AARP (and related discussions on Swiss Franc loans) (II)

Carl Roberts3 said:I've got a hearing coming up this September for my lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase regarding that old Swiss Franc loan I took out... I'm honestly not sure if they ended up calling in the bank representative who handled my account back then.

Has anyone else gone through something similar, or is there a certain way these things usually play out in court...

Thanks!

It’s always the same old story—you basically have to do whatever the prosecutor says and whatever your personal banker tells you to do, assuming the bank even bothers to assign you one in the first place.

The whole hearing was super brief, honestly. It basically boiled down to one thing: did you take out that loan for personal stuff, and did they actually sit you down and explain the massive risks involved with a variable interest rate? You know, those rates that swing wildly based on whatever whim the bank decides, all tied to a Swiss Franc Loan clause. That’s pretty much the whole game.

gotcha, thanks!

Has anyone here already signed a contract for a deed of assignment with the second foundation?

Jeremy Lee3 said:It’s always the same old story—you basically have to do whatever the prosecutor says and whatever your personal banker tells you to do, assuming the bank even bothers to assign you one in the first place.

The whole hearing was super brief, honestly. It basically boiled down to one thing: did you take out that loan for personal stuff, and did they actually sit you down and explain the massive risks involved with a variable interest rate? You know, those rates that swing wildly based on whatever whim the bank decides, all tied to a Swiss Franc Loan clause. That’s pretty much the whole game.

We filed a lawsuit, won our case, and honestly, we didn't even have to testify.

Oh sure, because clearly we have nothing but geniuses on the bench here. Why bother listening to anyone when everything is just perfectly obvious on paper, right?

But look, even after the Supreme Court dropped its ruling a year or two back, it’s still worth actually hearing out the prosecutor just to be safe. You don't want some appellate court throwing the whole case back in your face on appeal because they're still being stubborn about it.

I just finished my hearing in civil court, and the plaintiff—the bank—didn't even ask to have my personal banker testify. I won at the trial level, and now I'm waiting for the appeal process to kick off since the bank decided to challenge the ruling. My guess is that they can't suddenly request to hear from the banker now, and that shouldn't be grounds to overturn the initial judgment, right?

Jeremy Lee3 said:Oh sure, because clearly we have nothing but geniuses on the bench here. Why bother listening to anyone when everything is just perfectly obvious on paper, right?

But look, even after the Supreme Court dropped its ruling a year or two back, it’s still worth actually hearing out the prosecutor just to be safe. You don't want some appellate court throwing the whole case back in your face on appeal because they're still being stubborn about it.

Exactly—if you don't get that personal banker hearing on the table before the previous proceeding wraps up (since that whole thing closes out at the first hearing), then you're basically out of luck. They aren't going to reopen the case just because you missed your window.

redpuma24 said:I just finished my hearing in civil court, and the plaintiff—the bank—didn't even ask to have my personal banker testify. I won at the trial level, and now I'm waiting for the appeal process to kick off since the bank decided to challenge the ruling. My guess is that they can't suddenly request to hear from the banker now, and that shouldn't be grounds to overturn the initial judgment, right?

Would you mind sharing some of the specific questions they asked you during your hearing?
Thanks.

Well, isn't that just great. I guess it's nice to see they're still getting things done even while they're out on strike.
I mean, honestly, I feel like they're causing about the same amount of trouble as they do when they're actually working "normally" anyway.

Man, looking back, it was such a massive mistake trying to take those big banks to court. We should have been putting the squeeze on politicians instead—hitting those thieves where it actually hurts by hitting them in the wallet. But yeah, things have cooled off now, and most people have just kind of accepted that they got ripped off.
I mean, I really hope the judges at least walked away with a fat payday.

I mean, what can you even say when the government basically lied to protect the banks over at the European Court of Justice?
I guess we just have to keep suing them until they finally sink

Casey Cook10 said:I mean, what can you even say when the government basically lied to protect the banks over at the European Court of Justice?
I guess we just have to keep suing them until they finally sink

Maybe we should just demand a total overhaul of the entire EU legal framework—directives, binding rulings, everything—because apparently, the American judicial system thinks everyone else is just wrong.