John Beck Mentoring Institute Of America - John Beck - Discover card ripoff Provo Utah

---

*UPDATE Rip-off Report Investigation: John Beck Pledges To Resolve Complaints. - commitment to 100% customer satisfaction - Consumers can feel confident & secure when doing business with John Beck.

Hey there Stephanie,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits ane health.

Congratulations for sticking it out and obtaining the money back for the morons over at your credit card company. You know who I'm referring to.

The f^ck!ng genius' who authorize charges from the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute despite already knowing John Beck's reputation as being a "bad merchant."

You are absolutely right Stephanie, about credit card companies collaborating with fraudulent businesses, regardless of the many excuses credit card companies may use in attempt to conceal this unethical business practice.

Until next time, take care Stephanie cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

It only took using profanity in my last letter to the Discover card 180-day dispute department to get my case sent up to their EXECUTIVE offices, which FINALLY yielded the result I was looking for--getting my money back. Discover card sent the check and I deposited it ASAP. I wish EVERYBODY who is considering spending a large sum of money or considering signing a contract would check out the company first, starting by using this site. Thank you Rip-offReport.com.

Hi Stephanie and all.

I was woundering different times how you have done with Discover.

Glad to here you got this part resolved.

Maybe Discover is more alert to this.

We had our own experiance with Discover.

This took a number of letters and in the end we broke all ties with them after the money was refunded.

This may not be the best solution for everyone.

With your letters and ours and maybe others; Discover likely took a look at the possible end results. They may even have looked at this more internally, who knows. They may have the idea that this is not good long term business practice.

How ever it happen, I am glad for you.

We all hope this brings a end to your nightmare.

Later

Hey there Stephanie,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Congratulations on your possible successful dispute!

Be extremely cautious however, as John Beck according to Tim (law professional), may attempt to PROVE to a judge what he's been totally unwilling and unable to do throughout your dispute?????

Catch you on some kind of legal technicality in laymans terms, and or possibly use the many loopholes in contract law against you in short.

Be sure to post any and all such unscrupulous and frivolous attempts. In other words keep in touch.

Until next time, take care Stephanie cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

After 9 months of fighting with John Beck and Discover card I FINALLY got a credit to my credit card account!

Gee, it only took threatening to close my account, many letters to the Discover card 180-day dispute department to get any justice. My final letter to them made them wake up. It included profanity and accusing them of collaborating with John Beck. They then forwarded my dispute all the way to the executive office.

When I called to have the check mailed to me, they stalled and have to check on it. Hopefully this will be it.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

What the f%ck is taking the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute so long to find me a tax lien to purchase?

Is this their way of admitting, that these properties are not as abundant as they so fraudulently claim?

Is this their way of admitting, that they do not have the knowledge, resources or financial backing to carryout my simple request?

Is this their way of admitting, that their UNPROVEN program is nothing but a scam?

If so, why the f%ck are these genetic imbreeds peddling their bogus programs on to the general public through the use of UNPROVEN advertisements, UNSUBSTANTIATED claims, FRAUDULENT salespitches, etc, etc?

Would a legitimate business ever let an opportunity to prove their products and services worthy of sales slip away? Oooops, Im sorry, I forgot, John Beck's programs are scams!!! LOL.

HERE'S THE DEAL: I am interested in locating and obtaining a tax lein property in my hometown. A home (fixer upper) that is in decent/standard living condition.

According to John Beck's fraudulent Infomercial and Mike Evans (employee of the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute), there is an abundance of tax lein properties throughout the country. "Hawaii and Arizona" included.

If this information is accurate, the John Beck Mentoring Institute should have absolutely no problem carrying out this simple task.

DESIRED LOCATIONS: 1. Moanalua Gardens 2. Royal Summit 3. Kahala 4. Newtown 5. Foster Village 6. Mililani Mauka 7. Salt Lake 8. Nuuanu 9. Aiea 10. Pearl City.

Surely they can find me a decent home in one of these areas????? I'm sure with such an abundance of properties, at least a handful of homeowners are going to default on their taxes?????

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFER TO PROVE FREE AND CLEAR PROGRAM LEGITIMATE: 1. The home must be entirely "Free and Clear" of any leins, encumbrances and right of redemption. 2. The home must be in decent/standard living condition. 3. The home must be at least a 4 bedroom/3 bathroom dwelling and possess at least 3500 sq. feet of living area under the roof. 4. The home must have a decent sized back yard. 5. The price of the home must not exceed $3,000.00 (according to the infomercial, this should not pose a problem. As a matter of fact, with $3,000.00 this should be simple as pie according to the Infomercial.) 6. The home must be located in one of the neighborhoods I have listed above (with such an abundance of tax delinquencies, this should be a piece of cake.) 7. Upon inspection of the property and my agreement to purchase the property, I am willing to pay the John Beck Mentoring Institute 10X the amount (in cash and in the public eye within 3 months of inspection and agreement) of the purchase amount. 8. Upon completion of this simple task, the John Beck Mentoring Institute would receive a public and sincere apology from myself, a greatful thank you from the many other "gurus" marketing Real Estate programs and also would have finally PROVEN their "Free and Clear" Real Estate program legitimate. ARE THEY UP TO THE CHALLENGE?

If the John Beck Mentoring Institute fails to accomplish this simple request according to their own claims, they would have succeeded in proving their own Real Estate "mentoring" program fraudulent in the public eye.

SIMPLE MATH TO UNCOVER AND EXPOSE THE SCAM:

1. $3,000.00 X 10 = $30,000.00 which is what I've agreed to pay the John Beck Mentoring Institute upon completion of a simple task and according to their own advertisements and claims should pose absolutely no problem whatsoever?

OR

2. Whatever one has available on his or her credit card, which in most cases is safe to assume far less than $30,000.00?

WARNING: If you are like one of the many who have been scammed by the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute or one of the many other bogus Real Estate "mentoring" programs, contact your credit card company immediately and notify them of this offer.

Direct the FTC, FBI, Consumer Protection, Attorney General and all other consumer protection agencies and law enforcement agencies to this website, to view this offer and to witness the unfolding of activities from here on out.

If you presently in dispute with the John Beck Mentoring Institute, simply send your credit card company a detailed account of your story and direct them to this posting to witness the biggest Real Estate transaction in the history of mankind.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

What the f%ck is taking the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute so long in finding me a tax lien to purchase?

Is this their way of admitting, that these properties are not as abundant as they so fraudulently claim?

Is this their way of admitting, that they do not have the knowledge, resources or financial backing to carryout my simple request?

If so, why the f%ck are these genetic imbreeds peddling their bogus programs on to the general public through the use of UNPROVEN advertisements, UNSUBSTANTIATED claims, FRAUDULENT salespitches, etc, etc?

Would a legitimate business ever let an opportunity to prove their products and services worthy of sales slip away? Oooops, Im sorry, I forgot, John Beck's programs are scams!!! LOL.

HERE'S THE DEAL: I am interested in locating and obtaining a tax lein property in my hometown. A home (fixer upper)which is in decent/standard living condition.

According to John Beck's fraudulent Infomercial and Mike Evans (employee of the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute), there is an abundance of tax lein properties throughout the country. "Hawaii and Arizona" included.

If this information is accurate, the John Beck Mentoring Institute should have absolutely no problem carrying out my simple request.

DESIRED LOCATIONS: 1. Moanalua Gardens 2. Royal Summit 3. Kahala 4. Newtown 5. Foster Village 6. Mililani Mauka 7. Salt Lake 8. Nuuanu 9. Aiea 10. Pearl City.

Surely they can find me a decent home in one of these areas????? I'm sure with such an abundance of properties, at least a handful are going to default on their taxes?????

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFER TO PROVE FREE AND CLEAR PROGRAM LEGITIMATE: 1. The home must be entirely "Free and Clear" of any leins, encumbrances and right of redemption. 2. The home must be in decent/standard living condition. 3. The price of the home must not exceed $1,000.00 (according to the infomercial, this should not pose a problem.)4. The homes must be located in one of the neighborhoods listed above (with such an abundance of tax delinquencies, this should be a piece of cake.) 5. Upon inspection of the property and agreement to purchase the property, I am willing to pay the John Beck Mentoring Institute 10X the amount (in cash and in the public eye within 3 months of inspection and agreement) of the purchase amount.

WARNING: If you are like one of the many who have been scammed by the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute or one of the many other bogus Real Estate "mentoring" programs, contact your credit card company immediately and notify them of this offer.

Direct the FTC, FBI, Consumer Protection, Attorney General and all other consumer protection agencies and law enforcement agencies to this website, to view this offer and to witness the unfolding of activities from here on out.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hi Stephanie

The regulation FDIC 6500 applies to card company and some of the regulations they should follow.
This involves the regulation Z. Just food for thought if you feel they have made a violation.

I am still reveiwing this myself. It certainly provides the need of further looking into.

This regulation for the cc certainly raises questions as to Discovers investigation that takes place.

Hey there Joe along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Joe has posted the best suggestion I've seen thus far. Whether his idea is ever implemeted or not remains to be seen.

It's a wonderful idea! This idea would determine, whether or not credit card companies are genuinely interested in ethical business practices, or really don't give a d**n how they obtain their huge profits and from who.

Infomercialscams.com is still up and running. I've downloaded each and every report regarding John Beck "crooked attorney" and his fraudulent Real Estate programs, as I'm sure many others have as well.

Fraudulent businesses ought to stop wasting their time going after webmasters and webcreators of consumer advocacy sites, because there's not a d**n thing fraudulent businesses can do, which will stop the "absolute truth" regarding their fraudulent activities from spreading like wildfire.

INTERNET BABY!

Until next time, take care Joe along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

That's exactly why I think Discover card is in cahoots with John Beck. I remember about 7 years ago as a college student when I got my first credit card (Discover) on which most, if not all, of my purchases were under $100 and have always been. I don't remember exactly what I bought, but it was for school and it cost roughly $600. Either that day or the next, Discover card called me to verify that this was a legitimate purchase. Now why, having never used the card for over $600, would Discover card not call to verify this?

Greetings everyone. I've read all of the threads to this point and I have some ideas I'd like to share.

When I was 19 I got my first credit card. I mainly purchased computer parts for my growing business. One day I decided to use my card to purchase some blue jeans. This lit up a red flag in the credit card system. I was contacted immediately regarding the charge. The credit card company didn't think the purchase was consistent with my previous card activity. This is a fraud fail-safe that most card companies have.

Also, I had a merchant account once. It wasn't hard to get at all. You can pretty much just make up info and they will give you an account. There's not a lot of background checks. Most consumers don't know that when you have a merchant account each credit card company has it's own transaction fees, rates, and guidlines.

One regulation they all have is you can't charge extra to use credit cards. As a business you are forced to eat the transaction fees. And they can really eat into your profits, let me tell you. This is the real reason credit card companies like to authorize transactions.

If American Express gets as much as 3.7% of a transaction why wouldn't they let it go through. 3.7% of $15,000.00 is $555.00 in case you don't have a calculator handy. That's like pure profit. Plus, they get to keep that money in most cases even if a charge back is issued. Plus, there are additional processing fees for doing this. Credit card companies make a lot of money from scam companies like John Beck. Still they do have guidlines you must follow though.

You can charge extra for shipping and handling, but to tell people that they're paying more because they're using a credit card is a direct violation of their most important rules.

If you violate this or any other rule and there are many; you risk being black-listed forever. That's right! Credit card companies have actually been known to completely write businesses off for breaking their rules. Not just for a year, a month, a week, but forever.

I remember thinking that was harsh, but it does one very important thing. It protects their bottom line.

I think a logical solution that wouldn't be costly and wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to combine these concepts in a functional manner.

I propose that credit card companies have in addition to a black list a grey list. This list would be the result of consumer complaints and charge disputes. Any complaint resolved or not automatically enrolls the company in the grey list. After a pre-set period of time with no complaints they get removed from the grey list.

This would be like an automatic BBB. Instead of having to call the BBB up to see if there are complaints, the credit card company would inform you at the time of purchase. The internet isn't a perfect way to research a product. infomercialscams.com has been shut down. It's like all those complaints never happened. Centrality is important for consumer protection. It just doesn't get more central than the credit card company itself. It would be like getting the info right from the horses mouth.

Just like when I purchased blue jeans instead of computer parts. The credit card company would impartially inform me that the merchant I'm attempting to deal with has complaints and should be further researched before continuing.

At this point if the consumer says f**k it, I'm feelin' lucky then they should bare the full responsibility of the transaction. If I advice you not to jump off of a bridge and you do so anyway, you shouldn't be able to hold me responsible.

This protects the credit card companies bottom line and that is why they would consider it. It makes them even more money. Plus, in this day and age with companies like ebay; consumers are used to satisfaction ratings being a factor in making a purchase decision.

With ebay, I have the ability to see if the particular merchant/seller is reliable in what they promise. If they have a low rating and I still deal with them, I run the risk of getting ripped off. Credit card companies should offer the same feature. It's the modern thing to do. Right now, we are making descisions blind folded. More than anyone involved, the credit card companies know what's going on. It's profitable to protect consumers and it's right.

Greetings everyone. I've read all of the threads to this point and I have some ideas I'd like to share.

When I was 19 I got my first credit card. I mainly purchased computer parts for my growing business. One day I decided to use my card to purchase some blue jeans. This lit up a red flag in the credit card system. I was contacted immediately regarding the charge. The credit card company didn't think the purchase was consistent with my previous card activity. This is a fraud fail-safe that most card companies have.

Also, I had a merchant account once. It wasn't hard to get at all. You can pretty much just make up info and they will give you an account. There's not a lot of background checks. Most consumers don't know that when you have a merchant account each credit card company has it's own transaction fees, rates, and guidlines.

One regulation they all have is you can't charge extra to use credit cards. As a business you are forced to eat the transaction fees. And they can really eat into your profits, let me tell you. This is the real reason credit card companies like to authorize transactions.

If American Express gets as much as 3.7% of a transaction why wouldn't they let it go through. 3.7% of $15,000.00 is $555.00 in case you don't have a calculator handy. That's like pure profit. Plus, they get to keep that money in most cases even if a charge back is issued. Plus, there are additional processing fees for doing this. Credit card companies make a lot of money from scam companies like John Beck. Still they do have guidlines you must follow though.

You can charge extra for shipping and handling, but to tell people that they're paying more because they're using a credit card is a direct violation of their most important rules.

If you violate this or any other rule and there are many; you risk being black-listed forever. That's right! Credit card companies have actually been known to completely write businesses off for breaking their rules. Not just for a year, a month, a week, but forever.

I remember thinking that was harsh, but it does one very important thing. It protects their bottom line.

I think a logical solution that wouldn't be costly and wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to combine these concepts in a functional manner.

I propose that credit card companies have in addition to a black list a grey list. This list would be the result of consumer complaints and charge disputes. Any complaint resolved or not automatically enrolls the company in the grey list. After a pre-set period of time with no complaints they get removed from the grey list.

This would be like an automatic BBB. Instead of having to call the BBB up to see if there are complaints, the credit card company would inform you at the time of purchase. The internet isn't a perfect way to research a product. infomercialscams.com has been shut down. It's like all those complaints never happened. Centrality is important for consumer protection. It just doesn't get more central than the credit card company itself. It would be like getting the info right from the horses mouth.

Just like when I purchased blue jeans instead of computer parts. The credit card company would impartially inform me that the merchant I'm attempting to deal with has complaints and should be further researched before continuing.

At this point if the consumer says f**k it, I'm feelin' lucky then they should bare the full responsibility of the transaction. If I advice you not to jump off of a bridge and you do so anyway, you shouldn't be able to hold me responsible.

This protects the credit card companies bottom line and that is why they would consider it. It makes them even more money. Plus, in this day and age with companies like ebay; consumers are used to satisfaction ratings being a factor in making a purchase decision.

With ebay, I have the ability to see if the particular merchant/seller is reliable in what they promise. If they have a low rating and I still deal with them, I run the risk of getting ripped off. Credit card companies should offer the same feature. It's the modern thing to do. Right now, we are making descisions blind folded. More than anyone involved, the credit card companies know what's going on. It's profitable to protect consumers and it's right.

Greetings everyone. I've read all of the threads to this point and I have some ideas I'd like to share.

When I was 19 I got my first credit card. I mainly purchased computer parts for my growing business. One day I decided to use my card to purchase some blue jeans. This lit up a red flag in the credit card system. I was contacted immediately regarding the charge. The credit card company didn't think the purchase was consistent with my previous card activity. This is a fraud fail-safe that most card companies have.

Also, I had a merchant account once. It wasn't hard to get at all. You can pretty much just make up info and they will give you an account. There's not a lot of background checks. Most consumers don't know that when you have a merchant account each credit card company has it's own transaction fees, rates, and guidlines.

One regulation they all have is you can't charge extra to use credit cards. As a business you are forced to eat the transaction fees. And they can really eat into your profits, let me tell you. This is the real reason credit card companies like to authorize transactions.

If American Express gets as much as 3.7% of a transaction why wouldn't they let it go through. 3.7% of $15,000.00 is $555.00 in case you don't have a calculator handy. That's like pure profit. Plus, they get to keep that money in most cases even if a charge back is issued. Plus, there are additional processing fees for doing this. Credit card companies make a lot of money from scam companies like John Beck. Still they do have guidlines you must follow though.

You can charge extra for shipping and handling, but to tell people that they're paying more because they're using a credit card is a direct violation of their most important rules.

If you violate this or any other rule and there are many; you risk being black-listed forever. That's right! Credit card companies have actually been known to completely write businesses off for breaking their rules. Not just for a year, a month, a week, but forever.

I remember thinking that was harsh, but it does one very important thing. It protects their bottom line.

I think a logical solution that wouldn't be costly and wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to combine these concepts in a functional manner.

I propose that credit card companies have in addition to a black list a grey list. This list would be the result of consumer complaints and charge disputes. Any complaint resolved or not automatically enrolls the company in the grey list. After a pre-set period of time with no complaints they get removed from the grey list.

This would be like an automatic BBB. Instead of having to call the BBB up to see if there are complaints, the credit card company would inform you at the time of purchase. The internet isn't a perfect way to research a product. infomercialscams.com has been shut down. It's like all those complaints never happened. Centrality is important for consumer protection. It just doesn't get more central than the credit card company itself. It would be like getting the info right from the horses mouth.

Just like when I purchased blue jeans instead of computer parts. The credit card company would impartially inform me that the merchant I'm attempting to deal with has complaints and should be further researched before continuing.

At this point if the consumer says f**k it, I'm feelin' lucky then they should bare the full responsibility of the transaction. If I advice you not to jump off of a bridge and you do so anyway, you shouldn't be able to hold me responsible.

This protects the credit card companies bottom line and that is why they would consider it. It makes them even more money. Plus, in this day and age with companies like ebay; consumers are used to satisfaction ratings being a factor in making a purchase decision.

With ebay, I have the ability to see if the particular merchant/seller is reliable in what they promise. If they have a low rating and I still deal with them, I run the risk of getting ripped off. Credit card companies should offer the same feature. It's the modern thing to do. Right now, we are making descisions blind folded. More than anyone involved, the credit card companies know what's going on. It's profitable to protect consumers and it's right.

Greetings everyone. I've read all of the threads to this point and I have some ideas I'd like to share.

When I was 19 I got my first credit card. I mainly purchased computer parts for my growing business. One day I decided to use my card to purchase some blue jeans. This lit up a red flag in the credit card system. I was contacted immediately regarding the charge. The credit card company didn't think the purchase was consistent with my previous card activity. This is a fraud fail-safe that most card companies have.

Also, I had a merchant account once. It wasn't hard to get at all. You can pretty much just make up info and they will give you an account. There's not a lot of background checks. Most consumers don't know that when you have a merchant account each credit card company has it's own transaction fees, rates, and guidlines.

One regulation they all have is you can't charge extra to use credit cards. As a business you are forced to eat the transaction fees. And they can really eat into your profits, let me tell you. This is the real reason credit card companies like to authorize transactions.

If American Express gets as much as 3.7% of a transaction why wouldn't they let it go through. 3.7% of $15,000.00 is $555.00 in case you don't have a calculator handy. That's like pure profit. Plus, they get to keep that money in most cases even if a charge back is issued. Plus, there are additional processing fees for doing this. Credit card companies make a lot of money from scam companies like John Beck. Still they do have guidlines you must follow though.

You can charge extra for shipping and handling, but to tell people that they're paying more because they're using a credit card is a direct violation of their most important rules.

If you violate this or any other rule and there are many; you risk being black-listed forever. That's right! Credit card companies have actually been known to completely write businesses off for breaking their rules. Not just for a year, a month, a week, but forever.

I remember thinking that was harsh, but it does one very important thing. It protects their bottom line.

I think a logical solution that wouldn't be costly and wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to combine these concepts in a functional manner.

I propose that credit card companies have in addition to a black list a grey list. This list would be the result of consumer complaints and charge disputes. Any complaint resolved or not automatically enrolls the company in the grey list. After a pre-set period of time with no complaints they get removed from the grey list.

This would be like an automatic BBB. Instead of having to call the BBB up to see if there are complaints, the credit card company would inform you at the time of purchase. The internet isn't a perfect way to research a product. infomercialscams.com has been shut down. It's like all those complaints never happened. Centrality is important for consumer protection. It just doesn't get more central than the credit card company itself. It would be like getting the info right from the horses mouth.

Just like when I purchased blue jeans instead of computer parts. The credit card company would impartially inform me that the merchant I'm attempting to deal with has complaints and should be further researched before continuing.

At this point if the consumer says f**k it, I'm feelin' lucky then they should bare the full responsibility of the transaction. If I advice you not to jump off of a bridge and you do so anyway, you shouldn't be able to hold me responsible.

This protects the credit card companies bottom line and that is why they would consider it. It makes them even more money. Plus, in this day and age with companies like ebay; consumers are used to satisfaction ratings being a factor in making a purchase decision.

With ebay, I have the ability to see if the particular merchant/seller is reliable in what they promise. If they have a low rating and I still deal with them, I run the risk of getting ripped off. Credit card companies should offer the same feature. It's the modern thing to do. Right now, we are making descisions blind folded. More than anyone involved, the credit card companies know what's going on. It's profitable to protect consumers and it's right.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Credit card companies are responsible for the assisting of luring their cardholders into dangerous investments in which they already knew were fraudulent charges, despite all their excuses and lame justifications.

Despite the fact, that there are no laws which prohibit credit card companies from making idiodic decisions, what credit card companies are doing by continuously authorizing charges in which they've already known were fraudulent is flat out incoherent.

This thoughtless action by credit card companies are comparable to that of someone's friend surrenduring their money to someone in which they've already known had bad intentions.

Credit card companies hide behind the fact, that there are no such laws which truly protects consumers and use it to their advantage.

If fraudulent businesses are successful in retaining their victims money, everyone profits all the way around. Everyone that is, exept the victims.

Remember, just because there's no laws regarding something , doesn't mean that businesses are truly interested and are actually looking out for their customers/clients/cardholders best interest.

As a matter of fact, credit card companies literally pounce on every opportunity to authorize charges legitimate or not. The many unacknowledged and unresolved complaints regarding credit card use says it all.

Do credit card companies honestly believe, that someone would be upset if they refused a charge due to it being of a fraudulent nature? Are they really this stupid? Is it even possible for anyone to be this stupid?

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. Hey there Mike Evans, you're a con, you do no that don't you?

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

REID: Thanks Tim, I feel exactly the same way.

TIM: Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

REID: Here's where you lost me Tim, along with I'm sure many of the other victims of the notorious telephone mentoring scam.

You said, "Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?"

Yes, I think that even you'd agree, that's the purpose of complaints, or in this particular case warnings.

Mentoring programs are not "otherwise reputable companies" and anyone and everyone would still be welcome to participate in them if they chose to do so.

I strongly believe however, that everyone who were aware of the many unacknowledged and unresolved complaints regarding a particular fraudulent program would without question be deterred.

TIM: 2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation?

REID: This is really simple. Would you give your friends money to someone you knew was perpetuating a scam? Why should credit card companies be exempt from taking responsibility for their blatantly asinine actions?

TIM: Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam?

REID: No, we're all aware, that the FTC is no better than the fraudulent Better Business Bureau, when it comes to determining which companies are legitimate and which ones are flat out scams.

The FTC is just another complaint gathering organization.

TIM: Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough?

REID: Why don't you ask the many victims of the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute? I personally, feel that fourty + unacknowledged and unresolved complaints/reports against a company warrants actions of some kind.

TIM: We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional.

REID: It's common sense to know what's ethical and what's not. I don't think credit card companies need to have it explained to them, that authorizing charges in which they already knew were from "bad merchants", is not a very smart thing to do.

Companies have this ridiculous misconception, that as long as what they're doing is in the boundaries of the law, that its ethical and a good idea.

They have a tendency to forget just how ludicrious laws can be, and that many laws, state and federal, actually favor fraudulent businesses and or their programs.

TIM: Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

REID: My proposed standard would not let the government or "other consumers" decide what one could purchase using credit cards.

Consumers would as they always have, make their own purchasing decisions. My proposal has nothing to do with any government agencies/consumer protection agencies.

My proposal is strictly to do with credit card companies not further assisting fraudulent companies in perpetuating their scams.

TIM: 3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

REID: Totally erroneous. Conduct a google search on fluctuating interest rates and you'll see that cardholders interest rates are not affected or determined by credit card companies personal expenses, such as liens, levies, etc, etc.

TIM: Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE!

REID: If what you're suggesting had any truth to it, the vast majority of credit card interest rates would exceed 25%.

TIM: The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases.

REID: Even if what you've stated above had any truth to it remember, it was the CREDIT CARD COMPANY'S DECISION to forward THEIR money to a company in which they already knew were a "bad merchant", therefore it is the credit card company that should suffer any loss due to the "bad purchases."

TIM: Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases?

REID: Tim, you said "(by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases?"

What's the difference whether or not someone researches a company on the computer before investing any money? Does a company's website usually warn the public, that what they're peddling is a scam?

TIM: What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

REID: This paragraph is flat out ridiculous, as it clearly suggests to just allow scams to be scams.

TIM: All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

REID: They are not a party to this scam??? I'm not even going to get into this one, for it will take me over an hour to point out exactly why this paragraph is nothing but a cop out excuse for credit card companies.

TIM: 2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

REID: Ridiculous! The government or other consumers would not dictate ones ability to make given purchases.

I don't think you're comprehending the simple logic of my proposal. You are taking something very simple and twisting into something more complicated than it has to be.

Government/consumer protection agencies have done absolutely nada to protect consumers for the past some odd years. As I've mentioned earlier, these agencies are just mere complaint gatherers and don't take any legal actions on the consumers behalf.

I'm sorry to say, that the vast majority of the entities that were put in place to "protect consumers" from fraudulent businesses are literally useless. The thousands upon thousands of scams which exist, is absolute evidence of this.

Also, "other consumers" CAN NOT and WOULD NOT dictate ones ability to make given purchases. This statement is way out in left field and has nothing to do with credit card companies running away from the outcome of their reckless actions.

TIM: 3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

REID: Erroneous. Once again, conduct a google search on interest rates to get a general idea of what causes interest rates to fluctuate and you will see, that it has absolutely nothing to do with cardholders paying for the mistakes of their credit card companies.

TIM: 4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

REID: You have actually proved my point in this paragraph, for it has been proven that the person who actually scammed me had been liable to me, therefore, the party in the middle should be also. Thank you Tim for making this clear.

TIM: So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

REID: I agree that the truth would make this world a better place. The truth always prevails.

TIM: I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

REID: I disagree. Anyone and everyone who has been scammed by the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute should first contact their credit card company and dispute the charge(s).

I've done it and so should they.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Tim has posted some really valid points and some not so valid points, which in my honest opinion defies some basic common sense and logic.

This is probably due to the fact, that Tim has not experienced the extortion attempt from the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute and views the situation from the credit card companies perspective.

Cardholders do not carry the burdon of credit card companies expenses. Once again, cardholders are not responsible for carrying the burdon of credit card companies expenses.

The expenses of credit card companies, lawsuits, etc, etc, do not cause or determine the fluctuation of interest rates. Economic issues and stock market values determine the fluctuation of interest rates.

And yes, despite what credit card companies want their cardholders to believe, they are responsible for authorizing charges in which they already knew were fraudulent, therefore, they are responsible for recovering any monies from fraudulent businesses and deserve to bare all losses, if they are unable to do so.

I have made Visa's dispute department work to recover my $6,400.00 and would definitely do it again, if they ever choose to be so stupid. I also encourage all victims of the John Beck scam or scams in general to do the same.

It is the right of all consumers to dispute any tranactions in which a product, service or agreement has not lived up to it's claims. "Quality of service" is how credit card companies wish to disquise these types of disputes.

I think that Tim and I don't see eye to eye, because he views the situation from the credit card companies perspective and how credit card companies want their cardholders to believe.

I on the other hand, am one of many victims of a blatant and malicious scam, which could've easily been avoided had only "payment agenencies" been loyal and decent businesses.

Instead "payment agents" insist on continuing to conduct business in such a way that defies common logic and prefer to make excuses to justify their not so intelligent ways of conducting business.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. In answer to your somewhat ridiculous question Tim, no I would not go marching up and down any street had I inadvertantly coughed up money to a scam.

I try to always place larger investments on credit cards, believing like many others, that credit card companies have enough decency and common sense to warn us about previous fraudulent activities.

Hey there Tim along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Reid, these "good smaritan" laws of which you speak are mythological beasts. There are no such laws. Such a law would be unconstitutional. Mind you, however, that there are certain relationships and statuses that carry with them a the requirement to render assistance in certain situations. But, for the most part, good samaritan laws simply don't exist.

REID: I'm sorry to inform you, that "good samaritan" laws do exist. FOR EXAMPLE: If someone is certified in CPR and fails to render aid to a victim, he or she may very well be in violation of the "good samaritan" law.

You are right though, when stating that there are no such laws that apply to credit card companies and which protects consumers from scams and there probably never will be.

That is why credit card companies will continue to deliberately authorize charges in which they're already aware are of a fraudulent nature.

TIM: I point this out not so much to refute earlier claims, but to illustrate why exactly the law does not (and never will) require credit companies to prevent us from making bad decisions.

Thus far I have yet to see a single merited justification for holding credit card companies liable in this situation. I don't feel that my previous contentions were effectively refuted, to wit:

1) The credit card companies simply aren't culpable. They only did what you TOLD them to do. If you had used any other payment medium, would you still hold the provider of that medium liable? If you wrote a check, would you assume that your bank would end up holding the bag if you got screwed? If you paid in cash, would you march on the Dallas Mint demanding a refund? Credit card companies offer the POSSIBILITY of obtaining refunds based in quality of service complaints and now you somehow feel as though you are ENTITLED to such a refund, even if the credit card company is unable to indemnify or otherwise recoup from the merchant. What's worse, you have convinced other people that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress.

REID: Once again Tim, this entire paragraph is just a bunch of excuses and very much what credit card companies want their cardholders to believe.

If I have convinced only one other person, that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress, I have done my job.

CULPABLE: Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.

What credit card companies are doing by deliberately authorizing charges in which they were already aware were of a fraudulent nature constitutes all of the above.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN SHALL WE?

1. Deserving of blame: Deliberately authorizing charges in which they already knew were fraudulent. I think this is deserving of blame.

2. Wrong: I think, that everyone who has been victimized, because their credit card company willfully authorized charges in which they already knew were fraudulent would agree that it's wrong.

3. Evil: I wouldn't go this far. Subjective in my opinion.

4. Improper: What do you think?

5. Injurious: I don't have to explain this do I?

Let's see 4 out of 5?. Yeah, I think this makes credit card companies culpable.

TIM: 2) You are proposing an unworkable remedial scheme. The only thing that could impose a refund requirement such as discussed here would be a law to that effect. Such a law would either 1) tell the credit card companies that they will be liable if they allow charges to scam operations. Such a law would be unconstitutionally vague: it would inevitably
fail to imform those affected of the steps required to comply with the law. Or 2) set forth criteria by which the credit card companies could operate, in which case we would be handing our consumer sovereignty over to the government and large, risk averse banks.

REID: Tim, I am not denying the fact, that there are no such laws which protect consumers from fraudulent businesses.

The fact remains however, that what credit card companies are doing is wrong and very unethical. There is absolutely no denying it.

Would you give your friends money away to someone you knew was a scam artist? Of course not! It's a little brainless wouldn't you say? Why should it be any different for credit card companies? The excuses are becoming a little more obvious right?

Once again, everthing that you've stated in this paragraph are just a bunch of excuses, which I'm sure makes credit card companies very happy to hear.

TIM: This law (the one that gives guidance), as well as the other option (the one that does not give such guidance) would both infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract.

REID: You are absolutely corrrect when stating, that such laws would infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract. I whole heartedly agree with you on this.

So what would you suggest? Continue to blow it off? I personally, don't feel it makes much sense for credit card companies to continue authorizing shady transactions, having them disputed, and having to later retrieve the monies from fraudulent businesses.

TIM: 3) The costs associated with this mandatory refund scheme would INDEED be handed on to the consumer. Those with fixed interest rates would be hit with higher annual fees. New cardholders will face both higher interest rates and higher annual fees. Even non-card-carriers will feel the effect as the credit card companies raise the cost of accepting credit card payments at points of sale. These costs will NOT be borne by the policy makers at your credit card companies. They will be borne by innocent consumers and shareholders.

REID: Once again, intersest rates do not fluctuate for these reasons. Credit card interest rates are determined by the prime rate. Conduct a google search on "credit cards and their prime rates" for full details. Cardholders do not carry the burdon of their credit card issuers.

TIM: 4) The law already provides you with an avenue of redress against the entity that actually did you wrong. If you have been scammed to the extent that the law considers you as having been scammed, the you have a fruitful contract claim against JB on your hands. If you have not been scammed to the extent that the law would protect you per JB, then it wouldn't make any sense to lower the bar for a third party that had no presence in the marketing and decision making processes.

REID: False. This entire paragraph once again contains nothing but excuses. Nothing written in this entire paragragh changes the fact, that credit card companies continually authorize charges in which they already knew were fraudulent.

Not to say, that credit card companies are responsible for the scamming of their cardholders themselves, but knowingly and willfully authorizing charges, in which they already knew were fraudulent is a bit convoluted to say the least. Credit card companies attempting to justify their idiotic actions makes it even worst.

TIM: I understand why you would all like for your credit card companies to take care of this for you: it's probably a hell of a lot easier than filing a claim against a foreign (out of state) entity.

REID: Not true at all. In addition to filing a dispute with my credit card company, I have also filed numerous complaints with the BBB (usless organization), the FTC, Consumer Protection, Attorney General in Utah, Attorney General in Hawaii and a few other government agencies.

I was not looking for an easy way out if that's what you're implying.

TIM: I think, however, that you decided the law should be this way and then thought up justifications for such a position. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; this type of reasoning is exactly what lawyers do.

REID: True. The job of lawyers for the most part, are just exposing and taking advantage of the other party's ignorance of the law(s).

TIM: But even lawyers sometimes through unmerited arguments into the water to see if they float. And I feel that your positions belie the commercial jurisprudence that has created the successful economy we enjoy today. What you are arguing for would be a burden on commerce, and we try to avoid those wherever possible.

REID: False. What I am arguing for is currently a burdon on consumers.

TIM: I recommend you pick up "Law and Economics in a Nutshell" and "Contracts in a Nutshell." It is my feeling that, if you had a better understanding of American jurisprudence that you would understand my position a bit better.

REID: It is not necessary for me or anyone else to read these books. I am totally aware of what happened to me. I am also totally aware, that what credit card companies are doing is flat out unethical.

Obviously they don't see it that way and are going to continue to hide behind excuses.

TIM; Aloha amigos! Kudos to your ability to maintain a reasoned, civil discussion even though you completely disagree with me.

REID: Until next time, take care Tim along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Tim along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Reid, these "good smaritan" laws of which you speak are mythological beasts. There are no such laws. Such a law would be unconstitutional. Mind you, however, that there are certain relationships and statuses that carry with them a the requirement to render assistance in certain situations. But, for the most part, good samaritan laws simply don't exist.

REID: I'm sorry to inform you, that "good samaritan" laws do exist. FOR EXAMPLE: If someone is certified in CPR and fails to render aid to a victim, he or she may very well be in violation of the "good samaritan" law.

You are right though, when stating that there are no such laws that apply to credit card companies and which protects consumers from scams and there probably never will be.

That is why credit card companies will continue to deliberately authorize charges in which they're already aware are of a fraudulent nature.

TIM: I point this out not so much to refute earlier claims, but to illustrate why exactly the law does not (and never will) require credit companies to prevent us from making bad decisions.

Thus far I have yet to see a single merited justification for holding credit card companies liable in this situation. I don't feel that my previous contentions were effectively refuted, to wit:

1) The credit card companies simply aren't culpable. They only did what you TOLD them to do. If you had used any other payment medium, would you still hold the provider of that medium liable? If you wrote a check, would you assume that your bank would end up holding the bag if you got screwed? If you paid in cash, would you march on the Dallas Mint demanding a refund? Credit card companies offer the POSSIBILITY of obtaining refunds based in quality of service complaints and now you somehow feel as though you are ENTITLED to such a refund, even if the credit card company is unable to indemnify or otherwise recoup from the merchant. What's worse, you have convinced other people that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress.

REID: Once again Tim, this entire paragraph is just a bunch of excuses and very much what credit card companies want their cardholders to believe.

If I have convinced only one other person, that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress, I have done my job.

CULPABLE: Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.

What credit card companies are doing by deliberately authorizing charges in which they were already aware were of a fraudulent nature constitutes all of the above.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN SHALL WE?

1. Deserving of blame: Deliberately authorizing charges in which they already knew were fraudulent. I think this is deserving of blame.

2. Wrong: I think, that everyone who has been victimized, because their credit card company willfully authorized charges in which they already knew were fraudulent would agree that it's wrong.

3. Evil: I wouldn't go this far. Subjective in my opinion.

4. Improper: What do you think?

5. Injurious: I don't have to explain this do I?

Let's see 4 out of 5?. Yeah, I think this makes credit card companies culpable.

TIM: 2) You are proposing an unworkable remedial scheme. The only thing that could impose a refund requirement such as discussed here would be a law to that effect. Such a law would either 1) tell the credit card companies that they will be liable if they allow charges to scam operations. Such a law would be unconstitutionally vague: it would inevitably
fail to imform those affected of the steps required to comply with the law. Or 2) set forth criteria by which the credit card companies could operate, in which case we would be handing our consumer sovereignty over to the government and large, risk averse banks.

REID: Tim, I am not denying the fact, that there are no such laws which protect consumers from fraudulent businesses.

The fact remains however, that what credit card companies are doing is wrong and very unethical. There is absolutely no denying it.

Would you give your friends money away to someone you knew was a scam artist? Of course not! It's a little brainless wouldn't you say? Why should it be any different for credit card companies? The excuses are becoming a little more obvious right?

Once again, everthing that you've stated in this paragraph are just a bunch of excuses, which I'm sure makes credit card companies very happy to hear.

TIM: This law (the one that gives guidance), as well as the other option (the one that does not give such guidance) would both infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract.

REID: You are absolutely corrrect when stating, that such laws would infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract. I whole heartedly agree with you on this.

So what would you suggest? Continue to blow it off? I personally, don't feel it makes much sense for credit card companies to continue authorizing shady transactions, having them disputed, and having to later retrieve the monies from fraudulent businesses.

TIM: 3) The costs associated with this mandatory refund scheme would INDEED be handed on to the consumer. Those with fixed interest rates would be hit with higher annual fees. New cardholders will face both higher interest rates and higher annual fees. Even non-card-carriers will feel the effect as the credit card companies raise the cost of accepting credit card payments at points of sale. These costs will NOT be borne by the policy makers at your credit card companies. They will be borne by innocent consumers and shareholders.

REID: Once again, intersest rates do not fluctuate for these reasons. Credit card interest rates are determined by the prime rate. Conduct a google search on "credit cards and their prime rates" for full details. Cardholders do not carry the burdon of their credit card issuers.

TIM: 4) The law already provides you with an avenue of redress against the entity that actually did you wrong. If you have been scammed to the extent that the law considers you as having been scammed, the you have a fruitful contract claim against JB on your hands. If you have not been scammed to the extent that the law would protect you per JB, then it wouldn't make any sense to lower the bar for a third party that had no presence in the marketing and decision making processes.

REID: False. This entire paragraph once again contains nothing but excuses. Nothing written in this entire paragragh changes the fact, that credit card companies continually authorize charges in which they already knew were fraudulent.

Not to say, that credit card companies are responsible for the scamming of their cardholders themselves, but knowingly and willfully authorizing charges, in which they already knew were fraudulent is a bit convoluted to say the least. Credit card companies attempting to justify their idiotic actions makes it even worst.

TIM: I understand why you would all like for your credit card companies to take care of this for you: it's probably a hell of a lot easier than filing a claim against a foreign (out of state) entity.

REID: Not true at all. In addition to filing a dispute with my credit card company, I have also filed numerous complaints with the BBB (usless organization), the FTC, Consumer Protection, Attorney General in Utah, Attorney General in Hawaii and a few other government agencies.

I was not looking for an easy way out if that's what you're implying.

TIM: I think, however, that you decided the law should be this way and then thought up justifications for such a position. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; this type of reasoning is exactly what lawyers do.

REID: True. The job of lawyers for the most part, are just exposing and taking advantage of the other party's ignorance of the law(s).

TIM: But even lawyers sometimes through unmerited arguments into the water to see if they float. And I feel that your positions belie the commercial jurisprudence that has created the successful economy we enjoy today. What you are arguing for would be a burden on commerce, and we try to avoid those wherever possible.

REID: False. What I am arguing for is currently a burdon on consumers.

TIM: I recommend you pick up "Law and Economics in a Nutshell" and "Contracts in a Nutshell." It is my feeling that, if you had a better understanding of American jurisprudence that you would understand my position a bit better.

REID: It is not necessary for me or anyone else to read these books. I am totally aware of what happened to me. I am also totally aware, that what credit card companies are doing is flat out unethical.

Obviously they don't see it that way and are going to continue to hide behind excuses.

TIM; Aloha amigos! Kudos to your ability to maintain a reasoned, civil discussion even though you completely disagree with me.

REID: Until next time, take care Tim along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Tim along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Reid, these "good smaritan" laws of which you speak are mythological beasts. There are no such laws. Such a law would be unconstitutional. Mind you, however, that there are certain relationships and statuses that carry with them a the requirement to render assistance in certain situations. But, for the most part, good samaritan laws simply don't exist.

REID: I'm sorry to inform you, that "good samaritan" laws do exist. FOR EXAMPLE: If someone is certified in CPR and fails to render aid to a victim, he or she may very well be in violation of the "good samaritan" law.

You are right though, when stating that there are no such laws that apply to credit card companies and which protects consumers from scams and there probably never will be.

That is why credit card companies will continue to deliberately authorize charges in which they're already aware are of a fraudulent nature.

TIM: I point this out not so much to refute earlier claims, but to illustrate why exactly the law does not (and never will) require credit companies to prevent us from making bad decisions.

Thus far I have yet to see a single merited justification for holding credit card companies liable in this situation. I don't feel that my previous contentions were effectively refuted, to wit:

1) The credit card companies simply aren't culpable. They only did what you TOLD them to do. If you had used any other payment medium, would you still hold the provider of that medium liable? If you wrote a check, would you assume that your bank would end up holding the bag if you got screwed? If you paid in cash, would you march on the Dallas Mint demanding a refund? Credit card companies offer the POSSIBILITY of obtaining refunds based in quality of service complaints and now you somehow feel as though you are ENTITLED to such a refund, even if the credit card company is unable to indemnify or otherwise recoup from the merchant. What's worse, you have convinced other people that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress.

REID: Once again Tim, this entire paragraph is just a bunch of excuses and very much what credit card companies want their cardholders to believe.

If I have convinced only one other person, that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress, I have done my job.

CULPABLE: Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.

What credit card companies are doing by deliberately authorizing charges in which they were already aware were of a fraudulent nature constitutes all of the above.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN SHALL WE?

1. Deserving of blame: Deliberately authorizing charges in which they already knew were fraudulent. I think this is deserving of blame.

2. Wrong: I think, that everyone who has been victimized, because their credit card company willfully authorized charges in which they already knew were fraudulent would agree that it's wrong.

3. Evil: I wouldn't go this far. Subjective in my opinion.

4. Improper: What do you think?

5. Injurious: I don't have to explain this do I?

Let's see 4 out of 5?. Yeah, I think this makes credit card companies culpable.

TIM: 2) You are proposing an unworkable remedial scheme. The only thing that could impose a refund requirement such as discussed here would be a law to that effect. Such a law would either 1) tell the credit card companies that they will be liable if they allow charges to scam operations. Such a law would be unconstitutionally vague: it would inevitably
fail to imform those affected of the steps required to comply with the law. Or 2) set forth criteria by which the credit card companies could operate, in which case we would be handing our consumer sovereignty over to the government and large, risk averse banks.

REID: Tim, I am not denying the fact, that there are no such laws which protect consumers from fraudulent businesses.

The fact remains however, that what credit card companies are doing is wrong and very unethical. There is absolutely no denying it.

Would you give your friends money away to someone you knew was a scam artist? Of course not! It's a little brainless wouldn't you say? Why should it be any different for credit card companies? The excuses are becoming a little more obvious right?

Once again, everthing that you've stated in this paragraph are just a bunch of excuses, which I'm sure makes credit card companies very happy to hear.

TIM: This law (the one that gives guidance), as well as the other option (the one that does not give such guidance) would both infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract.

REID: You are absolutely corrrect when stating, that such laws would infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract. I whole heartedly agree with you on this.

So what would you suggest? Continue to blow it off? I personally, don't feel it makes much sense for credit card companies to continue authorizing shady transactions, having them disputed, and having to later retrieve the monies from fraudulent businesses.

TIM: 3) The costs associated with this mandatory refund scheme would INDEED be handed on to the consumer. Those with fixed interest rates would be hit with higher annual fees. New cardholders will face both higher interest rates and higher annual fees. Even non-card-carriers will feel the effect as the credit card companies raise the cost of accepting credit card payments at points of sale. These costs will NOT be borne by the policy makers at your credit card companies. They will be borne by innocent consumers and shareholders.

REID: Once again, intersest rates do not fluctuate for these reasons. Credit card interest rates are determined by the prime rate. Conduct a google search on "credit cards and their prime rates" for full details. Cardholders do not carry the burdon of their credit card issuers.

TIM: 4) The law already provides you with an avenue of redress against the entity that actually did you wrong. If you have been scammed to the extent that the law considers you as having been scammed, the you have a fruitful contract claim against JB on your hands. If you have not been scammed to the extent that the law would protect you per JB, then it wouldn't make any sense to lower the bar for a third party that had no presence in the marketing and decision making processes.

REID: False. This entire paragraph once again contains nothing but excuses. Nothing written in this entire paragragh changes the fact, that credit card companies continually authorize charges in which they already knew were fraudulent.

Not to say, that credit card companies are responsible for the scamming of their cardholders themselves, but knowingly and willfully authorizing charges, in which they already knew were fraudulent is a bit convoluted to say the least. Credit card companies attempting to justify their idiotic actions makes it even worst.

TIM: I understand why you would all like for your credit card companies to take care of this for you: it's probably a hell of a lot easier than filing a claim against a foreign (out of state) entity.

REID: Not true at all. In addition to filing a dispute with my credit card company, I have also filed numerous complaints with the BBB (usless organization), the FTC, Consumer Protection, Attorney General in Utah, Attorney General in Hawaii and a few other government agencies.

I was not looking for an easy way out if that's what you're implying.

TIM: I think, however, that you decided the law should be this way and then thought up justifications for such a position. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; this type of reasoning is exactly what lawyers do.

REID: True. The job of lawyers for the most part, are just exposing and taking advantage of the other party's ignorance of the law(s).

TIM: But even lawyers sometimes through unmerited arguments into the water to see if they float. And I feel that your positions belie the commercial jurisprudence that has created the successful economy we enjoy today. What you are arguing for would be a burden on commerce, and we try to avoid those wherever possible.

REID: False. What I am arguing for is currently a burdon on consumers.

TIM: I recommend you pick up "Law and Economics in a Nutshell" and "Contracts in a Nutshell." It is my feeling that, if you had a better understanding of American jurisprudence that you would understand my position a bit better.

REID: It is not necessary for me or anyone else to read these books. I am totally aware of what happened to me. I am also totally aware, that what credit card companies are doing is flat out unethical.

Obviously they don't see it that way and are going to continue to hide behind excuses.

TIM; Aloha amigos! Kudos to your ability to maintain a reasoned, civil discussion even though you completely disagree with me.

REID: Until next time, take care Tim along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Reid, these "good smaritan" laws of which you speak are mythological beasts. There are no such laws. Such a law would be unconstitutional. Mind you, however, that there are certain relationships and statuses that carry with them a the requirement to render assistance in certain situations. But, for the most part, good samaritan laws simply don't exist.

I point this out not so much to refute earlier claims, but to illustrate why exactly the law does not (and never will) require credit companies to prevent us from making bad decisions.

Thus far I have yet to see a single merited justification for holding credit card companies liable in this situation. I don't feel that my previous contentions were effectively refuted, to wit:

1) The credit card companies simply aren't culpable. They only did what you TOLD them to do. If you had used any other payment medium, would you still hold the provider of that medium liable? If you wrote a check, would you assume that your bank would end up holding the bag if you got screwed? If you paid in cash, would you march on the Dallas Mint demanding a refund? Credit card companies offer the POSSIBILITY of obtaining refunds based in quality of service complaints and now you somehow feel as though you are ENTITLED to such a refund, even if the credit card company is unable to indemnify or otherwise recoup from the merchant. What's worse, you have convinced other people that this is the likely and ethically correct mode of redress.

2) You are proposing an unworkable remedial scheme. The only thing that could impose a refund requirement such as discussed here would be a law to that effect. Such a law would either 1) tell the credit card companies that they will be liable if they allow charges to scam operations. Such a law would be unconstitutionally vague: it would inevitably
fail to imform those affected of the steps required to comply with the law. Or 2) set forth criteria by which the credit card companies could operate, in which case we would be handing our consumer sovereignty over to the government and large, risk averse banks.

This law (the one that gives guidance), as well as the other option (the one that does not give such guidance) would both infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of contract.

3) The costs associated with this mandatory refund scheme would INDEED be handed on to the consumer. Those with fixed interest rates would be hit with higher annual fees. New cardholders will face both higher interest rates and higher annual fees. Even non-card-carriers will feel the effect as the credit card companies raise the cost of accepting credit card payments at points of sale. These costs will NOT be borne by the policy makers at your credit card companies. They will be borne by innocent consumers and shareholders.

4) The law already provides you with an avenue of redress against the entity that actually did you wrong. If you have been scammed to the extent that the law considers you as having been scammed, the you have a fruitful contract claim against JB on your hands. If you have not been scammed to the extent that the law would protect you per JB, then it wouldn't make any sense to lower the bar for a third party that had no presence in the marketing and decision making processes.

I understand why you would all like for your credit card companies to take care of this for you: it's probably a hell of a lot easier than filing a claim against a foreign (out of state) entity. I think, however, that you decided the law should be this way and then thought up justifications for such a position. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; this type of reasoning is exactly what lawyers do. But even lawyers sometimes through unmerited arguments into the water to see if they float. And I feel that your positions belie the commercial jurisprudence that has created the successful economy we enjoy today. What you are arguing for would be a burden on commerce, and we try to avoid those wherever possible.

I recommend you pick up "Law and Economics in a Nutshell" and "Contracts in a Nutshell." It is my feeling that, if you had a better understanding of American jurisprudence that you would understand my position a bit better.

Aloha amigos! Kudos to your ability to maintain a reasoned, civil discussion even though you completely disagree with me.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

BEWARE HAWAII: John Beck the "attorney" is still airing his fraudulent Free and Clear/Amazing Profit's Infomercial. I've seen it yesterday. Same old fraudulent Infomercial for the same scam.

Also, Russ Whitney is in town. Trust me when I say, there is absolutely no one selling legitimate "secrets to wealth" programs.

Real Estate workshops, programs, bootcamps, or whatever else these imbreeds prefer to call them are all scams. Don't attend Russ Whitney's seminar, or you'll most likely regret it.

It's just a come-on to get victims to sign up for his UNPROVEN Real Estate program. Instead, contact me for my enire shlew of "mentoring" programs. LOL.

See the many unacknowledged and unresolved complaints regarding Russ Whitney on this site and the many other advocacy websites.

Conduct a google search on Russ Whitney and thoroughly research him before deciding to waste your time attending his seminar.

WARNING: There's a reason why businesses with much complaints against them, aren't willing to come forward in the public eye and defend what they're peddling through fraudulent means.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Judging by the automobiles featured in the background, it seems as though the "success stories" on John Beck's website (JohnBeck.net)are from the seventies.

All these years in the Real Estate business and all these genetic imbreeds (John Beck and his team of scam artists) have to show are six or seven properties, which they have aquired from the seventies and eighties. ROF & LMFAO.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. Looks like the type of homes, where Mike Evans had been concieved through the result of two cousins engaging in sexual intercourse.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

To say that credit card companies should not be held liable for autorizing charges which they already knew were of a fraudulent nature, is the same as saying hired hitmen (murder for hire) should not be held liable for their actions (murder).

Think of how ridiculous it sounds for credit card companies to knowingly subject their cardholders to what they already know are fraudulent offers.

Suggesting that "middleman"/"intermediaries", etc, etc, should not be held accountable for their ignorance, is the same as suggesting that pimps shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, even though they are totally aware, that what they're doing is illegal.

After all, pimps are just "middlemen", and do not personally service clients themselves. Well, most don't. Credit card companies are at fault, but whether or not they come forward to take responsibilty for their retarded actions is an entirely different story.

Knowingly subjecting consumers into dangerous transactions is entirely different from infringing upon ones "free will", so for any credit card company to state otherwise is flat out preposterous. Just ubsurd excuses!

Credit card companies are condoning fraudulent practices by continuously authorizing fraudulent charges, while hiding behind the excuse of not wanting to impose upon ones "free will."

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Tim has made some really good points, however, his thinking is along the lines of how credit card companies want people to think.

1. Credit card companies are only an intermediary between businesses and their cardholders.

2. Credit card companies should not involve themselves with the consumers "free will" choices. This statement is somewhat true to an extent, however, does not justify credit card companies knowingly authorizing charges, in which they already know are of a fraudulent nature, thus making consumers "free will" choices the mother of all mother excuses.

Consumers "free will" choices and credit card companies authorizing charges, in which they already know are fraudulent, are NOT the same thing, despite what credit card companies want their cardholders to belive.

Using "free will" choices is just an excuse used by credit card companies and is actually closer related to "aiding and abetting" in fraudulent activities. Knowingly luring customers into a dangerous situation.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Tim there is no question as to the cc should company honor the charges that are original submitted.
The question starts when they honor charges that are disputed. This is not just because some one changes thier mind, but because scam, fraud, breach, and misrepresent illegal marketing.
We are still submitting info to the cc so we will have to see how much impact this has if any on further decicions made. If it has no further impact on their decision of a charge back. It will be futher stated as such.

A futher oppinion will be stated either way.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

SCAM: A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.

The John Beck Mentoring Institute is a scam. There are no such businesses and or individuals, that are selling "wealth building" strategies to total strangers.

FRAUDULENT: 1. Engaging in fraud; deceitful. 2. Characterized by, constituting, or gained by fraud; fraudulent business practices.

The John Beck Mentoring Institute is totally fraudulent and is continuously participating in the above activities.

AIDING: The act or result of helping; assistance.

Credit card compnanies are "helping" the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute illegally obtain monies from many victims through fraudulent means, by continuously authorizing charges, in which they're already aware are fraudulent.

ABETTING: To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.

Key words in the definition are approve, support and help on.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Tim along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

REID: Thanks Tim, I feel the exact same way.

TIM: Ultimately, you must bear in mind that you and I, when it really boils down to it, are coming at this from the same viewpoint as far as basic moral principles go. Where we differ is on some key "policy" issues, and I think you are having trouble separating what I believe per my sense of morality, and how I think those beleifs would most efficaciously find embodiment in public policy.

REID: Seems as though we are on the same page here. I agree with everything you've stated so far.

TIM: I think you misunderstand, and that I have under-explained the nature of my "victim blaming." To make my position clearer, consider this: we are NOT dealing here with the question of whether JBMI is a scam, we all agree on that issue. And I am firmly of the opinion that JBMI is ENTIRELY to blame for the victimization of consumers AS BETWEEN JBMI and those consumers. That's not the issue I was addressing, however.

REID: The John Beck Mentoring Institute is a scam no doubt. Still on the same page.

TIM: The issue at hand, as I see it, is where the "risk of loss" should fall should it NOT fall on JBMI. In other words, if the victims cannot recover from the true source of their economic injury, who then should ultimately bear the brunt of said economic damage?

REID: John Beck no doubt, should bear the brunt of said economic damages.

TIM: Let me relay my interpretation of your position: the credit card companies should bear the risk of loss in this circumstance because they are aware that this is a scam but still allow people to purchase these "products" via their payment services.

REID: Tim, what do you think? Don't you think, that every parent of young children, would want to know if and when a convicted child molester moved into their neighborhood?

Think of scams as convicted child molesters, because scams are at very least a nuesanse to all the victims involved.

Now think of credit card companies as the people who very well knew about a convicted child molester in their neighborhood, but failed to warn their community. It's no differnent.

Now think of all the victims of the John Beck scam as victims who have been molested. Unless you were ever a victim of one of the thousands of scams out there, you have absolutely no idea how much of a hassle it is to recover your lost monies.

TIM: Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

REID: I don't think that anyone were suggesting government mandated paternalizm, for we're already aware, that there are way too many useless government organizations to begin with.

The situation is not as difficult as it seems. You are trying to make the situation seem much more difficult than it really is, and like credit card companies prefer to do, are making excuses to justify their thoughtless and careless actions.

TIM: 2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation? Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam? Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough? We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional. Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

REID: The answer to your first question is really simple and is really dependant upon ones moral character.

Tim, do you consider yourself to be a good samaritan? Fact is, you can't possibly consider yourself one and believe your first question is a good one.

If you witnessed a murder first hand and could identify the culprit, do you identify him or her, or turn a blind eye? Your first question leads one to believe, that you would turn a blind eye.

Of course credit card companies should be held liable.

People have a tendency to believe, that because credit card companies have much power over their cardholders, that they should be allowed to conduct business in unethical ways and not be held liable for their actions, even though their unethical business practices could often be damaging and harmful to their cardholders.

In answer to your second question no. FTC rulings would not be necessary in order to rectify credit card disputes. Credit card disputes is a very simple process.

1. Person contacts his credit card company and disputes a particular product or service.

2. Company is then made aware of the dispute and has the opportunity to prove the dispute erroneous or to the contrary. This part would be very easy for any legitimate business to accomplish.

Businesses have the opportunity to remedy any situation at this time. Credit card disputes are unbiased and does not favor either victims or businesses.

In answer to your third question no. A certain "volume" of complaints is way too much. If a company has just one complaint regarding it, and cannot explain it, credit card companies should cease all transactions, until the dispute is resolved.

Is a certain "volume" of rape victims needed in order for the crime to have taken place?

One victim, two victims, tree victims, four. Doesn't make a difference. Rape is rape. Fraud is fraud. Aiding and abetting in fraudulent activities, is aiding and abetting in fraudulent activities.

TIM: 3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

REID: Erroneous. I have disputed the charges of the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute. Since having disputed the charges and proving John Beck's program fraudulent beyond a reasonable doubt, I still continue to recieve as many, if not more credit card offers through the mail.

Credit card companies are always more than willing to offer their products and services. Disputes and lawsuits have absolutely no bearing on interest rates what so ever, as disputes and lawsuits are directly between the businesses and victims, and not credit card companies and their cardholders.

If credit card companies would do what's right, they wouldn't ever have to worry about getting sued. I don't think that anyone has sued their credit card company over the John Beck scam yet.

If interest rates were affected by the number of lawsuits a credit card company received, you can rest assured, that no one would be able to afford having credit cards.

TIM: Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE! The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases. Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases? What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

REID: Fixed interest rates prove, that your theory on who pays for lawsuits is incorect. If Visa, Mastercard, or American Express ever asked me to pay a bill for their stupidity, I'd tell them to shove it way up there.

TIM: All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

REID: Are you once again suggesting that "good samaritan" laws do not apply to credit card companies and their practices? Do you not see how credit card companies are "aiding and abetting" in fraudulent activities?

TIM: 2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

REID: This statement doesn't make much sense Tim and you know it. I'm sure that the vast majority of scam victims would never have agreed to enroll into John Beck's fraudulent program, had they been aware of the fact, that his company had many unresolved disputes.

TIM: 3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

REID: This is also not true Tim and you know it. Once again, Interest rates are not determined by the amount of lawsuits a credit card company receives.

Credit card interest rates are determined by ones own credit history with the three major credit bureaus. Another determining factor would be if interest primes went up. Interest rates are determined by ones own personal credit maintenance and payment history.

TIM: 4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

REID: Correct! When credit card companies finds that the person who actually scammed you is liable to you (issued a chargeback), they should apologize for having participated in the happenings, especially if they already knew of the companies bad reputation. You have proven my point.

TIM: So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

REID: Again you are attempting to complicate a very simple situation. Government agencies are not necessary to remedy such an easy problem.

The problem would simply be rectified, if only credit card companies would use a little discretion regarding blatant fraud. Victims of scams are not at fault for making decisions to purchase fraudulent products or services.

Products and services which should not be advertised in the first place. You are correct Tim when stating that credit card companies are only "middlemen" and that's more the reason why they should be looking out for their cardholders best interest.

TIM: I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

REID: I definitley have learned from this experience and do not wish for one more person to fall for this scam.

Until next time, take care Tim along with Everyone else, cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

Ultimately, you must bear in mind that you and I, when it really boils down to it, are coming at this from the same viewpoint as far as basic moral principles go. Where we differ is on some key "policy" issues, and I think you are having trouble separating what I believe per my sense of morality, and how I think those beleifs would most efficaciously find embodiment in public policy.

I think you misunderstand, and that I have under-explained the nature of my "victim blaming." To make my position clearer, consider this: we are NOT dealing here with the question of whether JBMI is a scam, we all agree on that issue. And I am firmly of the opinion that JBMI is ENTIRELY to blame for the victimization of consumers AS BETWEEN JBMI and those consumers. That's not the issue I was addressing, however.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is where the "risk of loss" should fall should it NOT fall on JBMI. In other words, if the victims cannot recover from the true source of their economic injury, who then should ultimately bear the brunt of said economic damage?

Let me relay my interpretation of your position: the credit card companies should bear the risk of loss in this circumstance because they are aware that this is a scam but still allow people to purchase these "products" via their payment services.

Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation? Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam? Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough? We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional. Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE! The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases. Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases? What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

Ultimately, you must bear in mind that you and I, when it really boils down to it, are coming at this from the same viewpoint as far as basic moral principles go. Where we differ is on some key "policy" issues, and I think you are having trouble separating what I believe per my sense of morality, and how I think those beleifs would most efficaciously find embodiment in public policy.

I think you misunderstand, and that I have under-explained the nature of my "victim blaming." To make my position clearer, consider this: we are NOT dealing here with the question of whether JBMI is a scam, we all agree on that issue. And I am firmly of the opinion that JBMI is ENTIRELY to blame for the victimization of consumers AS BETWEEN JBMI and those consumers. That's not the issue I was addressing, however.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is where the "risk of loss" should fall should it NOT fall on JBMI. In other words, if the victims cannot recover from the true source of their economic injury, who then should ultimately bear the brunt of said economic damage?

Let me relay my interpretation of your position: the credit card companies should bear the risk of loss in this circumstance because they are aware that this is a scam but still allow people to purchase these "products" via their payment services.

Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation? Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam? Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough? We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional. Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE! The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases. Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases? What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

Ultimately, you must bear in mind that you and I, when it really boils down to it, are coming at this from the same viewpoint as far as basic moral principles go. Where we differ is on some key "policy" issues, and I think you are having trouble separating what I believe per my sense of morality, and how I think those beleifs would most efficaciously find embodiment in public policy.

I think you misunderstand, and that I have under-explained the nature of my "victim blaming." To make my position clearer, consider this: we are NOT dealing here with the question of whether JBMI is a scam, we all agree on that issue. And I am firmly of the opinion that JBMI is ENTIRELY to blame for the victimization of consumers AS BETWEEN JBMI and those consumers. That's not the issue I was addressing, however.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is where the "risk of loss" should fall should it NOT fall on JBMI. In other words, if the victims cannot recover from the true source of their economic injury, who then should ultimately bear the brunt of said economic damage?

Let me relay my interpretation of your position: the credit card companies should bear the risk of loss in this circumstance because they are aware that this is a scam but still allow people to purchase these "products" via their payment services.

Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation? Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam? Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough? We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional. Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE! The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases. Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases? What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

Reid, it's always a pleasure to engage in spirited discussion with you.

Ultimately, you must bear in mind that you and I, when it really boils down to it, are coming at this from the same viewpoint as far as basic moral principles go. Where we differ is on some key "policy" issues, and I think you are having trouble separating what I believe per my sense of morality, and how I think those beleifs would most efficaciously find embodiment in public policy.

I think you misunderstand, and that I have under-explained the nature of my "victim blaming." To make my position clearer, consider this: we are NOT dealing here with the question of whether JBMI is a scam, we all agree on that issue. And I am firmly of the opinion that JBMI is ENTIRELY to blame for the victimization of consumers AS BETWEEN JBMI and those consumers. That's not the issue I was addressing, however.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is where the "risk of loss" should fall should it NOT fall on JBMI. In other words, if the victims cannot recover from the true source of their economic injury, who then should ultimately bear the brunt of said economic damage?

Let me relay my interpretation of your position: the credit card companies should bear the risk of loss in this circumstance because they are aware that this is a scam but still allow people to purchase these "products" via their payment services.

Now, here are my problems with your position:

1) I make, in my opinion, smart purchases. I don't want some government mandated paternalism on the part of my credit card company to stand in the way of my purchases. Any company of respectable size has some complaints against it, some people who feel that they were ripped off. Are the complaints of those people going to prevent the rest of us from purchasing a product that we want from an otherwise reputable company?

2) How do we decide that a credit card company should be held liable in this situation? Do we require an FTC ruling that the company in question is a scam? Is a certain volume of consumer complaints enough? We are all entitled to know what the legal outcomes of our actions are; a law that fails to apprise persons/corporations of their legal rights and duties is unconstitutional. Your proposed standard, then, would require strict, objective criteria. The only options are 1) we let the government decide what we can and cannot purchase using credit cards; or 2) we let other consumers decide what we can and cannot purchase. Again, I would prefer to make my own decisions.

3) What happens when credit card companies are held liable for the bad purchases of their customers? This question is easily answered, and this answer is the strongest public policy argument against your position.

First, those people who actually file claims against their credit card companies (the victims of the scam) will have a hard time getting credit cards in the future. If I was a credit card issuer, and you applied for my card after having sued your previous issuer over a purchase that YOU made, I WOULD NOT give you a credit card or, at best, I would give you a card with a very high interest rate to offset the risk that you will someday sue ME after another late-night infommercial purchase gone awry.

Second, for the rest of us, where do you think the money to pay for these lawsuit and damage awards is going to come from? The CEO of Visa? NOPE! The rest of us consumers are going to get hit with the bill, in the form of higher interest rates and annual fees, for YOUR bad purchases. Let me tell you, I already shell out enough money to those bastards, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna foot the bill for people who should have researched their investments a little better (by the way - people who don't have computers are excused from not investigating major purchases? What did we all do before computers? If you can't find a way to determine whether or not you're throwing your money away, maybe you shouldn't be making sketchy purchases in the first place).

All that said, here's my position: as between JBMI and the consumer, the consumer should win out (whether or not he actually would is a different story). As between the consumer and the credit card company, however, the credit card company must win out, for the following reasons:

1) They are not a party to this scam. They are, again, YOUR PAYMENT AGENT. It would be a violation of the agency relationship for them to refuse to make given payments for you. Where there is no culpability, there should be no liability.

2) Holding credit card companies liable would be an unworkable remedial scheme absent objective, standardized criteria. Such criteria would inevitably require that either the government or other consumers dictate your ability to make given purchases.

3) The cost of holding credit card companies liable would be distributed to other consumers. Savvy consumers who work hard to make smart purchases should not be penalized for the failure of others to do so.

4) You already have legal recourse against the company that ACTUALLY ripped you off. If the law finds that the person who actually scammed you is not liable to you, parties in the middle should not be either.

So, yes, Reid, your notions would make this world much better for the individual consumer (at least for the consumer who is legitimately scammed), but only at the expense of the rest of us, and only under the condition that we let governmental paternalism extend to one more area of consumer life.

I don't want to come off as high-and-mighty. I've made bad purchases in the past, failed to adequately research costly opportunities, etc., but I've learned from these mistakes, and I hope that you all have learned as well. I urge anyone who has shelled out mass sums of money to JB to consult with a lawyer and see what recourse IS available to you as soon as possible.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Don't ever allow the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute or any fraudulent company for that matter, make you feel as though you're at fault for falling for their scam.

That's what scam companies do when they're unable to prove reports against them to the contrary. They attempt to shift the blame on their victims.

1. John Beck's programs are scams! His Infomercials are loaded with unsubstantiated claims, bogus testimonials, hidden disclaimers burried deep within the fine print, deceptive and fraudulent sales pitches.

NOW HOW ARE THE VICTIMS AT FAULT?

2. Credit card companies, regardless of having many tranactions from John Beck's fraudulent business in dispute, fails to warn others about his fraudulent activities while continuing to rack up dollars on his behalf.

NOW HOW ARE THE VICTIMS AT FAULT?

Someone's f%ck!ng someone up the a$$!

3. John Beck's fraudulent team are totally unwilling and unable to come forward in the public eye to resolve the many complaints against them.

NOW HOW ARE THE VICTIMS AT FAULT?

4. This is definitely not a case of he said/she said. John Beck's programs are scams! Full of cow dung! If John Beck did not agree with something posted about himself or his program, he would definitely be willing to come forward in the public eye to defend his reputation.

NOW HOW ARE THE VICTIMS AT FAULT?

Blame television stations for allowing fraudulent Infomercials to be run.

Blame credit card companies for continuing to allow transactions, in which they already know are fraudulent to be authorized. In a nutshell for being stupid.

Blame the many government organizations, which are supposed to take care of fraudsters and protect consumers from these imbreeds.

Blame anyone and everyone but yourselves, because like I said many times before, there's just no way, that the many victims could be held responsible for falling for scams, which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. Any real attorney, media company, FTC official, etc, etc, that may be interested in the full story or need assistance in the crackdown of such bogus operations, feel free to contact the creator of this website.

I will respond to all inquiries as soon as time permits.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

If you have been scammed by the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute and are currently awaiting a decision and resolution to a dispute, do not worry you will win!

Despite what anyone says, you WERE NOT at fault for falling for John Beck's fraudulent Infomercial.

There will be many attempts by John Beck's imbreeds, credit card companies, shills, etc, etc, to make the many victims of this scam feel guilty.

Pay no attention to the many lame excuses and feeble attempts to justify the "mentoring" scam. For anyone to even suggest, that a credit card company should not bare the responsibility for athorizing charges, which they already knew were fraudulent is preposterous.

It is absolutely no different than suggesting, that it is perfectly fine for any business to blatantly rip people off, so long the business have a merchant account.

Claiming, that it's the "victims fault" for making poor purchase decisions is ludacrious and is only condoning John Beck's crooked activities. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, THAT IT'S THE FAULT OF THE MANY VICTIMS FOR FALLING FOR WHAT SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Blaming the innocent victims for falling for what should not even exist in the first place is hardly even sweeping the problem under the rug.

It's like rubbing salt on an already wounded individual. It's like blaming a rape victim for parading around and subjecting herself to the dangerous situation.

SOMETHING TO PONDER: Victims of domestic violence often return to the abusive relatioship. Although it doesn't make any sense, it doesn't make spouse beating any less of a crime.

If you've already won a favorable decision, and receive a letter from EPN (fraudulent collection agency), immediately discard it. Once someone has won a favorable decision in an "open" dispute, the debt is immediately erased and would no longer exist.

Any and all legitimate collection agencies would know this and even more so an attorney. LOL. EPN is a fraudulent collection agency, just piggy backing other fraudulent businesses in a desperate attempt to intimidate their victims.

The fact that EPN picks and chooses their victims at random is a dead giveaway, that their collection business is a scam and nothing to be taken seriously.

Customers are always right and even more so today with the help of the Internet and good people like Ed Magedson and ourselves.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

I have been wondering the same thing about John Beck and Discover card being in cahoots. Geographically, they are close in proximity (Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah, are only 43 miles apart) but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. Utah is known as the scam capital of the U.S. by law enforcement agencies but it is obviously not the only place infested with companies like John Beck's.
Watch out for Bank One and Chase--they, in addition to Discover card, are also owned by JP Morgan. I'm going to stay on their a*s like a bad case of hemorrhoids until this is resolved and I hope you do the same. Take care.

Hey there Tim and Al along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

TIM: Al, I couldn't tell you for certain, but I could all but gauruntee that there is no law that would hold a credit card company liable for a cardholder authorized transaction that later turned out to be a sham.

REID: I can guarantee, that there is no law that would hold a credit card company liable for a cardholder authorized transaction, that later turned out to be a sham.

Credit card companies have proved it many of times, by constantly allowing thousands upon thousands of transactions to go through to fraudulent businesses, which later turned out to be shams.

As I have stated several times before, credit card companies are not really interested in their cardholders best interest and that is truly their prerogative. They deliberately turn a blind eye, because it's all about the profits.

TIM: Your credit card company is nothing more than a payment intermediary. In fact, they are YOUR payment agent. YOU tell them to give money to somebody, they do it.

REID: True. You do know however, that this is the mother of all mother cop out excuses. This is probably the exact response one would receive had he or she spoken to a credit card counselor.

This statement clearly suggests, that a hitman should not be held liable for his or her actions, for a hitman would be considered the intermediary in a murder for hire.

TIM: I know that we would all like the resolution to a JB style problem to be as easy as holding our credit card company liable, but it just doesn't make any sense to do so.

REID: Incorrect. It makes perfect sense to hold credit card companies liable for continuing to authorize charges, in which they already knew were of a fraudulent nature.

Whether laws are ever implemented to truly protect consumers is an entirely different story.

The John Beck scam is truly the root of the problem and the main topic of this discussion, however, two wrongs don't make a right and what credit card companies are doing by continuing to authorize tranactions, in which they already knew were of a fraudulent nature is wrong.

TIM: And, in opposition to Reid's opinions, I don't see any political motivation behind the absence of such a law, nor do I think that there should be a law holding credit card companies liable for our bad purchases.

REID: Incorrect. Implementing a law, which would hold credit card companies liable for aiding and abetting in fraudulent activities, would definitely be a good start.

Fraud is a crime and ignorance of the law is no protection. This goes for the large industries such as credit card companies as well.

TIM: YOU, as the purchaser, are far more culpable in this than is your credit card company. You made purchases for several thousands of dollars without doing any research into whether these were wise investments or not. Don't get me wrong, I fault JB primarily in all of this, and I am not trying to "blame the victim." But you guys are suggesting all sorts of collusion and conspiracy whereby, somehow, your credit card companies, who did nothing more than pay people at YOUR direction, bear responsibility for YOUR failure to investigate a major investment in a major scam.

REID: This entire paragraph is one huge contradiction. You've stated, that you're not trying to "blame the victim", when that is all you did here

As a matter of fact, your entire rebuttal almost seems to condone fraudulent activities, while "blaming the victims" for falling for blatant fraud.

You seem to have this burning desire to back up credit card companies for there failure to look out for their cardholders best interest, thus making the victims "out to blame" for falling for deceptive and flat out fraudulent activities.

Would've been ideal, if I, along with the many other victims of the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute owned computers prior to falling for John Beck's scam.

There is absolutely no way the general public should be held responsible for innocently assuming a business is legitimate. After all, scams such as John Beck's should never have been allowed to advertise in the first place.

Suggesting that the victims of a scam are to blame, is no different than suggesting, that victims of rape are at fault for subjecting themselves to the dangerous situation.

TIM: Your credit card companies are not liable in this. Not in a legal sense, and not in a moral sense. You bear some culpability for failing to research a product sold via a medium well known for false testimonials before you sunk thousands of dollars into it. Ultimately, however, the true culprit is JB, and nobody else, in both a moral and legal sense.

REID: This paragraph is just more salt in the wounds of the many victims of John Beck's scam. Again, I whole heartedly believe, that many of the victims would have loved to thoroughly investigate John Beck's fraudulent program had they only owned computers.

Blaming the victims of a particular scam is a cop out and always an easy remedy.

TIM: If JB fails to acquiesce in your credit card disputes you have ONE ultimate legal option: take JB to court. Not your credit card company, not your bank. Your underlying obligation is to JB. Anybody in between is an agent of either you or him. If he contests the validity of your dispute, you are S.O.L. until you find a judge that agrees with you. He may pursue collections against you even after your credit card company has issued you a refund.

REID: I don't think that anyone here were interested in taking their credit card company to court.

John Beck may indeed "attempt" to pursue collections against someone even after ones credit card company has issued one a refund.

Keep in mind however, that any collection "attempt", after someone had already won a favorable decision in an "open" dispute (leveled playing field) would be feeble.

After someone has sucessfully won a favorable decision in a credit card dispute, there would be no debt to be collected on, therefore, any collection ageny or collection attempt would be fraudulent.

EPN is as fraudulent as John Beck's Mentoring Institute.

The fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute cannot sucessfully win disputes, because they cannot prove the worthiness of their crap, so they send their disputes to EPN (fraudulent collection agency) in a last ditch effort to extort monies from their naive and innocent victims.

TIM: I have nothing but the utmost of respect for and admire Reid's devotion to exposing the JB fraud. Reid, however, is not trained in the law and has only a laymen's understanding of the law.

The world would be a much better place for consumers if the law actually operated as Reid envisions it, but, unfortunately, the law does not work that way, nor should it.

REID: Nor should it? You did agree that the world would be a much better place for consumers if the law actually operated as Reid envisions it.

Thank you Tim for once again participating in one of my long discussions.

Until next time, take care Tim and Al along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

I am not trying to hold the credit card company responsible at this point. And am sure it would normally been investigated farther had we been on the net at the time.
The problem I associate with this is you tell the card company that they are deceptive and misleading. The card company at least had some warning. This doesn't make them appear very intellegent either allowing their merchant to submit fraudulent statement and it appears ok by them.
Was I to harsh on CC only time will tell.
Thanks for the comment.

Evan if you don't recieve all the material Discover card doesn't seem to care if some company as JB, charges an extra thousand dollar for something never recieved even if you have on video tape That the materials where not recieved.

CONSUMERS Be ware.

Evan if you don't recieve all the material Discover card doesn't seem to care if some company as JB, charges an extra thousand dollar for something never recieved even if you have on video tape That the materials where not recieved.

CONSUMERS Be ware.

Evan if you don't recieve all the material Discover card doesn't seem to care if some company as JB, charges an extra thousand dollar for something never recieved even if you have on video tape That the materials where not recieved.

CONSUMERS Be ware.

Hey there Al along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Yes indeed, credit card companies often engage in aiding and abetting with fraudulent activities, by constantly authorizing transactions in which they already know are fraudulent to go through to companies in which they aready know are engaging in fraudulent activities.

Credit card companies are not looking out for their cardholders best interest, despite their many claims in commercials, mailouts, etc, etc.

Aiding and abetting is a crime and is punishable by fines and years of imprisonment. Aiding and abetting in fraudulent activities is no different for corporations, regardless of the excuses they throw your way.

There have been many who have sucessfully won disputes against John Beck's fraudulent "mentoring" Institute, because his fraudulent company is totally unable to justify their program, thus proving it worthy of marketing while proving the many disputes otherwise.

Credit card companies are constantly aware of a company's reputation, but often insist on authorizing transactions regardless of it, while just sweeping the problems under the rug, by instructing their cardholders to claim a "quality of service" dispute, rather than services "not rendered" according to a mutual agreement, which often constitute breeches due to fraudulent activities.

Credit card companies have the power to stop fraudulent activities and fraudulent companies like John Beck's from striving and even existing.

If they choose not to do so, they should really consider stopping the sharade of being interested in their cardholders best interest.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Al, I couldn't tell you for certain, but I could all but gauruntee that there is no law that would hold a credit card company liable for a cardholder authorized transaction that later turned out to be a sham.

Your credit card company is nothing more than a payment intermediary. In fact, they are YOUR payment agent. YOU tell them to give money to somebody, they do it. I know that we would all like the resolution to a JB style problem to be as easy as holding our credit card company liable, but it just doesn't make any sense to do so. And, in opposition to Reid's opinions, I don't see any political motivation behind the absence of such a law, nor do I think that there should be a law holding credit card companies liable for our bad purchases.

YOU, as the purchaser, are far more culpable in this than is your credit card company. You made purchases for several thousands of dollars without doing any research into whether these were wise investments or not. Don't get me wrong, I fault JB primarily in all of this, and I am not trying to "blame the victim." But you guys are suggesting all sorts of collusion and conspiracy whereby, somehow, your credit card companies, who did nothing more than pay people at YOUR direction, bear responsibility for YOUR failure to investigate a major investment in a major scam.

Your credit card companies are not liable in this. Not in a legal sense, and not in a moral sense. You bear some culpability for failing to research a product sold via a medium well known for false testimonials before you sunk thousands of dollars into it. Ultimately, however, the true culprit is JB, and nobody else, in both a moral and legal sense.

If JB fails to acquiesce in your credit card disputes you have ONE ultimate legal option: take JB to court. Not your credit card company, not your bank. Your underlying obligation is to JB. Anybody in between is an agent of either you or him. If he contests the validity of your dispute, you are S.O.L. until you find a judge that agrees with you. He may pursue collections against you even after your credit card company has issued you a refund.

I have nothing but the utmost of respect for and admire Reid's devotion to exposing the JB fraud. Reid, however, is not trained in the law and has only a laymen's understanding of the law. The world would be a much better place for consumers if the law actually operated as Reid envisions it, but, unfortunately, the law does not work that way, nor should it.

Hey there Al, along with Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

AL: I have a question for you. I thought in some of the federal regulation, that I seen, that if a credit card company allows fraudulent charges to pass, then the card company is as liability for those charges the same as the offender. Any thoughts on this?

REID: Common sense and good business ethics tell consumers yes, a credit card company should definitely be held responsible for allowing charges, which they already knew were fraudulent to go through.

Unfortunately, credit card companies are never interested in the consumers best interest, despite what they claim in all of their PAID advertisements.

Credit card fraud, according to credit card companies, are transactions which took place by someone other than an authorized user of a particular credit card, but does not cover transactions, in which were authorized despite a credit card company's knowledge of unethical business practices.

F%ck credit card fraud protection! That is why it is extremely important for consumers to never mistake a credit card company's misleading "fraud protection" as protection from fraudulent businesses and or activities.

That is why it is also very important for consumers to never assume, that a business is legitimate, just because it has a merchant account, for a merchant account says and or proves nothing about a particular business.

Credit card "fraud protection" simply means protection from identity abuse, nothing more nothing less. Never confuse "fraud protection" as protection from fraudulent businesses such as John Beck's.

I'm not certain as to whether or not credit card companies are responsible for authorizing charges, which they already knew were fradulent to go through, but I do know, that I had absolutely no intent on paying John Beck for services, which I knew were not rendered according to our mutual agreement.

It wouldn't surprise me however, if the regulations favored credit card companies, and that's the very reason for credit card companies constantly insisting on blatantly authorizing fraudulent charges.

Until next time, Take care Al along with Everyone else cause I care, aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

WARNING: John Beck's Real Estate programs are all scams! His Free and Clear Infomercial is fraudulent and so are all of his bogus Real Estate "mentoring" programs and seminars.

QUESTIONS TO HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANY'S DISPUTE DEPARTMENT INQUIRE ABOUT AND INVESTIGATE, WHILE INVESTIGATING YOUR DISPUTE:

1. If the programs are legitimate, why in the
f%ck!ng world are they offering it to total strangers for less than the income potential claimed? Why is the cost directly proportional to ones "available credit?"

2. If the program they are offering is so great, why in the f%ck!ng world are they soliciting this program for an employer, as opposed to participating in the program themselves?

3. Why in the f%ck!ng world are their employer allowing his or her "wealth building" strategies to be shared with total strangers, as opposed to establishing a team of professionals and using his or her "secrets" for enormous profits?

4. What is the success to failure ratio of their program? Are they willing and able to furnish proof of it?

6. Does their employer tape record ones agreement to enroll? If so, why?

7. Is their employer willing to have the entire converstion tape recorded? If no, why not? Bogus sales pitches maybe? Fraudulent claims maybe? Unsubstantiated claims maybe? Scam?

8. Does their contract stipulate the exact terms and conditions and policies and procedures of the agreement? If no, why not? One sided contract? Hidden clauses? Extortion attempt?

9. Does their contract contain all the pertinent elements to be considered a legally enforcable and binding agreement upon all the parties involed? JONN BECK'S CONTRACT DOES NOT!
F%ck!ng joke for a human being! F%ck!ng lawyer my a$$!

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. Hey there Mike Evans! I am still interested in meeting with you in person. I want to slap your f%ck!ng face. Then I want to give you a back hand.

I want you to retaliate so that I can really turn things up. I want to knock the incest right out of you!

I have a question for you. I thought in some of the federal regulation, that I seen, that if a credit card company allows fraudulent charges to pass, then the card company is as liability for those charges the same as the offender. Any thoughts on this?

I have a question for you. I thought in some of the federal regulation, that I seen, that if a credit card company allows fraudulent charges to pass, then the card company is as liability for those charges the same as the offender. Any thoughts on this?

I have a question for you. I thought in some of the federal regulation, that I seen, that if a credit card company allows fraudulent charges to pass, then the card company is as liability for those charges the same as the offender. Any thoughts on this?

I have a question for you. I thought in some of the federal regulation, that I seen, that if a credit card company allows fraudulent charges to pass, then the card company is as liability for those charges the same as the offender. Any thoughts on this?

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

Al is correct, when stating that credit card companies and scams are joined together, only not at the hips. They are joined together like Lego! Pole in the hole! Perfect scheme!

Many, if not all credit card companies, are often perfectly aware of a particular company's bad reputation for peddling scams, but still insist on allowing charges to go through, thus further perpetuating fraudulent and unethical practices.

That is why it's very imparative for all to never take a merchant account, PAID BBB membership, PAID advertisement, etc, etc, as an indication of a company being genuine and or legitimate.

All of these services are PAID for and by no means says or proves anything about a particular business. Anyone that's willing to PAY for these services may very easily obtain them.

John Beck is very dishonest and his "mentoring" program is without question fraudulent. John Beck is unscrupulous, has no morals, no integrity and is in no way interested in "mentoring" total strangers to success.

ABOUT THE JOHN BECK SCAM:

1. John Beck's fraudulent Infomercial is loaded with hidden disclaimers burried deep within the fine print. Very misleading and severely lacks disclosure of any future sales (mentoring).

2. John Beck's fraudulent Infomercial is very outdated and all testimonials and income claims unsubstantiated. BOGUS!

3. John Beck, like the many other crooks peddling garbage, employs scum of the earth employees, that work out of illegal boiler room operations.

4. The cost of John Beck's fraudulent "mentoring" program is directly proportional to ones "available credit", which literally means varies to the point of what one has "available" on his or her credit card.

5. The fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute insists on tape recording their victims agreement to enroll, but for some very odd reason, do not find it necessary to tape record their fraudulent sales pitches, unsubstantiated claims, the exact terms and conditions of agreement, policies and procedures, etc, etc.

6. Any and all companies that state a "2 day right to cancel" policy are scams. This bogus policy has been implemented as a window of opportunity in favor of the fraudulent business in question.

It gives consumers a false impression, that the bogus offer is legitimate. "2 day right to cancel" policies are also used to give consumers the impression, that one has no recourse after it has expired. FALSE!

Only fraudulent businesses implement bogus "2 day right to cancel" policies, in attempt to discourage many from coming forward to reclaim any extorted monies.

This "2 day right to cancel" is only a window for fraudulent businesses to give their victims the run around, until it has expired.

7. John Beck's contract severely lacks the pertinent elements, which constitute a legally binding and enforceable agreement. It appears to have been drafted by a grade schooler.

And this f%ck!ng "result of incest" is an attorney? LOL. What a f%ck!ng laugh and disgrace!

Clearly shows, that it takes no honesty, integrity, character or scruples for one to be in his profession.

8. John Beck's lessons include directions to a few PUBLIC websites and instructions for one to take up all of his or her tax related questions to H&R Block. Trust me when I say, it's a swindle.

9. The fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute insists on dragging out credit card disputes, even though they are totally unable to prove any of them in their favor.

They'll keep insisting, that one has signed their bogus contract, even though this proves absolutely nothing about ones dispute to the contrary.

The fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute
insisted, that I have signed their contract, in which I have never denied. So what if I signed their contact?

My signing of John Beck's fraudulent contract had absolutely nothing to do with the reason for my dispute (quality of service).

This clearly proves, that they are only interested in shifting the onus on to their many victims.

Just a blatant attempt to get credit card companies to take their side, while making it appear as though their victim's were responsible for any breech.

It was the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute, that have failed to live up to any of their false claims.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. Have any questions or concerns regarding John Beck and his scam? Feel free to ask them through a rebuttal and I will answer them as soon as time permits.

Hi Stephane
I am not sure if my last thoughts got in so I'll try again. We to are batteling with Discover on the same thing. Morgan Stanley owns discover maybe their board needs to be contacted, to see if they are aware or have any comments on this question, of being in bed with JB, or is it just a person they employ. Their idea of investigating and ours must be different.

Keep after them, we plan doing the same.
I am sure in the future, I will have a lot more to say on this. Good luck

Hey there Stephanie, Paul and Everyone else,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

You need not worry about any collection agency attempting to collect on a debt which ceases to exist.

Once a person receives a favorable decision and has a charge reversed in his or her favor, the debt would be considered erased.

No debt to be collected, therefore, you may rest assured, that any and all collection agency, that attempts to collect on a non-existant debt is just as fraudulent as the scam company in question.

Legitimate collection agencies are totally aware of the acts which govern and protect consumers from fraudulent activities and would definitely not attempt to pursue (chase) monies, which they know victims aren't obligated to pay them.

One would think, that John Beck the "attorney" would know this! LOL.

A plaintiff would not obtain compensation from the defendant, if he or she had been granted an unfavorable decision. The same applies to a credit card dispute.

Although a credit card dispute is not a court of law, they are both fundamentally the same, in that both parties named in a dispute have an equal opportunity to have their cases heard by a mediator/arbitrator who then makes an unbiased decision according to the rules which have been set fourth.

Until next time, take care Stephanie, Paul and Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Thank you for the encouragement. I remember reading on this site about how Tracy was able to win her dispute, but then the fraudulent John Beck posse turned her name over to a collections agency. If that has happened to me, I'm not aware of it yet. I pay $9.95 a month through Prepaid Legal Services to have my credit monitored (allegedly). Any suggestions?

He says Why would a company go around making total strangers rich?

He's exactly right. Nobody is out to help total strangers get rich. Most people are out to make themselves rich. To hell with the rest of the world.

If you found a goose that lays golden eggs, are you going to share it with people you find on the internet? Not a chance in hell!

Remember this the next time someone wants $5,000 of your money to let you in on the big secrets of success.

Hey there Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

WARNING: There's absolutely no such thing as legitimate "mentoring" programs! Companies have nothing to gain by sharing "wealth building" strategies to total strangers.

PONDER THIS: Scum bag Mike Evans from the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute, claimed to have coaches with the ability to coach me to $10,000.00-$15,000.00 a month, if only I was "coachable".

If this were true, why would "result of incest" John Beck and his team of retards agree to "mentor" total strangers to use these strategies, as opposed to using the strategies themselves?

It would make a lot more sense and be a lot more profitable if "result of incest" John Beck hired employees at $4,000.00 a month, with full benefits and trained them to use his valuable "mentoring" program. LOL at disgrace John Beck and his team of shill maggots.

JOHN BECK AND HIS PROGRAMS ARE NOTHING BUT SCAMS:
If you are interested in John Beck's Mentoring Program, I can sum it all up for you and all for free.

1. Conduct a GOOGLE search on Government Tax Liens and follow the specific instructions listed on them on how to bid on distressed propeties.

2. Contact H&R Block for answers on all of your tax related questions and concerns.

ANOTHER WARNING: All of John Beck's programs are scams, for you will notice the "attorney" not coming forward to explain any reports erroneous or to the contrary.

Until next time, take care Everyone cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Hey there Stephanie,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirits and health.

It is me Reid. Don't ever give up your pursuit for a credit from Discover. I too, have encountered some road blocks, while disputing the fraudulent charges made by John Beck's team of mentally challenged employees.

Credit card companies have a tendency to down play the severity of disputes by often allowing charges to go through to companies, in which they already know are fraudulent.

MBNA is a prime example of a credit card company, that DOES NOT look out for their card holders best interest. Most credit card companies DON'T.

"Fraudulent charges", in the eyes of credit card companies, are charges in which have been unauthorized, but does not include charges in which victims have been duped by unscrupulous punks such as John Beck the imbreded "attorney."

Don't allow your credit card company to unecessarily drag on the dispute, by continuing to accept items submitted by the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute, which have nothing to do with your dispute, or does not constitute legitimate counters to your claim.

MBNA have done this to me, by continuing to accept ridiculous items from the fraudulent John Beck Mentoring Institute, which had absolutely nothing to do with the reason for my dispute, thus unecessarily prolonging my dispute, causing myself much agony and dispair.

I have NEVER denied enrolling into John Beck's fraudulent mentoring program, therefore, nothing but absolute facts, which proves my dispute to the contrary constitutes legitimate counters.

THE FRAUDULENT JOHN BECK MENTORING INSTITUTE'S PREPOSTEROUS RESPONSE TO MY DISPUTE: "Please issue a credit back to our account for $6,400.00. Cardholder has puchased our Real Estate Mentoring Program. Please see attached "SIGNED" Enrollment Agreement/Contract".

Thank you,

S. Lyons

F%ck you S. Lyons and your bogus program and contract! Wipe your a$$ with your contract!

Why don't you contact me personally and attempt to obtain the $6,400.00, in which you've attempted to extort from me? You know who I am! I promise to the HEAVENS above, that you would fail miserably.

Why weren't you man or woman enough to print your first name? You're a cowardly pr!ck if you're a man, or a cowardly c^nt if you're a woman!

John Beck along with his band of loser employees, hide behind loopholes in the law and attempt to legally extort money from innocent people. I only wish they'd rob people in the open, where someone could terminate them in self defense.

Until next time, take care Stephanie along with Everyone else cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.