Federal Debt Relief Program - Has it been helpful to consumers?

sorry... that last guest post was from me. must be the percocet working..lol

"Although I am female, no prior posts give that indication. Yet you so confidently stated twice my gender? I am just curious? How did you know?"

Uhm, I'm betting that EVERYONE could tell your gender. How do I say this without insulting other women? Your posts were a stereotypical whining, bitching and raving attack on a company that you had originally sought help from, and then, when you changed your mind for whatever reasons you had (panic?), you then turned around and proceeded to attack.

I have to admit your post today is lucid so maybe the percocet is to blame.

We welcome comments on the Forums, whether something has helped you or not. We do not,however, welcome comments that are attacking in nature, rude, condescending, etc.

Whether you go with a company or not is your choice. But I will continue to say, check them out, with not only the BBB, but your states attorney general and others who have used them through completetion.

Peolpe say negative things if the program hasn't worked for them, they say positive if it has.

AS long as you are following the Terms of Service here on the site, you are welcome, if not, the posts will be edited or deleted..

Uhm, I'm betting that EVERYONE could tell your gender. How do I say this without insulting other women? Your posts were a stereotypical whining, bitching and raving attack on a company that you had originally sought help from, and then, when you changed your mind for whatever reasons you had (panic?), you then turned around and proceeded to attack.

WOW! Didn't realize that I was so bitchy and whiney. I will try and work on that. But, just between us, you should hope that others do not use the aforementioned "stereotypical" characteristics as a yard stick for gender determination. Since you seem to dislike girls you would not want to be confused as one.

To be honest, I was really hoping that your reply would contain that something, anything to give FDRS reconsideration. Dissappointed...on so many levels.

I did review the three or so posts that I wrote and I failed to find that raving attack on FDRS that you mentioned. If you really saw me in attack mode, you would probably wee your little pants.

The "mean lady" is going to leave you alone now that I see how fragile you are.

:roll:

I will answer for Willy. I asked the poster to edit post but it was too late. The poster was cordial when I reminded him of rules here.I will also ask all members & guests to remain cordial & follow our rules.Thanks.

Here is another interesting article regarding the bogus debt termination scams. This is written by Minnesota State Bar Association.

The Ostrich Defense:
Internet Scams in Consumer Credit Collection
by Michael D. Johnson

[quote]One of unfortunate outcomes of increased communication via the Internet has been an increase in the dissemination of tax protestor and consumer credit scams. The tax protestor movement has been characterized by outlandish arguments put forth by individuals who deny an obligation to pay taxes. For example, members of this movement claim that a person is exempt from federal income taxes if they are a citizen of a state, United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir.1991) (???????Mr. Sloan????????s proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States [because he is a free born, natural citizen of Indiana] is simply wrong???????); or that a state????????s department of revenue may only accept gold or silver for taxation. Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F.Supp. 50 (???????The short answer to this silly argument is that Article I, ????10, does not limit Congress????????s power under Article I, ????8, to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts???????). Internet scams that purport to entitle a consumer to not pay a creditor on grounds similar to those cited by the tax protestors are increasingly being made in consumer credit collection matters and are a growing burden to creditors. The intent of this article is to outline several of the Internet scams commonly used in consumer credit collection cases and demonstrate their fraudulent nature.

The credit industry has various names for individuals and groups who use these Internet scams: Posse Comitatus, Freeman, Monetary Protestor, and Militia, among others. As used in this article, the term ???????Internet scam??????? denotes consumer credit scams promoted by these groups and individuals over the Internet. Internet scam arguments come in many different forms and embrace various theories. These arguments usually ???????cut and paste??????? elements of various laws and common law theories to conclude that a person is magically freed from debt and does not have to pay their creditors. These scam arguments are intended to delay collection action as long as possible.

Many Internet sites and chat groups have been created to advise people on how to avoid payment of debt. These operations usually charge a fee for the ???????legal pleadings??????? they provide and should be investigated for the unlicenced practice of law. The domain names of these organizations give insight into their intent: ???????www.eliminatecreditcarddebt.cc???????; ???????www.debtaid.org???????; ???????www.debtdispute.com???????; and ???????www.dlkconsultants.org/D_E_P_Debt_Elimination.html???????. The Anti-Discrimination League has a watchdog website that tracks similar organizations that have a political message.1

???????No Money Lent???????

The ???????flavor of the month??????? in Internet scam circles is the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument. The short version of this argument is that because the bank lent credit to the debtor, and not money, the debtor can repay the creditor in credit. By executing an alleged promissory note, via the credit application, the debtor has paid the creditor and thus is not indebted. The argument is widely disseminated over the Internet and is typified by the passage below:

Consumers with the right information can force creditors and debt collectors into ???????non-payment??????? settlement agreements. Why? Because it can be proven by the bank????????s own accounting records that it lent nothing to the customer, but created money from the customer????????s promise to pay. This makes the customer the lender, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and entitled to have his ???????unpaid debt??????? reduced by the value of the greatest credit limit.


The best-kept secret in the banking and credit card business is that banks do not lend anything. When interviewed, several certified public accountants agreed that, ???????In a typical checking account, the check writer????????s account is debited and the seller????????s account is credited, but in a loan or credit account, no accounts are debited but the customer????????s account is credited in the amount of the approved credit limit. The bank creates the money from nothing, making the customer the lender.??????? 2


According to the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument, when a debtor defaults on credit, the debtor does not owe any money. In addition, the debtor is entitled to the largest amount of credit extended by the creditor, because the debtor executed a promissory note for this amount. For example, in the dreamland in which these fraudulent people live, if you have a credit card with a $5,000 credit limit, and you default owing $4,000, you not only do not owe the $4,000, you are actually entitled to $5,000. The intention of this mind-boggling argument is to delay collection action by confusing creditors and courts.

The passage below is taken from a typical Internet scam answer to a summons and complaint.

The credit card company accepted the alleged credit card application as money and deposited the money/credit card application into an account with the respondent????????s name on the account. This means that the credit card company recorded the credit card application as a loan from the respondent to the credit card company and the credit card company became the borrower. The credit card company never lent one penny to purchase the credit. When the credit card company deposited the funds of newly issued credit into an account, the credit card company credited new money. The credit card company received funds from the respondent. And, GAAP requires that the credit card company record a liability account, crediting the respondent????????s account, showing that the credit card company owes the respondent the deposited funds just as if the respondent had deposited cash or a payroll check into the respondent????????s account.


The ???????No Money Lent??????? argument was used by debtors in the case of Alcorn and Allen v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 5656, (Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District). In its decision, the court stated, ???????Alcorn and Allen take the position that, when they executed and delivered the home equity note to Long Beach Mortgage Company, the note did not evidence a debt from them to the mortgage company, but instead ???????created???????? money belonging to them that they do not owe to anyone. This is a legally erroneous concept ... .??????? Internet scams frequently cite Federal Reserve publications entitled, ???????Modern Money Mechanics??????? and ???????The Two Faces of Debt.???????3 Both articles were published by the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserve Bank years ago and are no longer in publication. Internet scams reach ridiculous conclusions from these publications by misinterpreting the articles and ignoring other relevant laws.

Internet scams often rephrase the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument by stating there was no consideration given by the credit grantor to create a contract. The argument is that if only credit was lent to the debtor via the debtor????????s promissory note, then the credit grantor did not risk any of its own funds and there was no consideration to form a contract. The absurdity of the no consideration argument is obvious. Federal law defines a loan and extension of credit as all direct or indirect advances of funds to a person made on the basis of any obligation of that person to repay the funds.4 The fact a creditor lent credit and not money directly to the consumer does not affect the liability of the debtor. By paying merchants for purchases made by a cardholder, creditors provide the necessary consideration to create an enforceable contract.

Truth in Lending

The over-achieving members of the Internet scam movement have spun the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument into a Truth in Lending Act violation or a violation of other consumer protection laws. According to this argument, if the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument is held as the truth, then the creditor has failed to disclose a material fact. The material fact being that the creditor risked none of its own assets because it lent credit via the borrower????????s note. This argument is gibberish on top of gibberish. A creditor does not have to lend money directly to a debtor in order to create a liability. The issuance and use of credit are sufficient to create the liability. Under Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.12, footnote 1, a contract and binding obligation are formed through the use of the credit. By using the credit, the debtor agreed to the terms and conditions of the credit agreement.

An effective technique, when a debtor alleges a Truth in Lending Act violation, is to demand the person state specifically what portion of the act has been violated. Debtors using these Internet scams claim broad sweeping allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in order to create doubt as to their liability. Once these individuals are forced to lay out the specifics of their arguments, the baseless nature of their ludicrous claims becomes obvious.

The FCBA Scam

Another Internet scam is to claim a violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA).5 This scam involves sending a billing dispute letter to the creditor claiming a billing error on grounds that the creditor failed to disclose the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument and various other frivolous claims. Under the FCBA, a creditor has a duty to investigate a billing complaint and is prohibited from moving forward with legal action until the dispute has been investigated. Scam artists use this provision in a fraudulent attempt to halt collection by claiming that the creditor violated the FCBA in failing to respond to their complaints.

Nearly identical FCBA dispute letters are received by my firm everyday. The identical wording of the letters and the corresponding motion to dismiss that is usually filed by the debtor leads me to believe that one Internet site is promoting this scam. The letters allege various acts of misrepresentation and include the same four claims:

1. That Big Bank Credit Lender does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
2. That Big Bank Credit Lender does not follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures.
3. That Big Bank Credit Lender prohibits the party that funds the loan or extension of credit to be repaid.
4. That Big Bank Credit Lender disclosed to me that they would create new money based on my note or similar instrument and that I am not entitled to those credits or money.


When dealing with these frivolous and fraudulent letters, creditors should respond in writing, stating that the alleged billing error is fraudulent and that its investigation is complete. The billing error dispute letters claim a billing dispute exists because no money was lent and the debtor was not told that new money would be created. Such arguments not only are ludicrous, but also do not constitute a billing error dispute under the FCBA because the dispute does not relate to a specific charge on a billing statement. Because these dispute letters do not comply with the requirements of the FCBA, no response may be necessary. However, creditors should still send a response in order to eliminate any future argument.

Under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), a consumer reporting agency may terminate an investigation of a complaint if it determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.6 One such example is where a consumer disputes all information in their file without providing any details concerning the specific items in dispute. The reporting agency is still required to send a letter within five business days, but the provision helps creditors deal with the increasing problem of fraud. Such a provision in the FCRA would help creditors avoid many of the problems created by Internet scams.

The Arbitration Scam

An increasingly common Internet scam is to claim that the debt was resolved through arbitration. Conveniently for the debtors using this Internet scam, the arbitrations are usually sited in states far away from Minnesota, such as Florida, Alabama, and Texas. The arbitration forums, if they even exist, are scam operations that have professional-sounding names. Their names are usually slight deviations from those of reputable arbitration forums. Debtors using this scam usually send a notice of arbitration that claims to bind the creditor to the scam arbitration. These attempts to force a creditor into arbitration violate not only the terms of the credit agreement, but also the Federal Arbitration Act.7

Debtors using the false arbitration scam claim the fictitious promissory notes as their basis for claiming an arbitration award. The scam alleges that because the bank used the debtor????????s promissory note (the credit application) to fund the loan, the debtor is entitled to a cash payment for the full amount of the promissory note. This is a continuation of the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument. The arbitration award is usually in the same amount of the credit default or the highest credit limit. While courts have recognized these fraudulent arbitrations for what they are, the arbitrations present a hassle for creditors and are another attempt to delay collection actions.

False arbitrations are widely available over the Internet as a means to defraud creditors. The fraudulent nature of these arbitrations is shown by the posting below, which outlines how a debtor can create a false arbitration forum.8

Suppose that ???????Mary Jane,??????? an average consumer, opens a mail box at any mail box service or even the post office. In her form 1583, she will instruct the mail box service provider or the post office to accept mail addressed to the ???????Consumer Arbitration Forum??????? a name she invented that sounds like another established arbitration service. Mary Jane will accept arbitration claims for a $39.00 filing fee, payable by blank money order. The defendant must also pay a $39.00 filing fee. Upon receipt of the filing fee and claim, she will send a notice to the claimant and all other parties stating that a final arbitration award will be given on a specific date exactly 90 days from the date of the notice and that all evidence and arguments must be filed at least ten days before that time. In about two and a half months, Mary Jane contacts several local consumers to review the evidence in the case file and to vote on a decision. That decision is then recorded into the file and dated and mailed to every party. The party in whose favor the award is given can then apply to the local court for an order confirming the arbitration award and an entry of judgment against the losing party.

In response to these arbitration claims, major creditors have obtained injunctions against several arbitration forums ordering the forums to stop issuing the false arbitration claims. Unfortunately, fighting fraudulent arbitration forums is much like trying to stop music piracy on the Internet. Even if creditors are successful in obtaining injunctions against one forum, new arbitration forums spring up to replace the ones that have been shut down. Fighting such groups is a costly and burdensome exercise in dealing with these scam operations.

The Ostrich Defense

One of the more unusual Internet scams is to write ???????Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor??????? on everything sent to the debtor by a creditor and then returning it to the creditor. This includes the summons and complaint, summary judgment paperwork, and any other piece of paper sent to the debtor by the creditor. I like to call this the ostrich defense. Those advocating this Internet scam argue that if documents from the creditor are ???????refused for cause??????? in this manner, the debtor cannot be held liable for the debt.

Section 3-501 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs presentment of negotiable instruments. Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom the presentment is made may return the instrument for lack of endorsement or refuse to accept the payment for failure of the presentment of the instrument to comply with the terms or agreement of the parties or other applicable rule. UCC 3-501 (1994). Because a court pleading is not a financial instrument that can be dishonored, writing ???????Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor??????? is meaningless. While UCC 3-501 is relevant in many circumstances, including when a person fails to endorse a check, it is wholly inapplicable to a consumer credit collection case.

An effective way of dealing with Internet scams is to demand specifics. For example: which purchase is the debtor disputing? which interest charge is the debtor disputing? which billing statement was inaccurate and why? what action by the creditor violated the fdcpa and when exactly did the violation occur? The intent of Internet scams is to delay collection actions by making broad, all-encompassing arguments. Judges may initially take these arguments seriously because the debtor, by alleging a Truth in Lending Act violation or FDCPA violation, adds a bit of legitimacy to an argument. However, by demanding the debtor state specifics, you can force the debtor to discuss the ???????No Money Lent??????? argument and other irrational arguments. If a judge does not initially see the frivolous nature of these claims, once the debtor starts to explain the specifics, the true nature of the argument becomes obvious.

The main goal of these scams is to delay collection action as long as possible. The arguments are so outlandish that no reasonable person can believe they are making a substantive legal argument in good faith. By refusing to work with their creditors and submitting specious answers when served with a complaint, these fraudulent individuals are successful in delaying their creditors. However, once a matter goes to summary judgment, the debtors always lose and end up incurring increased court costs, liens against their property, and the unpleasant consequences of post-judgment collection activities. Even an ostrich can anticipate a preferable fate. [/quote]


More proof that company's like FDRS are a scam and prey on desperate people.

mobile0311, once again, thank you. You are an asset to this community.

I got the same letter stating a better method for recording calls. Like one previously said it doesnt sound like a scam. Plus I already have been contacted by the credit repair team, and there are section codes that will work to have the remove their negative ratings. So far everything they said they are doing.

This gives me hope. Dont worry I will post my results when I am done, though I think Mike will be the biggest on whether it works. His good reports makes me feel more at ease. But to be honest the patriot movement has allot of their act together, and just because there are scams on debt cancelations doesnt mean FDRS is a scam, to be honest there are TONs of debt consolidation and settlemnt companies that are scams but not all are. The only difference is the BANKS LIKE them and wouldnt like FDRS if they TRULY do work.

Thats only common sense, its in their best interest to keep it a secret if there is a way to cancel debt using the LAW. I think what I see most is people get scared or dont like the message of the BIG Government theme, and hence leave and doing so make things worse for themselves.

Mobile I will post my trail on this and I HOPE you wont say I work for FDRS if it does work. lol I know you wont if it doesnt. :wink:

i went through a company that was a lot of help they helped me reduce my debts from 51,250.00 down to about 12,500 they were also very nice i think the website was w w w . state farms financial .or g

me and my girlfriend were in the fdrs program for 3 months.we hardly ever heard from them,and when we did make contact with them it was a joke.one of her accounts(my girlfriend)sent a letter to be sued.
we contacted the fdrs they sent us paperwork from the (ccdn) to fill out and bring to the courts.i asked the fdrs to send me copies of what they are supposed to be sending to our creditors and they told me they cant,lol.i told them im paying you ,your using my name on the paperwork and you say i cant see whats being sent out.so i asked if i could speak to the guy who signed us up.they told me no,lol.
thay said he moved to another department.i had words with them.they were very rude to me and hung up.what they did'ny know is that i had gotten friendly with the guy who signed us up so i called him on his cell phone and told him and asked him whats going on.he told me he quit that morning because he had lots of questions for the owner(mark cella)he was uneasy about the way they were conducting their business.he basicly told me they were a scam company and that he did'nt know and that he felt bad about all the people he had signed into the company who lost money.my loss was(2,600.00)since than i cancelled my program with them about a week and a half ago and they have not even called me to ask why.this company is a fraud this guy is a crook. we all work hard for our money ,lets just not give it away to scum like this that rip off hard working people.another funny thig i can still call the company today and ask for the guy who signed me up and they will tell me the same thing,that he 's in another department and that i cant speak to him. he's been gone for about 3 to 4 weeks.oh before i left the company they left a message on my machine telling me the name of my new rep.when i told the ex employee he said noone by that name works there. just warning everyone who looks in to this company ,stay away.

I'm a little confused...I have been in the program for 6 months and i still haven't encountered any of that...How in the world did that happen in only 3 months??? The creditors haven't even moved in that direction yet and I haven't paid them for over 7 months...What was your first rep's name? Mine left as well...

By the way...if I had trade secrets that worked, and I knew they would be copied if I showed them to anyone, I wouldn't release them either! I don't blame them for not giving me or you a copy. However, one of my creditors did reference a letter they received from me (really FDRS) and they said they were responding to it (still haven't received it 2 months later)...so I know they are sending them!

Yes same here, I had the creditors both respond one in writing another with calls about the letters that were sent. so they do send the letters. plus they seem to keep copies of all the documents for the legal team, I think that is why you fax all docs to them.

I know a person should keep a record of all your letters anyway which should be enough as the letters FDRS send probably arent anything too big, its the legal dept that is what will work or not. imo

I am about 4 months in the program, and havent had the problem at all either, My rep is still there and imo is a honest patiot, infact everyone I spoke to there was a patriot.

I have no idea if the program works, I assume that if it didnt after about 2 years if not more ofbeing in business that the BBB would be loaded with alot more complaints than it is. There are lots in the patriot movement and I am sure a LARGE number have used or is using this program. I owuld have NEVER heard of FDRS if it wasnt for a trusted site, so I THINK a few people who know NOTHING of whats going on sign on get scared or dont believe the info and then leave.

I also think Reps are out there for the Banks and collection agencies which sometimes are the banks (lol) that want to stop this movement and also the knowledge that what the banks are doing is ILLEGAL by Federal laws.

Some good downloadable movies I watched that Helped on Google were.

The Money Masters
Loose Change second edition
Police State 1,2,3
Terrorstorm

While one may not agree with everything it does paint a pretty Grim picture of whats going on and does explain some of the behavior of the BANKS, CORPS, and GOVERNMENT over the past few decades.

Haven't checked the board in a long time but now this board is ranked above FDRS'S OWN WEBSITE on google. The stench is rising to the top. So I am looking through all of what is now 20 pages, and I see that the shills can still not keep up with the critics. I know who they are because I USED TO WORK THERE TOO. Everyone who has been suspected of being a shill on here used to work there because everyone there sounds the same! The leader is a paranoid megalomaniac with a Mussolini complex and he is trying to find a group he can brainwash. Now read those last two lines again. The feds are after him. They are about to be sued left and right. This is no joke.

Also, some of the names, like Willy, who works in client care now (but used to be a rep) are similar. LAST POST EVER do not contact me I am not registered.

Haven't checked the board in a long time but now this board is ranked above FDRS'S OWN WEBSITE on google. The stench is rising to the top. So I am looking through all of what is now 20 pages, and I see that the shills can still not keep up with the critics. I know who they are because I USED TO WORK THERE TOO. Everyone who has been suspected of being a shill on here used to work there because everyone there sounds the same! The leader is a paranoid megalomaniac with a Mussolini complex and he is trying to find a group he can brainwash. Now read those last two lines again. The feds are after him. They are about to be sued left and right. This is no joke.

Also, some of the names, like Willy, who works in client care now (but used to be a rep) are similar. LAST POST EVER do not contact me I am not registered.

Thanks helpfulone for the helpful info that only further backs what I have been saying . FDRS is a scam !!!!

mobile, why do you thank "helpfulone for the helpful info..."??? What was so helpful about that rant? All it was was more conjecture and opinion. Please!

And to be honest, I'm surprised at you. First of all, the Minnesota Bar does not WRITE anything. Members might write articles but the bar in incapable of doing so. Was this piece published in a bar journal? If so, which one? To be honest, hat article could have been published by anyone, anywhere. Even by your company, for instance. Plus, if the author really is a lawyer, his writing skills made me thankful he practices in Minnesota.

As you hopefully know by now, I do some research on occasion. I googled "Michael D. Johnson", "Michael D. Johnson Minnesota", "Michael D. Johnson Lawyer". Found a bunch of people by that name.

But I found no one who is an expert in credit/financial law.

I did find one one estate lawyer, but would he have expertise on credit card law. I apologize for not digging deeper but I tend to fade out after digging through 5 or 6 pages of google links and coming up empty, which is what happened here.

The one case cited in your paste job, Alcorn and Allen v. Washington Mutual Bank, had to do with a mortgage, NOT credit debt. Hence, mortgages do not qualify for the fdrs program.

The rest of the article deals with practices that fdrs does not allow. Yet you go on with your missive "company's like FDRS" (check your plural tense vs apostrophe use there).

Research, people. Just dig a little.

And rangersfan, by "rangersfan", I'm guessing you mean the texas rangers, because you sound kind of like them. Never a winning season.

Lets go Jets!!!

Here is another article written exposing the FDRS debt termination scam



How do you like those apples Willy ? Unlike you I actually post on other subjects trying to help other people with debt issues. All you seem to do is just argue in the defense of the scammers at FDRS. You have not made a single other post here to contribute to helping other people with debt problems. NOT ONE. All you do is argue about an industry you know nothing about since you supposedly don`t work for them and also since they supposedly have such super secret way of doing things. Give it a rest. I have done a ton of research on the subject of Debt Termination and there is a reason the FTC doesn`t recognize it as legit. They are telling people to be patriotic by arguing that they didn`t actually owe the debt and they should not repay the banks. The are spouting conspiracy theory garbage. Thats called FRAUD. Thats why the banks don`t like Debt Termination scams because its fraud.They are telling people be unethical and immoral by not attempting to repay what they borrowed. All that does is get them sued. There is no magic pill that you can take to make the debt go away. FDRS preys on desperate people looking for an easy way out.

By the way why would you insult someone who might be a Rangers fan because they are horrible. Besides they may also be a New York Rangers hockey fan. Either way you have no room to talk. Especially when you are a Jets fan. They have only won a single Super Bowl EVER and that was way back in 1969 when Joe Willie Namath was their QB. Their record last year of 4-12 was a joke , just like FDRS.

Oh and by the way the owner of FDRS Mark Cella used to own another company who had a F rating with the BBB called CAREFREE DEBT, INC. and it had registered the dba ???????Federal debt relief System??????? until 2007. On 5/22/07, there????????s a FDRS dba filing for:

William Kelley (Trustee)
Frank W McGinnis
2915 W. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89147

However, it wasn????????t published and is probably void. The reason I????????m posting it here is because Kelly and McGinnis are or at least were involved.

On 5/26/07, Mark Cella filed another dba for FDRS:

Mark A Cella
5426 N Dubonnet Ave
San Gabriel, CA 91776 (this appears to be a home address, at least it????????s not a private mail service.)

Is it just me is does this seem just a little shady ?

it was not conjecture and opinion. Check out my previous posts wayyyy near the beginning. It was fact. I used to work there. Dammit Willy you made me repost.
Mobile is on the right track, as well. The point is, the program works, and I KNOW it does, but the company and the people behind it are shady! There are other companies out there that process through these attorneys and others that use this method! Stay away from FDRS and find someone else to do the program for you!

Oye. Helpfulone, you confuse me. You say the program works but advise people to stay away? Yikes!!! NOT very helpful, I would say.

Total U.S. consumer revolving debt reached $904 billion in June 2007, up from $879 billion at the end of 2006 (Source: Federal Reserve).

Now add mortgages and other secured debt (automobile loans, for instance). Please tell me, mobie, where did the banks get that money to loan? From deposits? From cash on hand? The US government has not created that much money.

If you or I tried to make $$ out of thin air like the banks do, we would be in jail.

"How do you like those apples Willy?" Sounds like I touched a raw nerve, mobie. I did notice that you didn????????t say anything to defend your last shady post yet you did whine about what I????????d said about rangersfan. Strange.

"Unlike you I actually post on other subjects trying to help other people with debt issues. All you seem to do is just argue in the defense of the scammers at FDRS. You have not made a single other post here to contribute to helping other people with debt problems. NOT ONE." Please pay attention, mobie. I said this before, at least twice ????????(I'll say it again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-ly... just for you) I am not here to offer advice, because I don????????t know enough about $$, otherwise I wouldn????????t be on this site. I came looking for advice, not clients (like others pushing their company????????s solutions [mobie, for instance]).

I saw an ad about this company. It sounded a bit farfetched. So I looked up FDRS on google. I found this forum and this string in that search. I was surprised by the amount of fact-free rants and flying opinions so I did some not-so-deep research into what people were posting. Most if not all of what I read proved that it is easy to be negative without the facts, the way politicians throw out sound bites for people to believe, not matter how false.

???????Thats why the banks don`t like Debt Termination scams because its fraud.??????? Are you serious? If you really are in the credit business, you know better than that.

Banks sell off loans as soon as they feel they are uncollectable. They then write off the loss that they sold it for (tax benefits) and they come out ahead of the game (they????????ve usually collected years of interest, rates of which they can legally raise, often for whatever reason they want to- there are plenty of horror stories of this practice).

Here's a fair way to tackle the debt problem: Give people hope that they can pay off their debt. You do this by limiting the interest rates banks can charge (a point or 2 over the rate the Fed charges teh banks), eliminate the deceptive fees banks are allowed to charge, and cut that small print/twisted english crap that banks use. And STOP allowing banks to give credit cards to people who have credit trouble.

The way it is now, the rules favor the big boys with all the money and power. But then again, maybe you like it that way. It's what keeps food on your table.

And leave the JETS alone. They are consistently one of the worst organizations in professional sports, which make them the best at being the worst.

That last post was mine - site said I was logged in on one page but when I went to write/post that, it showed me as "guest".

Willyammer

Here is yet another article discussing how Debt Termination is a scam. Hopefully this will help prevent those of you out there from getting scammed from FDRS. The definition of Fraud = deliberate deception or cheating intended to gain an advantage. When you borrow money from a bank and you try to claim that you don`t owe the money that is fraud. I'll say it again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-ly . I used to work in the Credit Card industry and we sued people for fraud when they tried to pull that "no money lent garbage ". If you or I tried to make $$ out of thin air like the banks do, we would be in jail. Uh duh , thats why the banking industry is heavily regulated and you must have a banking license to be allowed to do so. Just like some one could go to jail for practicing law or medicine without a license. Sorry but the law is on the side of the banks whether you conspiracy theorists like it or not. Willy have you even read the contracts for FDRS ? I have.They charge a fee of 30 % of the debt they are handling , plus a $25 dollar monthly fee. Here is the kicker. Approximately 20 % of this service fee amount will be paid upon acceptance into the program service. Gee I wonder why they want most of the fees up front. Ummmm ...could it be because FDRS wants most the money before the client realizes they are being conned out of their hard earned money.


Willy ,I am sorry you don`t believe my last article I posted but yes it was real.
Official Publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association
Vol. 61, No. 3 | March 2004

Here is the website so you can read em and weep.

www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2004/march04/internet_scams.htm :D

OK let me be a little more clear. FDRS does NOT do all of the program themselves! They out source to a network of attorneys that get people out of debt. The attorneys are the ones who are 100% successful. LOOK FOR THEM THEY ARE OUT THERE JUST GOOGLE.

nice helpfulone,oh and willy try not to insult this time.haven't seen one of your posts that wasn't an attack post.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Do I make myself clear? - Uncle Wulf

Willy you need to understand that these creditors are huge fortune 500 companies companys. They are naturally going to have a ton more complaints than FDRS because the do a billion times the business.



What I find hilarious is that of all these banks not one had any unanswered complaints. They at least properly addressed the complaint and attempted to resolve it. FDRS has 16 Unanswered complaints. That is a major problem. They basically choose to ignore about half the complaints brought to them by the BBB.

unclewulf, your new icon looks much better than the old one. MUCH!!! See, I have once again said a nice thing about you.

Not sure why or HOW you logged in using my info.

Moderators? Is this kosher/allowed?

mobie, "Willy you need to understand that these creditors are huge fortune 500 companies companys. They are naturally going to have a ton more complaints than FDRS because the do a billion times the business."

If the above statement is true, then why do they not have worse ratings? As I read the copied/pasted generic BBB listing, it gives them an out! Amazing. By the way, which bank was the rating from? What about the other banks? They can't ALL have gotten a clean bill. If they have, then that in and of itself proves that there is lint in the pudding.

My jaded belief is that the big boys, of which so many of you defend, use their power and $$ to influence the BBB. For some reason that I cannot fathom, some even find it "hilarious" that the banks and CC companies can afford a full time law staff to come up with legal ways to screw us over and answer BBB complaints in their spare time.

Mobie, you back up FDRS by posting the BBB statement about them: "Complainants allege unfulfilled contracts, misappropriation of funds, and misrepresentation of services.

"Customers complain they send monthly amounts to the company believing their bills were being paid, when in fact; no bills were paid on their behalf." As I've read from posts on this site and from the company's site, the customers are NEVER told their bills are being paid.

PLEASE PEOPLE: The basic tenant before doing anything with your money is research what the company you are paying is going to do with your money. Common Sense.

"Other complainants report they are advised not to deal with their creditors, but soon find themselves being sued for the amount of the debt." Posts here and on the company site say you very well might be sued. Which is why the company requests/demands that any/all correspondence be sent to them ASAP so they can get it to the lawyers they hire ASAP so they can fight for you ASAP.

FDRS does NOT offer a magic wand. It's a hard road, as MANY people here have told, including those with positive and those with negative feelings about the company.

"The company responds to most complaints by disputing complaint allegations, and accusing the customer of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of their agreement. The company reminds clients that the contract makes no guarantees to the success of the program." The early panickers who are also the most vociferous complainers, are proof in point.

Mobile: Please answer the question at the bottom. Total U.S. consumer revolving debt reached $904 billion in June 2007, up from $879 billion at the end of 2006 (Source: Federal Reserve). Now add mortgages and other secured debt (automobile loans, for instance). Where did the banks get that money to loan?

[quote=Willyammer]Not sure why or HOW you logged in using my info.

Moderators? Is this kosher/allowed?[/quote]


You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you, Willy? Maybe you should learn to read things fairly. It really does broaden the mind. If you'd been paying attention all along, you would have noticed that I am a moderator. You'll find the tag below my user name, to your immediate left.

As for some of the attacking posts and such... Cool it. Immediately. You do not want to become my new favorite hobby.

Willy , Moderators are allowed to edit your posts when they are personal attacks. Uncle Wulf is a moderator and thus can do that when he feels your are being inappropriate.

Also Willy , you never explained to me why FDRS is not cable of responding to BBB complaints. The have 17 Unanswered complaints and counting. That means they choose to ignore complaints brought to them. If they were not a bunch of con artists they would at least address the complaint and try to resolve it right ? That is at least what the big bad horrible banks do. They out of the thousands of complaints they had didn`t have a single complaint that wasn`t answered and addressed and yet FDRS can't even do that. Give me a break.


Where did the banks get that money to loan? This article should better explain

Mobile, you say ???????Willy , Moderators are allowed to edit your posts when they are personal attacks. Uncle Wulf is a moderator and thus can do that when he feels your are being inappropriate.??????? I totally agree with that standard.

But check the sixth post down on page 20. Someone posted as me.

Do you really feel it is okay for someone to post something using another posters name and icon? That is wrong. Especially for a moderator. That practice wreaks of all the things this forum and the USA (at least the good old USA) stand against.

Finfan13? Cajunbulldog? Anyone?

That moderator should be booted from this forum.

And who have I attacked? Show me one "attack".

I have pointed it out when posters only post fact-free opinion and spread their fears and hate. Is that considered an attack? The only people who make the ???????attack??????? claim are these same fact-free, vitriol spewing posters.

[quote=Willyammer]But check the sixth post down on page 20. Someone posted as me.

Do you really feel it is okay for someone to post something using another posters name and icon? That is wrong. Especially for a moderator. That practice wreaks of all the things this forum and the USA (at least the good old USA) stand against.[/quote]

Let me 'splain it to you, Willy. I'll use small, easy words, so maybe you'll understand.

It is not OK for anybody here to post as someone else by using that person's login credentials, etc. "Name and icon" as you refer to it. Unless, of course, that person has the account-holder's permission in advance to do so. I've done that from time to time, when I was working to resolve account issues at the request of other members.

It is OK for a moderator to edit a member's or guest's posts in any way the moderator sees fit, if said member or guest violates the accepted rules, customs, or ToS of this site. That's part of what moderators do here. In short, I did not post as you. I edited your offensive post, and signed my handiwork so everybody would know who did it, and why.

Attacking other members/guests/moderators/whatever is such a violation. So is promoting a scam with the intent to decieve. So are several other of your activities.

Straighten up. Now. Or else.


[quote=Willyammer]Finfan13? Cajunbulldog? Anyone?

That moderator should be booted from this forum.[/quote]



Be careful who you ask for help. You'll likely find those two to be tougher than I am. Maybe you should get one of your half-baked attorneys on the case, huh?

[quote=Willyammer]And who have I attacked? Show me one "attack".[/quote]

You're kidding, right?

Look at the next part of your own post. Posting articles from a state Bar Association does not constitute being a "fact-free, vitriol spewing poster." In my book, that constitutes "being a responsible member of this forum" and "trying to debunk a scam."

[quote=Willyammer]I have pointed it out when posters only post fact-free opinion and spread their fears and hate. Is that considered an attack? The only people who make the ???????attack??????? claim are these same fact-free, vitriol spewing posters.[/quote]

With your own words, you prove my point. Stop attacking other members. Stop promoting scams. Stop being a pain. Like I said, you really don't want to become my new hobby.

Now that I've explained that much to you, maybe we can get on with a civil discussion. If not, I'll lock the topic. Play nice. Or else.

Willy perhaps you should get familiar with the forum rules. If you don`t like Uncle Wulf editing your posts than you have two choices either play nice or quite posting here. Its that simple .

[quote]Do you really feel it is okay for someone to post something using another posters name and icon? That is wrong. Especially for a moderator. That practice wreaks of all the things this forum and the USA (at least the good old USA) stand against.
[/quote]

Perhaps unclewulf is part of the government conspiracy with the banks and the US government.I bet he is behind the whole money creation scheme. Thats it. As a matter of fact maybe this website is one big conspiracy working for the banks and all the moderators are in on it. You live in Hollywood so perhaps you can make a movie about it.

Unclewulf is doing his job as a moderator. Like I said if you don`t like the rules of this forum than don`t post here.

Wow. Willyammer, I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're upset about.

You said page 20, sixth post down, right?
All I see on the sixth post down on page 20 is where Uncle cleaned up an inapropriate post. Plain and simple, he was moderating. No mod logs in as anyone..We have the right and ability to erase offensive posts. Personally, I think Uncle is being nice to you. I wouldn't pi$$ him off! I said I would address the situation. Situation addressed. My advice to you? Keep your posts attack free and no moderator on this board will have to clean up.

What was edited? I don't recall what I supposedly posted and I would really like to see what was so offensive.

If you can't print it here, please send what was edited to me at my personal email address so I'll know for the future.

Thanks.

I don't know what the post was, I didn't see it. All I can say is this: As mods, we are required to make judgement calls. There are a certain set of rules that all posters must follow. These are defined in the TOS, which you can click on at the top of the home page and read. If we (mods) feel that a post does not follow those TOS, it is within our rights to either edit or delete the post. As far as what we consider offensive on this site..Any vulgar language, crude references, or anything that could possible hurt another poster's feelings.