Forum Post: How To Make Our Demands A Part Of Legal Process
Posted 11 years ago on May 19, 2013, 12:27 a.m. EST by redandbluestripedpill
(333)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Agree upon the ultimate priority of the demands.
When there is the greater agreement on the importance of a demand, we are looking at Constitutional intent. Now it is legal process needed for ART5.
Debt Suspension Rights for all credit card holders, default reparations, and allow seniors to pull equity out slowly on their homes without forcing them to purchase mortgage insurance.
Debt suspension-sounds like an inversion of debtors prison, and alternative to economic ruin. Such could easily become a right which prevents all sorts of default reliance on government programs.
I think a majority of Americans could agree that a manipulated economy and exploited people need time, and making some a right in the case of credit cards and a capacity to pay without hardship.
You can make a proposal for an amendment securing such rights here at a new site for the 99% to organize for ART5.
http://articlev.org/oxwall/index
Thanks for comment and suggestion. I am making the claim that since the year 2000 the Comptroller of the Currency rigged debt suspension insurance into a monopoly by shutting out the insurance industry from competing. The result was severely overpriced debt suspension insurance in which people were either robbed of a huge amount of money for buying the insurance, or left with no defense in court if they had a credit card default.
I am advocating either a one trillion dollar repayment to be split among all credit card defaulters, OR, a 65% reduction on all existing credit card debt to be time with an increase in the monthly minimum payment on credit cards from 2% to 5%,
This would help eliminate the deceitful way in which a 2% monthly minimum payment draws people into a life of ever increasing credit card debt.
check out my blog at www.debtsuspensionrights.blogspot.com
Yep, an amendment would let creditors know that they must stop the increasing debt by suspending credit, or have the customer suspend the debt because the lender was extending credit unreasonably A form of entrapment or pecuniary attractive nuisance.
Suspending debt is ok if one has purchased reasonably priced debt suspension insurance. The problem is the comptroller of the currency pushed the insurance industry out of the way and let the credit card companies have a personal monopoly on their own clients. The result was debt suspension insurance that was priced 10 to 20 times higher than it should have been priced.
Sounds like collusion. Raygun deregulated banking, and a lot of diversity of finance became established with non ethical basis.
2002 was the year that the comptroller of the currency had "hearings" that discussed debt suspension insurance and why it was acceptable to keep the insurance industry from competing with the credit card industry. Each credit card company maintained a monopoly over their own unregulated debt suspension insurance. Rather than charging around 5 cents to 10 cents per one hundred dollars per month, they charged 89 cents to 1.09 cents per hundred dollars per month to do nothing more than simply suspend a debt if a person qualified.
The one time that two huge competing business factions could have actually held each other in check, and significantly lowered debt suspension insurance costs for consumers who needed a back up plan in case an emergency arose and they needed to suspend credit card debt for a relatively short while, was thwarted.
And this in turn basically left consumers as sitting ducks when they went to court after defaulting.
Okay, in the wake of 9-11, these 2 major industries, whose interests could have been woven into a conflicting shield of co accountability for Amercans, but instead the CC companies took over.
Seems carving protections in stone w/amendment might assure proper regulation in the future.
Reparations are in order for most credit card default victims since 2000 because they were never offered fairly priced debt suspension insurance.
This is something that should be on mass media. Again, free speech is abridged. ART5 is sooooooo needed.
There is a draft of a proposed revision of the First Amendment. What it does is make it so a relatively small group of citizens can compel state legislators to direct state courts to issue orders to media to do a specific story, and do it right. Another thing it does is bring back the usenet to the position it was in originally.
What this does is get the info to the masses, then gives them a place to discuss it before voting. Perfect for ART5 because this convention is 100 years late, by congressional intent, so the convention needs to be VERY democratic.
I agree, but when Chase Bank was basically given Washington Mutual for 2 cents on the dollar, Chase Bank went into advertising overdrive, which basically ties the hands of the media when their own employers are relying on Chase Bank ads to stay profitable.
Conflict of interest against the public trust inherent with mass media.
The draft revision of the first amendment I've seen, for example; creating a path directly from you; would make it so IF you could get the signatures and statements of 300 people, THEN you would see a 30 minute video production about credit and debt insurance mandatorily produced to a standard by network TV, and broadcast nationally.
My question: Right now, could you get 300 peoples support in that way?
More likely I could make the video than get the 300 signatures, especially when I factor in the time it would take to get 300 signatures versus the time to make the video.
On the other hand, because I am a CareGiver it makes it difficult to hang out at locations where I think I could get the 300 signatures.
Yes a video would help. When it comes to sharing info for survival, whatever helps is justified.
In the hypothetical, post 1st amendment revision, there would also be the usenet, which would act as a state wide message board, just like we had in 1994.
Its not the production that is valuable and critical, it is the national broadcastiing of the info at prime time.
If the law says the 300 number, (the proposed state implimentation uses that number I think) and the 300 know that national broadcast at primetime will result, and it is an important issue you are asking support for; perhaps the time to get the 300 sigs is worth it.
Yea, production is easy, promotion is hard. Utube is making it available, but not sending people to it. That's not easy. I've seen where utube blocked people with video from using the response video function which is a built in utube promo feature.
Making the video could help get the 300 signatures so that it gets remade and then seen by a bigger audience, no?