WildBill

Credit Cards are Not Lawful

Recommended Posts

Well, really, workingpoor, what would you do if you were a banker? Run the bank as a non-profit?

People have to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, and from getting into precarious situations. Anyone who is significantly harmed by an interest rate increase has over-borrowed... I should know! I am over-leveraged in a variety of ways. It's not ideal. I got myself here, though... I'm not blaming anyone else for it.

I'm not saying that there should be no regulations or protections in place for the consumer - obviously there should - but for the most part, agony caused by the actions of banks could be avoided by many people learning to live within their means and manage their assets and debts more prudently.

people who think like you do really ought to wake up and get a clue. There's a difference between people like you who live above your means and people who have fallen on hard times due to an illness or job loss. Lumping those people in the same category as you is just plain ignorance. As far as running the banks as a non-profit, well that would be fine with me! :ROFLMAO2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I lived above my means. I over-leveraged for other reasons. I'm not sure why you assumed that.

Also, I don't see why those with job loss or medical-cost misfortunes would be affected by interest rate increases unless they had over-extended themselves, as I originally said.

I realize that living on credit has become the American way of life, but that doesn't make it safe or wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back to the tennessee code. Define burden of proof in a civil case. you'll find it's just a wee bit different than that of criminal Court.

And by the way, if any "case precedent and existing law" based in Olde English law from centuries ago work in a modern day court, let me know. otherwise, your theory is just that. An unproven theory. Nothing more. Maybe one of your creditors will get tired of your crap and call your bluff; then we'll see how well it works for you. Until then, all your bluffs are doing is getting them to fold (temporarily might I add) that hand. You're not winning any pots, you're just bluffing your way to one more hand. There will be a time when your bluff gets called and you will have nothing but a jack high.

I'm sure that with the legal staff or attorneys used by the Ca's or jdb's feel that there just might be merit to the arguments I present...otherwise why haven't they pursued me ? AND JUST WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE UCC IS ANCIENT LAW ? If my stuff is "crap" as you indicated, and they are "folding" anyway, then perhaps they should retain better attorneys. On the other hand I will keep throwing more crap at anyone who throws crap at me.

....AND BY THE WAY...IF YOU HAD TAKEN THE TIME TO READ MY PREVIOUS POST, YOU WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT I SAID "THAT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE STUFF I REF'D WAS "GOOD OR NOT"

But as far as bluffing is concerned, isn't that what most JDB'S AND CA'S do best ??...try to bluff or intimidate folks who don't have the strength or stamina or ''go nads" to fight these goons. At least my approach is not one of FRAUD AND EXTORTION.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize that living on credit has become the American way of life, but that doesn't make it safe or wise.
You can't have an intelligent conversation with these people. When they took out mortgages on their homes and carried larger and larger revolving balances on their credit cards, they were being victimized by the lender. And for that banks should be punished because they violated __________ (fill in whatever law you wish to use today).

Nothing you say will convince them otherwise. They are right, the internet told them so. These people reap what they sew. Good riddens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back to the tennessee code. Define burden of proof in a civil case. you'll find it's just a wee bit different than that of criminal Court.

And by the way, if any "case precedent and existing law" based in Olde English law from centuries ago work in a modern day court, let me know. otherwise, your theory is just that. An unproven theory. Nothing more. Maybe one of your creditors will get tired of your crap and call your bluff; then we'll see how well it works for you. Until then, all your bluffs are doing is getting them to fold (temporarily might I add) that hand. You're not winning any pots, you're just bluffing your way to one more hand. There will be a time when your bluff gets called and you will have nothing but a jack high.

I will be happy to let you know, my friend ! Now I request that you try to determine if any of these "crap" laws" as you suggest have been repealed, overturned, or amended AND LET ME KNOW. If not, then they are still valid.

You have not shown any evidence in that regard, rather you have resorted to mere conjecture and personal opinions. If they are "still on the books" they can be used. You can argue any law before a judge in any court, and even the judge has no authority to "overturn" any law without having been granted that authority by legislation, or a higher ruling. No judge can make a final ruling on any case based on "personal opinion" alone. Even when I reply to the CA's, I REQUEST THAT THEY SHOW ME MODERN DAY LAW WHICH NEGATES MY POSITION by citing court cases or amended laws....so far they have never done so. And you are correct, someday they just might call my "bluff"...but they better do so before the Statute of Limitation expires in my state ...and they had better be able to dispute my claims BASED ON EXISTING LAW....NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS OR CONJECTURE !

...and for everyone's information, there have been numerous cases won by folks here in this forum based on information gleaned from this forum and internet in general, and I thank everyone who makes so many positive contributions.

Edited by Prosay
Link to post
Share on other sites
I will be happy to let you know, my friend ! Now I request that you try to determine if any of these "crap" laws" as you suggest have been repealed, overturned, or amended AND LET ME KNOW. If not, then they are still valid.

You have not shown any evidence in that regard, rather you have resorted to mere conjecture and personal opinions. If they are "still on the books" they can be used. You can argue any law before a judge in any court, and even the judge has no authority to "overturn" any law without having been granted that authority by legislation, or a higher ruling. No judge can make a final ruling based on case based on "personal opinion" alone. Even when I reply to the CA's, I REQUEST THAT THEY SHOW ME MODERN DAY LAW WHICH NEGATES MY POSITION....so far they have never done so. And you are correct, someday they just might call my "bluff"...but they better do so before the Statute of Limitation expires in my state !

::spew::

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can truly be so misinformed.

Is it really your position that the "law" (and I use the term loosely) of a foreign country is binding upon courts in the United States?

If that is the case, addressing the balance of your post is an exercise in futility.

:speechless:

Link to post
Share on other sites
::spew::

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can truly be so misinformed.

Is it really your position that the "law" (and I use the term loosely) of a foreign country is binding upon courts in the United States?

If that is the case, addressing the balance of your post is an exercise in futility.

:speechless:

EXACTLY WHERE HAVE I STATED THAT IS MY POSITION ? Please show me and I will recant !

Link to post
Share on other sites
I over-leveraged for other reasons.

Over-leveraged? Ok, However you want to say it, you can't afford to pay back what you owe, which means you're living above your means-just like the majority of us here. Look, I don't want to argue with anyone on here. Like MOST people, I'm here because I want to get myself out of the situation I'm in, through no fault of my own. If I can settle for an affordable amount, fine. If I can't, and there's a loophole that will get me out of this mess, well guess what? I'm taking it, and I don't think anybody should be judging anybody in these forums because of that. You can rest assured that if the bankers find a loophole, they will use it to their advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the very reason I stopped posting on this forum.

I was tired of people telling me "Don't worry about it, you don't owe a dime".

If "they" can prove you made purchases, made payments, received statements then YES you owe the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I have personally presented some of these questions and cited some of the court cases listed in the above to several CA'S and collection attorneys, and asked them to submit their opinions to me, and to cite existing State and Federal Law which would supercede or negate the citations I submitted. Or if they cannot or refuse to do so, then please "CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER COLLECTION EFFORTS"

In every case, they have never replied to me ! So there must be some truth to all of this.

They’ve never replied because they have better things to do. Honestly, they’d rather not waste their time. Their lack of reply does not validate your claims in the least; it just means they’d rather not put up a fight. The cost of such fight (not monetary cost, but time vs payout) of fighting you is not worth it. It’s easier to just not reply to you so they can spend their time milking from the other accounts of those who aren’t versed in their (legitimate or not) rights.

So far...the entities to whom I have replied using this approach apparently must feel that there is merit, otherwise, why have they not pursued me ?

See above.

As I stated in my previous post " I don't know if this info is good or not"...but I challenge the opposition to prove otherwise....so far no proof has been submitted....and they have backed off...and that's all that matters to me !

So let me get this straight. You Don’t know! If the crap you spew is good or not, then when we TELL YOU it’s bad, you ask US to prove it? Doesn’t work that way, slick. You can’t just quote some crap based on a law (first post almost everything you referenced was OLDE ENGLISH LAW….IRRALEVANT to us here in the United States of America) that this country doesn’t abide by, and then cover your a$$ by saying “oh I’m not sure if the crap I just wrote was true or not, but since I read it online it’s gotta be? Seriously? The impetus is on YOU to back up YOUR argument. YOU have to prove that your way works. And again, them simply choosing to not respond to your drivel doesn’t count as working. It counts as them making the choice not to waste their time on you when they can pick a bunch of low-hanging fruit elsewhere.

I'm sure that with the legal staff or attorneys used by the Ca's or jdb's feel that there just might be merit to the arguments I present...otherwise why haven't they pursued me ?
and
I SAID "THAT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE STUFF I REF'D WAS "GOOD OR NOT"
See above….oh yeah, and see above.

I will be happy to let you know, my friend ! Now I request that you try to determine if any of these "crap" laws" as you suggest have been repealed, overturned, or amended AND LET ME KNOW. If not, then they are still valid.Not really, since your first post you referenced laws that are irrelevant to the United States of America. The only law that is binding in the USA is the law of the USA.

You have not shown any evidence in that regard, rather you have resorted to mere conjecture and personal opinions. If they are "still on the books" they can be used.Again, not if you keep using law that doesn’t apply! You can argue any law before a judge in any court, and even the judge has no authority to "overturn" any law without having been granted that authority by legislation, or a higher ruling.Or this little thing called “jurisdiction”. Not all laws are binding across Jurisdictions my friend. A judge can rule one way in California and a different judge can rule a different way based on the SAME facts in a different Jurisdiction. Happens all the Even when I reply to the CA's, I REQUEST THAT THEY SHOW ME MODERN DAY LAW WHICH NEGATES MY POSITION by citing court cases or amended lawsWHICH THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO DO....so far they have never done so.BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME And you are correct, someday they just might call my "bluff"...but they better do so before the Statute of Limitation expires in my state ...and they had better be able to dispute my claims BASED ON EXISTING LAW....NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS OR CONJECTURE !

(My replies in red in this paragraph)

EXACTLY WHERE HAVE I STATED THAT IS MY POSITION ? Please show me and I will recant !
In your first post. Your references(oh yeah, which by your own admission may or may not be valid, but what the hell, use ‘em anyhow!)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Non sense perhaps...but I stand by my position which is : "THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE PLAINTIFF"

Anyway I also take the position that we should think outside the box and attack these matters using all available resources"

...and before you say this is "non-sense"...please explain how you arrived at that consensus? Explain why this approach is not valid!

So far...the entities to whom I have replied using this approach apparently must feel that there is merit, otherwise, why have they not pursued me ?

As I stated in my previous post " I don't know if this info is good or not"...but I challenge the opposition to prove otherwise....so far no proof has been submitted....and they have backed off...and that's all that matters to me !

....and I refuse to entertain any lengthy argument or debate over this.

So prove that your statement of "non-sense" has merit and foundation, or I shall ask the membership to "DISMISS YOUR STATEMENT WITH PREJUDICE" !!! hmmm...this sounds familiar !

Nascar, your statement of "non-sense" is thus far based on "conjecture"...NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS ! ( see previous post re: Judge Frank Clements ruling on Conjecture in the Tenn Court of Appeals at Nashville) LOL !

Anway, Nascar , I wish you well, my friend !

This is about the best post I've ever read here. Hilarious from start to finish.

"I don't know if this info is good or not.... Explain why this approach is not valid!.... [last but not least] ...I refuse to entertain any lengthy argument or debate.... " That's gold, Jerry! Gold!

Good job, Prosay! I wish you well, my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I defaulted on 15 k in credit card debt. I have beat all 3 creditors, it has been tough, but well worth the fight.

I did not use and of the idea's in the this thread and I was able to win.

The only defense I used was the securitization topic

Link to post
Share on other sites
I defaulted on 15 k in credit card debt. I have beat all 3 creditors, it has been tough, but well worth the fight.

I did not use and of the idea's in the this thread and I was able to win.

The only defense I used was the securitization topic

Details, please. Can you site the court cases that document your win?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Even though I received my goods and even though the bank paid the merchants on my behalf, broad money supply doesn't really exist; therefore,

I agree with Prosay. The only reason the banks won't reply to his letter is because if they did, then their secret would be out of the bag."

Credit cards are, in fact, unlawful!! Quotes from Bigwoodystyl

In my experience, which may parallel with Prosay's experience, I have never seen a Bank present authenticated proof and file it in the record in a credit card debt lawsuit, that they ever "paid the merchants" on my behalf. I have also never in all my research of court filings, found where a Bank presented the account general ledger in regards to a credit card debt lawsuit. There is a reason for that which may be the answer to your tongue in cheek, "if they did, then their secret would be out of the bag."

Edited by voidjudgment
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Even though I received my goods and even though the bank paid the merchants on my behalf, broad money supply doesn't really exist; therefore,

I agree with Prosay. The only reason the banks won't reply to his letter is because if they did, then their secret would be out of the bag."

Credit cards are, in fact, unlawful!! Quotes from Bigwoodystyl

In my experience, which may parallel with Prosay's experience, I have never seen a Bank present authenticated proof and file it in the record in a credit card debt lawsuit, that they ever "paid the merchants" on my behalf. I have also never in all my research of court filings, found where a Bank presented the account general ledger in regards to a credit card debt lawsuit. There is a reason for that which may be the answer to your tongue in cheek, "if they did, then their secret would be out of the bag."

I'm just curious...have you ever used that argument in court?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.