Debt Suspension Rights files complaint with the FTC about the CFPB.

I just want to clarify that I love that the CFPB exists. However, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hardwired to believe that credit card agreements are not flawed, then much of the CFPB's great work is compromised. Think of it as spending money to do a perfect wheel alignment on a car that has four balding tires. 

Below is my official FTC complaint against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau....

I have tirelessly tried to raise awareness about deficiencies in credit card agreement language. The CFPB has taken the position that there is nothing wrong with credit card agreement language.

The CFPB apparently believes that leaving out critical information for a consumer to consider prior to signing up for a credit card simply means that the consumer needs financial literacy training and that the consumer must honor the promise to pay at all costs, even if means placing a credit card debt above and beyond the value of a human life.

Is the FTC in agreement with the CFPB over the Promise to Pay and more financial literacy for consumers, policies?  

The latest smokescreen thrown up by the CFPB involves the claim that there are more complaints about debt collectors than there are about credit card companies. I personally handed the CFPB specific data that would level the credit card arena playing field back in May of 2013. I even posted the letter I gave to the CFPB online at the following link.  

When the CFPB announces their "ground breaking" debt collection decisions in early 2014 the report will probably mention some ways that debt collectors have misbehaved, and that they should fear fines from the CFPB. However, this will probably be balanced out by recommendations that credit card companies don't spend enough money on financial literacy education for its customers.

All of the ensuing media coverage will probably create conservative backlash outraged over the bullying of debt collectors while the progressives will screech about unfair debt collection practices.

Lost in all of the back and forth braying will be the following issues, consumers HAVE NO DEBT SUSPENSION RIGHTS of any kind. Even a criminal can serve time and be done with their sentence, but a credit card defaulter can be forced into perpetual ongoing interest rate charges no matter what the reason for the default.

Lost your home in a flood, doesn't matter, the credit card holder will simply default and be adjudicated into a lifetime 9.9% accruing interest rate charge by the courts.

Hurricane destroyed your home? Fire?  Have Cancer?  Medical Emergency? Identity theft? Accident victim not of one's own doing or fault? Job obsoleted and the only way out is to go back to school? Caregiving for a family member? All just excuses according to the CFPB and the credit card companies, let the perpetual interest rate charges accrue.

The irony is, I'm actually ok with the "debt matters more than life itself" meme prolifigated by both government and banking entities, as long as that boarish position is BOLDLY PRINTED RIGHT ABOVE AND RIGHT BELOW where the person signs their credit card agreement.

Anything short of that is basic fraud against the american consumer.

On top of that, in 2002 the comptroller of the currency denied the insurance industry access to compete with the credit card companies over credit card debt suspension insurance coverage. All the comptroller could think to offer was to make sure that premiums covered the cost of the insurance. 

The result? Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance that was overpriced by a factor of 1,000% to 2000%. The profit was so great that the CFPB had to fine the credit card companies over 500 million dollars for over aggresively marketing their overpriced insurance coverage.

Can you fix whats broken with CFPB? 

-----end of complaint. For the record, I used the entire allowable character limit for my complaint, had zero left, so I left out an s in aggressively and "the" just before the final CFPB.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Reuters reports Brazil suspends debt payments for Brazilian Coffee Farmers, closes comments less than 6 & 1/2 hours after breaking story.

Reuters reports that Brazil suspends debt payments from Brazilian Coffee Farmers. Debt Suspension Rights finds it strange that Reuters has closed their comments section less than 6 and 1/2 hours after breaking the story.

CLICK ON EITHER IMAGE TO ENLARGE.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Consumer debt specialist Robert Manning sues Sevan Aslanyan, Aslanyan's companies Access Counseling, Cole Asia Business Center and Cole Group, and five alleged associates of Aslanyan, in Federal Court.

If it is true that consumer debt specialist Robert Manning was defamed (as he claims), it shows how precarious the consumer debt rights field can be. It must take a very long time to build up a name in the field of consumer rights and consumer fairness issues, and it can be blown up relatively quickly by spreading one accusation.

Manning was featured in a 2007 documentary, In Debt We Trust.

So what is the lesson? Perhaps don't do business with people you just met.

Courthouse News Service

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

Incredible News, Debt Neutrality Petition crosses 500 signatures on Change dot org.

I am grateful to see the idea of Debt Neutrality beginning to take off. Stuck at 81 signatures for a while, the Debt Neutrality petition has suddenly crossed 500 signatures.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

We must define what we mean by affordable | Irish Examiner, Irish examiner responding to Debt Suspension Rights prior article?

We must define what we mean by affordable | Irish Examiner

I am glad to see that the Irish Examiner is at least exploring and "examining" the issue of strategic default. However, when do they get to the discussion of debt suspension rights and the insidiousness of 2% monthly minimum credit card payments? (they should be at least 5%, not 2%) And when do we begin to discuss the over charging of credit card debt suspension insurance by as much as 2000%?

Unfortunately, there is nowhere to comment that I can see. If I had been allowed to comment, I would have mentioned that mortgage debt is not necessarily the debt that causes mortgage defaults to occur. Credit Card debts, because they have a super low monthly minimum payment, slowly entrap and engulf people into more and more debt, and that was not mentioned in the article. "Debt Suspension Rights".

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

Debt Suspension Rights speaks at the May 15, 2013 Los Angeles meeting of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.

Debt Suspension Rights speaks at the May 15, 2013 Los Angeles meeting of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.

Click Here to see one minute comment.

Click here to see the contents of the papers I am holding in the image above and that I briefly discussed during my comments.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Consumer debt can lead to mental health issues, yes, that sounds like a normal reaction to me.

If Consumer debt can lead to mental health issues, than wouldn't unfair debt suspension rules that entirely favor the rich elite and wall street compound and completely disfavor the rest of society create even harsher results?

Does not unfair debt rules that lead to mental health issues, in turn lead to more and more militaristic type of responses by our government and law enforcement toward those who KNOW they have been treated unfairly by the system?

Shame on the media for over reporting people who "lose it" while under reporting those that play a key role in causing people to "lose it", the banksters and the unfair debt rules they create that favor their own position and leave main street twisting in the wind.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Reuters posts RIDICULOUS 2013 headline about Russian Credit Card Debt, then closes comments same day at ZERO.

I don't know what is more outrageous, this ridiculous headline and article from Reuters about Russian credit card debt, or that they closed the comments section the same day the article was posted, and with no comments.

Reuters quotes Alexander Vikulin, head of the National Bureau of Credit Histories (NBCH), as saying that "household debt costs for the vast majority of Russians were easily manageable." and that Russians can easily afford to double their consumer debt!

Are you kidding me, "can easily afford to double their consumer debt"???

Well of course household debt is easily manageable for the "vast majority" of Russians. It doesn't take the vast majority of consumers in any country to drive the economy into the tank. Perhaps as little as 20% to 25% of the country not being able to afford their present debts can over time create an economic "death spiral" for the entire country.

It is sad that governments think they must have ample consumer debt to have a thriving economy, perhaps sad is too soft of a word. 

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

National Real Estate Post wants all debtors to keep their word, but their hearts go out to the flood victims in Colorado.

It didn't take very long for Brian Stevens of Frank and Brian Real Estate Fame to show confusion over the issue of credit card debt and mortgage defaults. Below their daily videos Mr. Stevens has written some consumer debt related hyperbolic doozies. Every quote below does NOT come from their videos, but rather the  commentary BELOW the daily video. 

What I am saying is that if you break what should be a sacred bond, your word, then you should feel pain, and that pain should help outline your choices in the future...

lol, If it were a sacred bond, it would occur in a courtroom in front of a judge, or in a church in front of the justice of the peace. And in both scenarios many of the fine print gotchas that are presently hidden from the consumer would be revealed. and if that were done, Credit Card companies would have half the business they presently have, and a lot less defaults as well.  

So just who is it that wants the defaults? Apparently the credit card companies do because that is where they can really score big with penalties, fees, higher interest rate charges and FUTURE PROFITS based on POORER future credit scores.

Nice to know that Mr. Stevens thinks you, the consumer, should feel unending, unmonitored pain, doled about by the same people that have scammed the system with adhesion contracts that conveniently hide many fallow credit card policies that would be deal breakers if only the debtor knew at the time they signed up..

....The idea of creating an agency (CFPB) that allows you to be wishey washy at best with your word undermines the fabric of America. And yes, it’s not just the “dealing with debt collectors” crap, it’s the crazy lawsuits, it’s the “you’ve been harmed by your mortgage” crap (when you signed the note), it’s the witch hunt mentality against an industry that lends TRILLIONS per year.... 

It shocks me how naive Mr. Stevens can be. The CFPB's job is to look busy while NOT FIXING the underlying causes of economic theft from main street by the wealthy elite. Yes, there are UNFAIR credit card policy issues that have NOTHING TO DO with what the CFPB is enforcing. For starters, STRATEGIC credit card DEFAULTERS are treated BETTER than INVOLUNTARY credit card DEFAULTERS in virtually all instances.

 ....We as individuals need to spit on our hand and shake it with our neighbor and promise to be accountable for our actions because at the end of the day, that is all we have; our name, our bond, our promise.... 

The statement up above sounds like it came right out of the mouth of Jim from the CBS show "Under the Dome". At the end of the day we have the life that we have lived, the family that spawned us, and hopefully some friends outside of the family that we treat like family. What we can have above and beyond the "Jim" statement up above is our belief in fairness. if we believe in fairness, many of our economic issues begin to subside.

 ....If you think I’m lying, talk to pretty much anyone in the middle of our country, Kansas, Omaha, Nebraska, The Dakotas, and a few more; they know exactly what I’m talking about....

Hey, lets ask the flood victims in Colorado if they are going to be keeping their "word, their bond, their promise". Lets ask the credit card companies if losing one's home in a flood, being injured by the flood, having no power to get work done, losing a loved one, losing one's place of work to the flood, are reasons to SUSPEND A  CREDIT CARD DEBT. The answer is, NO, those are not excuses. Except that they ARE excuses to everyone on the planet except the very entities that Mr. Stevens apparently loves to defend.

....Where are all the rules for the consumer? The consumer was part of the crisis too. Are you telling us that there was no intentional mortgage fraud happening on the part of the consumer during the crisis? None? B.S. – There was a ton of it, yet, no new rules for consumers who willfully hide information or mislead lenders into seeing a picture that is different than reality.....

Wow, just wow. Debt Suspension Rights has outlined several issues in which there presently are NO consumer rights, and having commented on National Real Estate Post in the past, Mr. Stevens could have easily read them. Clearly, he disagrees with the agenda of Debt Suspension Rights for Consumers. 

For those who are interested, please read the Charlie Engle story, about an ultra long distance runner who was incarcerated for allegedly lying about his income so that he could get some home equity out of his home while he trained. The IRS actually had an agent pose as a woman interested in Charlie so that they could record incriminating remarks he made. The irony being that what guy hasn't bragged / embellished something he has done in the past when telling a women about it?

....Our hearts go out to the people of Colorado who are affected by the floods they’re having right now. If you want to help you can do so by visitingwww.HelpColoradoNow.org. We have a lot of friends out there and we hope you’re all okay. The level of devastation is at a Katrina level in Colorado and we at the National Real Estate Post have....

And there it is, the shoe polish on the worn out, stinky shoe, speal. 

Hey, "your word is your bond", and hey, "you should feel pain" (for defaulting on your credit card and mortgage debts), yet Mr. Steven's heart goes out to the victims of the Colorado flood who will soon be joining the line of "you should feel pain, your word is your bond" miscreants.

 Just amazing.

  Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case

The term is PARALLEL FORECLOSURE, not Dual Tracking. Dual Tracking CONFUSES PEOPLE and OBFUSCATES what is going on. Parallel Foreclosure is the behind the scene term used by Chase Bank and other banks to describe deceitful, and perhaps criminal behavior regarding mortgages.

OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case.

You are viewing Parallel Foreclosure blog. Please check out UNfair Foreclosures blog and Swarm The Banks blog as well.

Irish newspaper Independent ie concern trolls its debtor victims into thinking they are strategic defaulters, then they delete reader comments after a day or two.

The link below is a tragic example of how one Irish media outlet attempts to re-define INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTERS as STRATEGIC DEFAULTERS.

Loss, panic, shame: one widow's long road to 'strategic default'

Even more outrageous, all the comments have disappeared after a day or two. I think they think the everyday reader won't notice that their comments disappear after a day or two for the serious articles, but I did. 

And finally, on their facebook page, they never print the serious stories, just the person on the street happy type of story.

How do these goons get away with this level of fraud and deception? To actually imply that an INVOLUNTARY DEFAULTER is a Strategic Defaulter is the height of concern trollism.

wow.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Brian Stevens CRAZY RANT on credit card debt.

Click here and then look below the video to find Brian Stevens CRAZY WRITTEN TIRADE about credit card debt.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Debt Suspension Rights for Consumers, where are they? Please like us on facebook.

Please like Debt Suspension Rights for Consumers, where are they? on Facebook.

Debt Suspension Rights, where are they? supports the following... 

• Credit Card Debt Suspension Premiums REDUCED by 2000%, 
• IMPROVED Reverse Mortgage Options, 
• INVOLUNTARY Credit Card Default Rights, 
• Main Street Stock Market!

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Strategic defaulters will face jail, warns insolvency chief

The article link below had the comments section close on the SAME DAY the article was released! 

Punishing credit card strategic defaulters still DOES NOT help those with INVOLUNTARY credit card Defaults caused by a situation beyond their control because judges treat both situations identically.  Please read other articles about Debt Suspension Rights on this page to find what the real problems and solutions are to fixing the ongoing consumer wealth erosion.

Strategic defaulters will face jail, warns insolvency chief

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

Fix Unfair Credit Card practices, Fix the U.S. Economy, it really is that simple.

In the United States, the following solutions would solve our economic situation, but they are not being done. 

1. Offer Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance at reasonable rates of 5 cents to 15 cents per 100 dollars of debt per month. NOT the 99 cents per 100 dollars per month or higher that has been offered in the past.

2. Allow courts to distinguish between involuntary credit card defaults and strategic credit card defaults rather than treat them both as identical. Then, offer repayment plans to involuntary credit card defaulters that don't include ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges and that don't perpetually hurt the involuntary credit card defaulter's credit score while they are paying down the default.

3. Reduce everyone's credit card debt by 65% as an acknowledgement that 

• A. 2% monthly minimum payments entrap consumers into a lifetime of debt. (Department of Justice study confirms this). 
• B. for overcharging debt suspension insurance premiums by 1000% to 2000% over the past 15 years!

4. Simultaneously raise everyone's monthly minimum payment requirement to 5% of what is due. People will still pay approximately the same amount every month as they were paying with the 2% monthly minimum payment and 65% higher credit card debt, but they will have

• A. 65% less overall credit card debt, 
• B. have a higher percentage of what they pay every month to use respend money if they need to, 
• C. will feel the "shock" of debt quicker when they begin to over borrow, 
• D. and will have a more realistic opportunity to get out of debt by simply trying.

Banks got a bailout while consumers have been publicly angry because they really didn't get the timely help they needed.

The above ideas solve the issue for everyone without giving the public anything they did not already earn, such as the right to be treated fairly by financial institutions while receiving consumer reparations for past harmful policies.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Strategic Credit Card Defaults versus Involuntary Credit Card Defaults, why don't Judges distinguish between the two?

If you are a judge I would love an explanation as to why judges don't make a distinction between a strategic credit card default and an involuntary credit card default. Are the two the same? According to judges, a credit card default is a credit card default.

Do you agree?  

Is someone who runs up a huge credit card tab over a relatively short period of time and then defaults, the same as someone who has has made all of their payments on time for the past 10 years and only had to stop making payments because of a family emergency or a major event in their lives beyond their control?

I am NOT suggesting debt forgiveness either. 

I am talking about the possibility of simply freezing a debt where it stands when the last transaction was made by someone who had an involuntary credit card default. 

If the credit card default was strategic, then treat them the way all credit card defaulters are presently treated.

Do you agree or disagree? ALL intelligent comments are WELCOMED in the comments section.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Consumer debt reduction led by mortgage write offs!

This is what I'm talking about...Mortgage debt, credit card debt and student debt only reduce because of discharges.

However discharges don't disappear, they end up with debt collectors who get court judgements, so these press releases about consumer debt being reduced are basically misleading the public.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

How Debt Collectors could improve their public image.

Debt Collectors are in a strange profession. A Debt Collectors job is to suck whatever cash blood remains out of the barely breathing money strapped victim while delusionally believing they are the do gooder superhero keeping society safe from blood sucking opportunists. The Debt Collection disconnect between how they perceive themselves and how others see them results in stasis.

I think Debt Collectors would probably prefer less overall antagonism both from those who hire them to collect credit card debts and the debtors they call to try and collect debts from.

The solution for a "kinder, gentler" debt collection industry stems from how they view credit card defaulters. Apparently in many if not all instances; credit card companies, debt collectors and judges do not make a distinction between different types of defaults. Deciding "Whether a credit card default has occurred, or not" is how most judges see their role. Unfortunately, this credit card default or no credit card default meme creates a self perpetuating stream of "rubber stamping justice".

The problem is that courts treat an "involuntary" credit card debt defaulter who lets say previously had a perfect payment history but perhaps lost their home in a fire and their place of work to outsourcing; no differently than a strategic default credit card debtor who ran up a huge credit card debt quickly and irresponsibly. 

If the courts make no distinction between an involuntary credit card default and a strategic credit card default, why should the credit card companies or debt collection companies do differently? 

And this brings us back to involuntary credit card defaulters versus strategic credit card debt defaulters. Judges apparently DO NOT  differentiate between who CAN afford to pay off a credit card debt, or at least keep making payments, versus someone who involuntarily has credit card defaulted because of a circumstance beyond their control.

As a society we should ask ourselves...Is it really ok to treat a credit card defaulter who previously had an excellent payment history but has a life changing event occur beyond their control the same as a credit card defaulter who strategically defaults?

I think most people would say that someone who purposely or strategically credit card defaults has committed a more egregious act than someone who has a life changing event occur beyond their control and basically needs a time out before they can pay off or begin paying down their credit card debt.

Apparently the judges, credit card companies and debt collectors  don't see it that way. 

However, were debt collection agencies to simply agree to give involuntary credit card defaulters more latitude, and focus their courtroom resources on strategic defaulters instead, Debt Collection companies would instantly gain the gratitude of most of the credit card defaulters that they presently hound on a regular basis.

Perhaps debt collection agencies don't want the courts to give more latitude to involuntary defaulters and less latitude to strategic defaulters because it might create a huge migration of competition into the debt collection field.

Or, is Debt Suspension Rights the first to think of the idea of splitting the difference when it comes to credit card defaults, and treating involuntary credit card defaulters differently from strategic credit card defaulters?

Just how differently would judges treat an involuntary credit card defaulter versus a strategic credit card debt defaulter? Not that much really. Both involuntary and strategic defaulters would still have to pay their debt, however the involuntary defaulter could simply be given better repayment terms. 

How about involuntary credit card defaulters have their debt frozen at the amount it was at the time the last  transaction was made on the credit card, with no more interest rates, penalties or fees accruing. 

Also, the credit card default could be scored neutral on a person's credit score. Once payments, even payments well below the minimum are regularly made, it would actually slightly help the involuntary defaulter's credit score. 

Just the slight change of distinguishing between involuntary credit card defaults and strategic defaults would have a profoundly positive affect, not just on the involuntary credit card defaulter, but to the general economy as well.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Supreme Court, June 20, 2013 ruling does small business owners a favor by denying their right to file a class action lawsuit.

(For a provocative article on Judges, Lawyers and involuntary credit card defaults, please click here.)  To like Debt Suspension Rights for Consumers, where are they?, on facebook, please click here.

I think the Supreme Court's American Express vs Italian Colors ruling that forces small business owners to accept arbitration (as written in american express's credit card adhesion contract language), rather than having the right to file a class action lawsuit, makes a lot of sense.

The internet in many instances has become a place where people complain. People may also gather as groups to complain, but less often do they have viable solutions. 

This ruling forces small business owners to be pro active and interactive with other small businesses. Whenever a concrete issue comes up that requires a lawsuit, ONE small business would be chosen for the test case, but many others would have to financially support the lawsuit.

If that ONE small business wins their case, then all the other small business owners would gain standing were they to file a lawsuit on the same grounds. If the supreme court had ruled in favor of Italian Colors, then it would have kept the power with the class action lawsuit attorneys. The supreme court's ruling now makes it an urgent matter that small businesses be organized ahead of time, before they seek out an attorney.

In a time of media induced forced bi-partisanship in which moderates have been ignored and forced to become either a progressive liberal or a neo conservative, this supreme court ruling requires small business owners to find a way to be in contact with each other in an ongoing basis, which could turn out to actually be a good thing.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

ProPublica article about Bank of America lying to its homeowners and rewarding employees for foreclosures strikes a HUGE NERVE in the comments section.

Propublica comments are now at 76, 102, 125, 151 regarding Bank of American lying to its homeowners about mortgage modification programs while also monthly bonusing their employees for foreclosing on homeowners. 

Most comments describe a similar level of B of A bull, along with complaints about Chase Bank and Citibank as well. All describe the same type of abuse. Please click on this link and read the about the torment our own government has put its own people through regarding home mortgage modifications.  

And lets hope that the consumer financial protection bureau might be able to provide additional remedy above and beyond the meager foreclosure fraud settlement that was reached last year and has barely tinkled down to those homeowners who have already lost so much.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

AAG Reverse Mortgage Commercial uses former Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson and an American Veteran to tout Reverse Mortgages.

If reverse mortgages allowed seniors to take out a set amount every month (aka a monthly draw) in exchange for no mortgage insurance, and if reverse mortgages did not force the name of everybody but one person off of the deed (including other family members), I would say it was a solid program.

Unfortunately, Reverse Mortgages don't offer a set monthly draw option in exchange for no mortgage insurance, and reverse mortgages do force everyone's name off of the deed, but one. Imagine being the widow or widower and the reverse mortgage was in the name of the recently deceased, not a good thing, that is for sure.

It's a shame we can't do something truly honorable for our vets and our seniors and offer a reverse mortgage program that in exchange for an agreed upon monthly draw has no mortgage insurance premium and does not force others off of the deed.

Instead, we have companies hiring former presidential candidates such as Fred Thompson and retired World War II veteran Vincent Speranza to promote reverse mortgage programs as they presently stand. 

We CAN do BETTER for our veterans and our seniors than what this AAG Reverse Mortgage commercial is presently enticing viewers to do, which is pay that ridiculous mortgage insurance fee AND take a spouses name off of the deed. (scan over blank space below to see commercial)

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Why can't alleged Credit Card Defaulters plead voluntary or involuntary default in front of a judge?

The term defaulting basically means missing a payment or being unable to make the monthly minimum payments for an extended period of time.

Alleged credit card defaulters should be allowed to plead voluntary default, involuntary default, or innocent when it comes to credit card default court cases.  

If a credit card default was involuntary, and the credit card defaulter proves to the judge that the default was involuntary, many good things would instantly happen, and not just for the debtor, but for the debt collector as well.

Our judges would finally have some latitude to do more than simply rubber stamp the alleged credit card debtor as a defaulter. Involuntarily defaulting on a credit card means the debtor had a legitimate life circumstance beyond their control occur that the judge could view as a plausible reason for involuntarily defaulting. 

Credit Card companies have held a 15 year monopoly (or longer) on credit card debt suspension insurance that resulted in such severe overpricing of their credit card debt suspension insurance product. Most sensible people saw credit card debt suspension insurance for the monumental rip-off that it was. 

However, the damage was done either way. Either the consumer agreed to be ripped off above and beyond what was reasonable and pay the severely overpriced credit card debt suspension insurance monthly premium, or they went without credit card debt suspension insurance and if a situation caused them to involuntarily default, they were then rubber stamped into default status by judges who have had their hands tied for the past decade and a half, or longer when it comes to how they rule.

Once evidence is entered by the alleged credit card defaulter that results in an involuntary credit card default verdict, the judge would then have the leeway to basically freeze the credit card debt at the amount it was when the last payment was made (plus any final purchases), while also freezing interest rate charges, penalties and fees going forward.

Even debt collection companies could benefit from discerning between voluntary and involuntary credit card defaults. Instead of viewing every credit card defaulter as being the same, debt collection agencies could now actually use all of those relatively worthless repeat calls to instead verify who is involuntarily defaulting, and  who is voluntarily defaulting. 

This would streamline debt collection  litigating costs and allow them to focus more time on those who truly want to rip off the credit card companies, aka the voluntary credit card defaulters. Collection agencies could actually decide that if a debtor defaulted involuntarily, they could simply get a promissory debt instrument from the defaulter with repayment terms without ever going to court.

In turn, Involuntary defaults could be considered credit score neutral and even turn into a benefit if over time the frozen amount owed was being paid down. Whereas right now, making a payment on a defaulted credit card account actually adversely affects a debtors credit score for as long as they keep making payments on that account, how crazy is that!

Take a moment and ponder how amazing it would be if Judges no longer were forced into a position of simply rubber stamping all credit card defaults as being the same. Take another moment and wonder why hasn't this been thought of before. 

Or maybe allowing a credit card defaulter to plead involuntary default has been thought of before, and simply shunted aside by the financial elite in the name of higher profits and lower civility to the common person.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Are Debt Collectors and Credit Card Companies licking their chops waiting for 2013 Oklahoma Tornado Victims to Default, most likely, yes.

Hopefully some savvy Oklahoma Tornado Victims will realize they can make a difference by recording the phone calls made by debt collectors demanding timely credit card payments otherwise they will be declared in default.

Without affordable debt suspension insurance premiums, the 99% are just a tragedy not of their own doing away from losing wealth to rich elite who set the unfair rules in our society.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously you can still tell everyone who are you, example..."I work in the ...industry.... and...", or some other historical relevant fact about yourselt....and... etc. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Debtors Prisons in Ohio, Folks going to jail without a trial over unending debt.

Ohio just doesn't get it. Citizens don't have any Debt Suspension Rights, and the results are Debtors prisons.

My Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Los Angeles Second Day Comments about Seniors and Reverse Mortgages.

Seniors and Reverse Mortgages

One group of homeowners with the highest probability of having paid off a home are Senior Citizens. Seniors who reached adulthood in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's had the opportunity to purchase a home for a relatively low cost, and over the course of 30 years pay off that home.

When Dodd Frank came into law, it seemed to miss a very important point regarding seniors and reverse mortgages. Many Seniors have already paid off their home, to treat them like they were in their 30's and 40's again and needing to prove they can completely pay off any home equity loan they take out seems daft.

Lets apply Dodd Frank logic regarding Seniors to Sports and the Hall of Fame. Do we expect Hall of Famers to every 10 years reprove they can hit a home run, strike out a batter, score 30 points in a basketball game, turn a hat trick in hockey, or they will lose their hall of fame status?  No.

Yet, the Dodd Frank Homeowners Hall of Fame forces seniors who responsibly paid their mortgage in full already, to prove once again at an advanced age that they can once again pay off any COLLATERALIZED loan that is now taken out against their home.

This "prove yourself again" mentality is obtuse thinking at best, and paper violence at worst against generations of people that were forced to fight through World War II, the Korean War, and Viet Nam, yet proceeded to also work a steady job their entire adulthood until their home was paid off.

The snatching and grabbing of a senior's home in small increments by the following yearly costs, Property tax, Fire insurance, Home Insurance, Flood Insurance, interest rate charges on a reverse mortgage, and Mortgage Interest Insurance has grown too large and burdensome.

Cannot we not do better than forcing Mortgage Interest Insurance premiums on our seniors? Yes, we can. Here are some suggestions / Solutions I would like the CFPB to consider.

Alessandro Machi   Page 1 of 2       www.alexlogic.com

Safe, Effective and Responsible 

Senior Citizen Mortgage Insurance  Alternatives.

Monthly Draw Limits.

A Senior agrees to a monthly draw not to exceed 800 dollars on a paid off home worth 150,000 dollars. In exchange for this monthly draw, no mortgage insurance premium is charged. Why should there be? It would take 10 years for the senior to pull 96,000 dollars out. By then, it is possible the home will have increased in value to 200,000 dollars, basically limiting the potential for the draw to be worth anywhere near the present value of the home, therefore no real overpayment risk exists that would justify forcing the senior to carry Mortgage Insurance Premiums.

    Ongoing CareGiving Services

If a son or daughter wishes to provide Caregiving Services for their parent or parents, a monthly home equity draw of a modest amount, say $1,000 a month, could be transferred to the son or daughter in exchange for living with the parent and being their primary CareGiver. The son or daughter's draw could be taxed like regular income if they choose. The government could even kick in $500 a month as an additional incentive. If the son or daughter is already on the deed, they should not be forced off.

Why pay the son or daughter out of the home to provide CareGiving Services AND provide them a small governmental stipend as well? The elder population is about to explode and 1,500 dollars a month is a LOT cheaper than the government paying out 4 to 5 times more per month to keep a senior in an assisted living situation. The quality of life would be greatly enhanced as well if the senior could remain in their own home.

Daily Reorientation is more easily achieved if a senior lives in the same home that they have lived in for the past 10, 20, or 30 years, and this might drive down health care costs as well. Other savings ensue as well regarding conservation of resources. The son or daughter significantly lowers their own cost of living, not necessarily a bad thing as populations increase and scarcity of resources continues to grow.

Alessandro Machi   Page 2 of 2       www.alexlogic.com

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously you can still tell everyone who are you, example..."I work for...." etc. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

My Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Los Angeles speech for May 15, 2013.

My appearance in front of the CFPB in May of 2013. I am the first one to speak in the clip, (I don't know how to stop the clip after I finish).

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE.

Credit Card Default Reparations for Consumers 2000 to 2013.

The following is a Timeline of Events that stripped Americans of fairly priced Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance and subsequently made them fodder for Credit Card Default Verdicts with no plausible way to defend themselves in court.

1998

Unregulated and overpriced Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance explodes as consumer credit card debt grows.

2002  

Comptroller of the Currency slaps down the Insurance Industries desire to offer competing Debt Suspension Insurance for Credit Card Customers. The CC basically gives the credit card companies a monopoly over their own customers and offers no pricing guidelines other than suggesting the premiums cover the cost of inflicting the Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance Program. The CC absolves the credit card companies from federal regulations for Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance ratios of costs vs payouts. Many Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance Policies retain 85% to 95% of every dollar collected, an obscenely large percentage that meant Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance premiums were overpriced and unrealistic long term investments for consumers.

April 20, 2005 

After removing the most logical method for protecting a consumer's credit rating, affordable credit card debt suspension insurance, tougher Bankruptcy rules are signed into law. Americans who could not afford the monopolistic, unregulated and overpriced Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance now have even less avenues to protect themselves from credit card defaults in times of crisis. Credit card defaults can create a cascading affect of higher and higher associated payments on a defaulted account. The penalties, fees, and interest rate hikes engulf the unprotected consumer and can eventually lead to both the loss of job opportunities based on a poor credit score and foreclosures as well.

Alessandro Machi   Page 1 of 4             DebtSuspensionRights.com

June 8th, 2005 

The Comptroller of the Currency encourages The Fed, FDIC, The Office of Thrift Supervision, and some national banks to raise monthly minimum Credit Card payments from 2% to 4% of the total due, an excellent idea but an unattainable one as it would create instant defaults for millions of americans. Offering credit card customers affordable Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance does not appear to be a priority for the CC.

2008

Banks get a bailout, consumers get screwed via Parallel Foreclosure.

2008 to 2011 

Chase Bank raises monthly minimum payments from 2% of the total due to 5% of the total due on over a million, low interest rate, life of the loan credit card customers, and Chase Bank offers no opt out option. The huge raise in the monthly minimum payment causes untold thousands of Chase Bank Customers with perfect payment histories to default. Chase Bank then robo signs these ambushed customers through the court system, tarnishing and then garnishing customers wages who formerly had perfect payment histories and stellar credit ratings as well.

2009 

Federal Trade Commission Annual Report: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act makes…

No mention is made that millions of credit card defaulters can't afford ridiculously overpriced debt suspension insurance. 

No mention is made that credit card companies universally refuse to accept a customer's debt instrument offering before a hardship account actually goes into default. 

No mention is made that Credit Card Companies do not reasonably disclose that a default must first be declared before any change in terms will be discussed. 

No mention is made that robo servers falsely report they served or subserved an alleged credit card default defendant and how this simply encourages debt collectors to shirk service law statutes knowing the judge will allow the case to go forward with a fraudulent service.

Alessandro Machi   Page 2 of 4             DebtSuspensionRights.com

No mention is made that when judges look the other way over false service practices, it reduces a defendants negotiating position against a debt collection service since the debt collector knows they can get a false service at any time. 

No mention is made that what happens BEFORE a default is declared by a credit card company should be considered by the courts. Instead judges simply ignore the credit card companies questionable tactics and policies and solely focus on whether a default actually occurred. Overwhelmingly one sided verdicts favor the credit card companies and encourage the flawed judicial process to perpetuate as is.

2010

The Credit Card Reform Bill Act is signed into law and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is created to balance the Comptroller of the Currencies penchant for supporting banking interests over consumer welfare. A much needed checks and balance has been created.

2012

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau assesses a billion dollars in fines over Credit Card Debt Suspension Insurance Marketing Practices. The fines have nothing to do with how unfairly priced Debt Suspension Insurance premiums are, but rather how aggressively the Debt Suspension Insurance is marketed, and how difficult it is to opt out once the credit card companies have enrolled their prey.

2013

Parallel Foreclosure is declared illegal in California.

2013

Kamala Harris initiates a class action lawsuit against Chase Bank for their financial terrorist activities against Californians from 2008 to 2011. Chase Bank allegedly robo-signed their default cases, garnishing and levying bank accounts of formerly excellent credit rating customers. The actual monthly minimum payment increase from 2% to 5% with no opt out option is not part of the lawsuit, even though it most likely was what spurred the rash of robo signings by Chase Bank.

Alessandro Machi   Page 3 of 4             DebtSuspensionRights.com

 
Conclusion

Americans have been without affordably priced credit card debt suspension insurance for the past 15 years. Credit Card Customers have not been properly advised at the time they sign their agreements that no change in terms will occur without a default first being declared. Customers accused of a Default are routinely falsely served and subserved, and the court judges look the other way, damping the defendants negotiating position with their debt collectors. Unsecured credit card debts are routinely converted to secured debts by the courts even when the defendant has already agreed the debt is owed and agrees to pay a portion of their income to pay down the debt. Debt collectors and judges view defaulters as irresponsible deadbeats when they show up in court without an attorney to represent them, when the opposite is true. The defendants have arrived in court without an attorney because they chose to keep making credit card payments until all of their money was gone, including the money that would have gone to an attorney.

The credit card default system is not just broken, it's been fixed against americans for the past 15 years and reparations are in order. Perhaps as many as 90% of all credit card defaulters since the year 2000 should have their default verdicts overturned. Lump sum payment  restitution is in order for all the penalties, fines and fees that were assessed against alleged credit card defaulters, along with the loss of credit standing and having to pay higher interest rates on any new debt.

When totaled up, there could be 10's of millions of credit card default victims, and the total owed to them could be a trillion dollars. In lieu of a trillion dollar payout, all present credit card customers should summarily have their total credit card debt reduced by 65%, and upon this across the board reduction, the monthly minimum payment going forward should be increased from 2% to  5%, as the Comptroller requested back in 2005.

Much good would come from Consumer Credit Card Default Reparations  as described above, but it would take more time to explain them all.

Alessandro Machi   Page 4 of 4             DebtSuspensionRights.com