CREDITWRENCH and RICO
Creditwrench
Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 237
I have quite a lot more. I too am interested in this subject but as I posted on creditnet a long time ago I personally think that the idea of filing Rico lawsuits on debt collectors is pure HOGWASH.
It is facil for the loons of the far right to read the part in RICO that discusses the collection of illegal debts and equate that to what debt collectors or their attorneys do.
An instance of that might be where an attorney filed a lawsuit against a debtor which was beyond the SOL and therefore an attempt to collect an illegal debt. Obviously then, both he and the entity on whose behalf the attorney brought the lawsuit have engaged in the illegal collection of debt and are therefore obviously guilty of a violation of the Rico act. All we have to do now is to find where that same attorney has filed other out of SOL lawsuits for that same firm and we now have them on a RICO charge and we can put the both of them out of business under civil RICO.
HOGWASH!
Why? Because in our rush to obtain justice we forgot at least one little detail which was to look in the definitions section of Rico to see what is defined as being "collection of an illegal debt"
If what the attorney and his plaintiff has done is not defined as an attempt to collect an illegal debt then no cause of action arises under Rico. In short, the term "illegal debt" is clearly defined in the definitions section of the law and such as I have described above most clearly does not fall under any definitions set forth in Rico.
Therefore, my personal opinion is that there are no normal actions that might be performed by a debt collector or his attorney that could logically give rise to a Rico action even though they might very well be actionable under other law(s)
In my unlearned opinion there is no way that a Rico action could properly arise from any debt collection activity.
I have a friend by the name of Richard Cornforth who is interested in filing Rico actions but I have not heard him talk about filing against any debt collectors nor have I seen any evidence that he recommends that. There are also others whom I am aware of who might be advocating such.
It has been claimed here on this forum that MOM (Militia of Montana) might be involved in such actions. I have known about MOM and their activities for many years but have not been following their activities for the last couple of years however a visit to their website reveals no evidence that they are advocating any such thing as Rico actions.
Same thing with the other groups mentioned in the other thread relating to debt collection. PVT INVESTIGATOR claims to have knowledge of 6 rico lawsuits that have been filed that he is tracking.
I would certainly appreciate some references that can be found on the internet to those lawsuits but quite frankly I fail to see at this point how they could be successful.
The thought that some nutcase(s) might indeed have filed such lawsuits is, of course, quite conceiveable but the mere filing of such does not equate to success by any stretch of the imagination.
Regardless of any outlandish claims to the contrary that may have been made here or elsewhere, I do not subscribe to any of the popular nutcase theories that abound on the internet such as those espoused by one John Gliha of Ocala, Florida or any of his cronies or copycats.
Those theories deal with such novels as "The Creature from Jekyl Island", Modern Money Mechanics or "The two faces of debt" and any such frivolous and foolish ideas that no money has actually been loaned therefore no debt is owed. It makes absolutely no difference if what was loaned was nothing more than Grady County Cornfed Buffalo chips of a certain height, weight, density and moisture content, if that is what was loaned or obtained through the use of credit then that is what must be repaid. How the creditor obtained his money, by fraud or otherwise, is not the concern or business of the debtor. It makes absolutely no difference if the creditor got his money by printing it in his back room, the fact remains that the debtor borrowed it and therefore owes the creditor what was loaned.
Strictly speaking, and from a moral standpoint only, even bankruptcy cannot wipe out the fact that the debt is owed even though bankruptcy may wipe out the creditor's legal right to collect.
Furthermore, in my unlearned opinion, FDCPA violations do not constitute a proper legal defense against a motion for judgment. I say that the fact that the debt collector might have gone so far as to have gone to the debtor's house and taken a baseball bat to the debtor's person does not have anything to do with whether or not the debtor owes the money although such an act would be highly illegal.
Even though an act violating the law would be separately actionable it would not (in my opinion) constitute a defense against a judgment. I say that is true because at the time of a hearing on motion for judgment the only question before the court is whether or not the debt is owed and whether or not the defendant is the proper target of the lawsuit or whether or not some identity theft might have occurred.
There are other considerations that are or might be raisable in defense but those get off into discussions which are well beyond the scope of what I am trying to discuss here.
Well, the Enormis Dingleberry has really done it up brown this time.
On his blog he claims that
The truth of what I have stated and maintained for well over 4 years now is here and I have stated the same thing here on this forum in just the last couple of days.
This kind of false and misleading statements here, on other message forums and on his blog should prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is a person of no moral character.
His writings while posing as ISO something-or-other pretty well prove that they are one and the same deranged person.
His presence here serves little more than to bring into public question the integrity and morals other members of this forum who might support his abominal actions if indeed any such members now exist.
Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 237
| Posted: January 27 2005 at 12:13pm | IP Logged |  |
It is facil for the loons of the far right to read the part in RICO that discusses the collection of illegal debts and equate that to what debt collectors or their attorneys do.
An instance of that might be where an attorney filed a lawsuit against a debtor which was beyond the SOL and therefore an attempt to collect an illegal debt. Obviously then, both he and the entity on whose behalf the attorney brought the lawsuit have engaged in the illegal collection of debt and are therefore obviously guilty of a violation of the Rico act. All we have to do now is to find where that same attorney has filed other out of SOL lawsuits for that same firm and we now have them on a RICO charge and we can put the both of them out of business under civil RICO.
HOGWASH!
Why? Because in our rush to obtain justice we forgot at least one little detail which was to look in the definitions section of Rico to see what is defined as being "collection of an illegal debt"
If what the attorney and his plaintiff has done is not defined as an attempt to collect an illegal debt then no cause of action arises under Rico. In short, the term "illegal debt" is clearly defined in the definitions section of the law and such as I have described above most clearly does not fall under any definitions set forth in Rico.
Therefore, my personal opinion is that there are no normal actions that might be performed by a debt collector or his attorney that could logically give rise to a Rico action even though they might very well be actionable under other law(s)
In my unlearned opinion there is no way that a Rico action could properly arise from any debt collection activity.
I have a friend by the name of Richard Cornforth who is interested in filing Rico actions but I have not heard him talk about filing against any debt collectors nor have I seen any evidence that he recommends that. There are also others whom I am aware of who might be advocating such.
It has been claimed here on this forum that MOM (Militia of Montana) might be involved in such actions. I have known about MOM and their activities for many years but have not been following their activities for the last couple of years however a visit to their website reveals no evidence that they are advocating any such thing as Rico actions.
Same thing with the other groups mentioned in the other thread relating to debt collection. PVT INVESTIGATOR claims to have knowledge of 6 rico lawsuits that have been filed that he is tracking.
I would certainly appreciate some references that can be found on the internet to those lawsuits but quite frankly I fail to see at this point how they could be successful.
The thought that some nutcase(s) might indeed have filed such lawsuits is, of course, quite conceiveable but the mere filing of such does not equate to success by any stretch of the imagination.
Regardless of any outlandish claims to the contrary that may have been made here or elsewhere, I do not subscribe to any of the popular nutcase theories that abound on the internet such as those espoused by one John Gliha of Ocala, Florida or any of his cronies or copycats.
Those theories deal with such novels as "The Creature from Jekyl Island", Modern Money Mechanics or "The two faces of debt" and any such frivolous and foolish ideas that no money has actually been loaned therefore no debt is owed. It makes absolutely no difference if what was loaned was nothing more than Grady County Cornfed Buffalo chips of a certain height, weight, density and moisture content, if that is what was loaned or obtained through the use of credit then that is what must be repaid. How the creditor obtained his money, by fraud or otherwise, is not the concern or business of the debtor. It makes absolutely no difference if the creditor got his money by printing it in his back room, the fact remains that the debtor borrowed it and therefore owes the creditor what was loaned.
Strictly speaking, and from a moral standpoint only, even bankruptcy cannot wipe out the fact that the debt is owed even though bankruptcy may wipe out the creditor's legal right to collect.
Furthermore, in my unlearned opinion, FDCPA violations do not constitute a proper legal defense against a motion for judgment. I say that the fact that the debt collector might have gone so far as to have gone to the debtor's house and taken a baseball bat to the debtor's person does not have anything to do with whether or not the debtor owes the money although such an act would be highly illegal.
Even though an act violating the law would be separately actionable it would not (in my opinion) constitute a defense against a judgment. I say that is true because at the time of a hearing on motion for judgment the only question before the court is whether or not the debt is owed and whether or not the defendant is the proper target of the lawsuit or whether or not some identity theft might have occurred.
There are other considerations that are or might be raisable in defense but those get off into discussions which are well beyond the scope of what I am trying to discuss here.
Well, the Enormis Dingleberry has really done it up brown this time.
On his blog he claims that
"In a discussion with a collector on debt collection practices, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer made the following statement in response to the collectors refusal to honor a validation request:
"you might both be charged with violation of civil Rico."
The truth of what I have stated and maintained for well over 4 years now is here and I have stated the same thing here on this forum in just the last couple of days.
This kind of false and misleading statements here, on other message forums and on his blog should prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is a person of no moral character.
His writings while posing as ISO something-or-other pretty well prove that they are one and the same deranged person.
His presence here serves little more than to bring into public question the integrity and morals other members of this forum who might support his abominal actions if indeed any such members now exist.
posted by Creditwrench @ 11:28 PM
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
