FTC Shuts Down "Debt Elimination Lite" Scammers

[Prof]

This is the same old garbage; untruth followed by distortion. I'm crossing the bridge. Goodbye, Troll.

[Pantekhnikon]

This is the same old garbage; untruth followed by distortion. I'm crossing the bridge. Goodbye, Troll.

You're right, Poof... this IS the same old garbage: psychological projection and an inability to recognize one's own inability to conduct a rational debate without resorting to ad hominem fallacies. Have fun on the other side of "the bridge to nowhere"........ 8-p

[Pantekhnikon]

And as for trying to blame peoples' displeasure about inflation and money creation on anti-semitism... that's like OJ playing the Race Card.

I guess you don't know the history of the theory you espouse.

Do a google search on the following and see what pops up: jew bankers fractional reserve banking

I'm actually quite saddened that this monetary policy issue was ever turned into an ethnic attack of ANY sort. The info you linked is sad and disappointing - yet another example of human injustice at its worst. But we both know that some of those powerful international bankers were NOT Jewish (i.e. Morgan)... which is why I named the main character in my illustrated banking parable (The BunniBank - a 24 Carrot Parable) "Clever Morgan" instead of Clever Rothschild.

If you ever deign to read my autobiography, you will learn that I have the highest regard for the Jewish educators who helped me to learn and to achieve in the private school I was fortunate enough to attend.

My father, Producer John Guedel, made a good portion of his living in professional association with Groucho Marx - and they defeated the IRS in Tax Court together, remember? Guedel and Marx v. US.

But using anti-semitism as a rationale for ignoring the facts is just another invalid, off-point argument... human nastiness notwithstanding. It's actually just a group form of ad hominem attack, isn't it? So why don't you people grow up and stop doing it to me?

Which reminds me... why have all of you Tools in the Fed Res Banking Toolbox persisted in discounting, ignoring, and/or downright dismissing the wisdom of learned economist Murray N. Rothbard? Are YOU all anti-semites, then???

And what about your attitude about Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd? Is that a Latin surname, by any chance? Are you anti-hispanic, then?

Oh... and don't let's forget Alan Greenspan. He USED to openly agree with the conservative economists like Rothbard. He's still Jewish, though, isn't he? Or was he NOT very Jewish when he agreed with Ayn Rand, and gradually returned to his ethnic roots when he became a well-paid employee of the Fed, and, hence, an evil Jewish banker?

Prior to the likes of Gliha making a debt elimination issue out of money creation, the Fed Res reps openly ADMITTED creating money out of thin air - i.e. "Two Faces of Debt" appearing on a Fed Res webpage. Now that essay seems to have disappeared. Fancy that.

Gliha is little more than a pimple in the debt elimination world. The Fed doesn't even know he exists.

I think you already know that your reference to Gliha and that slightly amusing ad hominem re the arguably pussy complexion of the DE world is beside the point.

On a related note, if you have any capacity for open-mindedness left regarding me, you might be pleasantly surprised at the treatment I give a former DE company (Alternative Debt Services) that was one of several established by John Gliha. I clearly (and rather entertainingly) describe the blatant rip-off that they perpetrated on the protagonists in my new book:

http://www.lulu.com/content/4593711

In addition, I chronicle the whole arbitration process and how it was actually sold, conducted and completed... followed by the shameless attempt on the part of ADS to charge another $3,000 in advance legal fees for "representation" from their "workgroup" after their customers were sued regardless of the "arbitration awards"... and how they were confronted about their so-called "money back guarantee" that was posted on their "BBB approved" website to help them sell their "program". Their answer: "You got your arbitration award, didn't you?"

There is only one way to write about something honestly, first hand... and that is to walk the walk.

After reading my book, no one will think that getting a collection lawsuit dismissed is a walk in the park... or that any company can guarantee anyone a "win". They will also know that DE companies are scam artists; not because banks don't create vapor money, but because scammers love to take advantage of desperate people, and they smelled the blood in the water and knew what strategy to employ to get customers in over their heads (which reminds me of the Credit Card companies).

I loved beating the collections attorney, btw. It's all just a game of strategy... no principles; no honor... just pure strategy, like a good game of chess.

Don't you watch Boston Legal? XD XD XD

P.S. Unless my books make some money there won't be anything for anyone to collect even if they DO get a judgment against me. Remember... I have 100% homestead protection here in Florida... no car (repossessed)... no credit... and no wages. NOT really worth the risk of losing to me again, IS it???
.

[Demosthenes]

Don't you watch Boston Legal? XD XD XD

Nope. I prefer to play chess.

Good luck with book sales.

[Nikki]

Heidi:

Did you include a chapter on how you defrauded the credit card companies?

What about one on how you are now living under an assumed name to avoid service of legal documents?

[Pantekhnikon]

Heidi:

Did you include a chapter on how you defrauded the credit card companies?

What about one on how you are now living under an assumed name to avoid service of legal documents?

Is it 'fraudulent' to hold them to a legal standard of proof and motion practice? I DEFAULTED due to job loss and inability to pay. There is a difference.

What assumed name? Guedel is my maiden name, Turnipseed is my former married name and Garofalo is my married name now... which is, no doubt, why those names all came up on my credit report - which is the source used by debt collectors to obtain current addresses and serve documents. My ex-husband, Kent L. Turnipseed is an amazing shooting instructor. Teaching me to shoot extremely well is one of the things he did right during our marriage.

I'm not responsible for the confusion suffered by lazy and incompetant process servers. One of them was dishonest in addition to being lazy. I have his name and license number in a file containing a copy of his fraudulent service of process on some so-called "co-resident white male" on a weekday mid-afternoon when my husband was at work. Pure fiction... unless he inadvertently interrupted an attempted burglary. He claims (in his purjurous statement) that he placed the summons and complaint on our gate. Baloney. The only paperwork we've ever found anywhere around our gate has been ludicrous literature from the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Besides, it's supposed to be "in person service"... meaning that they need to present the documents to a member of the household over the age of 15 who can reasonably be responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient. That means no children, no domestic animals, no retarded people, and no imaginary playmates.

They did no such thing. They lied and got the clerk to enter a default. We have an electric gate, the object of which is to remain in the car while driving into or out of the property. There is no place on the gate to hang or attach anything.

Amongst other things, it has been an education to see how lazy, incompetent and dishonest some so-called professionals can be. They deserve what they (do or do not) get..

[Pantekhnikon]

P.S. I wouldn't harass my current husband if I were you. His grandfather was Frank Garofalo, and he has lots of first and second cousins... especially on the East Coast, LOL.

From: http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/08.htm

... Many of Tresca's comrades believed that his murder had been ordered by Generoso Pope, the ex-fascist publisher of Il Progresso Italo-Americano, as Tresca had attacked him relentlessly throughout the 1930s and early 1940s. One plausible theory said that Tresca was killed at the order of an Italian underworld figure named Frank Garofalo, identified as a member of the Mafia. ...

See also: http://books.google.com/books?id=QDEtng ... &ct=result

and: http://glasgowcrew.tripod.com/galante.html

.... One month later the meeting in Palermo was followed by the biggest summit in American Mafia history. Appalachian was the setting at Joe Barbera's home, for the largest convention of Mafia leaders ever seen in the U.S. as hundreds of top Mafiosi flocked there way to Appalachian. Shortly after this summit Galante attended another important meeting this time though not nearly in size of the one at the Home of Joe Barbera. This time Lillo Met with Frank Garofalo, Joe "Beck" Di Palermo a major narcotics player from New Jersey faction of the Lucchese family. The four men got straight down to business......

As for hubby himself? He's never used drugs in his life; rarely drinks; never smokes, and graduated Summa Cum Laude from Cal Lutheran University with his Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy. He's an underpaid but solidly employed social worker and a dependable head-of-household. (But "Goodfellas" is still one of his all time favorite films....
.

[wserra]

It's not every day that one sees someone of Italian-American heritage bragging of the family's Mafia roots. Of course, it's also not often that one sees someone who can write in complete sentences asserting that the "Credit River" common-law jury trial and kegger has any legal significance, so I can't say I'm shocked.

BTW, Heidi, the glee you take in beating the debt collectors is also puzzling. I can certainly understand how hard times can make it difficult or impossible to meet obligations one has incurred. But you received the benefits of the borrowing, and you agreed to pay it back. I can understand, "I did what I had to do, but I'm not proud of it". It's harder to understand, "I really got over on them, didn't I?", when what you're doing amounts to welshing on an agreement.

BTW#2: From a legal point of view, debt collection (no, I've never done it) is strictly a volume business. It is quite common that debt collectors will in fact quickly give up on the debtor who makes collection difficult, in order to seek lower-hanging fruit - it just doesn't pay to spend too much time on any but the largest case. So, congratulations on evading a valid debt; just don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
BTW#2: From a legal point of view, debt collection (no, I've never done it) is strictly a volume business. It is quite common that debt collectors will in fact quickly give up on the debtor who makes collection difficult, in order to seek lower-hanging fruit - it just doesn't pay to spend too much time on any but the largest case. So, congratulations on evading a valid debt; just don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

Wes, not to belabor a point, but some percentage of alleged debts are utterly bogus and the firms that buy the junk know it.

Who is more culpable? The firm that attempts to collect a bogus debt or the debtor who uses the same legitimate legal process you would in a zealous defense of your client in any civil or criminal matter?

Just because the process is used to thwart an ALLEGED collection does it automatically become a valid debt? Granted, Heidi even depicts a financial situation that should simplify the process, but we should both recognize that's not the criteria for justice.

People with legitimate claims against lenders lose in motion practice all the time.

From your posts I sense you have worked in the criminal realm. You know you can't have it both ways. Someone ruled not guilty, no matter what the reason or flaw in the process is not guilty as charged.

A debtor, no matter what the reason, who obtains a judgment against a creditor is no more liable than an alleged criminal who has been deemed not guilty.

You can't have it both ways. If corporations "win" in settlements without admitting guilt you really can't use that against them. Thus, someone who won a civil case (no matter why) against a creditor doesn't allow you to attempt to judge them ex post facto. Corporations are given the benefit of the doubt with the not admitting to wrongdoing clauses of the settlement agreements and civil litigants have to be afforded the same rigor in rulings.

Not that it makes it right, but that's the way it is.

Just MHO.

[wserra]

Wes, not to belabor a point, but some percentage of alleged debts are utterly bogus and the firms that buy the junk know it.

I have absolutely no doubt that's the case. Unfortunately, that's not Heidi's case. As she posted,

The Statute of Limitations has run out on all of the credit cards I've defaulted on ...
That being said, I managed to get one lawsuit dismissed, and managed not to get served by that CC company again, nor by any of the others. Now that the SOL has run and I feel safe, I can share about what worked for me.

I had to learn that lesson the hard way. There is little else they can do to me now.

My house is paid for, I will NOT mortgage it, and the SOL has run out on all of the credit cards. Now "SOL" stands for Sh*t Outta Luck as far as they are concerned, LOL.

In the same post, she said "I am now a qualified paralegal" and had that in her sig. That has now changed, perhaps as a result of my post pointing out that in Florida one can't just declare oneself a "paralegal". So now she isn't a paralegal.

Who is more culpable? The firm that attempts to collect a bogus debt or the debtor who uses the same legitimate legal process you would in a zealous defense of your client in any civil or criminal matter?

I have no problem agreeing that the former is more culpable. There are plenty of degrees of culpability.

Just because the process is used to thwart an ALLEGED collection does it automatically become a valid debt?

I never said that. I said that it was a valid debt because the debtor agreed that it was. Seems like pretty good evidence to me.

People with legitimate claims against lenders lose in motion practice all the time.

I have no doubt that's true too. JRB, are you approaching "an enemy of my enemy" territory?

From your posts I sense you have worked in the criminal realm. You know you can't have it both ways. Someone ruled not guilty, no matter what the reason or flaw in the process is not guilty as charged.

When have I ever said otherwise? I once tried a gun possession case in the Bronx, back in the days when the average Bronx juror hated cops (for some good reasons, but that's another story). We were still sitting at counsel table, the jury filing out after acquitting my client, when the client leaned over to me and whispered, "When can I get my gun back?" The acquittal meant that he was not guilty. It didn't mean that he didn't possess the gun. That's not "having it both ways", it's apples and oranges.

A debtor, no matter what the reason, who obtains a judgment against a creditor is no more liable than an alleged criminal who has been deemed not guilty.

Of course. I wasn't discussing legal liability.

[Pantekhnikon]

Now this discussion is becoming interesting... now that it is focused on the inescapable ethical double binds of our justice system. Thank you, JRB, for your rational and ethical stand on this issue.

As you will see from my book, "DEFAULT !!!" the "paralegal" (Jeff) to whom I paid several hundred dollars for writing the first two (and part of the third) pleadings in my husband's civil case was probably not registered or licensed in Florida, either. I had no idea that was necessary at the time.

When I presented myself as a "paralegal" on suijuris, I still had no idea. As soon as wserra and the others pointed out the facts, I changed my signature on suijuris and completely stopped presenting myself as a "paralegal". I never practiced and will not do so unless I become properly licensed. But it hardly seems worth it... since a paralegal has to work under the supervision of a licensed attorney.

If a client has to pay (however indirectly) for an attorney to supervise, how does that provide the client with an economical way to defend themselves Pro Se while seeking professional help with legal writing and drafting and legal research? Obviously I know how to do that well enough to defeat a licensed attorney (even though CA's are the bottom of the professional barrel). May I legally present myself as a layperson experienced in legal writing and drafting, and in doing legal research?

My brother's friend, Jeff, who did call himself a "paralegal", now tells me that his professional practice has dried up... possibly because that law was (recently?) passed. I really don't know... but I'll take your word for that. It's all 'water under the bridge'.

I'm actually grateful that you people brought that to our attention before I stumbled into doing anything illegal... even if only through ignorance of the law ... which I know is no excuse

What is legal is my writing honestly about our experiences as debtors-under-water... drowning in unsecured debt through a reversal of fortune... and my decision to opt for the most advantageous outcome I thought was possible, given my knowledge and acumen.

And as for my not feeling guilty about it? I think you already know why by now.

Add to that the FACT that several CC companies inundated us with unsolicited offers to transfer balances without question. I call that a willing assumption of the risk. It was UNSECURED DEBT, after all. That means the company willingly undertook the business risk of loaning its newly-created liability-on-the-books to debtors whom they can easily discover to be WAAAY overburdened with unsecured debt already.

As I see it, the sharks were all circling their prey... each trying to be the only one left to take the biggest bite out of us after forcing us into bankruptcy.

They deliberately took a very unwise business risk, didn't they? And they lost their little vapor money shirts. Tsk tsk tsk.

Then they passed on all their "losses" to their stockholders, didn't they? How nice.

Then they lobbied to get a huge bailout passed. How nice.

Now all the cooperative and dutiful taxpayers will get to reimburse these lenders for all their stupid and illogical business risks which backfired ... all so that they will feel solvent again and become willing to lend it right back to the same taxpayers from whom it was already stolen by Congress. How nice.

Go ahead... try to make me feel guilty for winning ....
*laughs sarcastically and clicks the "submit" button*.....
.
.

[Pantekhnikon]

It's not every day that one sees someone of Italian-American heritage bragging of the family's Mafia roots.

Oh why not? I'm sure everyone has the odd horse-thief, embezzeler or crime boss roosting somewhere in their family tree.

Of course, it's also not often that one sees someone who can write in complete sentences asserting that the "Credit River" common-law jury trial and kegger has any legal significance, so I can't say I'm shocked.

Tsk tsk. I thought your reading comprehension was better than that, counselor.

I explain exactly why the Credit River Decision has been ignored by the courts.

Didn't you say that you'd read: Chapter One - Credit River as part of the FREE BOOK PREVIEW:

http://www.lulu.com/content/4593711

BTW, Heidi, the glee you take in beating the debt collectors is also puzzling. I can certainly understand how hard times can make it difficult or impossible to meet obligations one has incurred. But you received the benefits of the borrowing, and you agreed to pay it back. I can understand, "I did what I had to do, but I'm not proud of it". It's harder to understand, "I really got over on them, didn't I?", when what you're doing amounts to welshing on an agreement.

Actually, I am saying: "I did what I had to do, and I am not ashamed of it."

BTW... there seems to be no alleged agreement whatsoever. No one has managed to produce one yet...

BTW#2: From a legal point of view, debt collection (no, I've never done it) is strictly a volume business. It is quite common that debt collectors will in fact quickly give up on the debtor who makes collection difficult, in order to seek lower-hanging fruit - it just doesn't pay to spend too much time on any but the largest case.

Congratulations. You have just accurately paraphrased a portion of John Gliha's book: "Winning the Collection Game".

So, congratulations on evading a valid debt;

WHAT "valid debt"? I avoided COLLECTION. I also forced them to prove that their alleged debt was valid. They failed.

...just don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

My shoulder is fine, thank you. Happily, I also utilized the Speech/Dictation tool in Windows XP and spared myself that nagging carpal tunnel syndrome which can develop from doing too much rapid typing...

http://www.lulu.com/content/4593711

.

[wserra]

May I legally present myself as a layperson experienced in legal writing and drafting, and in doing legal research?

In most places, not if you actually do so for others. And certainly not if you charge for it. That's unauthorized practice of law.

It is a good thing (seriously) that you stopped calling yourself a paralegal. Still, allow me to point out that your level of legal knowledge was such that you were unaware that the law in your own state did not permit you to hold yourself out by the title you wished to use.

Add to that the FACT that several CC companies inundated us with unsolicited offers to transfer balances without question. I call that a willing assumption of the risk. It was UNSECURED DEBT, after all. That means the company willingly undertook the business risk of loaning its newly-created liability-on-the-books to debtors whom they can easily discover to be WAAAY overburdened with unsecured debt already.

I suppose that there is a sense in which if I, the owner of a Mom-and-Pop grocery store, extend you credit without checking out your creditworthiness, I "assume the risk" that you'll stiff me. Would you argue that this assumption of risk makes it OK if you do? But big credit-card-issuing banks aren't Mom-and-Pop grocery stories, you say. True enough, but where do you draw the moral line that divides stealing from a neighbor from praiseworthy wealth redistribution? A private supermarket a town away? A regional chain? Home Depot? Can you really differentiate moral from immoral based on the identity of the victim?

They deliberately took a very unwise business risk, didn't they? And they lost their little vapor money shirts. Tsk tsk tsk.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? All this "money from thin air" stuff is just a rationalization for "Heidi didn't really do anything wrong".

How many debts did Murray Rothbard welsh on?

Then they passed on all their "losses" to their stockholders, didn't they? How nice.

Sorry. I defend neither banks nor welshers. If you truly had no choice, I understand. But that's the line - "I did what I had to do", not "Look at me, I'm Robin Hood". Sooeys may not know better, but we do.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Heidi, the problem I have with promoting your story is the chances of success for someone relying on it as a path to a solution.

The hard facts are that most people buried in debt are not going to share your experience. You may be handing diabetics a giant sugar pill disguised as protein.

You're also assuming the creditor's bar is operating in a vacuum; they're not. As has been pointed out previously, debt buying and collections is a volume business and the low hanging fruit profile applies. They are so sloppy it should be a concern for bar associations and is in a few cases. Trust me, they have case profiles. They make a living off of deciding what or what not to go after. And they're not going to reveal them.

But all that means nothing when it comes to portraying your unusual circumstance as a platform to urge actual victims of even more devious and egregious schemes to try a challenge that is truly marginal in actual effectiveness.

You may truly believe you're striking some kind of a blow. Trust me on this, it's like throwing a rock at a bear. I can say from personal experience that anything like that is a really dumb idea. Anecdotal stories might imply It worked for someone only because the survivor said it did without knowing what else might have actually driven off the bear.

Hint - don't go back into the bear's territory. The second time around won't produce the same results.

[wserra]

It's not every day that one sees someone of Italian-American heritage bragging of the family's Mafia roots.

Oh why not?

Because most honest, hard-working Italian-Americans resent the stereotype.

I explain exactly why the Credit River Decision has been ignored by the courts.

But you miss the one-sentence explanation: real courts ignore it for the same reason that real astronomers ignore a story of an alien abduction. It exists, but is entitled to no credit, and therefore receives none.

Didn't you say that you'd read: Chapter One - Credit River as part of the FREE BOOK PREVIEW:[/b][/color]

Yeah. And saw your conclusion: "It has not been nullified, but it cannot be cited as authority in subsequent cases because it was never confirmed by a higher State Court of Appeal, either." This conclusion indicates multiple misconceptions about the way the law works.

First and most important, by this argument any unappealed trial-level decision is good law. If I were to retain a soon-to-be-disbarred lawyer to convince a soused non-lawyer Justice of the Peace to rule (far in excess of any limited jurisdiction he may have) that you were my slave for the rest of your life, you might well decide not to bother appealing, since the ruling was too dumb and unenforceable to be worth the effort and expense. That lack of review by a superior court hardly makes it good law. Well under ten percent of all final trial-level decisions are appealed. That leaves them what they are - unappealed trial-level decisions, even under the gray rules of stare decisis only applicable to the court that issued it.

Second, there are important, appellate decisions (unlike "Credit River") which have never been formally overruled but are still clearly not good law. Please show me the Supreme Court case which overruled Dred Scott. Don't look too hard - there isn't one. Ah, you say, but that case was effectively overruled by the 13th and 14th Amendments, and you'd be right. But those Amendments don't say, "We overrule Dred Scott"; they don't have to do so, because it's clear that they stripped away the decisions' foundations. (See the Slaughterhouse Cases if you are interested.) And Korematsu and Hirabayashi - which hold that the government can detain citizens based only on their ethnicity - have never been overruled by either later decision or by constitutional amendment, but the current state of equal protection makes it inconceivable that that either is still good law. Moreover, "Credit River" bears the same relation to any SCOTUS decision as your four-year-old's tricycle bears to the space shuttle.

You want an explanation for why it's "ignored"? There you go.

[Pantekhnikon]

May I legally present myself as a layperson experienced in legal writing and drafting, and in doing legal research?

In most places, not if you actually do so for others. And certainly not if you charge for it. That's unauthorized practice of law.

It is a good thing (seriously) that you stopped calling yourself a paralegal. Still, allow me to point out that your level of legal knowledge was such that you were unaware that the law in your own state did not permit you to hold yourself out by the title you wished to use.

You're right. I didn't think to check. I had originally consulted with a man my brother recommended (and had used as a paralegal on more than one case) who held himself out to be a paralegal himself, and I doubt if he held the requisite credentials, either. That doesn't make it legal... but I doubt if he was being any more dishonest than I was. I don't think he knew, either.

Add to that the FACT that several CC companies inundated us with unsolicited offers to transfer balances without question. I call that a willing assumption of the risk. It was UNSECURED DEBT, after all. That means the company willingly undertook the business risk of loaning its newly-created liability-on-the-books to debtors whom they can easily discover to be WAAAY overburdened with unsecured debt already.

I suppose that there is a sense in which if I, the owner of a Mom-and-Pop grocery store, extend you credit without checking out your creditworthiness, I "assume the risk" that you'll stiff me.

No, I would not. I didn't stiff my professional credit union, either. I've held a credit/debit card from them for over 25 years and I would never stiff my fellow CU members. After all, it is actually a percentage of their existing deposits which are lent out to other members.

Would you argue that this assumption of risk makes it OK if you do?

I think that's what assumption of risk means. The lender assesses the borrowers' financial situation, credit-worthiness, personal history, etc., and willingly assumes the risk involved in lending to that particular borrower.

But big credit-card-issuing banks aren't Mom-and-Pop grocery stories, you say. True enough, but where do you draw the moral line that divides stealing from a neighbor from praiseworthy wealth redistribution? A private supermarket a town away? A regional chain? Home Depot? Can you really differentiate moral from immoral based on the identity of the victim?

Mom and Pop grocery stores have not received sanction from Congress to practice and profit from Fractional Reserve Lending (legalized counterfeiting). Neither have Credit Unions.

They deliberately took a very unwise business risk, didn't they? And they lost their little vapor money shirts. Tsk tsk tsk.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? All this "money from thin air" stuff is just a rationalization for "Heidi didn't really do anything wrong".

Due to unforeseen circumstances, we faced the prospect of bankruptcy. I learned about what would happen to us if we did file bankruptcy.

I also learned about Fractional Reserve Banking and the creation of money from nothing... and the way such "lenders" profit from the creation of money from nothing. I also learned about the way we are all systematically cheated via the relentless inflation that this causes. I found this to be inherently fraudulent, deceptive and opportunistic.

How many debts did Murray Rothbard welsh on?

Who knows. Perhaps he never faced the prospect of bankruptcy.

Then they passed on all their "losses" to their stockholders, didn't they? How nice.

Sorry. I defend neither banks nor welshers.

Ahhhh.... very noble of you. But you ARE a Criminal Defense Attorney, are you not? So you would (and presumably DO) make your living defending drug dealers, murderers, embezzlers, child abusers, pedophiles, rapists... need I go on?

If you truly had no choice, I understand. But that's the line - "I did what I had to do", not "Look at me, I'm Robin Hood". Sooeys may not know better, but we do.

I did do what I had to do... although the system would have had us file bankruptcy instead. I did not think that was a very good choice for me and my household.

I am not "Robin Hood". I did not set out to rob anyone, nor did I ever intend to redistribute wealth according to some lofty standard of socialistic rhetoric.

I am simply a survivor... and perhaps because of my childhood experiences I developed a survivor mentality. I stood up against some rather ravenous "wolves" (or "sharks", as JRB likes to call them). In this case I happened to be stronger, smarter, faster, more capable than my adversaries, and I won.

Forget Robin Hood.... think instead of a lioness protecting her hard-won kill from Hyenas, and feeding herself and her cubs and the male head of her pride. The lioness does not consider moral equivalents or emotional blackmail. She just does what she has to do in order to survive.

[Pantekhnikon]

Heidi, the problem I have with promoting your story is the chances of success for someone relying on it as a path to a solution.

You would need to read the whole book to realize this, but I make the point very clearly that the DE provider lied to us and cheated us... that the "consumer friendly" arbitration forums are being sued into non-existence by the major banks, that the "money back guarantee" offered by the "BBB Member" DE provider (formerly affiliated with John Gliha) was worthless and fraudulent. I describe exactly what happened and I quote the conversations involved.

The hard facts are that most people buried in debt are not going to share your experience. You may be handing diabetics a giant sugar pill disguised as protein.

If they read the book they will know otherwise.

There is certainly no "pill" -- no "Silver Bullet". I make that very clear.

I won because I applied myself, learned how the court system works, learned how a Civil Case is conducted, learned how to write and respond to Motions, Replies, Memoranda of law, etc. ... learned how to conduct legal research, and paid close attention to the mistakes and omissions made by opposing counsel and took advantage of them.

You're also assuming the creditor's bar is operating in a vacuum; they're not. As has been pointed out previously, debt buying and collections is a volume business and the low hanging fruit profile applies. They are so sloppy it should be a concern for bar associations and is in a few cases. Trust me, they have case profiles. They make a living off of deciding what or what not to go after. And they're not going to reveal them.

That makes a great deal of sense. And I was able to take advantage of that set of circumstances, it seems. Cases are won and lost according to particular circumstances, technicalities, and strategies.

But all that means nothing when it comes to portraying your unusual circumstance as a platform to urge actual victims of even more devious and egregious schemes to try a challenge that is truly marginal in actual effectiveness.

I describe my experience in great detail and the reader will learn what an uphill battle it truly was. It was no "walk in the park" the way Gliha and the other DE providers claimed it would be.

I also make the point that I will never again use credit cards offered by Federal Reserve banking institutions. We have one card and one card only - from our Credit Union.

You may truly believe you're striking some kind of a blow. Trust me on this, it's like throwing a rock at a bear. I can say from personal experience that anything like that is a really dumb idea. Anecdotal stories might imply It worked for someone only because the survivor said it did without knowing what else might have actually driven off the bear.

Hint - don't go back into the bear's territory. The second time around won't produce the same results.

I have no intention of ever venturing into the "bear's territory" again. The playing field is certainly not level.... not from the very beginning.

From legalized counterfeiting, to punishing late payment penalties, to avoidance of other state's usury laws, to usurious levels of interest, to hand-picked arbitration forums selected by the banks ahead of time in their agreements... they have their customers (suckers) by the short hairs. Never again.

[Pantekhnikon]

Then they passed on all their "losses" to their stockholders, didn't they? How nice.

This quote alone indicates what a gigantic, know-nothing Pan..... is.

Those losses were NOT passed on to the stockholders,

REALLY??? Then how could such institutions provide Golden Parachutes and luxury vacations to their CEO's while the stock market took an enormous dump?

...they were passed on to every other consumer out there.

What is passed on to every consumer is INFLATION caused by the creation of new money during the Fractional Reserve Lending process. All this increased "buying power" drives prices relentlessly upward and devalues every other dollar in circulation.

As a Baby Boomer soon to be retired on a fixed income, I will be robbed year after year as inflation drives up the prices on everything I need in order to live.

On the bank side, it is in the form of higher fees and interest rates.

Until people WISE UP and stop using their infernal, crooked, usurious credit.

On the business side (the merchants who may have been charged back by the banks),

"May have been charged back???" The only "charge backs" I know of are those caused by consumer's complaints about inferior merchandise or services.

Please prove that banks ever "charge back" merchants due to cardholders' inability to pay.

...they pass on the loss to consumers in the form of higher prices, which everybody then gets to pay.

As Rothbard, Vieira (and Greenspan before his 'conversion') and other conservative economists have already explained, the rise in prices is due to the INFLATION caused by legalized counterfeiting (Fractional Reserve Banking).

So when you traipse into yur local grocery store and complain about the cost of things, part of that cost is to cover losses. And when you wonder why the bank, or credit union, or check cashing place is charging more, it is because of losses incurred.


The only truth in your above statement is that the banks pass on their "losses" to the public (but you forgot to mention that their CEOs' salaries and perks remain intact and the company's losses are corporate tax write-offs, while the stockholders take a beating).

You are no different and no better than the shop lifter or the robber, all your mental gyrations aside.

I am no better or worse than anyone else who uses the legal system to defend him/herself and prevails.

Meanwhile, Fractional Reserve Lending enriches the lenders (legalized counterfeiters) at the expense (and ignorance) of the general public.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Forget Robin Hood.... think instead of a lioness protecting her hard-won kill from Hyenas, and feeding herself and her cubs and the male head of her pride. The lioness does not consider moral equivalents or emotional blackmail. She just does what she has to do in order to survive.

But some of the "kill" was not hard won. It was borrowed. And attempting to rationalize not giving it back with the tired "no money lent" mythology is little more than moral relativism.

[Pantekhnikon]

It's not every day that one sees someone of Italian-American heritage bragging of the family's Mafia roots.

Oh why not?

Because most honest, hard-working Italian-Americans resent the stereotype.

LOL... Al Pacino and Robert De Nero sure like to portray mafia types... and they've both earned a nice living at it.

Stereotypes exist because particular traits and behaviors have existed with enough frequency to become easily identified with a particular group. The groups that are stereotyped never like it much... but most rational people also understand that the stereotype does not apply to everyone... and that we cannot be blamed for "the sins of our fathers".

I explain exactly why the Credit River Decision has been ignored by the courts.

But you miss the one-sentence explanation: real courts ignore it for the same reason that real astronomers ignore a story of an alien abduction. It exists, but is entitled to no credit, and therefore receives none.

Nice try, clever counselor. But the comparison is off-point. The Credit River Decision is not a fabricated or unproven "story" like an "alien abduction". It happened. It is on record as having happened. It is entitled to no credit and receives none because the legal system could be utilized in order to squelch it.

Those of us who realize that the legal system is not a system of ultimate truth, but an adversarial system and a power struggle between competing interests... WE do not consider the Credit River Decision either untrue or incorrect... merely squelched.

Didn't you say that you'd read: Chapter One - Credit River as part of the FREE BOOK PREVIEW:[/b][/color]

Yeah. And saw your conclusion: "It has not been nullified, but it cannot be cited as authority in subsequent cases because it was never confirmed by a higher State Court of Appeal, either." This conclusion indicates multiple misconceptions about the way the law works.

First and most important, by this argument any unappealed trial-level decision is good law.

Absolutely not. "Law" is made by decisions which are upheld in higher courts. The Credit River Decision was nullified by the superior strategy of those in opposition to it.

If I were to retain a soon-to-be-disbarred lawyer to convince a soused non-lawyer Justice of the Peace...

Ad Hominem fallacies.

...to rule (far in excess of any limited jurisdiction he may have)

The jury ruled... the Justice of the Peace merely presided... but the opposition succeeded in squelching (quashing?) the verdict due to legal technicalities.

...that you were my slave for the rest of your life,

Off point. Bad comparison. Compares a jury verdict based upon sworn testimony by an expert witness (a Bank President) to an illegal ruling by a corrupt Judge against established law (the Emancipation Proclamation).

...you might well decide not to bother appealing, since the ruling was too dumb and unenforceable to be worth the effort and expense.

Does it ever give you pause to think that the likes of Murray N. Rothbard and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Phd, would probably uphold the Bank President's testimony about the creation of money out of nothing as correct?

That lack of review by a superior court hardly makes it good law. Well under ten percent of all final trial-level decisions are appealed. That leaves them what they are - unappealed trial-level decisions, even under the gray rules of stare decisis only applicable to the court that issued it.

Understood. That does not automatically make them incorrect, though, does it?

Second, there are important, appellate decisions (unlike "Credit River") which have never been formally overruled but are still clearly not good law.

Thus exemplifying the imperfections of the Justice System.....

Please show me the Supreme Court case which overruled Dred Scott. Don't look too hard - there isn't one. Ah, you say, but that case was effectively overruled by the 13th and 14th Amendments, and you'd be right. But those Amendments don't say, "We overrule Dred Scott"; they don't have to do so, because it's clear that they stripped away the decisions' foundations. (See the Slaughterhouse Cases if you are interested.) And Korematsu and Hirabayashi - which hold that the government can detain citizens based only on their ethnicity - have never been overruled by either later decision or by constitutional amendment,

Thank you - extremely interesting information.

Understood. So just as an incorrect decision which has never been overruled or confirmed by a higher court cannot be presumed correct, a correct decision which has never been overruled or confirmed by a higher court cannot be presumed incorrect, either. Good point.

Therefore, the Credit River Decision cannot be presumed incorrect or erroneous merely due to its lack of review by a higher court.

...but the current state of equal protection makes it inconceivable that that either is still good law. Moreover, "Credit River" bears the same relation to any SCOTUS decision as your four-year-old's tricycle bears to the space shuttle.

Reductio ad absurdum.

You want an explanation for why it's "ignored"? There you go.