Normie sets the pace for hypocrisy

once again.

CREDITWRENCH never supports his claims
CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer makes a lot of claims, but never seems to be able to support them.

On his blog he brays about anything and everything but supports his claims with nothing at all. No valid links, nothing. Now he has run out of steam so he starts going back over the same old brayings all over again, never mind that he lost another pool on the pcmholdings forum this morning. Be that as it may, a poster revealed much truth about Normie and his incessant brayings today. Here are some of them.

Poll Question: Who is victorious in this, the first bout of what would be MANY
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
E Normis	0	[0.00%]
Wrench	2	[100.00%]
Neither	0	[0.00%]
You have already voted in this poll

Author

Message

<<> |

Hydraulis
Expert Member

Joined: October 14 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 661

Posted: February 28 2005 at 6:12pm \| IP Logged

On July 10th, E. Normis Debtor wrote:

If a creditor had me served at my POE after my telling them they were not to contact me there, I would include that violation in my countersuit. A summons is considered communication from a debt collector by the courts in my state. In fact, the mini miranda is pre-printed on the court supplied small claims filing form.

On July 10th Creditwrench wrote:

All I have to say is that yes, courts do seem to be getting a bit stickier on the point of compliance with FDCPA in legal proceedings in some states. However I've never heard of any jurisdiction that ever ruled that a process server or sheriff serving legal papers of any kind at a place of employment would be considered as a violation of any law.

Maybe I'm just behind on information on that point however

On July 12th 2004, E. Normis Debtor wrote:

I've filed suit on matters with even less merit than this and received out of court settlements. You collect your way, I collect mine.

On July 12th Creditwrench wrote:

Additionally, FDCPA specifically states that a violation is not a legitimate defense to a motion for summary judgment.

E. Normis Debtor wrote:

Wrench, you really have some problems understanding basic legal procedures. A countersuit isn't a defence, it's a separate cause of action. And you're also wrong again on what the FDCPA states.

[Quote=Creditwrench] Additionally, FDCPA specifically states that a violation is not a legitimate defense to a motion for summary judgment.[/quote]

[Quote=E. Normis Debtor]

Filing a countersuit suit is a long way from winning a suit. One of the things it does, however, is allow you to bury their attorney in paperwork and run up their costs, making an out of court settlement more likely. The state I live in limits attorney fees to 15% of the underlying debt that they are suing for. So if they file suit on a $2000 debt and prevail, the most they can get for attorney fees is $300. They'll eat up more than the original debt in attorney fees just answering discovery motions.
[/quote]

Creditwrench wrote:

Most states are that nice to their debtors. The general rule of thumb is that attorney fees should not run more than 1/3 of the claimed indebtedness and the courts usually like to see them coming in at more like 20 to 25 percent as a maximum.

This official poll was created using information available at CI.com and the order of the candidates was selected randomly.

Votes are limited to one vote per account, so +/- 3% tolerance for error due to Newbie.

Edited by Hydraulis on February 28 2005 at 6:39pm

__________________
It's just inherent in a collectors character to break laws, then turn around and harp on their victims morality. - E Normis Debtor

Author

Message

Hydraulis
Expert Member

Joined: October 14 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 661

Posted: February 28 2005 at 5:32pm \| IP Logged

Birth of a Dr Tax Wannabe. Dispensing valuable information. Definately and ally to the industry.

Heres a few memories from my scrapbook.

On July 12th 2004, E. Normis Debtor wrote:

Filing a countersuit suit is a long way from winning a suit. One of the things it does, however, is allow you to bury their attorney in paperwork and run up their costs, making an out of court settlement more likely. The state I live in limits attorney fees to 15% of the underlying debt that they are suing for. So if they file suit on a $2000 debt and prevail, the most they can get for attorney fees is $300. They'll eat up more than the original debt in attorney fees just answering discovery motions.

Edited by Hydraulis on February 28 2005 at 6:28pm

__________________
It's just inherent in a collectors character to break laws, then turn around and harp on their victims morality. - E Normis Debtor

Hydraulis
Expert Member

Joined: October 14 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 661

Posted: February 28 2005 at 5:37pm \| IP Logged

Stiffler wrote:

You are desperate. If thats the basis for your countersuit then I feel sorry for you. When you're filing a countersuit, don't you ever think that this has gone too far?

E Normis wrote:

Not really. I've filed suit on matters with even less merit than this and received out of court settlements. You collect your way, I collect mine.

Edited by Hydraulis on February 28 2005 at 6:00pm

__________________
It's just inherent in a collectors character to break laws, then turn around and harp on their victims morality. - E Normis Debtor

Hydraulis
Expert Member

Joined: October 14 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 661

Posted: March 01 2005 at 12:48am \| IP Logged

Dabster wrote:

Bill. I totally agree that Norm has been a valuable contributor and should not leave - whether forced or not.

I know, that time he threatened my dad and mom in that email disguised as Dr Tax and then couldn't resist revealing the information on here... that was truly one for the scrap book.

And, lets not forget this quote from Uncle Normie on Wednesday 07/21/04 8:50 AM. God I love such little nuggets of information.

E. Normis wrote:

Guess it's just inherent in a collectors character to break laws, then turn around and harp on their victims morality.

We can see from this that Normie attacks anyone, even the hands that feed him.