Monday, January 31, 2005

CREDITWRENCH advice on the FDCPA

On his message board, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer, gives the following advice to a poster:

"1.) FDCPA states that after receipt of the debtor's demand for validation he may not contact the debtor again until such time as he has completed his validation and mailed it to the debtor with the sole exception that within 5 days he must do two things. He must notify the debtor that he has received the debtor's demand for validation and will not contact the debtor again for any reason until the validation is completed. 2.) He must within 5 days after receipt of the debtor's demand for vaildation notify the credit bureaus that the listing is disputed by the debtor."


Read the FDCPA. It outlines none of the requirements above as was advised the unwary poster.

All of the above statements by CREDITWRENCH are false and misleading.



CREDITWRENCH and RICO Part II

In his attempt to distance himself from his stated position that RICO violations are a viable cause of action against collection agencies, CREDITWRENCH CEO, Billie Bauer provides this link to support his standing that RICO charges are not a cause of action.
However, if you read the entire thread, there is nothing posted by the username of creditwrench.


Hoping that no one would actually read the thread in its entirety, and realize his registered username of creditwrench appears nowhere in the thread, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer once again posted false and misleading information.


More to expose

Now that conclusive evidence has been given regarding CREDITWRENCH'S lack of understanding of the FDCPA and other matters, I will next delve into advice he is currently giving on his new message board. For the next day or two I will leisurely browse around it, save some posts, then give some insight into the inaccuracies being posted there.

Stick around for Uncle Normies next round.


Sunday, January 30, 2005

CREDITWRENCH and estoppel Part III

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer now admits to, not only using an estoppel approach in an attempt to "trick" collection agencies, but, to use his words, it's nothing but "mumbo jumbo".


If you're thinking about using CREDITWRENCH, the "trick" next time could very well be on you. Once a collection agency receives the estoppel letter, their attorney will immediately realize that you have no idea what you are doing, and could very well simply decide to take you to court. Leaving you to stand in front of a judge with nothing in your hand but CREDITWRENCH'S "mumbo jumbo".


As a side note, under the Enormous pressure being brought to bear on CREDITWRENCH, CEO Bill Bauer today further admitted that, as he learned from my blog, nothing requires a collection agency to respond to a validation request. However, he continues to sell his services under the guise that you can sue them if they don't respond. Perhaps you'd like to file suit and stand in front of judge with that piece of "mumbo jumbo" too.


CREDITWRENCH and estoppel Part II

Today CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer vehemently denied my accusation that he advocates use of the doctrine of estoppel when dealing with collectors. In fact, his exact statement posted on PCMHoldings.com was:

"The so-called estoppel letter I use is nothing more than a reminder that in the debtor's opinion it is time to get busy and do something or get off the porcelain. It actually has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of estopple."


It just so happens I am in possession of this letter that, on one hand he denies, on the other hand he claims copyright to. Here is an excerpt from this supposed "non-existant" estoppel letter, allegedly authored and copyrighted by CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer:

"In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel doctrine of law.
Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it. In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice."


CREDITWRENCH claiming he doesn't advocate the use of estoppel doctrine in dealing with collection agencies is false and misleading.

As a matter of law, estoppel can not be applied when a collection agency fails, or refuses to validate, as they are under no obligation to do so.


CREDITWRENCH and estoppel

Students of CREDITWRENCH are taught that according to the FDCPA, a collection agency has 30 days to respond to a request for debt validation. And, if the collection agency fails to validate within the required 30 day timeline, the to move on to estoppel.

CREDITWRENCH is wrong on both the FDCPA's wording, and a matter of law.
  1. There is no requirement in the FDCPA that a collection agency respond to a validation request in 30 days.
  2. Estoppel has no basis in law for a collection agency's failure to provide validation, as there was no requirement that they do so in the first place.

All of CREDITWRENCH's teaching on the above are false and misleading.



New web site

I have decided to expand my efforts and register a domain name dedicated to the purpose of spreading the truth. To that end, I am soliciting suggestions for the new domain name.

A friend of mine who does web design for a living has agreed to donate her time to do all of the initial set up, arrange for hosting, and all that other stuff to get it up and running.

You can email your domain name suggestions to me at unclenormie@oklahomacity.usa.com


America's FDCPA expert

Contrary to his self-indulgent titleing, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer contintues to misquote the FDCPA. Another example is his statment:

"FDCPA states that violations of FDCPA are not viable or legal defenses"


Here is the entire text of the FDCPA. Nowhere does it state that violations are not viable or legal defenses.

CREDITWRENCH opines on collection agencies

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer's stated position on collection agencies is:


"every collection agency we can put out of business is a definite help to our economy"

Now while Bill Bauer may hate collection agencies and want to see them all out of business, his statement that it would help the economy defies basic economic principles.

Lenders would recover less on their loans making less money available to lend. Supply and demand dictates they would have to charge more for the money that is lent. Additionally, the full write off rather than a partial recovery means their operating costs would increase. Again, inflating the cost of loans.

CREDITWRENCH stating that putting collection agencies out of business would help our economy is false and misleading.


Collection of a time-barred debt


In advice to a debtor who was being contacted by a collection agency on a debt outside the statute of limitations, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer stated:

"First of all they are breaking the law in even attempting to collect a debt that is outside the Statute of limitations."



While being time-barred can be both an affirmative and absolute defense should a lawsuit be filed on the debt, it is not against the law for a collection agency to continue collection efforts.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

CREDITWRENCH vs. debt buyers

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer has advised debtors:

"Only an original creditor has standing to sue in court. A person or company having bought the debt has placed himself in harm's way and has no standing to bring suit."


Once again CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer has made a grevious error on a matter of law, to this poor debtors detriment.

The fact is, an assignment of rights on a contract binds the obligated party to the new assign, and the assign has legal standing to bring suit to force the obligated party to perform to the terms of the contract.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a debt buyer has no standing to bring suit on a debt is false and misleading.


More bad advice on RICO

Advice by CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer to a debtor being pursued by a law firm was:
"charge all your bill collectors and creditors with violation of the Rico Act."

Since he admittedly doesn't know much about RICO to begin with, why would he advise someone being pursued by a law firm to file civil RICO charges against them?

Simple collection procedures by a law firm hardly qualify as racketeering, and someone following his advice could find themselves being guilty of filing a frivilous lawsuit.

Credit card debt

In a conversation with a debt collector, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer stated:

"I seriously doubt that any state's SOL on a credit card debt is 7 years".


And, what does he list as his reference source for such a false and misleading statement? Creditnet and artofcredit!


In reality, there are numerous states who's SOL on credit cards extends beyond 7 years. The source for such information is best obtained from the individual states statutes themselves, not an online discussion board.

It seems that someone who lists his occupation as "Credit Repair" would familiarize himself with how to look up state statutes.

Friday, January 28, 2005

CREDITWRENCH and RICO

In a discussion with a collector on debt collection practices, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer made the following statement in response to the collectors refusal to honor a validation request:

"you might both be charged with violation of civil Rico."


To suggest a collectors refusal to validate a debt in any way violates RICO statutes is absurd. There is nothing in the RICO statutes, or any case law to such support such a statment.


Creditwrench and credit repair

Creditwrench is nothing more than another credit repair service. Statements CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer may make to the contrary, he has extensively advertised his service as credit repair.

Why the contradiction? Most likely to keep himself out of hot water with the Oklahoma Attorney General. Because he does credit repair, CREDITWRENCH must comply with Federal Statute known as the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and based on his website, he clearly does not comply.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Exposed as a fraud and a liar

Apparently CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer is becoming increasingly concerned about being exposed as the fraud, liar, and con-man that he is. In addition to threatening Uncle Normie with frivilous lawsuits, he has publicly issued a death threat against me. If what he says has any validity, would his threating my life be necessary? Is that the methodology a reputable business person would employ? I'm sure you know the answer to that.

Today I discovered that CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer has deleted a number of internet posts that contained more of his misinformation that has been exposed by me. However, because I save all of the misinformation that CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer is becoming known for thanks to me, a link to the original information is being e-mailed to all of you who have been kind enough to email Uncle Normie.



Sunday, January 23, 2005

Alphabet soup

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer was kind enough today to provide further evidence that his prior statement indicating the GBLA defines credit bureaus or 3rd party collectors was false and misleading. According to the information provided to me by CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer, credit bureaus are defined by the Federal Reserve Boards regulation Y.

Third party debt collectors are clearly defined in the FDCPA.

By evidence he provided, CREDITWRENCH'S previous statement that the GLBA mandates that companies such as chexsystems are both credit bureaus and 3rd party collectors, was false and misleading.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer is apparently confused by various federal statutes. He has stated:

"The very first thing that one needs to understand is that all such companies as Chexsystems are both credit bureaus in their own right and are also 3rd party debt collectors.
This is mandated under the Gramm-leach-Blighley Act or GLBA"


Contrary to Mr. Bauers false statement, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act has absolutely nothing to do with defining what a credit bureau or a 3rd party collector is. The GLBA regulates disclosure of personal information.

CREDITWRENCH stating that the GLBA mandates that companies such as chexsystems are both credit bureaus and 3rd party collectors is false and misleading.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Destroying business records

In soliciting a student, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer made the following statement:

We will get your order to you the fastest way possible.
And no, we will not give out your personal information to ANYBODY FOR ANY
REASON.
In fact, once you get your CREDITWRENCH from us, if you will send
us an e-mail, let us know that you received it, we will destroy any and all
records of your purchase so that it can never be found by anyone".


Legitimate businesses do not destroy business records in this manner.




Sunday, January 16, 2005

Binding arbitration and the Constitution

CREDITWRENCH has advised on his website that in order to counter an acceptance of a contract to include binding arbitration, one should right a letter that includes, among other things, the following:

"Your statement that if I do not comply with your demands to either accept or reject you will consider that I accept and that I will be forced to obey the terms of your supposed "Agreement" is totally illegal in that it violates my 5th Amendment right to remain silent on any matter".


CREDITWRENCH needs to read the US Constitution as this isn't his first mistake in his reference to it. Nowhere does the US Constituion state that one has a "right to remain silent on any matter."

The phrase "right to remain silent" is from a Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona et al, and deals with confession of a criminal act during police interrogation. Courts have been consistent in their rulings that the self-incrimination protection extended by the 5th amendment relates to criminal matters. It has nothing to do with contract law.


CREDITWRENCH stating that the US Constitution gives the right to remain silent on any matter is false and misleading.



What exactly does CREDITWRENCH teach?

In a recent discussion, CREDITWRENCH denied the fact that he "teaches" his "students" to file lawsuits against creditors.

However, to quote from previous statements by CREDITWRENCH:

"one of the things that I teach how to do, file your own lawsuits and win.".


Continuous inconsistent statements by CREDITWRENCH are misleading.


Friday, January 14, 2005

Wrenchmatics

CREDITWRENCH boasts that he is fluent in 8 different languages. However, when you add up all the languages he claims to be able to read and write, it comes to 9.

Seems that someone smart enough to be fluent in that many languages should be able to count up to 8.....or 9.

CREDITWRENCH claiming that he can read and write 8, or it is 9 languages, is false and misleading.

Statute of limitations

Regarding the statute of limitations on a debt, CREDITWRENCH has stated:
"Your credit card debt never expires. The statute of limitations expires which means that it is no longer possible to file a judgement against you on the debt".


Although the statute of limitations on a debt may have passed, it does not preclude a creditor from filing suit and obtaining a judgment against you. If you do not appear in court, they will obtain a default judgment against you. Even if you do appear in court, you must raise the defense of the debt being time barred, otherwise they can also obtain a judgment against you.

CREDITWRENCH stating that it is not possible to obtain a judgment on a debt that is past the statute of limitations is false and misleading.


Thursday, January 13, 2005

CREDITWRENCH claims to speak 8 languages

Recently I presented CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer with a very common phrase in one of the languages the he claims to fluently speak, read, and write. Not only could he not translate the common phrase, he couldn't determine what language it was.

CREDITWRENCH claiming that he can read, write, and speak 8 different languages is false and misleading. Actually, it's very simply a big fucking lie.

What does the 30 day validation period mean?

Bill Bauer CEO of CREDITWRENCH has stated:

"What it means is that the collector may not proceed with collection during that 30 day period"

This is entirely inaccurate. The collection agency may proceed with collection activity, credit reporting, come to your house, they may even file a lawsuit against you during the 30 day validation period. Unless they have been notified by you during this period that you dispute the debt and request validation, they can continue with whatever collection activity they desire.

CREDITWRENCH stating that the collector may not proceed with collection during the 30 day validation period is false and misleading.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Vacating a judgment

CREDITWRENCH has stated that "a traffic court judge has the power and the authority to overturn the judgment of any court." ROFLMAO

A court must have subject matter jurisdiction on the case in which judgment was granted before it can ever consider a motion to vacate the judgment.

CREDITWRENCH blanketly stating that a traffic court judge has the authority to overturn the judgment of any court is false and misleading.

Judgment vacated with prejudice?

No such legal principle exists as vacating a judgment with prejudice. However, CREDITWRENCH has stated that it does.

When a judgment is vacated, the case is simply reopened. And, futher litigation is allowed to proceed. Just because a judgment is vacated, does not stop another judgment from being rendered in the same case, regardless of the reason the prior judgment was vacated.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a judgment can be vacated with prejudice is false and misleading.

Starting to see results

In a recent discussion with CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer, he said to me:
"...as soon as you bring up some point where you think I might have been wrong about something I will change it...Keep it up".


It's good to hear that he has such a high regard for what I think.


Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Affadavit requirement in court

Contrary to what CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer has advised, it is not necessary for a plantiff's attorney to provide an affidavit in court if the neither the plantiff or defendant appear. If the defendant has not filed an answer disputing the allegations in the matter, the court will deem the complaint as fact and issue a default judgment.

CREDITWRENCH stating that an affidavit is necessary to obtain a default judgment is false and misleading.

A special welcome

Just wanted to take a moment to welcome our new guests. CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer stated today that a prosecuting attorney and a "couple of judges" would be visiting my blog.

Now why would that be? Judges discussing a case with the general public, that they could potentially reside over, would subject them to charges of judicial misconduct.


Hello Mr. Prosecuting Attorney! Are you as incompetetent as Bill Bauer has indicated in the past?

CREDITWRENCH implying that a couple of judges would be visiting my blog on behalf of conversations he's had with them is false and misleading.

And I didn't post here

Does a collector violate the FDCPA when they send validation?

Of course not. However CREDITWRENCH has stated:

If the debtor demands validation of the debt and receives only a copy of the contract he signed then the 3rd party collector has violated FDCPA.



The FDCPA does not define what constitues a valid debt, and for good reason. A valid debt is a question for a trier of fact to determine, and it relates to state law, not the FDCPA.

The sole purpose of the FDCPA is to control the behavior of a collection agency, not to settle contracts.

What constitutes a valid debt in court would necessarily qualify as proper verification. An actionable violation under 15 USC 1692g can therefore only be determined if the court deems the signed contract to represent an invalid debt. A cause of action cannot occur from the mere offering of a signed contract as verification.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a collector sending a signed contract as validation is a FDCPA violation is false and misleading.


Monday, January 10, 2005

CREDITWRENCH and credit repair

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer posted yesterday this comment:

"...because of my own miserable failures at trying to fix my credit through credit repair letters I just gave it up...."


However, in postings to newsgroups, his signature line states:

The amazing Credit Wrench will eliminate all the adverse credit reports
on your credit bureau files. No gimmicks. no spamming techniques needed.


If he can't even fix his own credit problems, (and he's tried) how can he possibly fix anyone elses?

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Who should you trust?

This is always a difficult decision for most, but my advice, first and foremost, is always place your trust regarding matters of law to competent legal council.

The easier question you might first want to ask, is who should you not trust.

Today in an exchange with CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer, Mr. Bauer made the following assertion:

that the 14th Amendment provides free speech protection is... patently rediculous. There is nowhere in the Congressional intent of the 14th Amendment legislation that even mentions free speech.


Now I can't state for certain whether or not Mr. Bauer actually was in attendance while the 14th amendment was being drafted, but I'm relatively certain he wasn't. Either was I, so I won't speculate as to the writer's intent

I will, however, provide for you what the United States Supreme Court has stated:

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666; Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364. See, also, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319).


Who would you trust? Bill Bauer, or a Supreme Court Justice?

CREDITWRENCH stating that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with free speech protection is false and misleading.


Does the FDCPA require a collection agency to acknowledge a dispute?

Paraphrasing a post by CREDITWRENCH "a collection agency must, within 5 days of receipt of a consumers request for validation, send the consumer a notice that the collection agency received the validation request. Otherwise the collection agency is in violation of the law".

There is no such requirement in the FDCPA. As indicated in the post below, the collection agency has no obligation to respond to a verification request, nor is there anything in the FDCPA that mentions they must acknowlege its receipt.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a collection agency must send the consumer a notice acknowledging receipt of a verification request is false and misleading.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

When must a 3rd party collector respond to a request for validation

According to the CREDITWRENCH web site, under the FDCPA they must respond in a reasonable amount of time. The site goes on to further say that the courts have held that this reasonable amount of time is 30 days, and that if they don't do so they are in violation of the law.

Recently I asked CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer to cite where the FDCPA required validation from a debt collector in a "reasonable amount of time". And, to cite one court case that upheld this.

He couldn't.

The reason he couldn't is that there is no such requirement in the FDCPA, nor is there any supporting case law.

Quoting relevent statute 15 USC 1692g(b):
"If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing.....that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed......the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt ." (Full text
here)

The FDCPA does not impose a requirement that a 3rd party collector ever respond to a request for verification. The only thing the FDCPA requires is that they cease collection activity until they do provide it if it was requested of them.

They can supply the verification in a week, a month, 20 years, or never. They just have to stop collection efforts until such time as they do provide it.

The CREDITWRENCH statement that they must provide validation in a reasonable amount of time is false and misleading.

In what states are original creditors subject to the FDCPA?

The answer to that is none of them. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), is a federal law and its writers exempted original creditors from its regulation.

So what about states that have their own version of the FDCPA?

Many do. However, federal law is the supreme law of the land and trumps state law whenever there is a conflict. This is clearly spelled out in the the supremecy clause of the constitution (Article VI).

That does not, however, preclude a state from creating laws that supplement, or afford greater protection to the public in its own constitution or statutes. The constitutional term for this is "concurrent powers".

States that have enacted consumer protection laws similar to the FDCPA have excersised their concurrent powers, however they cannot conflict with federal law. If you read the consumer protection laws of any of the 50 states (including the 23 advertised on CREDITWRENCH), none of them apply the FDCPA to original creditors. Though some will apply certain collection procedures to original creditors, absolutely none of them apply the entire FDCPA

As an example, Wisconsin is one of the states listed by CREDITWRENCH as applying the FDCPA to original creditors. I chose Wisconsin because its debt collection laws are fairly straight forward and brief. I will reference it here, and ask that you read it in its entirety. I defy you to find anywhere in Wisconsin statute that indicates the FDCPA applies to original creditors.

Edit :01/09/2004 -- I've just discovered that on Mar 28, 2003 Bill Bauer gave the following advice to a person I shall not name on here. "Citifinancial is an original creditor and are not subject to FDCPA unless one happens to live in one of the more than 20 states whose consumer protection laws bind them to FDCPA

Further proof that CREDITWRENCH supports the idea of original creditors being bound by the FDCPA in 23 states.

CREDITWRENCH indicating that 23 states apply the FDCPA to original creditors is false and misleading information.


Original Creditors and the FDCPA

The CREDITWRENCH website makes a statement that in 23 states the FDCPA applies to original creditors as well as 3rd party collectors (collection agencies). When recently asked to supply the basis for this statement, CREDITWRENCH CEO Billie Bauer was unable to do so.

Why?

Because it is a false and misleading statement.

Stay tuned for my next post when I will explain why.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?