Sunday, September 9, 2012

Life After Debt: A Gathering of Refusal |

Life After Debt: A Gathering of Refusal |

This is a well written commentary on how we have been manipulated into thinking that debt was a good thing for our credit rating, and so on.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

10 states leading in consumer debt

Most of these states could probably balance their state budgets easier if the giant sucking sound of consumer debt obligations were reduced via lower interest rate charges for those who would also agree not to run up new debt of an equal or higher amount.

10 states leading in consumer debt

Please consider viewing and then signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Is this a possible California In Pro Per credit card defense?

I am not a lawyer and am only recommending the credit card defense outline below for those filing in Pro Per who don't have a credit card defense in mind. However, the defense outline below should be true for your situation if you are to use it. 

It is possible that the credit card defense offered below might be better than doing nothing, since doing nothing will usually result in a default judgement against you. 

I am also assuming that the credit card defense below might be better than having good "excuses or reasons" for why the credit card debt went into alleged default. 
Apparently, the reason why the credit card debt went into default is irrelevant to the judge, OUCH!
Credit card agreements are adhesion contracts and California courts don't like "Adhesion contracts". However, adhesion contracts are alleged to be a necessary evil because they allow for millions of consumers access to the same type of product without adding huge volumes of business costs that would be incurred if each contract was individualized. 

So even though California courts do not like adhesion contracts, they want an additional reason to accompany why the adhesion contract should not be honored, and therein appears to be why it is probably difficult to beat a credit card company in court.

The following is a proposed argument one could use in in Pro Per in conjunction with the adhesion contract argument, using the unconscionability defense.

I believe that most people don't realize how unreasonable (aka unconscionable) credit card companies are when it comes to family emergencies, crisis, job loss, medical emergency, accident victim, or being a crime/identity theft victim. 

Most people only learn of the credit card company loan sharking mentality when it either happens to them, or they hear about about a friend going through the credit card loan sharking litigation process. Very few people actually know how evil credit card companies are when they sign an agreement.

When a credit card company believes that their debt matters more than any other debt, debts that can affect a person's home, their health, or the welfare of their own family, they NEED TO STATE THIS IN BOLD PRINT JUST THE WAY CIGARETTE COMPANIES DO in regards to cigarettes being hazardous to one's health.

Instead, credit card companies do the opposite thing, they use cute cuddly babies and friendly talk show hosts to lure people into using their product while never warning people that under no circumstances will the credit card company restructure a debt unless they also damage their credit rating first, ouch!
"Your honor, it is UNCONSCIONABLE for credit card companies to lure me into using their adhesion contract product without clearly warning me that there would only be a "debt restructure AFTER declaring me in default, and then having me face default because of a glaring defect in the credit card debt agreement."
The "debt restructure only after a default" is the holy grail commandment of the entire financial lending community. Debt Restructure only after a default is the time piece that keeps all bankers ticking in line with strict federal regulations and it also prevents favoritism shown to some debtors over others.

However, one has to ask, why does an adhesion contract based unsecured line of credit get to enjoy the same level of protection as secured debt such as a car or home mortgage agreement?

If an unsecured credit card debt can be converted to a secured debt via a court action, was it ever really an unsecured debt? 

If unsecured debt is convertible to secured debt via a court action, then credit card companies are motivated to simply get people to use their credit cards knowing that from that moment on in time, they win no matter what the consumer using their card does. And I'm ok with that, AS LONG AS THIS MOTIVATION IS ADMITTED IN WRITING AND IS IN FULL VIEW BY THE CONSUMER WHEN THEY SIGN THEIR AGREEMENT.

The more cynical will say, well duh, of course the credit card companies want to ensnare people into credit card debt, if you don't know that, you deserve what happens to you. But that standard does not apply when one buys a car. There are car lemon laws in place. The car has to work to a certain level of quality or the car is deemed "defective".
Even cigarette packaging now requires health warnings, why not credit cards?
The proof that credit cards don't work to an acceptable level of quality and are DEFECTIVE is in the monthly minimum payment requirement. A 2% monthly minimum payment is an absolute sure fire way for consumers to go too far into debt. 

The Credit Card ACT of 2009 noted that the monthly minimum payment of 2% was too low and now requires credit card companies to warn people on their monthly statements how long it will take to pay back a debt. 

But what about all the debt that already existed before the Credit Card ACT? Who warned these people that 2% of the total due was too small of a payment to make?

Just like the cigarette companies being forced to put health risk warnings on EACH cigarette product, credit card companies were forced to place warnings on their billing statements by the Credit Card Reform Act of 2009.

And just like cigarette smokers who smoked for years before being warned about the dangers of credit card usage, the damage has already been done to literally tens of millions of credit card users who simply made the requested and suggested monthly minimum payment of 2% and were never warned that this was a defective method of paying back a credit card.
Anyone who accumulated credit card debt before the credit card reform bill act of 2009 was given a defective product and new agreements should be negotiated with each and every customer who desires one.
Those new agreements should allow for the debtor to pay back their debt with no new interest rate charges, and at terms the debtor can afford, even if those terms require decades to pay back the debt.

I don't know if the "credit card 2% monthly minimum is defective" argument has ever been made in court. I am concerned that some attorneys become credit card defense boiler plate companies and use similar standards of defenses to try and get their client off on a technicality.

I worry that attorneys may be afraid to lose their ongoing boiler plate business by winning a huge precedent case and then losing subsequent business as a result.

I will give an example of a revolutionary argument in regards to false service that I don't think has ever been tried out of fear that it will hurt future revenues, in my next article.

Please consider viewing and then signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.