Forum Post: We want to help
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 25, 2011, 1:45 a.m. EST by ACUExecDir1
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A suggestion, amending your name to "The 99%, Too Big For a Hostle Takeover"
Our engineers volunteer to write free, open-source software that highlights loopholes in laws, ranks them by ambiguity, explains that confusing language in easy to understand terms and lets you know if your being ripped off or not. We hope to disarm a corrupt court system and put power back into your hands. We know that the only power the 1% has over you is ignorance of the law and they use it everyday. (Note: almost all “I Agree” buttons on the Internets strip you of all your legal rights).
Current projects also underway are
- software along the same vain that periodically checks laws, highlights changes and explains whether or not they benefit you.
- A web operating system that can't be crashed. It automatically replaces damaged pages and sends you a detailed e-mail dump on the hacker.
Our website is free for source-code use but we do encourage a membership donation. We're funded by the consumer, not Wall Street or the Government, We also belong to a consortium of 2000+ nonprofits that have hundreds of thousands of free resources that can help you. The ACLU, NAACP and American Red Cross, just to name a few.
OBTW...we used a very fair and powerful document as a bellwether standard for our law analysis software and it seems to be one of the fairest documents we know of on Earth; the original Constitution of the United States of America . Don't let it be perverted by a corrupt government and big money.
In solidarity,
Josef von Manthei - Executive Director - ArrowheadConsumersUnion.Org
"The 99%, Too Big For a Hostle Takeover" ?!
Veilleicht : "HOSTILE Takeover" ?!!
Wir wünschen euch Frohes Weihnachten !!!
Tschuss ;-)
This honestly sounds like a great project...
[Removed]
(Hi, I posted the message below in one other topic because it belonged there as well).
One case I would like to see is use of the Federal Hobbs Act, Extortion under the color of right. I believe that the home foreclosure program called HAMP was a federal hobbs act violation.
Taxpayer money was used to lure distressed homeowners into defaulting on their mortgage payments just so they could be eligible to APPLY for HAMP!
The result was the homeowner's credit rating would take an immediate hit as soon as they missed a mortgage payment.
Applying for HAMP did not mean actually getting HAMP. And possibly everybody who did get HAMP were still hit with penalties and fees for missing their mortgage payments.
This is patently illegal. Using taxpayer money to lure distressed homeowners into being late on their mortgage payments that would then result in a signficant windfall for the mortgage servicer, lowered credit score for the homeowner, and possibly even parallel foreclosure on the homeowner IS a Federal Hobbs Act Violation, Extortion under the color of right.
Ya think Eric Holder, who represented MERS years ago, or the Republicans in the either house will file against Obama and his administration.
Nope, because bank love runs deeper than getting your political opponent out of offense.
wow.
If you want to help. Then please come here. Read about what Toshiba and Enterprise has done. And then I want you to do everything legally within your power to stop them.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-great-satan/
The Revolution starts here!
May I suggest that you consider evaluating the following areas of law.
Debt Restructure requires a credit rating default by the debtor no matter what the reason for their debt restructure request.
This seems to me to be an unethical law.
Another is in the area of bait and switch. Credit Card Companies state that their credit cards agreements are unsecured, but if a debtor has a valid moral reason for not being able to make payments for a while, the credit card company can go to court and convert the debt to a secured debt.
If this conversion is allowed by the court in all cases, then the unsecured debt was never really unsecured, was it? If the customer simply needs time to get their income back up again, and is not adverse to paying the debt as it stood when they lost their income, converting this unsecured debt to a secured debt would seem like a bait and switch, no?