Exclusive Jurisdiction

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...tQQOu:e355653:
""S.900
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 335. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) JURISDICTION- The appropriate United States district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation involving the Association, including disputes between the Association and its members that arise under this subtitle. Suits brought in State court involving the Association shall be deemed to have arisen under Federal law and therefore be subject to jurisdiction in the appropriate United States district court.""

If my interpretation of this is correct, any suit arising in state court, involving a dispute between a bank and a member of that bank, can only be tried in the appropriate United States district court, or in state court with the consent of all parties. If a suit has been brought in state court (initiated by the bank) without first seeking permission from the appropriate United States district court, then you challenge the jurisdiction of that state court, it would appear then that the state court judge would be forced to deliver the case to the appropriate US district court. If challenge of jurisdiction is made and the state court moves forward, without first establishing in Law that the court does in fact have jurisdiction, then the actions of that court would be null and void.

does this sound correct?

Jerry.

Yup, Sounds about right for what it is. In my line of work ive had to deal with this new act quite frequently as it applies to pretty much every business in america that uses debit and credit cards, as well as any other cards of the type. It was mainly inacted for identity theft purposes, it was to crack down on the risk and loss of $. The GLB carries with it a $5000 fine the first time for non compliance and a $10000 fine the second time and each other occurence. Visa and Master Card have also introduced thier own Fines and penalties for non compliance, pretty much, if you screw up once and are not in compliance, you are going to lose your business and go bankrupt. Ive already seen two business's get hit with teh GBL and get taken out of commerce. I suggest for those of you with a bussiness to talk to your card service company and see if you are in compliance. make sure that you get it in writing, and chances are if you shop around you can get a better deal with someone that is compliant. Your best bet is to avoid a bank since they charge handling fees and such like that. and most often they are not compliant. My company offers 1.76% on Credit transaction and a flat rate of 0% on all debit, no matter what the cost plus we are compliant with all current laws. The average percentage you get is between 1.76% and 1.8% with contracting companies. it may be straight across or with a lower one for debit, just check and make sure you aint getting smoke blown your way..

oh and check the fees too. a lot of companies like to throw hidden fees or tack on extra stuff without telling you about it until later. This can range up to $60 extra. If you can find a company like mine that only has a $5 Debit access and $5 statement, you have yourself a good bargain.

Also when it comes to equipment compliance i suggest you look at your machine and talk to a dealer or go online and check if it is in the proper range of compliance. If you dont have a pin pad and/or your machine is more than 8 years old, chances are it isnt compliant with the GLB.

[planetmark]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

If challenge of jurisdiction is made and the state court moves forward, without first establishing in Law that the court does in fact have jurisdiction, then the actions of that court would be null and void.

What is the remedy for such a situation? If the court does this, and makes a judgement against a person, that judgement is null and void. What do you do about a null and void judgement? An appeal costs money, which then makes it a penal action against the "victim" of this wrong-doing by the court. So you are punished twice for doing nothing wrong?

Originally Posted by planetmark

What is the remedy for such a situation? If the court does this, and makes a judgement against a person, that judgement is null and void. What do you do about a null and void judgement? An appeal costs money, which then makes it a penal action against the "victim" of this wrong-doing by the court. So you are punished twice for doing nothing wrong?

Planet... please don't think that I am being evasive or cynical.

If you re-read my post, it was concluded with a question. I really don't know what the particular and necessary steps would be.

However, it is my conclusion, that all laws written since and including 1933, have been in clear violation of the law (Constitution). See my post "Did the laws change in 1933"..

Sorry I could not be of more help.

Jerry.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...tQQOu:e355653:
""S.900
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 335. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) JURISDICTION- The appropriate United States district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation involving the Association, including disputes between the Association and its members that arise under this subtitle. Suits brought in State court involving the Association shall be deemed to have arisen under Federal law and therefore be subject to jurisdiction in the appropriate United States district court.""

If my interpretation of this is correct, any suit arising in state court, involving a dispute between a bank and a member of that bank, can only be tried in the appropriate United States district court, or in state court with the consent of all parties. If a suit has been brought in state court (initiated by the bank) without first seeking permission from the appropriate United States district court, then you challenge the jurisdiction of that state court, it would appear then that the state court judge would be forced to deliver the case to the appropriate US district court. If challenge of jurisdiction is made and the state court moves forward, without first establishing in Law that the court does in fact have jurisdiction, then the actions of that court would be null and void.

does this sound correct?

Jerry.

Jerry, are you sure that, as used in the above section, "State" == "states of the union"?

How can Congress who has no authority over state-courts establish the lex forum by mere legislation; the ONLY law of the land (is this lex forum?) is that which is stated in the 51 constitutions.

The only federal-state connection I can think of is that of federal SCOTUS over state-scoti.

is this correct understanding?

Who can be sure of anything anymore? Reading another text in USC today, I found where the APPLICATION of the Constitution and Laws of the United States were repealed in 1933. So if this current society is now working and living under a regime where the Constitution and Laws cannot be applied... Who really knows what they can and cannot do?
(see post at "did the laws change in 1933")

Jerry.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Who can be sure of anything anymore? Reading another text in USC today, I found where the APPLICATION of the Constitution and Laws of the United States were repealed in 1933. So if this current society is now working and living under a regime where the Constitution and Laws cannot be applied... Who really knows what they can and cannot do?
(see post at "did the laws change in 1933")

Jerry.

Sorry, Jerry, but the vast majority of people and the courts they come into contact with are working just fine, without having to deal with the kind of dichotomy you seem to think is there.

Throw off the cloak of ignorance and get involved with helping real people with real issues; we can use people with accumen, curiosity and resources to stem the tide of real financial predators.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Sorry, Jerry, but the vast majority of people and the courts they come into contact with are working just fine, without having to deal with the kind of dichotomy you seem to think is there.

Throw off the cloak of ignorance and get involved with helping real people with real issues; we can use people with accumen, curiosity and resources to stem the tide of real financial predators.

Other than your remark about a cloak of ignorance, you are probably right. There appears to be a number of people who are advocating, through their incessant clamor in correcting others without proof of what they say, that they are correct and that no-one else could conceivably be correct in any aspect of what they say.

Shoot.. it would probably behoove all of us that are bearing a 'cloak of ignorance' to just throw in the towel and hire folks like you to go get that remedy for us. Are you game for that? Can you execute any type of guaranty in regard to your claims? Do you have the remedy for the problems of everyone on this forum? Can you show where any of your claims have proven themselves superrior to that of the states position? Can you provide documentation proven those claims if there are any such claims to be made?

Jerry.