• If you can't find a "Hot" category that fits, post it here!

SCAM ALERT!!!! CHILEHEADS BEWARE!!!

Uh guy, I think that under the Fair Credit Act all those businesses who wrote you have broken the law.  If a court thinks you are acting as their agent, you too might have broken the law.  It is in one of the credit laws.  You did say he was demanding 30 days net.  Now think about it, we are talking about credit dept.  How would you feel if a bill collector started telling your friends that you didn't pay on time?  Next thing you should be concerned about is something called Tortious Interference and how in many states even absolute truth is not a defense.

People are frigging law suit crazy and the courts really do encourage it.
 
Forgot to mention liable, or what ever it would be called in a YouTube video.  You called him a scammer.  Then you said you knew he was making an effort to catch up on invoices.  Seriously guy, I worry for you.  Mainly because I did much the same once, said all true things, got my ass sued off.
 
AJ Drew said:
Forgot to mention liable, or what ever it would be called in a YouTube video.  You called him a scammer.  Then you said you knew he was making an effort to catch up on invoices.  Seriously guy, I worry for you.  Mainly because I did much the same once, said all true things, got my ass sued off.
Click to expand...
I never said he was making an effort to catch up. He basically telling ppl to F off. My message is to warn ppl of what he is doing to personal friends of mine (ppl I actually know in person).
 
AJ Drew said:
Uh guy, I think that under the Fair Credit Act all those businesses who wrote you have broken the law.  If a court thinks you are acting as their agent, you too might have broken the law.  It is in one of the credit laws.  You did say he was demanding 30 days net.  Now think about it, we are talking about credit dept.  How would you feel if a bill collector started telling your friends that you didn't pay on time?  Next thing you should be concerned about is something called Tortious Interference and how in many states even absolute truth is not a defense.

People are frigging law suit crazy and the courts really do encourage it.
Click to expand...
I'm not anyone's agent, just informing ppl of this guys actions. Never said he was demanding 30 day net. Dude has not paid ppl...talking about over 6 months lol.
 
standbyandfire said:
I'm not anyone's agent, just informing ppl of this guys actions. Never said he was demanding 30 day net. Dude has not paid ppl...talking about over 6 months lol.
Click to expand...
You need to rewatch the video, I think you didn't hear me correctly lol.
 
AJ Drew said:
Uh guy, I think that under the Fair Credit Act all those businesses who wrote you have broken the law.  If a court thinks you are acting as their agent, you too might have broken the law.  It is in one of the credit laws.  You did say he was demanding 30 days net.  Now think about it, we are talking about credit dept.  How would you feel if a bill collector started telling your friends that you didn't pay on time?  Next thing you should be concerned about is something called Tortious Interference and how in many states even absolute truth is not a defense.

People are frigging law suit crazy and the courts really do encourage it.
Click to expand...
I'm not a bill collector lol, I'm a friend telling other friends about someone that is ripping ppl off.
 
standbyandfire said:
You need to rewatch the video, I think you didn't hear me correctly lol.
Click to expand...
 
1:14  He said he needs to do a "thirty day net"
1:24  "So they do a 30 day net"
1:32  "Now some of them have gotten paid for one invoice.  Two invoices and then a third one"

With respect, I think you need to listen again to what you said in the video.  So I provided the time indexes.  In so far as your being an agent of these companies, I said no such thing.  What I said was exactly this:

"If a court thinks you are acting as their agent," - Guy, I am not riding your rear.  I am concerned because people are sue crazy, the first amendment is about dead, and the courts support it. 

Best example of the nutty courts, you suggested people not buy from or sell to the guy.  I know it sounds nuts, but believe it or not even the absolute truth is not a defense against Tortious interference in many states.  I know, nuts right?  First Amendment?  Ha, they dont care about that.
 
AJ Drew said:
 
1:14  He said he needs to do a "thirty day net"
1:24  "So they do a 30 day net"
1:32  "Now some of them have gotten paid for one invoice.  Two invoices and then a third one"

With respect, I think you need to listen again to what you said in the video.  So I provided the time indexes.  In so far as your being an agent of these companies, I said no such thing.  What I said was exactly this:

"If a court thinks you are acting as their agent," - Guy, I am not riding your rear.  I am concerned because people are sue crazy, the first amendment is about dead, and the courts support it. 

Best example of the nutty courts, you suggested people not buy from or sell to the guy.  I know it sounds nuts, but believe it or not even the absolute truth is not a defense against Tortious interference in many states.  I know, nuts right?  First Amendment?  Ha, they dont care about that.
Click to expand...
Most have not got a single dime. I have told ppl not to buy or do business with this person.
 
One company did not get paid on their last "3rd invoice". He is using the 30 day net as a way to get the product in his hand and then never pay for it at all.
 
I completely understand what you are saying.  Just warning that it is flat illegal for the businesses (I think you said eight complaints to you in a single day)  to share credit information concerning someone they extended credit to.  Also warning that asking people not to do business with the guy can be a civil offense.  In many states, it does not even matter if what you are saying is true.

You said he bought things 30 days net, paid for them the again and again.  Then he stopped paying.  Although you called him a scammer and maybe a thief (might be in the comments), indicated that he intentionally ripped people off; I think that with what you said about him paying a thirty day net once, twice, and three times before not paying might convince a jury he is not a scammer, thief and so on.  That could put you in a whole lot of hurt if the guy decides to sue.

So lets turn this around.  You get a credit card.  You make your payments for a while, then something happens.  Your finances change.  You can no longer pay your credit card bill.  Now comes a youtube video saying you are a scam artist, a thief, and you planned to rip off the credit card company.  I am sure you can see how you might be inclined to sue the credit card company.  After all, there are laws in place to protect people from that type of abuse.

Why on earth would you think those same laws would not be used against those businesses that trashed him to you or you on youtube?  Like I said, even if you are 100% accurate it does not actually matter.  Freedom of speech has long since been dead.

Just thought I would mention and ask that you be safe. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top