txjohn, you are right I won't argue about it, to each their own. You are right that rights not guaranteed by the contitution falls under the state and if states have more stringent laws they are welcome to use it. However, those powers end at the state border and if you are in state x and creditor is in state y, guess what? your state laws mean nothing since its interstate commerce at that point subject to the rules of the federal government. But heck, what do I know, I only play a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and civil procedure. I could be wrong and your attorney charging you money and motivated to tell you what you want to hear is probably right. 
@Anonymous wrote:Guardian,
I hope that I have not offended you...and I believe that i may have poorly communicated the true point I was making. The point to which I was referring is that if XYZ Company does busines in another state and with citizens of that state, they are subject to the consumer laws of that state and the protections it provides.
In no way was I attempting to say that federal rules do not apply, and I apologize if I seemed to infer that or suggest that you were wrong. I was so to speak, splitting a specific hair. Which is that I have had much better success using Texas consumer protection laws with CA's than federal laws. It provided use of state and county courts and state laws which were a bit more consumer friendly than even the federal.
I absolutely agree that interstate commerce and trade is regulated at the federal law. I was only trying to get a little more granular on the state level leverages that may be had when dealing with CA's.
In any regard, please accept my apology for any offense or statement which was or appeared to be objectionable.
Of course not my friend, we are all adults. Discussion is part of life, no need to be offended. I just get busy sometimes and don't get to come back and reply right away and when I do I have to write it quickly and sometimes I leave the formalities out.
I understood what you said and I agreed with you actually, remember 
I was just setting the scope of it in perspective for you because I didn't want you to god forbid find yourself in a situation where that distinction would get you in trouble. Otherwise, you made your point fine and I accept it to a certain degree. As I said jurisdiction is a really trickly little fella and you have to be very careful with it, that's all. In many cases, states have ultimate power and in fact federal will release back to state to decide an issue but there are times that even a state matter is involved, federal court will hear it for the sake of impartiality and efficiency when there are some components that fall under their jurisdiction and depending on where you stand, its a good or bad thing that they have the power to snatch cases if they want. However, they are also bound by much stricter jurisdiction requirments, so they often don't flex that muscle. In fact they prefer NOT to set a national presedence and prefer to keep it localized, unless the issue warrants it.
Anyway we are all cool, I wasn't offended and no apology needed. I am sorry if I made you feel that way, it was not my intention.
Glad to hear we are cool
As an after thought, I could have avoided much of the fuzzy area with this disclaimer:
"My comments are related to dealing with Collection Agencies only, and not to the general overview of interstate commerce and federal powers."
@Anonymous wrote:Glad to hear we are cool
As an after thought, I could have avoided much of the fuzzy area with this disclaimer:
"My comments are related to dealing with Collection Agencies only, and not to the general overview of interstate commerce and federal powers."
Always. Come on, we are adults here, at least I think we are 
with some people you never know. Its ok with your disclaimer, I could have waded through the fuzz if I was not in a rush but no harm no foul. I have for a while now tried to adopt hauling's laid back approach on differences. Say your peace, be respectful and just leave it at that, you can't convince everyone and all you can do is say what you know and leave it to that person to decide for themself. So I figure it avoids the need to be offended or become "less than friends" with anyone. The worst case scenario, you just don't reply or talk to that person or comment on their posts, you know? Passive agressive if you will I will be completely honest and tell you that there are a couple of people whose posts I avoid like the plague and commend the ones with the patience to deal with them. Otherwise I am friends with everyone until I am not or they are not. 