Suggestion to fight MTE Financial or any other Tribal immune PDL co.

Sure, you can take them to arbitration. And the NAF will rule in favor of the payday lenders like they always do. Problem is that the only real power over payday lenders is the threat of enforcement action by the state. And a California appeals court just ruled - in a case in which United Cash Loans and its sister companies were the defendants - that sovereign immunity does apply when the state tries to enforce its laws.

Even if the state does not enforce the law that does not mean they are going to come after you legally if you default.

It just means they can't stop them from making the loans and they won't help if you do have one.

I'm totally confused by all of it. What happens if you live in a state such as I do in NC where payday loans are prohibited whether they are legal lenders or not? I have loans with MTE and United Cash Loans. My MTE loan went straight to A.K.A Recovery. MTE never tried to contact me just sent the loan to collections. I owe $210 on the principal and A.K.A. wants $755.00. I sent them a Debt Validation letter along with the state payday loan laws for NC. United Cash Loans sent me a text message to call them but I haven't heard anything else from them. Both companies received certified letters from me but I'm sure that doesn't mean a whole lot.

to the guest who keeps harping on the california appeals court.fine,but the california AG as well as alot of AG'S still say that any loans given by MTE are illegal.the reason?because the federal gvoernment is basically allowing a p.o. box mail drop to be considered there address.just about every AG knows they have physical locations that are not in miami OK.my IL AG'S office told me that MTE claims some flimsy exemption because they pay the tribe in miami to have the p.o. box.her office and other AG'S will always tell people that any MTE loans are illegal.alinewcombe,your AG will say the same thing.they are illegal do not give what guest said any weight.

You're correct paul. This is the problem with e-commerce. At the current time, there is very little precident for contractual issues over the internet because of the lack of rulings in favor or against. While the states say they are illegal, there is a court ruling in CA that says otherwise. Which is correct, it depends on who you ask but generally the courts will prevail.

The bottom line is that until there is more cases and appeals in the courts system, this is a very gray area and MTE finally has atleast one dog in the fight with a chance.

Let me see if I follow what Paul is saying. The State of California said MTE is illegal and tried to force the company to stop making loans in California. MTE ignored the cease and desist letter and California took them to court to get an injunction. The appeals court ruled against the state. But Paul says that doesn't count all that matters is that the regulator says they are illegal even though the regulator argued that in court and lost. When 500FastCash sues someone in California should the borrower tell the judge to ignore the appeals court decision, cause the moderators on debtconsolidationcare.com say they're illegal? Or is it that hard for the folks that run this site to admit they are wrong about something?

it's obvoius you work for this illegal company.when if ever has your totally illegal company ever sued anybody?go back to the phones idiot.this is an illegal company and would never sue anybody.your verbage gives you away shill.i've siad it before and will say it again.you have immunity from prosecution.if you were to sue you lose the immunity.having exemptions doesn't make you legal.

paul, actually the guest has a point and that is what I was trying to get accross. This is such a huge gray area that has to be cleaned up, but probably will not in the near future. You are actully also correct regarding the last time an unlicensed lender utilized small claims court. Keep your eyes and ears open for what the future may bring and if someone should have no other option, steer them to a legal, licensed lender.

i just know owner that no d/b/a of this group has ever sued anyone.because they would lose there exemption.if this place or any other d/b/a tried to sue outside of there supposed tribal ground.it would be them who would end up paying.trust me i know these state govt's hate the exemption,but again that doesn't make them less illegal.it just means they keep there stupid exemption.i say it's business as usual where there concerned for now.

You're correct about "business as usual", but until another ruling changes the precident the California findings prevail. This is regardless of the OP feelings...

As I said when this discussion first came up, I don't like the findings. They put legitamate lenders at a disadvantage because we HAVE to follow regulations on how and where we can do business. This falls into the same catagory as the federally chartered banks offering "PDL's" and bypassing state regulations.

Does anyone other than me see dual identity here? Hiding behind a key board to say things you cant use your real identify for is laughable.

[quote]Does anyone other than me see dual identity here? Hiding behind a key board to say things you cant use your real identify for is laughable.[quote/]

With all due respect...

What are you talking about?

we are somewhat in agreement.after speaking with my AG.what happened in CA doesn't or shouldn't effect how other states look at MTE or there d/b/a's.they are still illegal and still should looked at as such.

Correct. We need more decisions to clear up the picture.

Let's move on...

Ok I want to point a couple of things out to some people. First let's start with the obvious. PDLOwner, I could say with nearly 100% certainty that you not only work in the payday loan industry, but that you are probably a representative of some sorts of MTE Financial (or whatever name you guys decide to go by). Every post of yours that I see is one bent on trying to make people believe they have no grounds to fight MTE, and at the same time you attempt to act as if you are on their side. So that said, I take all of your comments with a grain of salt seeing as how they seem to be in the interest of the payday loan industry rather than the consumers. Now onto some other stuff.

the first response to my post said:
Quote:

while PDLOWNER is in fact a pdlowner.they have also given good insight as to not only help beat back illegals,but also legal storefronts.this is a complex issue.please do not take shots when none are warranted.

I did not take any shots at anyone, other than at MTE. Perhaps PDLOwner has helped out with other loans. Whether they were done in the consumer's interest or in the interest of PDLOwner's is something I haven't seen. In fact I have not seen any of this. The only things I have seen is PDLOwner discouraging people from standing up for themselves against this company. If this person had no interest in MTE (or any affiliates) this person would have taken my post as it was, not attempt to find ways to disprove it. I also would have a hard time believing that someone who obviously did not understand that Federal court rulings supercede State court rulings would be a sound source of help relating to the legality (or how to fight) any payday loan company.

So I'll say it right now, PDLOwner... if you have no interest at all in MTE Financial or any company related to such, I apologize that I have made implications that you might. However, that being said... I welcome all responses to my post. I simply ask that you understand that responding to my post in a manner which attempts to degrade the value of the information I present will result in me responding in the same manner. Also, I ask that you understand that any statements made in an attempt to scare people into thinking they do not have a chance against this company will also result in me responding with information that is contradictory to yours. So... like I said, if you are not a part of MTE... I apologize if you have been offended by anything I said.

I will say this though. I pride myself on the fact that I do not make comments or statements unless I know without a reasonable doubt that they are true. I found MANY Supreme court cases that I could have used to disprove MTE's tactics, instead I chose ones which I felt were completely (and undoubtedly) relevant. I will readily admit fault if you can honestly show me that my argument is wrong. I will warn you though, it will be difficult to find any law higher than a ruling from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. That being said, I will go ahead and admit, that the one case law I used regarding immunity not mattering in court in criminal charges... that could possibly be refuted... at least for the state it is related to. That says nothing about a Federal ruling though. As of right now I do not feel like searching through Supreme Court cases again, unless this is something you would like to debate.

Ahh man, you got me!!! You're right because you seem to think that you're the expert. If all of your "shoulds", "woulds" and "coulds" had actually happened, we would not need this conversation. In the court room, the atty's will research any aplicable cases and cite them as precidence towards thier position. In the case that I mentioned, they did not mention your referenced case. The fact still remains that their have not been enough cases tried anywhere to determine from a legal standpoint that ecommerece must follow the laws of the originator or end user.

As for me being a shill for MTE, you obviously have not read thru my posts as thorough as you would like readers of this thread to think.

Thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say!

Like I mentioned in the post right before yours, I stated that I apologize for making any implications if you do not actually work for them. Then again when you make statements like "MTE FINALLY has a dog in the fight" you are setting yourself up for these types of comments.

As far as my "shoulds", "woulds" and "coulds", I guess I do not understand what it is that you are referring to. Please... elaborate on this.

Also, I guess maybe you are not grasping what I am saying regarding the court cases. You can show me a million state level case rulings that say one thing, and then ONE federal level case ruling that rules completely the opposite and I guarantee the federal ruling WILL (not "shoulds", "woulds" and "coulds") overrule even the largest number of state rulings. That being said, there are many case laws that say (and I'm summarizing) that if any entity (business, etc.) chooses to conduct business with any other entity (consumer) of another state, the business IS subject to be tried under the laws of the consumer. This is because the business made the conscious choice to solicite and conduct business with consumers in that state, so it also made the conscious choice to be subject to the laws of that state. It cannot get any more plain, or any more simple. The facts are the facts, and as I mentioned before, it only takes ONE federal case law to establish any legal grounds for the same purpose. The fact that there are multiple, just gives someone the ability to choose which one they like best (or which they can more easily pronounce). If you can show me the law that states there must be a specific number of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that must take place before they are actually valid, I will certainly concede my argument. I assure you though, no such law exists.

before this gets out of hand.check out the two guests posts.those are the posts of an MTE employee.yes the dept of corporations tried to file an action against MTE.it failed because of there flimsy exemption.the issue is can or will MTE take legal action against a consumer.i still say no.owner doesn't like there exemption or the way they do business.he has said this on other MTE threads.i can vouche for this.

Let's move on...

Quote:

i agree,let's move on.

Upon posters posing questions about the validity of my statement that courts can prosecute criminal actions against those with with tribal sovereign immunity I decided to search some more to see what I come up with. Instead of searching through court decisions, I decided to search through Federal laws instead. I had found some U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to this, but nothing was spelled out the way it is in the United States Code. This is what I came up with:

Public Law 280 gives a list of 6 states which the State government has the authority to exercise jurisdiction over tribes. The states are California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska. It also allows all other states to elect if they wish to exercise this jurisdiction. It should be mentioned though that of the 6 states just mentioned, not all of them have opted to exercise jurisdiction over all tribes, or tribal lands. Since the inception of Public Law 280 several other states have also elected authority to exercise this jurisdiction. These states were Nevada (Where several of the MTE offices are physically located), South Dakota, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, Iowa, and Utah. Although I do not know the specifics of how each state has chosen to exercise their authority, but if you live in any of these states I would suggest that you look into it further if you are interested.

So obviously not all states definitively have some form of authority of jurisdiction to try criminal cases against tribes. This does not mean that those located in other states are not capable of filing charges against any memeber of a tribe with Tribal sovereign immunity.

According to Non-Public Law 280, and Title 18 of the United States Code that criminal jurisdiction is given to both the Tribal government and the Federal government. Delving in deeper, Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1152 grants the Federal government authority to enforce all of its laws on all land within the U.S. (excluding the District of Columbia), and even crimes committed on tribal land. There is an exclusion though, they cannot claim criminal jurisdiction over "Indian" on "Indian" (Their words, not mine) types of crimes, and those that were tried in Tribal court (which has no jurisdiction over "non-Indians") or are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribes.

My interpretation of this is as follows. Crimes which violate state laws in any state which has adopted the jurisdiction rights of Public Law 280 must first go through courts within the state before being tried in Federal Court. Crimes which violate Federal law (and fit within the outlines above) outside of these states will be tried by Federal courts. So even if you do not live in a state that exercises this jurisdiction, Tribes can still be tried in Federal court for Federal crimes (Fraud is a federal crime) and do not have to first be exhausted through state courts.

If you feel I have made a misinterpretation I will be glad to discuss it.

This is an update to my original post. After sending them the letter I have not heard back from them. They have not tried to contact me or withdraw any funds from my account. Best of luck!

paulmergel is a big defender of pdlowner and any opinion he offers on any thread, which is very unusual considering the purpose of this forum. You can't win against those 2, tnunley02.

All of this is very interesting to me, esp. as UCL is the only PDL who's still calling me. The template letter mentions Missouri laws, would I adapt this for Maryland, or? Another thing; these people obviously know where they're legal or illegal (and I understand they're illegal just about everywhere); now if someone knowingly represents themselves as a legal company when they're not, doesn't that render the entire contract as null and void, no matter which State we're talking about? Would that be a "legal leg to stand on?" And - just wondering - has anyone dealt directly with the tribal leaders on the lands where UCL/MTE have their address? If so, what do they have to say? (sorry if I seem a bit naive/ignorant about this)

That is just NOT true.

Paul and PDL Owner are valuable members here. At times they agree and there are times they don't. That happens, but they agree to disagree for the sake of education and support.

PDLOwner has a legal business and has always fought against the illegal internet lenders as Paul does. They have that fight in common with the rest of us.

In this situation it was better to let it drop as it was really not getting anywhere.

This is obviously going nowhere so I'm locking this thread. If anyone has anything constructive to add, PM me and I will unlock it.