kraftykrab

Members
  • Content Count

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

kraftykrab last won the day on January 2 2017

kraftykrab had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About kraftykrab

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Louisiana

Recent Profile Visitors

2,270 profile views
  1. Honestly I would not rely upon the court to do those things. I would move for dismissal myself. I've personally seen where the courts here were supposed to act on their own to remove stale cases from the docket and do nothing. That's why the law allows "upon motion of the court or other interested party", I believe....because if we had to wait for the courts, we'd grow old doing it. I'm sure that not every state operates the same way, but all the same, I'd just file a motion to dismiss it myself.
  2. You did state publicly that she had multiple warnings. Others were not even afforded ONE. Points, as in plural, would show that multiple warnings were handed down. But others get banned after they wind up in her crosshairs without so much as a single one? How exactly does one arrive at the thought that this is not selective moderating? My friend's name was stick & rudder....he told me that without any warnings, any messages, any emails, nothing at all, all of a sudden he was locked out. We've seen TONS of people on this forum complain about clydesmom and her lousy attitude t
  3. Then why was my friend banned without so much as one warning, when you've already admitted yourself that CM's gotten many warnings and nothing else? What did he do that was so bad that you required a ban to be done, when CM's done so much worse, and so much more often? Dont pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining, BV.... And come on, stop splitting hairs....telling someone to "back off" in this thread is no different than telling them not to post on the matter. And what business does CM have talking about people getting banned now? I dont claim to be perfect, but I also know I ha
  4. Sure about that? Try again... Telling someone to "step down" unless they have litigated a claim? Sure looks like telling someone to stop posting...why do you constantly make excuses for CM on this forum? What you claimed is not even true, and yet you still claim it. We all deserve as members here to know why CM gets such special treatment....this is ridiculous! Sorry, that's wrong too. I posted truth, and used the law itself to support my position. Then I get told to "step down", and then we all get lied to about how her one case magically turned into three. I'm not goin
  5. THAT is what's completely unnecessary, BV.....the members here are fully entitled to have you address THAT. It's far from the first time and I'm far from the first person that CM has attacked like this. We as members are entitled to see that THAT problem gets addressed....so why do we see NO comment from you when CM posts like that, but you jump right onto anyone else?
  6. No, BV, what's unnecessary is that I make a very simple post, that has no insults or anything of the kind, and this is what CM does with it. Didnt you just try to lecture me about telling someone not to post in these threads? And yet, you're going to sit there and act like CM did not do the same thing, so you can point at me again? You're going to have to do a lot better than that...the rules here are NOT applied to CM and there's not one good reason why you try to enforce them with anyone and everyone else. TRUTH....CM made claims about this law that are simply wrong. TRUTH
  7. I am not an attorney but I think you have sufficient grounds to be home free on this one. http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/mandatory-dismissal-in-california-for-delay-in-prosecution/ "The grounds for involuntary dismissal for delay in prosecution can be either mandatory or discretionary. The mandatory grounds which apply in the absence of a specific exception are: Failure to serve defendant within 3 years or return proof of service within 60 days after the 3–year period. Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210;" In other words, this looks to be a mandatory involuntary dismissa
  8. And you were quite wrong about what that law does and does not say. Nothing else about you stoking your ego matters here. You made claims that are simply false. Now, stop using this forum for your personal ego building and start paying attention to the value of correct information. Irrelevant, 100%. I can clearly read and understand the law...obviously better than you did. Why is it this hard for you to simply admit you made a mistake and move on like everyone else does?? Now I know you're lying.....before, you claimed you won A case as a pro-se...now all of a sudde
  9. That proves nothing--literally. There are a ton of different points covered by TFC 392....the point(s) you dealt with very easily could have nothing to do with this one. Plus, we've seen you on more than one occasion be dishonest here in the spirit of attacking others and feeding your ego, so forgive me if I dont suddenly roll over and whistle dixie because you claimed something on this forum. Also, did I just post the law itself, yes or no? And did the word for word quotes from that law prove you wrong? Why yes, they sure did. You claimed there was only ONE differ
  10. Sorry, but yes. Wrong again....this is becoming all too common with you, and more disturbing each time too. Who exactly are you here to help, if the people you're posting to keep getting incorrect info from you? This is quoted directly from the law in question: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FI/htm/FI.392.htm So, if a consumer sends written notice of dispute, they MUST investigate. Next: Why does TFC contain a requirement that a CA must respond to a consumer within 30 days of getting their dispute letter then? Does FDCPA now have this same provisio
  11. It has to do with the case that was mentioned and the problems being transferred from mortgage cases down to other kinds of debts. It was not ever meant to address the OP's question, it was a comment relating to the lawsuit that was mentioned and my observations. For example, how can the courts even require acceleration on a debt when there's no provision in those contracts for acceleration? I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing an acceleration clause in a CC contract....and if there is not one, no court has the authority after the fact to add conditions to that contract.
  12. There's more available to you in TX, depending on the circumstances. Did you ever have any contact with the plaintiff before they sued? Did you ever dispute the debt with them in writing? Might be a good idea to check out the Texas Finance Code.....TX law is stronger than FDCPA is. If I recall right, if you disputed in writing with them and they never provided validation, they cannot sue or take any other means to collect. While FDCPA allows no time limit, I believe that TFC only gives them 30 days to validate, and if they do not, they cannot collect. Depending on how this all unfolded,
  13. Great point, and I agree with you.....but there's more to it than that. We are seeing this massively in the mortgage fraud arena. Mortgage lenders and servicers have made such a routine of breaking the contract, doing things that the contract does not permit, or not doing what it requires them to do....and they do it because they know the courts will allow them to get away with it nearly all the time. And the real problem is that we are now seeing some of those same exact illegal tactics filtering down into other areas---auto loan and student loan servicing, for example. The who
  14. wow, talk about a mess....how can a court alter the terms of a contract? A contract should have to have an acceleration clause in it for such a thing to be legit....otherwise, the creditor could just never accelerate, and collect a ton of interest. Most creditors stop charging interest when the charge off the account....this way, there's gonna be a lot more potential for huge balances IMO....
  15. This is false. Chase and others have been repeatedly fined for taking kickbacks from these insurance companies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/insurance-fraud-kickback-scheme_n_3015966.html https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/wells-fargo-and-jpmorgan-loan-officers-accused-of-taking-kickbacks/?_r=0 Here's a really good one...this is not theory, now, this actually happened....HUD investigated and here are the results of that: https://consumerist.com/2011/09/07/investigation-banks-took-6-billion-in-home-insurance-kickbacks/ Horsegal, did you choose t