Hello:

I plan to sue the US for violations of my constitutional rights. The reason is the persecution of citizens due to bad debts that have gone beyond the terms of the Statutes of Limitations and the discriminatory treatment we get from government agencies when we approach them to ask questions. It would seem that ordinary citizens have no rights.

What I want to achieve is a clarification of the definition of financial agreements so that the courts can't use the statutes of limitations to benefit either party and to insure judges behave like judges and stop allowing what is actually a hoax, with the blessing of the courts, to occur under their noses.

The Statutes of Limitations must apply equally for everyone. They can't discriminate with those terms.

What's more we can't allow the courts and the legal system to take our rights away simply because we lack the means to pay for a lawyer. If we do then our citizenship will be defined by our financial status.

The question is; how do I sue the government? Note that I have tried to contact different government agencies and civil right groups and gotten no answers.

You want to sue the U.S.A? Seriously? Good luck with that.

You don't "sue the government". The US government is composed of many different parts, You start with the 3 branches; and go down from there. So the first thing you would need to do is identify the specific branch and agency that you think has wronged you.

Second, what "constitutional right" do you think was violated? A lender has a constitutional right to collect money they lend out. The "government" generally doesn't lend money. Instead they may guarantee loans may by other lenders. So where and how do you think the government has persecuted you (or anyone) over bad debts? Unless you believe there is systemic persecution by a specific govt agency (and where is your proof of that?) you have no case against the govt. You have to identify who has allegedly persecuted you and then sue that specific party.

The Statutes of Limitations (there is no one such statute, they exist on many levels) are supposed to be applied equally. What proof do you have that they aren't?

In an ideal world, laws would be applied fairly and indiscriminately. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. Our legal system is fraught with contradictory laws that are subject to interpretation. It is the jobs of the courts to review and interpret those laws. It is the function of attorneys to find the laws that best support their client's case and argue those in front of a judge. So those who can afford good attorneys that can make good legal arguments will tend to win over those who can't.

I get that you are angry about something. That you feel you have been done wronged somehow. But your approach of suing the government is ill formed, impractical and irrational. So lets start over. Why don't you tells us about your specific case. What has happened to you and why do you feel you have been wronged. Then we may be able to advise you how to proceed.

Really.. what constitutional rights do you have exactly to run up debts and refuse to pay them. Where is this at exactly? Seriously... YOU owe someone money... THEY have a right to get it. YOU don't have a right to effectively STEAL from them and not have any repercussions from it.

So instead of paying Lawyers.. how about paying your debts. Or don't bother borrowing from anyone else. There is no constitutional right to borrow money, enter legal contracts and then run away.

If you can rant.. so can I.

Good luck finding a lawyer unless you pay cash up front... with your history nobody in their right mind will extend credit to you. And in any case, its extremely unlikely it would ever be heard by the court.

Here's the nitty gritty: There's a statute of limitations for going to court to get a judgment against you for a debt you owe. Once that judgment is made, the party you owe can try to collect from you forever.
And they only have to show that they tried to notify you of the court date, not that they actually reached you.

You're a piece of work! How dare anyone collect a debt! I realize that you think there is discrimination in debt collection. There isn't.

I'm really curious to hear their reasons they feel they shouldn't be sued for their debt, OR be contacted by debt collectors. Might shed some more light on the situation since they never did give any details in case its about more than appears at face value based on what they did say and how they said it... or be quite entertaining if it really isn't..

OK, people. Clearly the OP is upset about something. We don't know what it is or whether its justified or not. Yes, the idea of suing the government is ill conceived, but that's not the point. We are here to try and help so we need to give the OP the chance to explain.

I'm answering only you because the rest sound like trolls.

First, I have never failed to pay my debts but the way the system is set up anyone can end up being made responsible for the debt of someone else. That is what is happening with me.

Second, we are supposed to be equal, so, the laws are supposed to apply equally to all citizens. A person doesn't loose his or her rights simply because the person does not have money. Criminals get help from the government to fight their accusers because criminals know their rights and are willing to fight for them.

Third, creditors declare a loss on bad debt. They don't lose money, they report the loss to their insurance agent and put the loss on their report to the IRS. Then they package the debt and sell it on the market. Some one out there buys the bad debt for less than a penny and then proceeds to pester the person who has gone trough the horrible experience of losing everything. The person who had the bad fortune pays for it for 7 years.

The Statutes of Limitations use credit cards as an example for open end debt. Some states accept that limitation. Others view credit card debt as a contract. That way a person can be hounded for years by people who invested next to nothing for something that should have no value.

The thing is that all the states allow debt collectors to sue people for debts that have gone beyond the limits set on the statutes of limitation. If the person does not know the law and can't afford a lawyer, the person ends up paying for something that should not exist. The way I see it that's fraud with the blessing of the courts.

On top of that government offices deny help to any citizen that go to them looking for information. They say that they can't give us legal advice but those same offices have informative meetings with private industry. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, otherwise it's discrimination.

As for suing the government, know that it can be done.

By the way, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can't be happy if someone can destroy our peace with old debt that should not exist. There is also an article in the Constitution that protect us from unreasonable seizures of our property. Another article protect us from cruel and unusual punishment. Then there is a thing called due process of the law.

Perhaps long dormant claims have "more cruelty than justice". (Halsbury's Laws of England)

Just saying...

Sorry... but Debt collectors only have a limit that they can bring a case in court, if you fail to understand when that clock starts ticking that's your fault. And no it isn't the day the debt was incurred... there IS NO limit to how long they can spend collecting it... they can hound you until the day you die... then go after it in your estate. They are only bound by what hours of the day they can do it.

If you failed to show up for court....thats your fault..you lose be default. If you were not served and never said anything...then that's your fault too. YOU should have appealed to the court when the default judgement was made....you can't wait 15 years to do that however.

And once they win a judgement.. they can keep renewing the Writ and go after any money they ever find when they find it or get first claim on your estate before any heirs get a dime.

And you are lapsing into a rant again...

You aren't entitled to free legal help... there is a huge difference between not wanting to pay a lawyer and not being able to.

It only applies when jail time is a penalty and then only if you pass the means test. Not for failure to pay your obligations.

Sorry but you have a very fundamental misunderstanding as to what rights you think you have.

And sorry.. unless you live in the UK... then English law does not apply. US law applies in the US.

You are still avoiding the main question....WHY do you think YOU are not legally obligated to pay the debts YOU incurred? What debt was incurred, what was the court ruling, what have you done about it? You have told us nothing.

IF YOU EXPECT ANY SORT OF AN ANSWER THEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE US INFORMATION.... or its you that looks like the troll.

Exactly HOW does Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness give you any right to borrow money then refuse to pay it back? Don't borrow it in the first place then you will never have to pay anything back. It is that simple.

If I loaned you money... by god my right to get paid exists (and the law backs me up)... your right to not pay me doesn't exist.

It seems to be a situation of a credit card used without permission (maybe?) by someone else. Or you co-signed for that person's card, and the debt is on you if they don't pay.
This happens a lot.
Cryptic forays into the hypothetical drive me nuts, so I'm out of here. I have comcast driving me nuts.

I'm beginning to think someone got a homework assignment and they get to be on this side of it...

Otherwise they could or would give us details.

Apparently I'm not the only one who's crystal ball doesn't work... nor do my Ouija board or my Tarot cards. I never did learn to read tea leaves or chicken entrails.

They need to stop ranting and provide some actual information if they actually want a real answer.

OK. Sorry, but you don't have all your facts straight.

1) How are you being made responsible for someone else's debt? The only one responsible for a debt is those who signed for it either as a borrower or co-signer. You did not explain that. Nor did you explain the details of how you have been wronged. Only with that can we help you.

2) Laws DO apply equally to all citizens. That doesn't mean that some citizens can't manipulate the law to their own ends. Unfortunately it happens way too often. That doesn't mean that you have lost your rights.

3) Yes creditors can write off bad debt. All that means is that they can declare the amount as a loss against their income to reduce their tax liability. Doesn't mean their tax liability is reduced to the same amount as the bad debt. Also if they are insured against the loss then they can't double dip by claiming the loss against income. And yes there are junk debt companies who buy the debt for pennies on the dollar. The seller of the debt now has to include that income and pay taxes on it. The junk debt companies take a risk, that they will be able to collect the money. Most of the time they don't, but they do enough of the time to make it worth the risk. There are laws that protect debtors from over zealous collectors. Did you try making use of them?

4) Statute of Limitations laws for debt are set state by state. They vary both on length and details about when the clock starts and stops. A debt NEVER expires. Therefore. Debt certainly DOES have value. That's why it can be sold and why there are those who can buy the debt. This system has existed for centuries. SOL laws simply limit the ability to use the courts to collect the debt.

5) What proof do you have that states allow collectors to sue for debts past the SOL? I know of many people who have had suits dismissed by proving they were filed after the SOL expired. So yes, it does happen because not every state requires the collector to show the SOL hasn't expired, but it's a valid defense against the lawsuit.

6) No one but a lawyer can give specific legal advice. So yes govt agencies can refuse to do so. I have no clue what you mean by "informative meetings with private industry".

7) I never said that suing the government can't be done. What I said was that you had to determine a specific agency that has wronged you and file suit against them, you can't just sue "the government".

8) Yes you have the right to Life liberty,. etc. But that doesn't give you the right to not repay valid debt.

9) Yes there are laws against unreasonable seizure, cruel & unusual punishment and for due process. But you have not given us any details to show you have had property unreasonably seized, or been subject to cruel and unusual punishment or been denied due process. I'm sire you feel you have, but you are, clearly, not objective about it.

10) No the people responding here are not trolls, most are respected members of this site. But your original post (and the follow up I might add) were pure rants. They were quixotic ramblings about slights that you have failed to detail. Again I say, if you want our help, then explain to use how you were wronged, how you were held responsible for a debt not your own. How you had property seized, were punished etc.

If you continue to just post rants without substance I will be forced to close this thread.

There is no Constitutional right for debts. There is no right to legal help in civil court. Even in Criminal court, many courts will not provide legal help for any crime where the punishment is less than one year in prison.

SOL is a defense, it is up to the person being sued to find out about it. The courts do not know the debt dates at filing.

Also each statehas its own laws on debt and there is very few personal debt laws at Federal level.

I wanted to add some other points here. When a civil suit is filed the plaintiff lists the reasons for the suit. But the evidence to support the suit is not presented at filing. So the court will not know (not that it allows) the true facts of the case until the evidence is presented at a hearing. In the case of debt collection the plaintiff submits a complaint that the defendant owes x amount and has not paid.

What most often happens is the defendant never shows at the hearing so there is no need to present evidence and the plaintiff wins by default. This could be due to the plaintiff's subterfuge of not properly serving the defendant so they don't know about the hearing. But the court doesn't know that. So the court is blameless here.

We don't know what happened to you (because you have not told us). So we don't know know if you have valid grounds for a suit or not. Clearly you are emotional about this and are wanting to strike back. But your emotions are leading you to an ill conceived and impractical plan of action. On the other hand, we have no emotional attachment. What we do have is a knowledge of the law and experience with what may be practical or not.

As we have said, you can't just sue the Federal government (or even a state government). Any suit has to be targeted against the specific agency that you feel has wronged you. Since we don't know the details of the wrong, we can't advise you where to target your suit. Additionally, you need to have valid grounds for a suit. Otherwise it will be thrown out before it even gets to a hearing. Again, since you have refused to supply details, we can't advise whether your grounds are valid or not.

So one more I ask you to detail what happened to you and why you think you were wronged. Then and only then can we advise how to proceed. But your plan to sue the US Federal government is ridiculous.

I'm answering only you because the rest sound like trolls.

You're only getting what you paid for. Free advice from people who, for all you know and should believe, have no legal expertise whatsoever. People here have varying degrees of knowledge and expertise. I, for example, can tell you exactly what you need to do for anal sex so you don't get hurt taking it up the bum. Legal advise here should be take with a grain of salt. Our people are awesome, but can only do so much.


First, I have never failed to pay my debts but the way the system is set up anyone can end up being made responsible for the debt of someone else. That is what is happening with me.
So you've paid all your bills, credit cards, loans, contractual agreements. Awesome on you, you're mostly financially responsible. How are you responsible for the debt of another person here? Did you co-sign a loan or credit card for them? Are you a victim of identity theft? Without proper knowledge and only getting half stories, it is REALLY hard to help you here.

I know in Canada each province has a certain length of time where a creditor can sue a debtor for a debt. In my province it is 2 years from the last day the debt was addressed. This could be the last payment, the last promise of a payment, or just an acknowledgment of the debt. After that point it is illegal for the debt collectors to come after you for this debt. The only problem with that is if you acknowledge the debt, or make a payment, or agree to make a payment, the clock starts again and they have 2 years to come after you again. However your credit rating is still pooched at this point for seven years.

I am fuzzy on how it works with co-signed or credit cards in two people's names, but I think any action on the account leaves all parties vulnerable to the collectors. Regardless you need to know what is going on, what the contracts that were signed said (the latest iteration of them because the terms can be amended with just a notification to you I think.), what all the other parties to this debt have done, and the actual laws of your state. I don't think this would fall federally, it just might be state law. You know to know and understand EVERYTHING with regards to this debt. If you don't and go to court you will lose and be forced to pay the debt, because it has been acted upon, as well as the court fees. I don't know. I am in Canada where Tax collectors ride Polar Bears.


Second, we are supposed to be equal, so, the laws are supposed to apply equally to all citizens. A person doesn't loose his or her rights simply because the person does not have money. Criminals get help from the government to fight their accusers because criminals know their rights and are willing to fight for them.
Moral outrage has NO place in the legal system. Only laws. This doesn't help your case. It is you beat your chest which implies you don't have the law on your side and you're trying to bully the legal system.

Third, creditors declare a loss on bad debt. They don't lose money, they report the loss to their insurance agent and put the loss on their report to the IRS. Then they package the debt and sell it on the market. Some one out there buys the bad debt for less than a penny and then proceeds to pester the person who has gone trough the horrible experience of losing everything. The person who had the bad fortune pays for it for 7 years.

Yea... and? It will happen for longer then that if the collector thinks the person is ignorant of the laws. Which, and lets be honest here, most people are. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Just because you were doodling through civics class or you haven't done your research doesn't mean or validate a "I was never told of this." defense.


The Statutes of Limitations use credit cards as an example for open end debt. Some states accept that limitation. Others view credit card debt as a contract. That way a person can be hounded for years by people who invested next to nothing for something that should have no value.

Here is where I think the truth comes out, or peeks out at least. You're part of this, whatever this is, and your liable for the debts incurred therein. If whoever else is addressing the debt then all are still responsible for it.


The thing is that all the states allow debt collectors to sue people for debts that have gone beyond the limits set on the statutes of limitation. If the person does not know the law and can't afford a lawyer, the person ends up paying for something that should not exist. The way I see it that's fraud with the blessing of the courts.
That's the American way of doing things. That is free market and democracy at its best. A functional member of society needs to have a working knowledge of the laws and if they're being taken to court then they need to know the laws that are being used and the contracts that they've committed themselves to. It is up to the person to know this. You can't make the government mediate all this. It isn't their place. It is that person's fault, not the court. There is no conspiracy going on here, no men in a dark room.

On top of that government offices deny help to any citizen that go to them looking for information. They say that they can't give us legal advice but those same offices have informative meetings with private industry. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, otherwise it's discrimination.

As for suing the government, know that it can be done.
The offices can only do what they're mandated to do. Nothing more. Giving legal advise is dangerous because it might not be correct and then they can get sued. It is a vicious circle of people covering their own and departmental butts.


By the way, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can't be happy if someone can destroy our peace with old debt that should not exist. There is also an article in the Constitution that protect us from unreasonable seizures of our property. Another article protect us from cruel and unusual punishment. Then there is a thing called due process of the law.

Perhaps long dormant claims have "more cruelty than justice". (Halsbury's Laws of England)

Just saying...

You're just getting downright fanatical here. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? You're alive. You're rights, so much as you have left, are secure. You can do whatever you want, within the constraints of the law, to be happy right now. I could go to central park and roll down a hill. I am allowed to do that. Nothing above is being violated. You're not being forced into decisions or situations. Everything that is being done and done to you is a direct result of choices you made BECAUSE you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What I am seeing here is that you made a bad financial decision and don't want to deal with the consquences of it. You think that you've been wronged when, I assume, everyone from the initial creditor to the debt collector have been doing things above board. It is almost looking like you don't feel you should pay it back, even though you're responsible for it via the contract you signed, and are trying to find EVERY way not to pay it back. You look like your pouting because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you want to sue your parents for all the cookies. Because you have a right to the pursuit of happiness and cookies make you happy.

Educate yourself and make sure you have a case. Approach a lawyer and see if they thing you have a chance of winning. Don't be shocked if the answer is no.

I know in Canada each province has a certain length of time where a creditor can sue a debtor for a debt. In my province it is 2 years from the last day the debt was addressed. This could be the last payment, the last promise of a payment, or just an acknowledgment of the debt. After that point it is illegal for the debt collectors to come after you for this debt.

Just a quick comment on this point. The correct statement is: After that point the debt collectors can't use the legal system to come after you for this debt.

Canada law, like the US, states that a debt never expires. But debt collectors in both countries have a window of opportunity to use the courts to help collect the debt. After that window closes, they can still dun you for the debt (within some rules), but can no longer sue to collect.

This is a point that confuses many people (including the OP apparently). Charging off the debt does nothing to affect the debtor obligation to pay. It is nothing more than a tax maneuver which has no affect on the debtor. A debt represents a contract. The debtor receives something of value in return for the promise to repay the value, usually with fees attached. Unless there is language in the contract that allows the debt to expire, it never does. That contract then has a value. The value of the contract is the debtor promise to repay. The value of that promise may have limited value based on the debtor ability to pay. This is why junk debt collectors can but them for pennies on the dollar. Contracts are bought and sold all the time. Take mortgage securities for example. A lender decides they need cash now instead of waiting for the debt to be paid. So they bundle a bunch of mortgages and sell them for cash up front. The Toronto Blue Jays purchased the contract of David Price in August. They purchased the contract by bartering other players. They now own the contract until it expires.

So we come back to the issue I have been harping on. For us to help the OP we need to understand the details of his case. If he doesn't want to reveal them, that's his right. But, by not doing so, we can only assume the situation by reading between the lines.

No federal court that I know of will even hear your case unless you have properly moved through the local, and state court process. Doesn't cost squat for a lawyer to tell you that.