• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


texasrocker last won the day on October 3

texasrocker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

401 Excellent

About texasrocker

  • Rank
    JDB Executioner

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,261 profile views
  1. OK, so if our lack of "personal responsibility" is so confounding to you then where did yours go? If you practice what you preach then you would have applied that check towards paying off your credit cards. All lenders of course are not evil but the excessive greed of a good share of them is what caused the economic meltdown. The "victims" had a lot cleaner shirts than they did as it is doubtful that they felt like they were participants in the scam. When they were approved it was just happiness and glee to finally be able to qualify for a home loan. In my opinion I did but let me rephrase it then... JDB's do not stay in business by proving they own debts, rather they stay in business due to the default judgments of the more than 95% of their lawsuits that go unanswered. I shouldn't even answer this as you know exactly what I am talking about but maybe other dear readers do not so here goes... You use a few of my own words and then formulate your reply to make it appear that I said something completely different. You did it at least twice in this very thread and you have done it virtually every time that you barged into Texas threads to spread your pessimism and misery in the last couple of years. I have been on to your ways for too long and as I said in a recent thread how pathetic it is that you have to resort to such deceptive schemes in order to win a debate. All it results in is throwing a thread so much farther off than the debate itself already has thrown it off when I am forced to explain again and again what I had actually said. For example, when I said that you always try to intimidate Texans from listening to anything I have to say and I jumped to your challenge to look up the definition in a dictionary. You came back with, "When did you ever feel afraid? And you dish it right back so you can't say you are in a weaker position either" so anyone reading it would see it as I had accused you of trying to intimidate me as opposed to what I actually said and that I felt afraid of you which is pure malarchy. Now may the unquestionably true guilty party to "make stuff up out of whole cloth" please step forward...
  2. Not sure. The only thing I can recall is that it was about a dunning letter should have been sent within a certain amount of time before filing a lawsuit. I will search through the archives here later.
  3. Thanks. Was there ever some other type of requirement other than FDCPA? I remember a discussion long ago about it here where I had replied that out of the three times I was sued I never received a dunning letter. This would have been in 2012 or later.
  4. I am far from the only person on this board who has felt that way after being served including most likely you yourself. JDB's stay in business due to the default judgments of the more than 95% of their lawsuits that go unanswered. Unless you have twin brother running around here somewhere posting under your name.
  5. I don't remember there ever being a requirement to report to credit bureaus but when was the dunning letter requirement lifted? I always thought that not sending it constituted an FDCPA violation in itself. @BV80
  6. Of course you will never cease putting words in my mouth. I stated in clear plain English that what I meant was how we feel about them if we are sued by them not that I believed there is nothing in a legally binding contract that says we owe them. I did not just make all this up- when I was first sued in 2012 there was none of the material described above by WhoCares1000. My attorney said if they cannot prove they purchased the debt then they do not have standing to sue and on that foundation he has won over 240 cases with zero losses to JDB's. In other words, "If they cannot prove they own the debt then I don't owe them anything." Around 90% of everything I have done here to assist Texans being sued by JDB's has been based on how he handled my three cases. The other 10% is from my own personal research when I have been asked about certain rules and procedures etc. I do not doubt for one minute that with all the knowledge that you have absorbed on this board over the years that you would not hesitate to agree to that statement but you are so dead-set on contradicting anything I say that you feel you must make it appear that I said something completely different so you can voice a seemingly accurate opposition to it. There are many ways to deal with them and I cannot think of anything worse than regarding being nice and cordial to them to be a good way. Your loyal sidekick has blatantly placed them on a pedestal throughout this thread. As expected I suppose your much more subtle comment implying that it is good that they exist for the tax dollars they contribute perhaps is just the most convenient way to satisfy your need to speak against anything I say.
  7. It was actually the "subprime" lenders that share a like amount of greediness as JDB's. They approved loans to millions of consumers that they knew were not actually qualified for a home loan. A few months or years later when these people's bills started overwhelming them they maxed out their credit cards and then everything collapsed. The JDB industry was barely even heard of before the financial crisis that began in 2008. On paper yes of course. I didn't mean in a legal sense, I meant in our mindset when dealing with JDB's. When I first acquired any credit cards in the late 90's if I had bothered to read the fine print (really, who does?) I would have understood that part as the equivalent of when your mortgage is sold to another company and you start sending your monthly payment to a different entity rather than the possibly of having buzzards picking at my flesh after financial ruin and my credit being ruined for the next seven years. Just because it is legal does not make it right. If y'all are so eager to stick up for them then what compels you to come here to assist people in getting out of paying them?
  8. Speaking for the majority of "the rest" we had a personal responsibility to fulfill our obligations with the OC's not JDB's. After the so-called economic meltdown occurred in 2009 for the next two years I had to put every cent I could scrape up into keeping from losing my home. According to your screwed up logic I should have instead given up the home that I had lived in for seventeen years and slept in my van or on the streets bumming money to pay off my credit card debt that I had already paid the principal on time and time again. When the OC charges off a debt they get a tax write off for the full amount plus all of the interest, which is usually sky-high, they have already capitalized on over the years so in most cases the amount of the principal (the dollar amount of purchases and/or cash advances) has been repaid. In my opinion by sympathizing with these lying scumbags that run amok with FDCPA violations, illegal robo-signing, and numerous fines slapped on them for violating state laws makes you a traitor and a disgrace to this board and what it is all about.
  9. It was merely a suggestion and a very good one to make them drop the matter entirely. They are among the most heartless individuals one can imagine and have a lengthy history of using unscrupulous and deceptive tactics on, for the most part, good people who have through circumstances beyond their control hit rock bottom financially to make themselves wealthy. If you think there is anything whatsoever good about an industry that thrives on picking away like vultures the very last bit of cash and dignity of, in most instances, people who have been forced into not being able to pay an OC after they have most likely paid the principal two or three times then you need to have your head examined.
  10. So why not apply for a PR position with Midland or Portfolio Recovery etc. then? I'm sure they would love to have such a zealous advocate on board.
  11. Because in a literal sense that is what war is. In case you have yet to notice we are at war with JDB's. Speaking of which, you have also adapted to making the same type of comments that lead up to my wondering of who's side your mentor may be on at times. Good job.
  12. I see that in your grandiose coat tail riding fashion you have adapted to his ploy of spinning around what was said. I never said one word about it not being a business agreement. What I said was JDB's are the enemy (which makes up the bulk of what this board is all about) and should not be considered just another person you may be casually doing business with. Whenever the opportunity rises to give them a taste of their own medicine then slap it to them as hard as possible and add to the tally of body bags. As a side note, next time you are out two-stepping with your idol make sure you don't compartmentalize your emotions as he seems to have conveniently misconstrued that I said y'all were here to continue your intimidation of Texans from listening to anything I have to say, not intimidating me myself. By the way, which of you wears the petticoat and floral dress?
  13. Possibly so but in those situations it is highly likely that they will send a "rent-a-lawyer" who is just there so they don't lose by not showing up. It is relatively easy to walk all over them if the chance arises. The majority of cases that get to the point of a motion to compel having been filed in Texas are "resolved" by the plaintiff responding by filing a non-suit. Out of my three cases only one proceeded to trial. My attorney did all such communications with the plaintiff by fax. After receiving no response on what would be considered "meet and confer" before trial he slapped a MSJ on them which was ultimately granted at the trial. (Texas does not actually specify "meet and confer" as other states do except that "discovery motions or requests for hearings relating to discovery must contain a certificate by the party filing the motion or request that a reasonable effort has been made to resolve the dispute without the necessity of court intervention and the effort failed") The reason I always say to not call them is because the sole thing they are interested in is squeezing as much money out of you that they can and very few defendants who come here for the first time will have no idea how to deal with their unscrupulous tactics. For example, even if they agree to send $25 a month it could reset the clock for SOL. File a counter-suit first and then the tables will be turned. They need to be considered as and treated as your enemy, not just someone you are casually doing business with.
  14. You just can't get enough can you? I am not one to "call names" and seriously don't remember ever "calling you names" other than Hairy C-word a few times just because it is hilarious and at times there is dire need of some humor in this place. I have referred to Goody Ouchless as "little boy" and your "coat tail rider" because that is exactly how he represents himself when he follows you around and repeats what you say appearing to emulate and idolize you. You are free to disagree but I don't equate labeling someone with a humorous but appropriate nickname "calling names." It is much closer to satire than derogatory such as political cartoons that have always been socially acceptable. I remember one altercation a couple of years ago when BV80 stepped in between us and you said you sincerely apologize for calling me a moron and I said I accepted the apology so if you believe I called you "little boy" then I hope you will accept my apology now. You can rest assured that if I had a habit of "calling names" then I could think of many things much more severe than "little boy" for you. Even Monty Python wouldn't have anything on me.