Thursday, January 7, 2010

Big Dan's Big News Jan 7, 2010

"They've got to have some kind of obligation to not totally extort the public," said Pavone.

"For the record, I have a perfect payment history and I have a nearly perfect payment record on my credit," Pavone's letter continued. "I have no doubt that you will mark my credit in light of this default, but if you do, I will sue you. I am eager to argue to a court that your interest rates are unfair within the meaning of various state and federal statutes, and anxious to point out that you 'had' to cut my credit limit from $32,000 down to $30,000 at the same time you were borrowing billions from the federal government and paid your executive bonuses in full."

Ben Pavone, California Lawyer, Refuses To Pay Bank Of America Credit Card, Threatens To Sue

Debtor's Revolt: Woman Refuses To Pay Off Bank Of America Credit Card

Message to Bank of America: I've decided to it's time to take a stand against the banksters' usury and greed! If our founding fathers were willing to sacrifice their LIVES for our FREEDOM, then I can certainly sacrifice my credit score and be willing to be sued. I'm staging a DEBTOR'S REVOLT!

Bank of America employee fired for reversing "Convenience Fees"; Orwellian Bank terms: "Convenience Fee" = charging you an extra $15 for paying your bill on the phone. "Courtesy Loan" = letting you buy a $1 bottle of water with a negative balance and tacking on a $39 "courtesy loan" fee (see "courtesy loan" in my rant below)

Credit Card Issuers Getting In Their Licks Ahead Of Reform

In the industry's latest shift away from controversial forced arbitration clauses, Bank of America said Thursday that it will no longer require credit card, bank account and auto loan customers to sign away their right to sue.


Special Commentary by Big Dan: "In June, Capital One raised my interest rate from 14% to 29.9% for absolutely no reason. I did exactly what the woman in this video above did, months ago. I've been paying on my Capital One credit card on time for years with no problems. I told them to put my rate back down because they were more than doubling my finance charge and it also caused a subsequent over the limit fee to boot. They basically told me to stick it, so I told them I would not pay them a penny unless they reversed the penalties and put the rate back to 14% and I haven't paid them since June. They call me several times a day and leave computerized messages from 'Greg', 'Linda', etc...saying: 'Hi, this is Capital One. We have some new opportunities for you.' But, back in June, they told me to stick it and too bad about the 29.9% rate when I told them I would continue paying as normal as I had for years, if they put my rate back down to what it was. One of the main things that should be illegal, is that they double the rate on balances you already have, instead of just the new things you buy. Why isn't that illegal? If the rate was doubled on new things you buy, I would stop using it. But to double the rate on a balance that's already there, THAT should be illegal. Two CREDIT CARD laws that need to be made are: 1) raising your interest rate is ONLY FOR FUTURE PURCHASES, NOT PREVIOUS BALANCES, and 2) a finance charge CANNOT CAUSE A SUBSEQUENT OVER THE LIMIT FEE. Also, two points about how Bank of America makes money off your checking account: a few weeks ago, I put CASH at a teller in my checking account in person. That night I bought gas. The next day I had a $39 fine. I went to the bank and told them I made a CASH deposit in person before I bought the gas that night. The BOA manager said that's because I made the CASH deposit AFTER 2:00pm, do you believe that? So, the CASH deposit isn't immediate, but the gas purchase made late at night at 9pm was! Second: when you are overdrawn with several transasctions, BOA sorts the transactions so you get the MOST FINES. Example: you have a balance of $100 and you make 5 purchases of $101, $1, $1, $1, and $1. Instead of paying the FOUR $1 purchases and bouncing only the ONE $101 purchase, they will take out the $101 FIRST giving you a negative $1 balance and then bounce the FOUR $1 purchases so they get FIVE $39 fines instead of ONE! So, TWO BANKING LAWS that need to be made are: 1) ALL transactions count when they are made; banks cannot DELAY DEPOSITS to your account but IMMEDIATELY TAKE OUT WITHDRAWALS TO MAXIMIZE PENALTIES, and, 2) when multiple purchases cause a negative balance, the BANK MUST PAY THE SMALLER TRANSACTIONS FIRST TO LIMIT THE PENALTIES, NOT purposely bounce the LARGEST one first so all the smaller ones bounce that could've been paid. And the biggest one of all: DO NOT APPROVE PURCHASES IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY!!! You can buy a $1 bottle of water with a negative balance, and they'll approve it but add a $39 fine. They call it a 'courtesy loan'. BULLSHIT! It's another way to create more fines! We can't count on the banks and credit card companies to police themselves, they're trying to screw you to make more money. But, politicians should be proposing these FIVE laws I mentioned above. They probably aren't proposing these laws because of all the lobby money they're getting from the banks and the credit card companies. I have a credit union debit card as well as a bank debit card. The credit union debit card will not give a 'courtesy loan', that's why credit unions are where you should be putting all your money. Don't you love the way they call it a 'courtesy loan'? That's propaganda at its finest! They let you buy a $1 bottle of water for $39 as a 'courtesy'! WTF???"

Bobby Kennedy & Matt Taibbi: Obama's Big Sellout; Wall Street's Naked Swindle; The Corporate Takeover of America - PLUS: Max Keiser's latest:

3 children a day.......

KABUL — Children are the biggest victims of the war in Afghanistan, with more than 1,050 people under 18 years old killed last year alone, according to an Afghan human rights watchdog.

Afghan war kills three children a day: report

It is often forgotten how "legal" the Nazi regime in Germany really was. It did not take power in a violent revolution, but entered government through the entirely "legal" procedures of the time. The "legal" vote of the "legally" elected Reichstag gave Adolf Hitler the powers to rule by decree, thus imparting strict "legality" to the actions of his government.

Indeed, there were several cases when those who felt the government had overstepped the bounds of law in a particular instance actually took the Nazi regime to court, and won. Why? Because the government was bound by "the rule of law." And the fact is, almost the entire pre-Nazi judicial system of the German state remained intact and operational throughout Hitler's reign. The "rule of law" carried on.

Of course, as the Nazi regime plowed forward with its racist, militarist, imperialist agenda, this "rule of law" became increasingly elastic, countenancing a range of actions and policies that would have been considered heinous atrocities only a few years before. This trend was greatly accelerated after the Regime -- claiming "self-defense" following an alleged "invasion" by a small band of raiders -- launched a war which soon engulfed the world.

Naturally, in such unusual and perilous circumstances, jurists were inclined to give the widest possible lee-way to the war powers of the state. After all, as one prominent judge declared, the war had pushed the nation “past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust."

-- No, wait. I must apologize for my mistake. That last quote was not, in fact, from a German jurist during the Nazi regime, but from a ruling issued this week by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- one of the highest courts in the land.

Olbermann: Health reform opponents ‘approve’ 45,000 deaths a year

WHO is this monster behind Condoleeza Rice???

Background of my Placards: I include copies of the full-size original — anyone who wishes to use them may do so. Where possible, I present them in HTML.Some are too complex and can only be presented as DOCs.

blog comments powered by Disqus