CrapOne's Dyslexic Blacklist

[Itsmeagain]

With all due respect counselor, the COA can not be "anything".  You have the burden to prove that the Defendant has violated the law.  As far as I know, there is no law against denying an application for credit . . . for ANY reason.  There is also no law against being stupid.  If there were, I and many others would be in constant litigation.

I agree with the previous posters.  Time to move on.  But if you decide to file suit, I am still curious to know under which statute you would file.

Good luck

IMA

[Anonymous]

---

@Itsmeagain wrote:

With all due respect counselor, the COA can not be "anything".  You have the burden to prove that the Defendant has violated the law.  As far as I know, there is no law against denying an application for credit . . . for ANY reason.  There is also no law against being stupid.  If there were, I and many others would be in constant litigation.

I agree with the previous posters.  Time to move on.  But if you decide to file suit, I am still curious to know under which statute you would file.

Good luck

IMA

---

Actually, it can be anything -- anything actionable.  I can put age, race, sex, religion, marital status discrimination as well as redlining.  The ECOA is extremely clear in that a potential creditor cannot deny credit for any reason.  In addition, there is ample case law to support the requirement that a creditor must provide a valid reason.  The concepts floating around that a creditor can deny you for, say, having red hair when, in fact, you don't is simply an old wives tale.  And even if you do have red hair, the creditor still loses as the only acceptable criteria are your ability and intent to repay the loan.

In any event, as soon as a plaintiff is proven a liar, the only thing in question is how hard they get hit for punitive damages.  Or how fast they drop to their knees looking to settle.

Message Edited by O6 on 01-14-2010 01:49 AM

[Uborrow-Upay]

O6 wrote: Although I have yet to do this with myself as the actual plaintiff, I have done this before with scores of clients. The results are always the same: plaintiff's swift and effective capitulation.

O6 wrote: In any event, as soon as a plaintiff is proven a liar, the only thing in question is how hard they get hit for punitive damages. Or how fast they drop to their knees looking to settle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I never, ever rely on anyone other than myself to guarantee accuracy in the terms and intent of contracts, or the fine details in other legal matters, regardless of the attorney's credentials.

While I realize this is just a forum (and I mean no disrespect to you in any way), I believe you meant to say "defendant" in the above instances.

Sorry to nit pick, but I've learned to triple check everything written by attorneys, as it's usually my butt on the line when I sign on the dotted line...not theirs.


Peace!

[Anonymous]

---

@Uborrow-Upay wrote:
O6 wrote: Although I have yet to do this with myself as the actual plaintiff, I have done this before with scores of clients. The results are always the same: plaintiff's swift and effective capitulation.

O6 wrote: In any event, as soon as a plaintiff is proven a liar, the only thing in question is how hard they get hit for punitive damages. Or how fast they drop to their knees looking to settle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I never, ever rely on anyone other than myself to guarantee accuracy in the terms and intent of contracts, or the fine details in other legal matters, regardless of the attorney's credentials.

While I realize this is just a forum (and I mean no disrespect to you in any way), I believe you meant to say "defendant" in the above instances.

Sorry to nit pick, but I've learned to triple check everything written by attorneys, as it's usually my butt on the line when I sign on the dotted line...not theirs.


Peace!

---

You're right.  My mistake.

Please substitute the word defendant for plaintiff.  Of course, if the plaintiff lies then he is also in deep poop.

[creditwherecreditisdue]

It's still time to cut bait...

[Anonymous]

---

@creditwherecreditisdue wrote:
It's still time to cut bait...

---

Nope. 

Perhaps Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have cut bait ... and we'd still have the glorious practice of married or divorced women being refused credit. 

Or Rosa Parks?

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

[creditwherecreditisdue]

---

O6 wrote:

---

creditwherecreditisdue wrote:
It's still time to cut bait...

---

Nope. 

Perhaps Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have cut bait ... and we'd still have the glorious practice of married or divorced women being refused credit. 

Or Rosa Parks?

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

---

Why do you go there? There are no racial implications here. Deplorable.

[Anonymous]

---

@creditwherecreditisdue wrote:

---

O6 wrote:

---

creditwherecreditisdue wrote:
It's still time to cut bait...

---

Nope. 

Perhaps Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have cut bait ... and we'd still have the glorious practice of married or divorced women being refused credit. 

Or Rosa Parks?

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

---

Why do you go there? There are no racial implications here. Deplorable.

---

You're not looking at the whole picture.

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that CrapOne is not following the law or common decency.  If everyone were just to stick their head in the sand as you seem to suggest, then the FDCPA, FCBA, ECOA and most consumer protection laws would be useless. 

What's really deplorable is that you believe nobody should stick up for their legal rights.

[DI]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@creditwherecreditisdue wrote:

---

O6 wrote:

---

creditwherecreditisdue wrote:
It's still time to cut bait...

---

Nope. 

Perhaps Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have cut bait ... and we'd still have the glorious practice of married or divorced women being refused credit. 

Or Rosa Parks?

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

---

Why do you go there? There are no racial implications here. Deplorable.

---

You're not looking at the whole picture.

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that CrapOne is not following the law or common decency.  If everyone were just to stick their head in the sand as you seem to suggest, then the FDCPA, FCBA, ECOA and most consumer protection laws would be useless. 

What's really deplorable is that you believe nobody should stick up for their legal rights.

---

Bashing a company with all the name calling isn't sticking up to one's rights.  It doesn't lead to anything.  Capital One was here yesterday, it's here today and will be here tomorrow.  If one doesn't like a company(only when things doesn't go their way) move one.  There's no point  with all the "CrapOne" this and "KillCap1" that.  Those are very strong demeaning things to say about any reputable company.   Capital One isn't obligated to approve anyone for an account.  And they certainly not obligated to alter it's terms and agreements to satisfy a particular customer.   That my friend is the bottom line!

Message Edited by DI on 01-15-2010 06:02 AM

[Anonymous]

---

@DI wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@creditwherecreditisdue wrote:

---

O6 wrote:

---

creditwherecreditisdue wrote:
It's still time to cut bait...

---

Nope. 

Perhaps Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have cut bait ... and we'd still have the glorious practice of married or divorced women being refused credit. 

Or Rosa Parks?

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

---

Why do you go there? There are no racial implications here. Deplorable.

---

You're not looking at the whole picture.

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that CrapOne is not following the law or common decency.  If everyone were just to stick their head in the sand as you seem to suggest, then the FDCPA, FCBA, ECOA and most consumer protection laws would be useless. 

What's really deplorable is that you believe nobody should stick up for their legal rights.

---

Bashing a company with all the name calling isn't sticking up to one's rights.  It doesn't lead to anything.  Capital One was here yesterday, it's here today and will be here tomorrow.  If one doesn't like a company(only when things doesn't go their way) move one.  There's no point  with all the "CrapOne" this and "KillCap1" that.  Those are very strong demeaning things to say about any reputable company.   Capital One isn't obligated to approve anyone for an account.  And they certainly not obligated to alter it's terms and agreements to satisfy a particular customer.   That my friend is the bottom line!

Message Edited by DI on 01-15-2010 06:02 AM

---

Just what is your personal stake in CrapOne?

FYI, there are probably several thousand Google hits with the moniker CrapOne or a variation thereof.  Whether people like it or not, I am not the first nor will I be the last to use that moniker.  You should learn to live with it just like those of us who happen to like Chase don't cry when someone else has a different opinion.

You are also confused about the issue.  The issue is CrapOne must give a) a legitimate / valid reason when declining credit and b) a reason that is reasonably related to creditworthiness.  That is the law.  Perhaps those who don't agree should run for senate and change the law as it currently reads.