Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Dangerous advice from Creditwrench

In a discussion today with a consumer who is being sued for a debt in Ohio, Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer provided some more very dangerous advice.

The debtor is being sued for a credit card debt. Her only assets are a van and a bank account in both her and her husbands name.

What did Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer advise?
I would recommend that you have him take your name off the van.....take your name off the checking account too.

What Creditwrench recommends is known as a fraudulent conveyance. And, is specifically adressed by Ohio statute R.C. 1336.04(A) et seq.

You cannot transfer assets in an attempt to hide them from a creditor. Though this theory has been taught by the likes of Robert Paisola, John Ghila, and now Bill Bauer, it's illegal.

Quite easy to prove in the instant case too, since bank records and motor vehicle records would show the dates of transfer as subsequent to the date of the lawsuit being filed.

The creditor would find the transfer dates as soon as they completed a simple asset search.

Then, guess what? All of those previous assets of hers become subject to levy.

And, no Billie. They cannot touch the home that is in the name of her spouse for her obligation, even if her name were on the deed.....you fucking moron.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

More non-expert advice from Creditwrench

In response to a recent question by a consumer who is facing a garnishment order and is fearful of losing his job because of it, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer offered the following advice:

your employer cannot fire you because you have a garnishment. If they did that would be a violation of federal law....


As has been proven so many times before, Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer is entirely unfamiliar with consumer protection statutes, but nevertheless continues to provide dangerous advice based upon them.

The Federal Law which governs garnishment of wages is the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Under the Act, a consumer is protected from termination of employment for the garnishment of their wages for a single debt. See 15 U.S.C. 1674

If garnishment for more than one debt is involved, the law offers no protection from termination.

So in this case, if the consumer already has a garnishment order in place for another debt, and his employer receives a writ of garnishment for another debt, the employer can legally terminate their employment.

But, Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer failed to ask the simple question of whether or not the consumer was being garnished for another debt before advising him that:

your employer cannot fire you because you have a garnishment. If they did that would be a violation of federal law....


More false, misleading, and dangerous advice from Creditwrench CEO Billie Bauer.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

More false and misleading information from Creditwrench

Recently, in response to a question by a consumer who requested validation of an account and that account was subsequently sold to another agency, Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer offered the following advice:

"If you sent them your demand for validation within the first 30 days after youreceived it and they sold or transferred the debt to another agency then youshould sue them for violation of FDCPA."
Courts have deemed that the sale of an account is not a collection activity, it is the sale of an asset.

The courts have further ruled that an agency selling an account is not acting as a debt collector, and are not directly or indirectly attempting to collect a debt.

Simply more false, misleading, and dangerous information from Creditwrench CEO Bill Bauer.

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