Uncle Normie simply don't get it

Well, nothing new in that. His post below clearly shows where he got it which I'm sure he didn't intend. Be that as it may, he also didn't get it when I said that each and every violation can be used against them and not necessarily by filing a law suit against them. Normie's twisted little one track mind cannot imagine that FDCPA is not the only way that their violations can be used against them. He can't grasp the fact that filing lawsuits is not the only way to make FDCpA
work. There are more ways than one to skin a cat and he can't figure out how that can be so he brays on about FDCPA and what it says. Again, Uncle Stupid, there are ways in which each and every one of their violations can be used against them and the more the merrier. All you have to do is forget that stupid carrot dangling in front of your nose just out of reach and watch out for the stick that is going to knock the hell out of you. But no, you fell for it again. Can the damages run into $10,000 or more? Yep, and the debtor don't even have to file a lawsuit to get the rewards.



CREDITWRENCH, tha FDCPA, n tha law Pizzle VIII

CREDITWRENCH CEO B-to-tha-izzill Baua advises:

"...most of mah students can easily rizzay up as mizzle as 8 or 10 or more violations so tha damages can easily run ta maybe $10,000 or more per student. Once tha student has sufficient violations they wizzay be reported..."

As was pointed out by me on a prior post'n, tha FDCPA only allows fo' $1,000 in statutory damages per action, not per violation . Wussup to all my niggaz in the house. And, wanna be gangsta claim preclusion doctrine, you cizzan't wait fo' 8-10 violations ta accrue thiznen file separate lawsuits fo' each violation, they would have ta be litigated in aggregate.

Jizzy mizzle false n blunt-rollin' 411 being provided by CREDITWRENCH CEO Bizzy Brotha (Put there for jackass bait and it obviously worked too, didn't it?} Just goes to show that a debt collector will fall for most anything but still don't understand anything. Normie can't figure out how to use multiple violations and make each one of them stick without ever filing a lawsuit against anybody. So lacking the ability to understand, he just keep on braying away.

Trying to climb out of his hole.

This one is really bizarre

On this blog CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer has unwittingly admitted to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO. Because, as has been previously pointed out in this blog, CREDITWRENCH CEO knows nothing about RICO, he was most likely unaware of this flagrant violation. However, his ignorance of the law doesn't lessen his liabililty under Federal Law.
On his blog, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer states:

The Wrench now has the ability to file reports.....(with) all 3 major credit bureaus. What this means is that by working with a major national collection agency who is interested in helping to clean up their industry our students will now (as always) be keeping track of the FDCPA and FCRA violations of the collection agencies who contact them in the process of collecting debts and will be reporting the violations to me and the contacting agency will be charged $1,000 per violation.

So now I have violated Rico! Well, let's see about that. Before a Rico or any other such criminal activity as he claims now having been proven can be charged there are a lot of hoops to jump through, not the least of which is that there must be at least 2 or more acts of criminal activity so as to establish a pattern of racketeering. A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context of civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The RICO Act refers to such criminal activity as racketeering activity. RICO claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, broken promises, negligence, defective product design, failed business transactions, or any number of other factual scenarios that may give rise to other claims under the common law.

He continues with his assinine statements in the following

There was no obligation incurred by the collection agencies in the above scenario. CREDITWRENCH has no legal standing to collect $1,000 per violation in the above scenario, and neither do any of his unfortunate students.

OK. So now the claims he previously made about how anyone could get $1,000 simply by filing a lawsuit are false and untrue? If we listen to his sudden change of tune now we would be led to believe that a debt collector found culpable under FDCPA is not liable for anything after all??? We know better than that. It isn't a matter of whether or not they can be sued nor is it a matter of their quite possibly being liable to the consumer for up to $1,000 per lawsuit and that the judgment could not be turned over to a collection agency to get the collection accomplished. Outstanding, Normie, simply outstanding!!! Let's see what else he claims.

However, he continues to try to sell people on his credit repair scam using exactly the tactics he describes above. The collection agency he mentions as wanting to "clean up their industry", and his "students" are accomplice's in creating these false debts and are as equally as guilty of RICO violations as is he.

Only a court of law can award statutory damages. CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer's advertisement that he is attempting to collect invalid and illegal debt is a clear RICO violation. And, is nothing more than a false and misleading attempt to lure unsuspecting consumers into his credit repair scam.

Now why would Uncle Normie be interested in what might be said on a collection industry blog no matter who runs it? If he were truly on the side of the consumer/debtor as he claims he is on artofcredit, pcmholdings and other places he would not be screaming bloody murder about what is posted on a blog intended to bring
out the vicious and underhanded tricks used by debt collectors and reveal what they think of those from whom they collect.

Dear old Uncle Normie has once again shown his ignorance about the law and makes claims that he cannot prove, makes false and misleading statements about Rico and what actions are covered under Rico and makes false assumptions about what the purpose of the blog he quotes is.

He won't quite merit another golden jackass award for this one but he certainly is trying hard. All this amounts to is sheer ignorance of Rico while claiming that I know nothing about it. It also illustrates quite vividly that he doesn't read the law or know the law but rather just quotes what someone else has said that the law says.

No good Normie. Won't get you another golden jackass award. You gotta try harder than that.


Attorney Steven Wickman who is a regular poster on my message board laughingly points out how he and his wife, soon to be an attorney, joke about Rico.

"My wife (who takes the Cal. bar in two weeks) have a standing joke about RICO. It's really an insider, but we essentially spout RICO whenever we hit a brick wall and can't think of anything else to allege in a lawsuit."

Steven Wickman is not only an attorney but a professor of law at a California Law School. My message board also has several other famous attorneys from around the country who are regular contributors.

Self defeating arguments by Uncle Normie

Self defeating arguments!

Well, in a manner of speaking, Uncle Normie has told the truth with this blooper. However, in deciding what his arguments are worth, we must remember that he has fallen from the lofty heights of teaching me the greatest lesson ever on FDCPA to ignomiously shooting himself in the foot. Such is the life of the typical con artist.

CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer teaches his "students" that they can collect $1,000 statutory damages per violation of the FDCPA in a lawsuit.

The FDCPA itself stipulates a maximum of a $1,000 in statutory damages in a proceeding, and the courts have upheld this.

CREDITWRENCH teaching that you can collect $1,000 per violation is false and misleading.

If you sue claiming a fruit salad of violations you will only get $1,000 for the entire salad, not for each individual fruit in the salad. If you are as dumb as Uncle Normie is then you will do what he says and shoot yourself in the foot yet once again. If you do get dumb enough to file lawsuits as per his misleading advice you get the $1,000 unless you file a new lawsuit on each and every violation, one at a time. Then you might get the $1,000 for each violation.

Of course, in posting that blooper he forgets that he is giving even more reasons not to get involved with such foolishness in the first place. He thereby presents a valid argument against doing what he suggests which is to file lawsuits in the first place. First he advises to do it then turns right around and gives you a solid reason why you should not do it.

He will never learn.

It is therefore with great pleasure that I now reward Uncle Normie for his untiring efforts by giving him the GOLDEN JACKASS AWARD.

I see that they are talking about his great accomplishment over on artofcredit and on collectionindustry too. Way to go Normie!

He is also now complaining about me supposedly using the dirty tricks he has been pulling all along. Let's see how he stacks up on this one with his pathetic whine.


Besides his penchant for pretending to be other people like kaykay29, CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer pretends to be Uncle Normie by posting this. As they say, impersonation is the sincerest form of flattery. I guess that means CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer wishes he could be like Uncle Normie.

Let's see now, he uses "Uncle Normie", "Enormis", "Enormis Debtor", "ISO more credit" "UCCC something-or other", "creditwrenchscam", and an untold number of other alias screen names and then comes up claiming I am a woman who uses the screen name of KAYKAY29 and provides a link that don't even work and then plagerizes my domain name and uses that to commit yet another crime which is violation of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act and then has the balls to holler about that which he claims that I have done but can't prove. Who are we going to believe, a loser who is also a common criminal or THE WRENCH????



WAY TO GO NORMIE!, WAY TO GO!

The Great Donkey does it again!

He hollers about FDCPA being a strict liability statute. And he tries to lead the unsuspecting debtor down a primrose path believeing that all one has to do is file a lawsuit and both he and his attorney will collect just because they get a judgment against a debt collector. That is not necessarily true but rather only if the debt collector decides to pay up voluntarily which he may or may not choose to do. A judgment is nothing more than an order of the court saying that the defendant owes money to the plaintiff. It does nothing at all to enforce collection. That may very well require even more litigation. If the defendant does not pay up on the judgment then the plaintiff must file an action in garnishment, get the garnishment then call the defendant into court yet once again and demand that he reveal the whereabouts of his assets. If the defendant ignores that too they can be held in contempt of court and jailed. But how does one jail a corporation? Can't be done. Jails are for individuals, not corporations. Does anyone really believe that a Delaware or Nevada corporation (for instance) can be jailed in say California or New York or in Nebraska or anywhere else for that matter? Dream on if you believe that they can. If the defendant refuses to pay, what is the individual plaintiff going to do about it? The Donkey has the right answer to that too............ Bray on. Cry a lot.

Can the attorney get paid? Yes, he can get reasonable attorney fees, but what are reasonable attorney fees? Usually not more than maybe 30 to 40 percent of the award he gets for his client. So the client gets $1,000 and the attorney would get $400 max and probably more like $300. How many attorneys do you know that are willing to do all the research, prepare the case and go to court and argue the case for $300 or so? ROFLMAO.

Now then, even if huge actual damages can be proven, let us see what the maximum damages might be according to FDCPA. They are a maximum of $500,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of the company. Even given that huge amount what does it amount to in practical terms?

A huge company like NCO might end up paying as much as a few million, but they are said to be making at least $80 to $100 million a year. And of course that is not all profit by any stretch of the imagination. One percent of $100 million would be 1 million. What is a million to a company making $100 million? Nothing. A slap on the wrist and nothing more. The way these companies look at it is that if they get hit for a million or so and make $5 or $10 million using the illegal practice they will do it. They could care less.

Look at a small "mom" and "pop" operation. Might be worth $50,000 so what is 1% going to amount to? $500.00!!!!!!! Big deal.

Look at my blog post for Feb 8th and you will see about a group of lawyers wanting to sue NCO.
But are they going to sue them for violation of FDCPA? Of course not. Attorney Steven Wickman and his associates are going after NCO for violation of another law entirely. Steven Wickman doesn't want the details of his case put out at this time for obvious reasons but he briefly outlined the whole case to me in a phone conversation on Monday. He is going after them on an entirely different cause for the simple reason that FDCPA is, in reality a toothless tiger which could not possibly harm a corporation so huge as NCO. The cause which is being pursued has the potential to put NCO out of business once and for all. And they are not pursuing the case from the standpoint of one single violation but rather as a class action type of case involving a very large number of complaintants scattered all over the U.S.

Folks, it makes absolutely no diffence at all whether the Donkey is right or wrong he attempts to lead you down a primrose path into a morass of legal problems which you might or might not win and even if you do win might or might not collect anything at all.

Therefore any and all of his supposed information is not only useless but it is misleading and of no practical value whatever if used in the way he suggests.

Now then, let's ignore the brayings and get down to the brass tacks, the practical side of using FDCPA against debt collectors. There is a way to do it and win, and as usual, Creditwrench teaches how to do that in a way that is totally different and totally devastating to the debt collector. As usual, Creditwrench leads the way, not some braying jackass.

How do we use FDCPA against debt collectors? Well, if I put that out in public it would not be long at all before debt collection attorneys would figure out a way to defeat us and so that information shall remain private information available only to those who have a proven need to have it.

Jackasses like Uncle Normie bray about all they know, however little that may be and soon everybody knows all about it and it is totally and completely useless to anybody.

After all, just like we spend huge amounts of time coming up with new strategies and new ways to deal with problems so do debt collectors and their attorneys. If anybody thinks for one minute that they don't do as much or more research as we do then they need to stand up along side of Uncle Normie and start braying too.

Uncle Normie can come up with all the bullshit legal theories he wants but they all come to naught when put to the test of practical application. Nothing but bullshit and of no practical value whatever.

Uncle Normie also don't tell you that most if not all collection agencies and attorneys have what is known as Omissions and errors insurance or other types of insurance which covers them in the event that they are sued by anyone. That means that if they lose, they actually lose nothing at all, their insurance company is the one that will pay the claim and you might even end up arguing your case against the insurance company attorneys and not the debt collector or an attorney he has to hire out of his own pocket. We all know what it is like trying to fight with insurance companies and their attorneys. LOL