Add this site to your start page

CREDITWRENCH-TheTruth

This blog is dedicated to illustrating the depths of depravity to debt collectors and their cronies who infest various message boards spewing their spam, insults and filth can and do sink. They will stop at nothing to berate others while trying to elevate their own perceived worth.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

The truth shall set ye free

Binding arbitration and the constitution



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.

The Truth shall set ye free and here is the real truth of the matter, not the false and misleading information that Normie would like you to believe.

Thus, not only may a defendant or a witness in a criminal trial, including a juvenile proceeding, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 42 -57 (1967), claim the privilege but so may a party or a witness in a civil court proceeding, McCarthy v. Arndstein.


Uncle Normie is nothing but a bullshit artist, a con man and a scumbag.

Now he is back to stealing works of art from another website and the other website is
sending him messages telling him he is not supposed to be linking to the graphics on that website. Does he care? Hell no. The criminal is doing it anyway and falsely claiming that I am plagerizing. Who would take the word of a common criminal?