MTE FINANCIAL

MTE and its affiliates are the worst and not legal. If a company is not a legal lender morally all you need to pay back is the ampunt of the principle borrowed.

No they are not legal. They hold no license in the US. They are located on tribal land so they claim they don't have to follow laws.

They go under tons of different names. You should do a search for MTE and it will bring up tons of different posts.

Hi guest,

Here is some info I found on MTE, as stated above they are illegal.
Quote:

Guest is correct MTE is highly illegal and will debit your account unauthorized. Please place a freeze on your account and contact MTE financial department. Let them know you are only going to pay principal Money Order ONLY!

And if i have already paid the principle back through finance charges will that be considered the principle paid in full?

Thank you very much for the info on MTE..That was very interesting and helpful.

ILLEGAL payday loan means no finance charges. Whatever you paid SHOULD be applied to your princapal. They put monies in your account by soliciting you Illegaly, so all they get is what they deposited. I dealt with them in the past. Paid them principal and that was it! :wink:

Just as an FYI...

This decision was made in December 2008 regarding MTE. I don't necessarily agree with all of thier practices or know where things are headed, but the findings were interesting. Mods may want to look into liability of advising posters of fighting MTE.

[quote]
Wednesday, December 17, 2008



Page 1



Loan Companies Owned by Tribes Have Sovereign Immunity???C.A.



By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer



Payday loan companies owned and operated by Indian tribes for tribal purposes have sovereign immunity and are not subject to legal actions to enforce state laws regulating the business of lending, the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.

Div. Seven Monday granted a writ of mandate sought by five companies asserting tribal immunity in an action brought by the California Department of Corporations. The panel overturned an injunction and sent the case back to the trial court for a determination of whether the relationship between the tribes and the companies satisfies the requirements for immunity.

The department sued in June of last year, charging that Ameriloan, US Fast Cash, United Cash Loans, Preferred Cash and One Click Cash had ignored its ???cease and desist??? orders and were violating the Deferred Deposit Transaction Law by lending without state licenses and charging excessive fees, among other ways.

Internet-Based Business

The companies are engaged in a largely Internet-based business of lending money short-term to borrowers who pay back the loans by authorizing repayment from their checking accounts on specific dates, typically on the next payday. The business is controversial because the loans carry huge charges, without regard to the number of days for which the money is borrowed, and has been regulated to the point at which it is virtually outlawed in some states.

In response to service of the complaint on the companies, The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Nation appeared specially in the action and moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction. The tribes asserted that the five defendants were operated by tribal corporations pursuant to tribal resolutions, that the proceeds of the businesses were used for tribal government and social welfare purposes, and that the lenders were arms of the tribes and shared the tribes??? immunity from being sued in the absence of express congressional authorization or waiver.

Retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Kalin, sitting on assignment, denied the motions and granted a preliminary injunction barring the companies from engaging in the allegedly unlawful practices set forth in the complaint. He ruled that the tribes are not immune from liability for off-reservation commercial activities and that the state???s power to enforce its laws under the Tenth Amendment takes precedence over their claims of immunity.

He also ruled that the tribes had waived any immunity, the Miami because the tribal corporation operating the businesses was created by a resolution authorizing it to ???sue and be sued,??? and both tribes because arbitration clauses were included in their standard loan agreements.

Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss, however, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge erred in several respects.

Tribal sovereign immunity, Perluss said, will apply to off-reservation commercial conduct if the predicates for such immunity are met. He distinguished cases holding that states may regulate tribal commercial activities occurring on nontribal lands.

Those cases, the presiding justice explained, concerned preemption, not sovereign immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court, Perluss noted, has recognized that ???[t]here is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them.???

Tenth Amendment

Nor, Perluss said, will the Tenth Amendment override the tribes??? immunity from actions to enforce lending laws. Such actions, he said, are distinguishable from those of the type discussed by the Supreme Court in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court (2006) 40 Cal.4th 239.

In Agua Caliente, the state high court said the state had a right to enforce campaign contribution reporting laws in administrative proceedings against Indian tribes. The court said the case involved ???unique circumstances??? and that the peoples??? right to a republican form of government, as well as the reservation of rights by the states under the Tenth Amendment, allow the state to insist that tribes obey the same regulations as other donors.

That ruling is limited to the unique field of campaign reform and does not, Perluss wrote, permit ???a broad abrogation of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.???

Perluss acknowledged that the expansion of tribal commercial enterprises may call into question the justification for the broad application of sovereign immunity. But such policy judgments are left to Congress and not to the state courts, he declared.

He went on to note that the ???sue and be sued??? clause in the Miami resolution was specifically limited ???to the extent of the specific terms of the applicable contract or obligation,??? and that the arbitration clauses in the loan agreements were similarly limited to specific transactions and were not broad waivers of sovereign immunity that would permit a consumer protection action by the state.

The presiding justice did, however, take note of the department???s argument, based on evidence it claimed to have discovered after the injunction was issued, that the loan companies were actually independent of the tribes but were involved in a ???rent-a-tribe??? scheme created solely to avoid complying with the lending laws.

Such evidence, Perluss said, should properly be considered by the trial judge in order to determine whether the companies are truly arms of the tribe. Past Court of Appeal decisions, he noted, have established criteria for resolving that issue, ???including whether the tribe and the entities are closely linked in governing structure and characteristics and whether federal policies intended to promote Indian tribal autonomy are furthered by extension of immunity to the business entity.???

The case is Ameriloan v. Superior Court (People), 08 S.O.S. 6711.



Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company

[/quote]

As far as I am aware their is no law that passed on this as of yet. MTE is still ILLEGAL in my state.

To me also, they are still illegal. When I contacted the state last year, they were trying to work things out with MTE and how to handle them. The state told me to fight them. I did, and I settled with them for just the prin. of the loan.

This is the first real test of the Sovereign Immunity for Native American PDL's. As you can read, the courts have upheld thier immunity at this point and typically in the court system, they rule based on precident. As I stated, I don't know where this goes, but it may change the direction that that owners of this site allow posters to make about MTE.

It was just an FYI, right, wrong or indifferent...

Im sure they will inform posters.

Getting back to the OC. He needs to pay principal and be done with them.

puddlejmpr,

You were advised correctly last year. Now, they have a court ruling in thier backpocket to fall back on. This is nowhere near being over and as an owner, I am not happy about it. What it does is it opens the door for them to "legally" offer internet loans in areas that others cannot like Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, New York, NJ, ect, because they have sovereign immunity.

Look for more fights in the near future....

We will, thanks for the info!! :D

from what i understand is if they come off of the tribal land to take legal action against you then they waive all Immunity

that is the hole in there little exemption.they have actual addresses for all there d/b/a's.the problem is there supposed main address is that p.o. box in miami.that is only a mail drop.they don't have an actual presence there.that is why so many gov't agencies consider them illegal.that is why they won't do anything of substance.

Agreed. Most of their d/b/a's use that MIAMI, OK address as a cover. I haven't heard of the setting up shop in an actual state off the reservation. Hey, but let me not speak too soon, you never know what MTE and MNE guys are plotting next :evil:

i want it back in my account and never to be taken out again

Joyce the only way to stop them is to close your account.

This post is in regards to someone saying they have sovereign (Tribal) immunity. I made a lengthy topic about this discussion, for which I refute the claim about sovereign (Tribal) immunity (using U.S. Supreme court rulings). Also, to the poster saying that if they go off tribal land they waive their immunity... this is not true. For immunity to be waived they must FIRST do this, but this alone does not waive immunity. Too many U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld immunity regardless of whether it was off tribal land or not. Anyway, like I said I countered his/her claim to not fight MTE by disproving the court ruling he/she quoted.

The post is located HERE

Wouldn't you just be better off going after the company that actually runs the lending companies instead of going head to head with the tribes? The whole thing is a sham. A Kansas payday lender that was in business for years before the owner ever heard of the Miami tribe, found out about the immunity thing and hooked up with a couple of tribes. The tribes just rented out their names and their immunities for 30 pieces of silver and the real lender makes a fortune.

good theory,but as long as the lender is connected with the tribe.they get the immunity.it stinks out loud,but until the feds pull that immunity they are exempt from penalty.

I am concerned, as in other posts, I get information that MTE Financial dba's are One Click Cash and USFast Cash. Is this true? I have two loans one with each entity. I sent my ach revocation letter and keep getting nasty emails from them they are now trying to debit the full loan value from my account and tack on all kinds of charges.

Am I dealing with two internet PDL's that might try and use this tribal immunity??

Thanks!

Cash Advance Network and Paychecktoday.com are also part of MTE. I believe Ameriloan may also be connected.

Dont worry about the tribal immunity AZ law states they need to be licensed.

What difference does it make what AZ law says if state laws can't be enforced against Indian tribes?

then those indian tribes really can't take action against the consumer now can they?as of now they haven't and i don't see them doing so.

Paul you are dead on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's your rationale for telling people they don't have to honor their contracts? The tribes haven't sued people before so you can probably get away with it? The tribes didn't have a court decision in their favor before. I'd be curious to see if they don't get a lot more aggressive now.

so,you are the one from the other thread.let me explain it to you.

1)there have been court rulings before concerning this illegal pdl company.
2)to sue they would have to serve people with an address that is not a p.o.box
3)once that's done,if the address is not on tribal ground.this illegal pdl opens itself up to a countersuit.which they will lose.


4)to sue they would lose there flimsy immunity.
i hope that was made somewhat clear.now scat.this place is still illegal and won't do a thing.the next time they do will be the first time.as far as my first point goes.that means others have tried before to take legal action.it proves nothing except they keep there stupid immunity.

THe tribes are Illegal. Major court ruling in WV. Citizens of WV got refunds.

thanks guest45.i was just coming on to tell that,and also 5 states have issued C&D orders to this pdl.also when the judge in this case ruled there was no MTE represenative there.they basically filed there exemption defense without an actual person in court.so to actually sue.they would have to leave there flimsy fantasy tribal ground for the reasons i outlined above that ain't happening.oh the states that have C&D orders for MTE are.
oklahoma(ironic huh?)
nebraska
new mexico
indiana

ok that's four not five,but count all the states where pdl's are prohibited.i just don'tput alot of weight into a flimsy decision by a limp court about an action by a low branch of state gov't.sorry,to me it's illegal business as usual for MTE.they can't therefore won't do a thing.except call and be stupid.

It was a settlement with WV. At least that's what it says on the WV attorney general's website. There was no "major" court decision in that case. Also, you left out Maine. They issued a C&D too that went absolutely nowhere.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that you advise people to put their faith in C&D's issued by other states' equally "low branches of state gov't"? The "low branch of state gov't" in California issued a C&D too before it got trounced in court.

oh well,it doesn't mean a thing.you are still illegal and won't risk your flimsy exemption and immunity to take action against anybody.my previous post explains why.now why don't you quit trying to pass your criminal pdl group as legal when really your not.examples like this are everywhere,and have been going on for years.still you don't do anything,and you won't.

Who knows, Paul, maybe if you say it enough times, it will be true. Kind of like Peter Pan said, anything is possible if you wish it enough. All I know is California went to war and lost while Colorado, Oklahoma and Maine have all accepted that and backed off.

You don't like payday loans? Then don't borrow any. You want loans made according to your state laws? Then do your homework first and only borrow from lenders in your state. You don't like the fact that sovereign nations are immune from state laws? Then stay out of reservation casi nos and start paying state excise taxes on your cigarettes, too.

i guess if you spout the same lines maybe someday they will come true.at least mine is the truth while yours is fantasy.

Is that the the debtconsolidationcare equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

i love it when you people start with this.just like on the phones no?can't think of anything to say so you go there.more fantasy by the employee.

Obviously, case law on jurisdiction/exemption of tribal law is confusing. Once principle has been paid, consumers have the right to have their case heard in their local jurisdiction if settlement was not reached. I doubt very seriously MTE would take a consumer to court, much less show up in small claims.
Until a court case challenges the current ruling, confusion will get worse.

no confusion.we can't take legal action against them,and they for fear of losing the exemption won't take legal action against anybody.no confusion here.they are still illegal and this forum will treat them as such.

"Court Ruling"?? ---Look, if one of these companies is treating you unfairly...Please, please, please, don't let "one" court ruling stop you from FIGHTING BACK!!! We American's take ENOUGH SHIT off of every low-life soverign nation that wants to come along to SCREW us---and (far too often) our fed gov allows them to do so.....Recent cases in point,,,"NAFTA"..."China screwing us out of jobs", Call center work outsourced to India....Illegal mexican coming across the border to steal work from us....I say---ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Stand up for your self, your rights, and DO NOT ALLOW SOME ASSHOLE "SOVERIGN INDIAN NATION" suck the financial blood from you and your families!!!!!!! Fight Back---ANYWAY YOU CAN!!!!!

Removed by Shazzers, offensive language is against TOS. THEM!!!! They want a FIGHT----- I'll give them one!!!!!

Tell them to meet you at Little Big Horn- this time you'll be ready.

Where did we get to Native American bashing? I thought the point was how to fight MTE. Facts are facts, tribal immunity clause hobbles both the PDL to come after consumers, and vice versa. As long as consumers protect their bank account, it is status quo. Most likely, MTE will nag for awhile, then go on to the next unsuspecting victim.

Wow those recent posts really give no relevance to this topic whatsoever. Suprised they have not been deleted.

Well the simple way in dealing with this company is to Close your bank account Case Closed. There is nothing they can do. You cant convince me that me paying $970 in rollover fees on a $300 principal is fair. That is insane! Bank account closed, End Of Story!