The truth shall set ye free part II
Ho Hum! More ignorance from the jackass blog
Let's follow along for a good laugh at his unbelievable ignorance. On his jackass blog he states the following:FDCPA EXPERT and CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer, never relies on the blatherings of so called credit repair con artists such as Uncle Normie, John Ghila, Bud Hibbs, etc., who believe the use of an Accord and Satisfaction will help you repair your credit. That is very misleading indeed.
In order to give you an idea of how well versed FDCPA EXPERT and CREDITWRENCH CEO Bill Bauer is on the subject of Accord and Satisfaction is and what it does, I'll quote an excerpt from a discussion of mine:
The theory of Accord and Satisfaction can best be likened to a 3 legged table. The first leg of A & S is that there must be a legitimate dispute between the creditor or his agent about the value of the goods or services that were provided to the buyer. Unless a legitimate disput exists there can be no Accord leg. Once it has been established that a dispute about the goods or service has been established between the parties then the second leg of our table must be an Accord between the parties as to the value of that dispute. In other words, an accord as to how much the value of the goods or services to the buyer has been reduced. Once the dispute and accord legs have been established between the parties then it is time for the 3rd leg which is Satisfaction meaning that the buyer psys the newly reduced amount of the accord. It is just that simple. However, some scam artists such as Uncle Normie would have you believe that Accord & Satisfaction is nothing more than the buyer who owes some amount of money such as maybe $1000 (for the purposes of illustration only) and writes a check to the seller or his agents for some greatly reduced amount such as maybe $10, $100 or whatever and on the back of the check he places a statement to the effect that the seller or his agents agree that cashing of the check constitutes payment in full of the debt and that the casher of the check waives all right of recourse. They often claim that
Sometimes the A & S is also known as a Novation.
No Uncle Normie, an A & S has never been known as a Novation in any court of law.
But your buddies over on artofcredit and other message boards have long said that, but CREDITWRENCH HAS NEVER SAID THAT THEY ARE THE SAME.
They are not the same in modern law, only on such forums as artofcredit, creditnet, and in the minds of gooroos such as Uncle Normie, John Gliha. I've never seen Bud Hibbs make any such assertions but you like to bum rap everybody.
Tomorrow you will once again make an enormis jackass out of yourself.
I have explained the legal theories of an Accord & Satisfaction, and a Novation, and the distinct difference between the two. Once again proving that the statements of the Enormis jackass are false and misleading.
Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary
civil law. 1. Novation is a substitution of a new for an old debt. See Accord. But where an agreement is entered into by deed, that deed gives, in itself, a substantive cause of action, and the giving such deed may be sufficient accord and satisfaction for a simple contract debt. 1 Burr. 9; Co. Litt. 212, b. 6. The general rule seems to be that if one indebted to another by simple contract, give his creditor a promissory note, drawn by himself, for the same sum, without any new consideration, the new note shall not be deemed a satisfaction of the original debt, unless so intended and accepted by the creditor. 15 Serg. & Rawle, 162; 1 Hill's N. Y. R. 516; 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 191; 1 Wash. C. C. R. 156, 321; 2 John. Cas. 438; Pet. C. C. Rep. 266; 2 Wash. C. C. R. 24, 512; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 396: Addis. 39; 5 Day, 511; 15 John. 224; 1 Cowen, 711; see 8 Greenl. 298; 2 Greenl. 121; 4 Mason, 343; 9 Watts, 273; 10 Pet. 532; 6 Watts & Serg. 165, 168. But if he transfer the note he cannot sue on the original contract as long as the note is out of his possession. 1 Peters' R. 267. See generally Discharge; 4 Mass.. Rep. 93; 6 Mass. R. 371; 1 Pick. R. 415; 5 Mass. R. 11; 13 Mass. R. 148; 2 N. H. Rep. 525; 9 Mass. 247; 8 Pick. 522; 8 Cowen, 390; Coop. Just. 582; Gow. on Partn. 185; 7 Vin. Abr. 367; Louis. Code, art. 2181 to 2194; Watts & S. 276; 9 Watts, 280; 10 S. R. 807; 4 Watts, 378; 1 Watts & Serg. 94; Toull. h. t.; Domat, h. t.; Dalloz. Dict. h. t.; Merl. Rep. h. t.; Clef des Lois Romaines, h. t.; Azo & Man. Inst. t. 11, c. 2, SS 4; Burge on Sur. B. 2, c. 5, p. 166.
Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary
There is another way that these clowns get all confused too. That is about the term "restrictive endorsement" which is extremely easy to comprehend but is, of course way beyond the level of intelligence posessed by Uncle Normie and his ilk.
A restrictive endorsement is what companies put on the back of the checks they deposit in their banks. I'm sure everyone who unlike Uncle Normie has an I.Q. greater than their shoe size has seen clerks in stores stamp the back of the checks they take in with the stamp from their bank which says "FOR DEPOSIT ONLY" and many people handwrite that on the checks they deposit in their banks and most especially so if they are sending someone else to make their deposit for them.
Tomorrow I may very well teach Uncle Normie how to take someone else's check to a bank and cash it without ever having to show any identification whatever. In fact, I will teach the jackass how he can have a check made out in his true name, Braying Jackass and take it to the bank, endorse the back of the check with his true name, Braying Jackass and cash it without ever having to present any form of identification proving that he actually is a Braying Jackass.
posted by Creditwrench @ 6:06 PM
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
