Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 134,000 members

You might want to do some more research as we are licensed as a sovereign nation and can provide loans throughout the country.
You balance is $390. If you want to settle this account you may do so for
$300 on 10/17. Any returns will be forwarded to a third party and reported to the three credit bureaus

This was their email to me. Sovereign Nation?

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:41 pm Subject: reply

translated:we are not in this country therefore we cannot do anything but threaten.if you were to give a letter to your HR person revoking any wage assignments we would be screwed.as if were not now.all we can do is call and e-mail.if you paid back the principal we don't even have that to stand on.
anyway that is what sovreign nation means.

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:41 pm Subject:

Yeah right, I've seen that email many times posted here by other members. Nope, your state law prevails.

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:41 pm Subject:

lol@ Paul. Laughing

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:49 pm Subject:

LMAO at Paul too, how funny are you???? You made me feel much better. I am so stressed at this time in my life a good laugh was needed. Thanks

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:55 pm Subject: reply

glad to be of service.i noticed me and shazz posted around the same time.just took awhile,but i knew that wouldn't escape getting noticed.

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:52 pm Subject:

I borrowed $300 and I have paid back $270. I just returned their emal and offered them $30 and I attached the consumer laws of AZ stating that they are bound by AZ Law. Now I will just sit and wait.

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:54 pm Subject:

Sorry that was me Kfstaff that posted I forgot to log in. Anyway I will default on Friday, I hope all goes as planned. Do any of these companies really abide by the C & D letters?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:59 pm Subject:

Some do, some don't bother. The make take a few days to call, but eventually they will and they will all try to tell you that their law's prevail. If you can, just let the calls go to voicemail so you don't have to get into an arguement with them.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:15 pm Subject:

Agreed Dawn, Dont waste any more of your time there is no need to talk to them.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:29 pm Subject:

Paycheck Today has a deal with the Miami Tribe of Eastern Oklahoma. The tribe acts as the lender but Paycheck Today puts up the money and runs the operation. The idea is that federally recognized Indian tribes are treated as sovereign nations under the U.S. Constitution and are exempt from most state laws. California and Colorado are the only states that have seriously attacked lenders using this model, but both states are locked in an endless legal battle. No court has ruled on whether payday lending by Indian tribes is subject to any states laws, but there are hundreds of cases that say they are exempt from most other state laws.

I know we all like to throw out the "PDL's are illegal in my state and they must follow the borrower's state law" line in our posts but the fact is the jury is still very much out on that one. Only one court has ever ruled on that issue and all it said was that STATES could force out-of-state lenders (not Indian tribes or foreign lenders) to follow their laws. It did not say that private citizen borrowers had the same power. In fact, the Supreme Court held that even if payday loans are illegal in your state the lender can still take you to binding arbitration if it's in your contract - and the arbitrator (which the lender picked) gets to decide what law applies.

I wish folks would keep a few things in mind when they throw around legal opinions on the boards:

1) Not even the state attorney general gets to decide whether a payday loan is illegal in a state. The most he can do is sue the lender on behalf of the state and ask a court to make that decision. So far, very few have taken it that far.

2) Contract law favors the payday lenders. It's unintentional but notwithstanding some of the sillier comments I've read on the boards, the lenders are smart and hire even smarter lawyers. They build their contracts around principles that were adopted to help businesses in general - i.e., arbitration clauses, class action waivers, etc. - and make it very difficult for individual borrowers to even get a court to consider the question of whether a loan is legal.

3) The value of the advice given on these boards is not legal acumen. (Imagine, for example, going in front of a judge and saying "I shouldn't have to pay this loan because someone that calls himself 'Freaky Friday' said they were illegal.") The value is that complaints to the AG, the BBB and the FTC cause lenders to expend more time and resources than the loan is worth. Add to that the high cost of collecting a debt and it just isn't worth it for a Kansas City lender to bring legal action in Ohio or California or wherever, even in a lender-friendly arbitration forum.

4) If you borrowed money, most states require you to pay it back even if the lender isn't licensed. The only thing you can argue about is the interest, and whether payments you made before defaulting should be creditted to the principal you borrowed. And when I say "pay back", even unlicensed lenders can usually charge some interest - 10% in Texas, 6% in PA for example - just not the massive amounts found in pdl contracts. In fact, that's how the CSO model works in Texas, Maryland and Florida. A real lender makes you a loan at the maximum interest rate for an unlicensed lender and the local store charges a perfectly legal "brokering fee" equal to payday loan interest for (a) processing your application and (b) guaranteeing the loan to the real lender.

Sorry for the rant and I realize it's probably the wrong thread, but lately I've seen a lot of new members throwing around their version of the law as though it were carved into the 10 commandments. If it were as simple as they would have us believe - and as they unfortunately lead the people who turn to these boards for help to believe - no one would be in the pdl trap and there wouldn't be any need for this board.

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:09 pm Subject:

I really appreciate and value your reply Freaky Friday, do you have any suggestions on how I should handle this particular company? I dont want to end up in some Indian jail in Oklahoma over a $300 loan that I owe $30 on and I dont mean that to be funny, I am serious. This whole process is stressful enough without the correct facts.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:10 pm Subject:

That was me Kstaff I forgot to log in.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:12 pm Subject:

You won't go to jail. You gave them an electronic debit authorization, not a check. Debits are governed by federal law, which applies to Indian tribes the same as they do to states.

BTW - I've looked up the court records on MTE several times using Lexis. Although they have been sued a number of times, they have NEVER sued anyone for defaulting on a payday loan. My guess is that the tribe can't sue you or take you to arbitration without waiving their immunity. (When you get sued you can file a counterclaim.) In other words, I think that the very thing that protects them from you keeps them prisoner on their reservation.

But even if I'm wrong about them waiving immunity, that would only help them if the tribe were legitimately running a pdl from their reservation. Remember, MTE is a sham. Paycheck Today operates from Pennsylvania. Just like United Cash Loans is really in Overland Park, Kansas and Ten Dollar Payday is in Colorado Springs (although both claim to be MTE lenders). The tribe just gets a piece of the fee to let money move through their bank accounts and to put their name on the loan documents. The last thing the real owners of these companies want is to put someone in a position to demand documents, depose their employees and expose the entire operation.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:04 am Subject:

Am I correct in stating that Federal Law and Industry rules allow for the revocation of Electronic Funds transfers especially relating to Internet Payday Lenders? The Consumer Protection Act states that in order to stop the continued debit of ones account, as long as proper notice is given to your Financial Institution orally or in writing 3 days prior to the expected debit, by law your Financial Institution must comply and that you do not have to pay internet payday lenders by EFT?

This is how I am interpreting the laws of the FDIC and the Consumer Protection Act. Do you agree?

Thanks Freaky
Karin

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:50 am Subject:

My understanding of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and NACHA rules is exactly the same as yours, kfstaff24. Not everyone agrees, though. For example, I know that CashNetUSA sends out a form letter prepared by its lawyers that says that the section of the EFTA that permits revocation does not apply to payday loans because pdl's are not structured as "recurring" debits.

But again, this is an area where practical reality trumps legal uncertainty. If you revoke authorization and the pdl's try to debit you (this includes "new" accounts if they find out about them) you can go to the bank and file a fraud affidavit. If you do this in a timely enough fashion, the bank has to act upon it and reverse the transaction through the federal reserve. Usually, any NSF charged are waived as well.

Theoretically, the pdl could try to fight it (i.e., by raising the same legal arguments that CashNetUSA's letter - which seems to just be a scare tactic - does) but few, if any, ever do. It's cheaper for them to turn the file over to their collections department than to pay their lawyers to fight over a few dollars.

*Name:
*Email:
*Phone:
*Zip:
*Debt

	* denotes required field

Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 134,000 members

I Got This Email today from Paychecktoday.com

Members Area

Free Debt Counseling

Ask the community

Featured Discussions

Featured Articles

Question of the Month

Also See

Recent Forum Discussions

Recent Blog Post