the lawyer’s instructions without deviation, and does not give up. There may be any additional fees for litigation, depending upon how simple the matter is, but typically we’re talking only a few hundred dollars – – very small. Suffice it to say, we do make available formidable additional resources as backup support for anyone who gets sued or who may like to commence a suit as plaintiff. For more information on this, see

Yes. The student loans were created just as fraudulently as the credit card debts. The system has been working with federally insured student loans, because they were created under same false, phony, money-out-of-thin-air process. The Liberty document content is undefeated and undefeatable. So far, we still have a 100% success rate in student loans being canceled without litigation. And, we have victory letters showing successes with defeating student loans, posted on our website. If you haven’t seen them, take a look at them. They are in the Liberty section of our site, listed under where it says “Proof That Debt Elimination Works”.

Nevertheless, student loan borrowers are not protected by as many consumer protection laws as credit card borrowers are. Some experts have observed that the quasi-government agencies that make student loans are a little more persistent in pursuing the “repayment” of such “loans”. That is why, in an abundance of caution, we make you aware that if you use the Liberty system for student loans, be mentally prepared for needing a little more patience than our credit card customers go through.

If you fit with the 98% or 99% majority of Liberty customers, you would be likely to win your student loan debt elimination administratively, without going to court. But even if you happen to be one of the 1% or 2% who are “lucky” enough to get sued, the good news is that we now have a growing legal team to assist our customers when needed. Of course they would charge their own fees, but generally, they are very reasonable and low — like in the hundreds rather than thousands — as compared to typical attorneys. And, they have a 100% success rate, in all cases where the client fully cooperated . . . followed the lawyer’s instructions entirely, and did not give up. For information on the successes of our legal team, please see

There is nothing unethical about creating money out of thin air — IF it were to be offered equally across the board to everyone, openly with full disclosure, with equal opportunity, and with publicly sanctioned assistance in implementing it to all people without discrimination.

What is unethical is to do it like a magic trick, hidden behind the scenes, keep it a secret from everyone, pretend that the loans came out of their supposedly already existing, genuine, and limited funds, and that they would therefore be financially harmed if you don’t pay it back. That is harmful dishonesty, plain and simple. It is deliberate and unjust enrichment designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Read books like “The Creature from Jekyll Island”, by G. Ed Griffin, or “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, by Eustace Mullin (available at Amazon). They explain in crystal clear, irrefutable terms exactly how the “Mandrake Mechanism” works . . . how they create money out of thin air and pretend that it is real.

Further, most people don’t realize that in all 50 states, it is illegal to loan credit. It is legal to loan money, but not credit. And yet that is exactly what the pretender lenders have been doing.

Thus the commercial remedies rightfully provided to us under the UCC have not worked for most people, even when presented properly, for the simple reason that the egomaniacal controllers have monopolized the benefits of the system for the insiders, at the exclusion and the expense of everyone else. It is for that reason that our credit card debt cancelation system challenges the fraud, rather than attempting to discharge the debt . . . and it is for that reason that this approach has been undefeated.

Users of this system usually do NOT have any blemish on their credit rating . . . for the simple reason that powerful legal language is included in the correspondence with the lending institutions.  If they misreport the account, they can be sued, and we would win if we sue them.  That is demonstrated in the letters.  They must show that you are not in default . . . but rather, the debt is in dispute. As long as it is in dispute, it cannot be considered to be in default. So blemishes on credit ratings are much more rare now, and even when they occur, they are erroneous and can be corrected.

You have asked some good and intelligent questions. The good news is, we have never heard of any institution raiding another account of the customer to compensate the credit card debt that they claim the customer owes.

This is due to the strength of the Liberty program. The questions, accusations, and challenges in the Liberty dispute letter and accompanying affidavit show the pretender lender that they are caught. If they were to take money from another account belonging to the same customer, they would be compounding their crime, and they know the likelihood is very high that the customer would then sue, using the arguments in the Liberty documents.

Against such a suit, the lender could not possibly win. We suspect that is the reason we have never heard of a single instance where such an institution went after another account of the customer to satisfy the so-called “debt”.

Nevertheless, it can still be prudent to close any accounts you may have at an institution where you also plan to cancel a debt with the Liberty system, or at least remove most of the money from such accounts.  Even if we have never seen an institution raid a Liberty user’s account, there could always be a first time.  “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Yes and no. Yes, the Liberty system can provide the essential prerequisite to cleaning up your credit report.  The essential prerequisite is to get the debts cancelled.  Liberty handles the debt elimination.  We call it debt “validation” because it sounds nicer . . . we’re giving the pretender lenders a polite opportunity to validate the legitimacy of their so-called debts. When they can’t, then the debts are cancelled.  Once they are cancelled, the Liberty system has done its job.  Then you will need to do other things to clean up your credit reports.  We are not in the credit repair business, but we have partnered with Anthony Gaalaas and his company Your Credit Blueprint.  Your Credit Blueprint offers a proven system of removing the actual account (and also inquiries) from your credit reports.   For more information, see

Yes. It will cost extra, one or two thousand dollars, because you will have to sue them under the direct 1-on-1 guidance of one of our paralegals. The Liberty system by itself is just a letter writing campaign. That is sufficient to get pre-judgment debts cancelled, but it is not sufficient to reverse a judgment. To reverse a judgment, you will have to sue them.

Further, most Bar-licensed attorneys are wimps when it comes to going against the banks. They’re afraid of losing their licenses. And they’re mostly ignorant about the secrets of money and the Federal Reserve. So it would be hard for you to find an attorney to represent you, who would understand the content of the Liberty system and make it the centerpiece of the lawsuit. Attorneys will take your money and sell you down the river in cases like this.

If you are prepared to go Pro Se (representing yourself), or In Propria Persona (as yourself), and feel that you have the determination and the courage, then you could purchase the Liberty system, and we will introduce you to one of our non-Bar paralegals. He will provide personal consultation to you and will create the documents for you to file into the court case. You would follow the specific steps that he provides, and you would make the arguments in the customized documents he gives you the centerpiece of your lawsuit. The allegations in the Liberty system are undefeated and undefeatable by the pretender lender institutions.

Our paralegals have about a 95%+ undefeated success rate in winning these cases, where the client fully cooperated and did not give up. He will show you how to absolutely force your opponents to answer what is in the Liberty documents. Otherwise they will weasel out of it and avoid having to answer, claiming they’re not required to answer. You have to force them to answer to The Truth. Our paralegal would provide the documents to file and the words to say, and what words NOT to say, to guide you to this victory.