CREDITWRENCH and estoppel Part III

Now comes the Enormis Dingleberry

and resorts to the same old game that all really professional con artist resort, if you can con them with "logic" then use the old fear factor. They do that believing that people are so gullible that they will fall for anything if you hit them with fear. So just watch this con artist going for the jugular with the fear factor. Absolutely hilarious.

What he describes below is exactly what happens to people who go to all the crap message boards he inhabits. They go there looking for help. They get told by the resident gooroos that what they need to do is to fire off a validation letter and things will be just fine. So they wait a month or so and start asking what they should do next. So they are often told to send a second validation demand or sometimes they are told to send off the foolish Gliha validation letter. In the meantime they are told they just need to dispute with the credit bureaus until it all goes away. So they go through all that mess and end up in exactly the situation described by this Enormis con artist.

If that isn't so then why is it that message boards that have been around a while all have huge numbers of people who are supposed to have signed up to be members and only a very few ever post? That's because all the rest of them have long since realized that they are getting nowhere and end up in front of a judge with nothing but a funny
look on their face. Most won't even go because they know in their own minds that they can't win anyway.

This dude wants to be a gooroo and he knows he can't get the job done as long as I am around exposing him for the con artist and criminal he is.

He wants you to believe him so he can sell you his brand of crap. He is a loser from the git-go and is now reduced to reliance on the old fear factor. If you want to find out the truth just go to my message board and ask my students. I don't teach credit repair and I don't teach anything but the law and the way I teach the law is to teach you how to go look it up for yourself and understand it for yourself.

There are resident attorneys on my board who are nationally known for beating up on debt collectors and they will gladly answer any questions you might have.

Don't listen to the enormis bullshit put out by Enormis the criminal con artist. It will only lead you to grief. Don't listen to the gooroos on other message boards. Learn how to study the law for yourself and how to use law libraries and other reference material so that you can either defend yourself in court and win or go to a n attorney and after a few minutes know for yourself whether he has enough knowledge about the FDCPA or the FCRA to be able to defend you.

Most attorneys don't know FDCPA for the simple reason that they specialize in other areas of the law which are more profitable to them.


CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer now admits to, not only using an estoppel approach in an attempt to "trick" collection agencies, but, to use his words, it's nothing but "mumbo jumbo".

If you're thinking about using CREDITWRENCH, the "trick" next time could very well be on you. Once a collection agency receives the estoppel letter, their attorney will immediately realize that you have no idea what you are doing, and could very well simply decide to take you to court. Leaving you to stand in front of a judge with nothing in your hand but CREDITWRENCH'S "mumbo jumbo".

As a side note, under the Enormous pressure being brought to bear on CREDITWRENCH, CEO Bill Bauer today further admitted that, as he learned from my blog, nothing requires a collection agency to respond to a validation request. However, he continues to sell his services under the guise that you can sue them if they don't respond. Perhaps you'd like to file suit and stand in front of judge with that piece of "mumbo jumbo" too.

I'll be back later with more as I'm sure this enormis criminal will be too. He is too stupid to know when he is beat so he just keeps on braying away. Don't pay attention to the braying fool. Learn the truth for yourself.

The bottom line is that criminals, liars, cheats, thieves and con artists hide behind fake screen names, proxy servers and other schemes and artifices and will not tell you who they are. They will not post their contact information plainly so that they can be contacted. All honest and reliable companies on the internet or on the streets give you their full contact information and do not attempt to hide from anyone. If they will not give you their contact information they are obviously trying to hide something and are likely to give false information or lead you into schemes and traps designed to bilk you out of your money. Their words have no guarantee behind them and they will not back up anything they have to say with anything but more of the same. If they will not give you any contact information they are to be feared and distrusted. That is just common sense on or off the internet.

Creditwrench
405-616-7901
Call any time and you will get honest and truthful answers to your questions, not innuendoes, and slams.

If the enormis braying jackass is an honest and reputable person then let him prove it by putting up honest and correct contact information. If he won't do that then nothing he says should be considered reliable. That's just plain common sense.

Creditwrench and estoppel Part II

Creditwrench
Senior Member



Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 248

Posted: January 30 2005 at 9:56pm | IP Logged

In his criminal act of posting copyrighted material he posted this part of the letter. Please be advised that my posting of it here does not authorize the posting of it in any other message by any other party. I do not relinquish any copyrights in posting this portion.

In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice."

Now then, my argument against the usage of the estoppel theory is explained above. In order to make estoppel operable, the debt collector must (1)make some statement or engage in some conduct(2) upon which the debtor relies(3) and acts upon which later proves to be to his detriment or prejudice.

So the debtor demands validation and receives no reply whatever from the debt collector. Any debt collector with a brain in his/her cranial cavity would immediately start asking themselves what exactly was it that they did or said that would trigger the Doctrine of Estoppel and of course the answer has to be nothing at all. Obviously the debtor then has nothing at all upon which he could reply.

But since there are those who don't stop to think it follows that some might get stupid and fear that they might have done something wrong and throw up their hands rather than to fight about it. After all, since they aren't lawyers they don't usually understand all that mumbo jumbo anyway.

Surprisingly enough more than a few get just that stupid. They then either sell or assign the debt to someone else or they return it to the original creditor.

Enormis Dingleberry is so stupid he thinks he just stumbled onto the greatest Bauer trap that ever existed so he bit on it big time. That letter is so old that by now most debt collectors just about kicked the slats out of their baby cribs first time they ever saw it but old Dingleberry just fell for it hook, line and sinker.

LOL

More of the Enormis brayings of

Creditwrench students are taught no such thing as Dingleberry suggests or believes.
Creditwrench students are taught that they are to allow debt collectors 30 days to answer their demands for validation before moving on to the next step which is a letter humorously called Estoppel.

Students of CREDITWRENCH are taught that according to the FDCPA, a collection agency has 30 days to respond to a request for debt validation. And, if the collection agency fails to validate within the required 30 day timeline, the to move on to estoppel. While Dingleberry correctly claims that Estoppel has no basis in law for a collection agency's failure o provide validation, Creditwrench has been roundly denounced on message boards such as creditnet, AOC, and many others for his denounciations of the infamous John Gliha estoppel letter which is to be found on message boards all over the internet. Bill Bauer is famous for his denounciations of the Gliha theory which relies on a Western District of Missouri decision in a land dispute known as Englehart v. Gravens.

The creditwrench name for the letter used is nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek name for the letter used which has nothing at all to do with estoppel. It is recommended by the trash boards as being the next step that should be sent after a demand for validation. Gliha's infamous estoppel letter is nothing more than a false ruse with which he hoped to scare debt collectors into giving up. As Gliha has often stated, it worked too and that just points out how damnedably stupid debt collectors can be and usually are.

As Dingleberry points out, there is no requirement in FDCPA that a collection agency respond to a validation request within 30 days. Who cares whether they do or do not respond withing 30 days? There is a totally different reason for the use of the so called estoppel letter than anything this braying jackass has figured out and I have no intention of helping him out. He falsely claims that what I teach on the above matter is false and misleading. That is only so for those such as this dingleberry who are too stupid to figure out the true purpose of the letter.

The 30 day rule is for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to get the collection agency moving and force them to get something done. In reality debt collectors are never under any time line that they must meet. They don't ever have to validate.

That raises the next logical question which is if a debt collector does not accomplish his validation in some reasonable length of time then justice is denied the debtor. The old saying is that justice delayed is justice denied. Debt collectors have often ignored all demands for debt validation and then suddenly jump up and file a lawsuit on the poor debtor and ignore the fact that they have violated the law. Justice denied when that happens. Creditwrench teaches how to defeat the idea that collectors theoretically have forever to validate the debt and thereby deny justice.

There has to be some legal definition of the word "reasonable" and although some courts may have already ruled on that subject, this author is unaware of any such cases which might have addressed that issue. It will be addressed some day in some court of law and the results will be published. Once again, justice delayed is justice denied and the Creditwrench letter just helps point that out.

Creditwrench is not wrong. Only problem is that Dingleberry is too damned stupid to figure out why creditwrench is not wrong so he brays away. Go figure.

CREDITWRENCH is wrong on both the FDCPA's wording, and a matter of law.

1.
There is no requirement in the FDCPA that a collection agency respond to a validation request in 30 days.
2.
Estoppel has no basis in law for a collection agency's failure to provide validation, as there was no requirement that they do so in the first place.

All of CREDITWRENCH's teaching on the above are false and misleading.

In his interminable brayings, he just gave me a great name for a new website. Thanks you stupid jackass.

Creditwrench Senior Member Joined: October 16 2004 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 247

Posted: January 30 2005 at 8:01pm | IP Logged Just another example of how stupid he really is. Another one is his recent false and misleading claim that I advocate use of a letter called estoppel which was first invented by one John Gliha of Ocala, Florida many years ago. I was the first on the internet to decry that outlandish piece of crap and prove that it was pure gibberish. It was being highly touted by such fools as LizardKing and many more on Creditnet back when as well as the dumb validation letter put out by Gliha and plagerized by Lizardking who claimed it was his. I exposed him for the plagerist that he was and since Lizardking was "king of the Hill" on creditnet back then, I was roundly denounced for calling him down about it. I was the first to actually go to the law library and look up the Western District of Missouri case quoted in the stupid estoppel letter, shepardize it and prove that no attorney had ever referenced that case in relation to a debt collection issue. Estoppel could not possibly be correctly used against a debt collector for failure to validate a letter. Problem I had back then was that the letter was having great success because so many debt collectors were so stupid they believed it and simply threw up their hands and refused to collect upon receipt of the letter. It still happens today from time to time. Just about all of the message boards still have some version of the Gliha Estoppel letter which they recommend their followers use. In fact, my berating LizardKing and the rest of the junk theorists over the issues of plagerizing the Gliha letter and calling it their own and my constant put down of the dumb estoppel letter was a large contributor to the fact that I got kicked off of creditnet the first time. It got so bad that I called the second letter I use an "Estoppel" letter just as a tongue-in-cheek name. A funny name intended to parody the Gliha letter. I usually find some humorous name to call all of my letters and tactics. I have what I call my "duh" letter and that one is used when a debt collector writes back and demands all kinds of account information, SSI and other stuff after having first sent out an initial demand letter. The "duh" letter is nothing more than making a photo copy of the demand letter and sending that to them in response to their demand for information. Happens quite often. If the stupid fools send out dumb form letters demanding information they already have then "duh" The enormis dingleberry has once again posted false and misleading information about me on his blog of ignorance. He also (albeit correctly) states that collection agencies have no time limit such as the 30 days I talk about in which they must validate the debt upon timely demand by the debtor. While in most cases collection agencies can get away with never validating the debt, there is also an old axiom that says that justice delayed is justice denied. Of course, denial of justice never seems to bother debt collectors so we have to either set some limit of our own within which we need to move on towards getting the justice the law says we are supposed to be able to get. So 30 days (in my opinion) is just as good as any other number of days within which one needs to get tired of just sitting there twiddling their thumbs waiting for some debt collector to get up off his arse and do something. The so-called estoppel letter I use is nothing more than a reminder that in the debtor's opinion it is time to get busy and do something or get off the porcelain. It actually has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of estopple. The enormis criminal is too stupid to figure that out so he has to run out and bray some more about things which he obviously knows nothing about. He'll never learn.

New web site

I have decided to expand my efforts and register a domain name dedicated to the purpose of spreading the truth.

That domain name will be FDCPAEXPERT.COM and it has been registered with the registrar of domains.

It will be going live during the first part of next week.

I have also created a blog with that same name. FDCPA EXPERT

Thanks for giving me the new name idea Normie.

America's FDCPA expert

The Enormis criminal continues to harp away on frivolous issues. He says that I have claimed the following:

Contrary to his self-indulgent titleing, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer contintues to misquote the FDCPA. Another example is his statment:

"FDCPA states that violations of FDCPA are not viable or legal defenses"

It makes absolutely no difference who or what states that violations of FDCPA are not viable or legal defenses, it remains fact that they are not. If one is the target of a judgment by a creditor or collector the only question before the court is whether or not the debt is owed and by whom.

A claim that the debt collector has violated the law has nothing to do with whether or not the debt is owed or whether or not the proper person is being sued.

Debtors sometimes bring counter suits against the creditor but those are quite often dismissed by the court.

So, the statement still stands unrefuteable that violations of FDCPA are not viable defenses.

The enormis criminal is incorrect in his claims. We also know for a matter of fact that this criminal lives somewhere in the pacific time zone. He attempts to use an email address of unclenormie@oklahomacity.usa.com which has lead many to believe that he is a resident of Oklahoma or Oklahoma City. That is false and misleading as are all the rest of his droppings.

He is a fraud and a liar.

CREDITWRENCH opines on collection agencies

The Enormis Dingleberry says:

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer's stated position on collection agencies is:

"every collection agency we can put out of business is a definite help to our economy"

Now while Bill Bauer may hate collection agencies and want to see them all out of business, his statement that it would help the economy defies basic economic principles.

Lenders would recover less on their loans making less money available to lend. Supply and demand dictates they would have to charge more for the money that is lent. Additionally, the full write off rather than a partial recovery means their operating costs would increase. Again, inflating the cost of loans.

CREDITWRENCH stating that putting collection agencies out of business would help our economy is false and misleading.

The Enormis Dingleberry does not stop to think that if collection agencies did not exist then creditors would do their collections in house and would be likely to collect far more than collection agencies currently do since they would have a greater interest in getting their money collected. Collection agencies typically collect only about 30% of the debts assigned to them and that is a very poor collection rate.

When selling their junk debt to collectors, large creditors normally sell for about 4 to 5 cents on the dollar. There are multiple reasons they are willing to sell so cheaply and one of them is that all things considered they get more net cash that way than they would if they turned it over to a debt collector. One of the reasons that the return is so low is that good debt collection employees can earn extremely good commissions and that is money that would have been in the creditor's coffers if they used in house collections.

Debt collectors have done such a good job of ripping off their clients that it is now more profitable to sell the chargeoffs for what few pennies on the dollar they can get than it is to assign it to some collection agency only to get ripped off.

Yes, it should be quite clear that forcing creditors to do their collections in house by putting debt collectors out of business would be a great boon to our economy.

Collection of a time barred debt

"attorney" Enormis Dingleberry claims

that "While being time-barred can be both an affirmative and absolute defense should a lawsuit be filed on the debt, it is not against the law for a collection agency to continue collection efforts."

Well then, is it or is it not against the law for a collection agency to continue collection efforts on a time barred debt? Let us see what FDCPA has to say about that.

§ 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

If a debt is legally uncollectable then it is clearly not permitted by law. Additionally, while it may not be illegal to file a lawsuit on a time barred debt doing so does constitute the filing of a frivolous lawsuit and is actionable in many states.

As usual, the criminal known as "Uncle Normie" stretches things to the breaking point and beyond in order to make himself look good and to attempt to make a fool out of me.

The important point to remember is that like most of his arguments it makes no real difference whether a law has or has not been broken or not for the simple reason that no thinking individual would go file a lawsuit on them for attempting to collect on a time barred debt anyway.

The way to deal with such situations is to simply send them a cease & desist letter and let them take whatever action they deem appropriate. If that be filing a lawsuit then that is easily shot down by filing the proper answer to the court.

So the entire argument he makes is nothing more than enormis tomfoolery.