Steven Katz and the Terrorist Training Camp

Dallas Observer article by Kimberly Thorpe reveals the presence of an active terrorist training camp operating within the United States. 

Reporter Kimberly Thorpe apparently stumbled into a neer-do-well character named Craig Cunningham




who may very well be a regular poster on Steven Katz's message board which he calls the "Terrorist Training Camp".


That's the logical explanation of how it came to be that the two clowns got to be mentioned in the same article. Katz also regularly posts at another forum known as "insidearm" which is run by the Kalkin-Ginsburg firm. Kalkin-Ginsburg also runs an outfit known as ACA or American Collectors Association. Katz uses a couple of different alias names on that forum, most notably Dr. Tax.

Steven Katz avatar on inside arm message board.

He has a close relationship with debt collectors and they with him as many of them actually post messages on the Katz Terrorist Training Camp. There is also the possibility that Craig Cunningham also frequents that board as well. Since they all hide behind different alias screen names it is nearly impossible to tell who is who.

Craig Cunningham

has indeed filed some federal lawsuits, probably most notably against me when he and a friend of his named Brandon Callier sued me for a million and 40 thousand dollars for exposing his illegal credit repair organization. That got him nowhere quickly and I won the case easily. I could have sued them in return and easily won but what is the use of filing a lawsuit against a pair of clowns neither of which have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of?

While I haven't paid any attention to either Cunningham or Callier since the end of the case, up to the time of that case Cunningham had filed some cases against debt collectors and failed miserably against them as well. They sued me because I expose their scam credit repair organization. They had it incorporated in New Mexico and were operating out of El Paso, Texas without having filed with the Texas Secretary of State. We shall call that mistake #2.

Then they were operating out of a private home without having applied for an El Paso city business license. Mistake #3.
They also did not have a Texas State credit repair license as required by Texas law. Mistake #4. Seems that the Texas State Attorney General wasn't too happy with them once the truth was made known to that office. They soon went out of business thereby probably ripping off anyone who had subscribed to their dirty little game.

Now the Dallas Observer puts up a great advertisement for Craig Cunningham and his supposed ability to beat up on debt collectors. The article mentions something about $100,000. Problem with getting that much out of a debt collector by filing a federal lawsuit is that the law says that the maximum award is $1,000 per occurrance. At that rate he would have to sue 1,000 different debt collectors to get there. It is highly doubtful that anyone could sue that many debt collectors in their whole lifetime.

There was also some mention of a mad scheme to sue a certain data base kept by a couple of different firms who keep track of those who sue debt collectors in court and the results thereof. The idea is that they must be reporting those plaintiffs to the debt collectors and therefore they would fall under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The proponent of the idea seems to think they might be circulating an illegal blacklist of some sort but that is not the way it works. They don't circulate any list of any kind. The way they operate is to have debt collectors submit lists of those they are trying to collect from and the firm scrubs their data base of anyone having filed a federal lawsuit against a debt collector. They return the scrubbed list to the collection agency and thereby evade the issue of putting out any such thing as a list of deadbeats which would be illegal for them to do. Fat lot of luck anybody would have suing either of those companies for putting out an illegal blacklist. They just don't do it. So there goes another of their moronic ideas.

Sounds like a piper's dream to me and the Dallas Observer fell for it and gave the clown a great deal of publicity, much of which was extremely negative as it should be.

Bill Bauer
ceo@creditwrench.com
(405)237-21274
Creditwrench
Creditwrench videos
creditwrench blog
My sexy devices
My google sites pages
My Google Docs page

My Friday night conference call which occurrs each and every Friday night at 7:00 P.M. Central Time. The call in number is (712)432-1601 and the pin number is 508548 followed by the # sign. Feel free to call in and discuss this article or anything else you might wish to discuss.

Steven Katz gets it all screwed up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingifr While one Circuit has ruled (in a roundabout way) on what Validation is, the others have been quite silent on the subject. One decision in a District Court is not much precedent.

Ummm, that decision is not from a district court but rather from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals so it carries a lot more weight than if it were from a DC.

Quote:

Not only that, but a reading of your own summary of it

That was not from any summary of mine but rather a copy and paste directly from the actual words of the Court in giving it's opinion.

Quote:

indicates that the issue was decided on 1692e and 1692f, neither of which deals with Validation, which is 1692g. 1692e and f deal with Misleading Statements and Unfair practice.

Ah yes, but the problem with that analysis is the following snippet from the court's decision. One simple way to comply with § 1692e and § 1692f in this regard would be to itemize the various charges that comprise the total amount of the debt. which is plain, easy to understand words is saying that if the various charges that comprise the total amount of the debt are not itemized then the claim amounts to nothing more than false and misleading information. Now then, while I may be as dumb as a stump, to my way of thinking that means that the claim must be fully itemized and provided to the debtor or FDCPA is violated because the unitemized statement of the account amounts to providing false and misleading information to the consumer. That is the way I read it. Now then, please enlighten us with your interpretation which, if I understand what you have said correctly, would be to disagree with the court which said that failure to provide a fully itemized statement of all the charges and how the final amount was arrived at amounts to providing the debtor with false and misleading information.

So I for one will be eagerly awaiting your explanation showing how providing a debtor with a statement which basically says little more than "you now owe XYZ Bank the sum of $1000.91 plus attorney fees, interest, court costs and whatever else bringing the total to $9,399.99 is not providing false and misleading information. I'm sure that Judge Mihm of the 7th Circuit Court of appeals would be most interested in learning that his decision is wrong.

Only a fool who lacks the abililty to read and understand court decisions and how they apply would make such silly statements as Steven Katz, aka flyingifr and Dr. Tax has made.
So who needs his silly ideas which he greatly expounds on his debtorboards.com message forum.

Steven Katz and his get out of jail free card.

Your get out of debt free card?

That is what Steven Katz of Tuscon, Arizona claimed in a post he made on Creditnet and of course his own message forum. His description isn't quite accurate for there is no such card. What he refers to is a new or seemingly new web site called FDCPA CASES.ORG which is a site where debt collectors can check up on people who have filed federal cases against debt collectors and their outcomes.

The purpose of this and the basis for their almost $1600 subscription fee is that by using their service debt collectors will be able to screen and cleanse their debtor lists of debtors who might well file a federal case on them for violations of FDCPA, FCRA or other causes.

Mr. Katz thereby claims that filing federal lawsuits on debt collectors for various violations somehow becomes a get out of debt free card. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth because it isn't free to start off with because the filing fee in federal court is $350.00 which hardly makes it free. Then there is the other hurdle which is a long way from being free as well is the immense difficulty of finding an attorney to do it for you or the time that is necessary to develop a case and learning how to properly prepare and present it in court. There are a great number of obstacles to getting the job done and none of them are free.

One of the greatest obstacles is learning how to do it yourself. One can find any number of message forums where they will talk about how to do it but will never actually teach you how to do it. One of the most important steps that is never discussed to any great extent if ever is the importance of learning both the rules of procedure and the rules of evidence. These are indespensible and are easily found on the internet by simply using Federal Rules of Procedure and Federal Rules of evidence as search terms.