It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Lawyer, Refuses To Pay Bank Of America Credit Card, Threatens To Sue

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Here is some background:

"Less than half of all U.S. states bother to cap credit card interest rates, and few credit card issuers are based in these states anyway.

Most major credit card issuers are based in states without usury laws and without interest rate caps on credit cards. Banks and credit card issuers based in these states can charge any interest rate they wish -- as long as the rate is listed in the cardholder agreement and the borrower agrees."

"In Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed in their home state to customers living anywhere in the United States, including states with restrictive interest caps.

"It's whatever is agreed to in the contract," says Michael Donovan, a consumer attorney and partner at Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.

"They can export rates to other states and override state law limits."

When it comes to credit card interest rates, the law in a lender's home state rules. It doesn't matter what kind of rate cap exists in a customer's state."

www.bankrate.com...




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Or, in other words, the credit card companies aren't stupid. The contract is written under the laws of the state where the lender resides, not where the borrower resides.

Regardless of the rate of interest, how does that justify credit card fraud?

Must be nice to buy all kinds of stuff and never pay!



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MOFreemason
 


TRANSPARENCEY



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by coop039
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


You are dead on. Funny how the "no pay" crowd is not responding anymore.


That's because the thread has to be found again and we have little time on breaks at work. You both are morons and do not understand economic policies or CONTRACT LAW.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by daddio]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Bingo!!! I can not agree anymore with you, first of all banks are not losing anything, because that is why they got bailed out for the loses on their corrupted dealings.

They are now protected by the same people they are gouging.

Bank of America is a bank that you should not be banking with, even before the crisis I knew about the path of BOA to monopoly even when I didn't understood then how they were going to do it.

Yes they pay out their TARP no because they wanted but because their big greedy CEOs wanted to keep going with the same shameful practices that cause the economic downfall and profit from it.

They pay back because they know they can get more money anytime their business in trouble while keeping the high end living standards even with government caps on CEO salaries.

Bank liquidity is a hoax a scam played at the expenses of tax payer money.

What a joke.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   


You both are morons and do not understand economic policies or CONTRACT LAW.


Wow, tough guy. Big words.

Economic policies? Which ones? What "economic policy" is it exactly that you take issue with when someone stiffs a creditor?

So you are in favor of borrowers committing credit card fraud by not paying for goods and services? Brilliant.

You must be a economics professor, right?

That sounds like a sound economic policy: Everything is free. No one has to pay anything. Contracts? Who needs contracts? Throw out all the contracts. Everyone is free to stiff as many creditors as they please.

Explain to me why Bank of America doesn't have the right to hike up the interest rate on a borrower showing warning signs of default. Explain it legally. Explain it morally. And explain it in terms of the contract that the borrower agreed to when he signed up for the credit card in the first place.

The borrower is servant to the lender, pal. Get a clue. The lender sets the terms, the rate, and the repayment schedule. Not the borrower. Don't like it? Don't borrow. Plenty of people live debt-free lifestyles if they choose to do so. Too tough for you? Grow up.

How is that any different from an auto finance company that charges a higher rate of interest to a sub-prime borrower? Higher risk, higher rate.

Why should a high risk borrower with NO COLLATERAL whatsoever, showing warning signs of default, receive a prime interest rate?

And PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME why I, a borrower that keeps a clean credit history, should have to pay for this attorney's credit card FRAUD in the form of higher fees and rates?


[edit on 6-1-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   


They pay back because they know they can get more money anytime their business in trouble while keeping the high end living standards even with government caps on CEO salaries.

They signed up for TARP funds at the threat of Paulson et al. Many of the CEO's didn't want the TARP funds. That's why they paid the money back.

These CEO's don't want the government dictating salaries, and interfering with their operations.

And no, they cannot and do not rely on the federal government as a backstop against their losses.

Just ask Lehman Brothers. Or Bear Stearns.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Okay, apology for the name calling, was in a hurry and people like you really do upset me as you do not understand the whole system. Creditors is your biggest problem, THERE SHOULD BE NO CREDITORS, that is the scam. These creditors should all be taken out and hung by the neck.

Credit cards were the WORST idea in history, PERIOD. If you don't have the means to buy something, go without. That's they way it should be, then WHO gets stiffed? NO ONE.

The crime these credit card companies are committing is FRAUD, there is no Full Disclosure, YOU are not getting anything from the transaction of the contract, and YOU are creating MORE public DEBT by using these cards.

What don't you get here? It's all scam. And an "accounts recieved" is NOT A TANGIBLE ASSET!!!! It's merely entries in a ledger. BOOKKEEPING!!

That is racketeering and is a federal crime, DUH!!!!

If you were to read the link I posted you may understand it eventually, but until then, PLEASE refrain from supporting criminals!!!!

The guy in the OP's post is doing the right thing. The government has committed the crime of identity theft when you were born, research your "strawman" and you will see what I mean.

Dominion, do you have it?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
An Accounts Receivable is an accounting term utilized in commerce daily. It is universally accepted in the business world.

The concept is simple. A client - or borrower, in this case - owes money to a company (in this case, a bank). The bank marks this down in their books as an asset. When the money is fully collected, it no longer stays an Accounts Receivable, but instead, is now cold hard cash. Cash, too, is an asset.

This is all standard, basic accounting. Anyone familiar with basic accounting can feel free to verify or explain further. Virtually all businesses - aside from some cash businesses - have some form of Accounts Receivables.

Accounts Receivables - and accounting in general - are not a federal crimes. They are standard operating procedures for businesses large and small.

What is a federal crime - universally accepted I might add - is purchasing goods and services and not paying. That is a crime. And a serious one at that.

If this attorney had walked out of a restaurant without paying, I am quite certain he would be arrested. Essentially, by stiffing his credit card company, he has done just that. Only he is trying to legitimize his fraud by now blaming this debt on Bank of America. Bank of America didn't eat at Ruth Chris Steakhouse.

(I can hear it now. "Mr. Attorney, would you please provide us with a list of the actual goods and services that you actually purchased without paying for? Let's see.. You went to the strip club, the steak house for dinner, the ball game, and goodness knows what else. Oh, these are all legit "business expenses"? Oh, okay.")

The basic function of the credit card company is to facilitate the ease and convenience of a cash transaction. Fast, simple, and typically no interest if you pay the principal in full at month end.

Bank of America has fulfilled their obligation - They paid the restaurants, product vendors, etc. on the attorney's behalf, with the contractual agreement that the attorney would pay the debt back in a timely manner.

The attorney has now defaulted on his obligation to repay. He stiffed his creditor.

Worse yet, his deteriorating credit condition has forced Bank of America to increase his risk profile, and hence, increase his interest rate. Businesses - all businesses - expect higher rates of return on speculative, risky investments.

Obviously, this attorney has done something - we don't know what - to increase his risk profile and make the bank wary of lending money to this borrower.

Credit cards, like any other high interest debt vehicle, is a sketchy proposition for the borrower. Agreed. Too many borrowers get in over their heads.

It is also very, very risky for the bank, however, as they are taking a huge risk by extending cash with no collateral.

Most borrowers would be best advised to pay cash.

Somehow, however, our attorney friend strikes me as being pretty sophisticated. I view this news article as a cheapshot publicity stunt for a lawyer that wants attention. What better way to win more clients than making news with a national story like this?

Regardless, how you can defend a deadbeat slimy attorney that racked up a bunch of credit card debt and now whines about having to pay it back is beyond me.



The government has committed the crime of identity theft when you were born


Loopy.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I wonder if he can afford to hire himself.

Better yet...maybe he should run for office....plenty of lawyers in Washington....



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Those two financial houses you mention where prop to become the fall guys to be absorbed by the monopoly now controlling the banking and financial system, if you have not understood how the game was played then you have not research enough.

Somebody had to take the blame and fail so the monopoly could be established.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Agreed. However, what on earth does that have to do with this slimeball attorney skipping out on paying his credit card bills? Bank of America repaid TARP. But forget Bank of America. How about any creditor? How about Home Depot? Or Target? Or Wal-Mart? Should this attorney skip paying his credit card bill for purchases made at these stores, too? How can you defend this creep?

We are a nation of laws, and of contractual obligations. It's not perfect, but it's much, much better than rule by any other mechanism I can think of. This scumbucket attorney is playing you like a fiddle if you stand up for him and his outrageous claims. He's a dirtbag deadbeat!

If you defend this attorney, because of your animosity towards Bank of America, where does it end? What happens when your local small town credit union gets stiffed? Or your local restaurant? Or your local barber?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


No, we are a nation of laws written by corporate interest, passed by a paid out congress, like pimps and their whores to benefit only one sector of the nation while screwing the tax payer.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Well, I guess that's one perspective. So you would suggest that we just run up our credit card bills and stiff our creditors then, huh? How is that a great economic plan exactly?

Contracts, by the way, are voluntary. No one put a gun to this attorney's head and made him run up these credit card bills. He could just as surely paid cash, or not run up the expense at all. Millions of Americans pay with cash and not credit cards all the time.

So, every creditor is evil? Every corporation? If that's your world view, then I guess it's fine to stiff any business you deem fit, right? Somehow, that just doesn't seem ethical or even moral.

What moral philosophy is it exactly that advocates stiffing vendors for services provided?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

What moral philosophy is it exactly that advocates stiffing vendors for services provided?


Now a days "morals" are only enforced and expected to be applied by one sector only. . . just like the laws that only benefit those on the top.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Let me explain this as simple as I can, the guy in the OP is suing to keep his good name, not to get out of the "debt" which is a falacy anyway.

You see, when you are born, the Hospital creates a "birth certificate" which is a certificate of ownership. Who owns you? You think your parents, but that is not true. Your name in all capital letters (strawman) makes you a corporate entity, a corporation.

This certificate of live birth is then sent to the U.S. Government, which is a corporation too. They file it and send the file number to the U.S. Treasury Dept. Who then makes out a $1,000,000 Treasury bond in YOUR name, all caps. This bond is then traded to the Federal Reserve, which is a private Corporation, for $1,000,000 in "Federal Reserve Notes", this is how the currency gets into circulation, it is counterfeit, that is a fact.

The Federal Reserve then sells your bond on the international stock market, you are collateral for the national debt (since March 9 1933). Every time you sign anything, your signature is sold to print MORE fiat currency.

When you reclaim your strawman, it stops the sale of the bond as the flesh and blood you, took control of it. The bond is estimated to be worth many more millions, when you take control of it, you get the number for it, you then write off ALL your debt with it, your "bills" are signed "Accepted for value, discharged for settlement, account #__________. That is how it is being done. If you would just read the link I posted earlier you would understand this. (UCC-1)

Millions of people have done this and so the Federal Reserve has lost it's ability to print MORE fiat currency, so they had to come up with another way, and guess what..............BAIL-OUT!!!! Tell the public you need to bail out failing financial groups, which they own too, and you get the ability to print more counterfeit currency. It is that simple and I can not explain it much better than that. Must get back to work.......




[edit on 7-1-2010 by daddio]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Recent CNN HLN story on this topic:
CNN HLN

[edit on 7-1-2010 by MOFreemason]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   


This certificate of live birth is then sent to the U.S. Government, which is a corporation too. They file it and send the file number to the U.S. Treasury Dept. Who then makes out a $1,000,000 Treasury bond in YOUR name, all caps. This bond is then traded to the Federal Reserve, which is a private Corporation, for $1,000,000 in "Federal Reserve Notes", this is how the currency gets into circulation, it is counterfeit, that is a fact.

Bizarre. I won't even venture to comment.

Regardless of this "straw man theory", what does that have to do with the inherent fraud of purchasing goods or services and then stiffing the seller out of payment?

I don't care if the form of money utilized is gold, Federal Reserve notes, Euros, British pounds, clam shells, or whiskey. The form of money doesn't matter. In the United States, money used for payment for goods and services is in the form of dollar bills.

The fact remains - This attorney is defrauding his creditors, and advocating this fraud to others.

Stiffing your creditors is fraud. Just like walking out of a bar and not paying your tab is fraud. Same thing.

This attorney is a crook, and he's not telling the whole story - which is that he has some serious personal credit issues of some kind that triggered the higher interest rate on his credit cards. It could be completely unrelated to his credit card pay history - His risk profile could have been upped based on tax liens, judgments, late pay on other debts, increased debt levels, etc. Any of these could trigger warning signs.



the guy in the OP is suing to keep his good name, not to get out of the "debt" which is a falacy anyway.

Baloney. The attorney incurred debt that he has since never repaid.

If he ate a steak dinner at a fancy restaurant and used his credit card for payment, then he most certainly has incurred a debt. He received value - a free meal - and never exchanged value for that meal. He ripped off the bank that paid the merchant, and now this crook has the audacity to blame the bank!

I hope Bank of America makes a public example out of this crook and countersues him for fraud and defamation. He makes me want to vomit for his disgusting arrogance.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   


Now a days "morals" are only enforced and expected to be applied by one sector only. . . just like the laws that only benefit those on the top.


I can't think of any moral code - religious or secular - that advocates stiffing a creditor.

Our society couldn't function if everyone attempted to acquire goods and services without paying for them.

In fact, the bank is on the higher moral ground in this case. They fulfilled their end of the bargain - they provided the credit to the attorney for the purchase of goods and services. They have a signed, written loan contract with the borrower. They fulfilled that contract.

They have good business sense, too, because they have already recognized that this attorney is in hot water financially, and is showing signs of deteriorating financial health. They took a risk - like most business owners do - and they are now trying to mitigate that risk and protect themselves.

They did what any good business owner does - They are trying to protect themselves against financial loss before the storm hits and this attorney files bankruptcy.

Morally, and from a business perspective, the bank is dead on correct on this matter. Too bad the attorney will generate a bunch of unwarranted publicity on the matter, defaming the bank's reputation.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
After just hearing our nations president speak about banks increasing credit to individuals and small businesses I was beginning to think the economy was improving. NOT!

Just received a letter yesterday that CITI is cutting my credit limit by 44.44 percent. My account is paid every month so I never carry a balance.

Apparently the credit card companies are required to carry insurance to cover potential losses from consumer defaults. The premium paid might be in direct proportion to the amount of credit exposure. Is it becoming more common for people to suddenly run their cards up to the limit and default?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join