Affadavit requirement in court

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

Fabrications of fact

Fabrications of fact are here again. Bill Bauer didn't advise anything of the sort.
Bill Bauer is beyond any shadow of a doubt way smarter than to have said anything like that. Normie is the victim of the old carrot and stick trick. Bill Bauer sticks a verbal carrot before the mule's nose and when the mule tries to grab it Bill Bauer hits him violently with the stick. Jackass normie falls for it every time.

What he fails to understand is that a knowledgeable debtor will never allow a motion for default judgment to go uncontested. He will file an answer to the court in a timely manner and he will also file a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff. In order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on his pleadings but must present some evidence on every material issue for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).


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. You got an awful long way to go to make any sense at all muttonhead.

Normie fails to understand again.

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

Dear Normie:

Yes, Normie they will be. You are so ignorant that you think that a judge cannot discuss a case with the general public that they may preside over is indeed ignorant because before I can find out who "Uncle Normie" really is I have to get an informational subpoena and in order to do that I have to prove to a judge that I have a probable cause case and before I can demand prosecution of a criminal I have to have evidence that a crime has been committed and present that to a prosecuting attorney before an investigation can be started. Ever hear of "probable cause" stupid?

Tuesday, January 11, 2005
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.

posted by Uncle Normie at 3:26 PM

Validation and contracts and FDCPA

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

Uncle Normie says a contract is validation

Tuesday, January 11, 2005
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.While poor befuddled Normie is correct in saying that FDCPA does not define what constitutes a debt,the FTC opinion letter known as the Wolman letter tells us a lot about what debt validation is not and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not what Normie claims.

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.Wrong again, Normie! A cause of action can be many things. Denial of due process of law can be another and that in and of itself has nothing at all to do with FDCPA. The law says that a debtor has the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof and the mere sending of a contract or copy thereof will not satisfy that right of the consumer to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. Clearly, this "Uncle Normie" is a person not educated in the ways of the law and seems to think that the mere publication of his words on a blog will make them fact. Nor hardly.

CREDITWRENCH stating that a collector sending a signed contract as validation is a FDCPA violation is false and misleading. Sorry about that Normie, but why not let your audience decide that for themselves? Your ideas will definitely lead them badly astray.

posted by Uncle Normie at 4:47 AM

Failure to understand application of fact to law.

This blog is dedicated to exposing the lies about creditwrench promoted by a debt collector's blog who calls himself "CREDITWRENCHSCAM" and is also known as "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "Uncle Normie" and any other false screen name he can think of.

Ole Normie misses the boat yet once again and makes yet another false accusation against me.

In his latest bfog article he says that it is not a violation to present only a signed contract as validation of the debt. His ignorance is incredible indeed. It is a violation for the simple reason that FDCPA states that it is a violation of the law to present any false or misleading information. There are also many other ways in which the presentation of only a signed contract is a violation. He is obviously now reduced to picking nits and grasping straws. In the process he also starts giving legal opinions on his own thereby quite possibly introducing the unauthorized practice of law issue to his blog.




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.