The Banksters Win Again: Senate Makes It Harder For Americans to Sue Banks

10/29/20179 Comments

OK, brace yourself: The US Senate just made it harder for Americans to sue banks.

I know, I know. I can hardly believe it either. But it's true.

This all goes back to a ruling by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that was posted to the Federal Register in July, passed into law on September 18th, and required compliance by March 19, 2018. Specifically, the rule states that:

"A provider shall not rely in any way on a pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered into after the date set forth in § 1040.5(a) with respect to any aspect of a class action that concerns any of the consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3, including to seek a stay or dismissal of particular claims or the entire action, unless and until the presiding court has ruled that the case may not proceed as a class action and, if that ruling may be subject to appellate review on an interlocutory basis, the time to seek such review has elapsed or such review has been resolved such that the case cannot proceed as a class action."

Or, for those whose legalese is a bit rusty, the rule specifically prohibited the banksters from using fine print in contracts to stop customers from banding together in class action lawsuits. You know, in cases like, say, the Equifax debacle, where a credit monitoring company let sensitive personal information on as many as 143 million Americans fall into the hands of data thieves (oopsies!). As it turns out, Equifax had just such an anti-class action clause in their consumer contract until massive outrage made them remove it.

So this rule might have helped some of the more hapless victims of the financial vultures from falling into the fine-print trap and losing their ability to sue the bank when things go disastrously wrong.

...Unless the Senate stepped in and used the Clinton-era Congressional Review Act to overturn that ruling. But of course they would never do that, would they?

Find out all about how the Senate sided with the banksters yet again and what it really tells us about government "regulation" in this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber.

For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. PeaceFroggs says:

    Great article!

    Let’s see if we can use this Internet thingy to change things.

    Now that this piece has been written, let’s expose the culprits, like for starters, who are the 51 Senators that betrayed their fellow Americans and actually voted to repeal this rule that would have allowed Americans to file class-action suits against banks instead of being forced in many cases into private arbitration? Why they are Republicans.

    Mid term Elections are next year people, therefore now is the time for Americans to vote against these Snakes, and once Trump, which is expected to sign the repeal legislation, is removed from power, then maybe the new minted senators will be able to repeal this repeal.

    Life is in constant flux, never ending battle. (No rest for the wicked)

  2. wingsuitfreak says:

    The subject of regulation is one of the most vexing that I engage in with my anarcho-curious friends. No matter how clearly you define regulation as a tool designed to monopolize industries, fleece the public, etc., they will always fall back on the position that “the government needs to reform it!”. Naturally, common law would do far better than any regulation any government has ever come up with, but people keep insisting on their insanity by claiming the same thing must be done over and over again and expect different results. JimBob from fluorida

    • mkey says:

      Very recently, “consumerist associations” have come forth in my failed quasi state to state that, since the volume of online shopping (locally) is on the rise and more people are having stuff sent in, it is “unfair” to have shipping costs as high as two times higher than they are when shipping to other failed EU member quasi nation states. So EU commission is regulating the shit out of the issue. They either did it or are in the process of doing it, I was cringing so badly as the first sound waves of this news were reaching me all I could hear from that point onward was grinding of the teeth and palpitations of the heart.

      Let me see if I can find logic where none exists: they want to impose (via regulation) flatrate shipping costs to various EU states. Because sending a packet to Milan or Berlin or Madrid incurs the same cost as sending it to a small town somewhere where traffic volume is far far lower. Right, makes sense. Of course, shipping companies will incur this extra cost and will not under any circumstance pass it on to the consumer.

  3. mkey says:

    Regarding the JFK article, am I the only one who’s having hard time believing into this Donald-CIA powerplay? As if anyone was ready to reveal anything pertinent to the case, all of those documents have been shredded, doused with gasoline and burned thoroughly decades ago.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Oh c’mon mkey! Everybody knows you don’t shred flash paper!

      • mkey says:

        I bet they still use disappearing ink on it, just for good measure.

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Probably so. After all, when you print such embarrassing tripe as the government gangs print; you can’t take too many chances! It always gets me when people think these people are all geniuses. They aren’t. These are bureaucrats who managed to stay in and run out all the very smart people who threaten their positions. It’s not just cream that floats to the top; and in government it never is the cream. Even if that were so; just how many bits of fecal matter does it take before you won’t drink that milkshake? And people think I’m crazy because I don’t think we should submit to retards. 🙂

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            Jim Bob says:
            …Even if that were so; just how many bits of fecal matter does it take before you won’t drink that milkshake?

            HRS is laughing.

  4. Libertydan says:

    a True “People’s Common Law Grand Jury” as envisioned by the framers of the American Constitution has the power to, investigate, indite, and prosecute any case before a Jury of 12 people. These Common Law Juries were to hear all the evidence, (no Judge could rule anything inadmissible). They could rule on the morality of the Law itself and render the Law null and void in any particular case. Thus, a Jury of 12 people would determine if Equafax was liable and for how much.

    Prior to the War between the States, there was a case in Wisconsin where such a Jury would not convict a Wisconsin man for refusing to release an escaped slave to a bounty hunter in accord with federal law. The federal law was thus made null and void by the people there. So, what happen to these Common Law Juries?

    The Courts we have today are Corporate Courts with Judges and Lawyers that belong to the Board. It’s a business with power over corporations, yet people are deceived into thinking that it has jurisdiction over living breathing human beings. Even our Civil Courts have been usurped by private Boards of Law. When we agree to be ruled over by a Corporate Judge simply by showing up, or hiring an Attorney, (by hiring an Attorney you have deemed yourself to be incompetent), we are determined to have consented to being ruled over by corporate law.

    The Original 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution confronted this issue in the early 1800’s by stating that no person holding a “Title of Nobility” could hold public office. Attorneys and members of the Corporate Board of Law were thus prevented from holding public Office. Wow! can you imagine no Lawyers in Congress, the Senate, Attorney General, or Federal Judges. This Amendment was Ratified and can be found in dated copies of the U.S. Constitution, so what happened to it? It got papered over with another 13th Amendment in 1865, and was said to have never been Ratified.

    I question the proper ratification of all Amendments to the U.S. Constitution beginning with the second 13th Amendment of 1865. (Note that President Lincoln had already been assassinated, and thus can not legitimately be held in contempt for having brought about the power and deception brought about by private corporate Board Attorneys and like holding public office.

    Perhaps, John D. Rockefeller was able to see how the American Legal System was taken over by the English Corporate Empire, and thus use it as a model to form his own empire. Private Schools of Law which allow one to practice law in corporate Courts were around long before Rockefeller made his move to the richest man in the world. His “Schools of Medicine” do mimic “Schools of Law”.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top