I'm Being Sued
June 26th, 2011 at 5:08:27 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobDo I sound like somebody who doesn't know how to research? I now know exactly how to respond to the summons, what to say in my answer, and exactly what to say in court. The 'surprise' will be that I show up at all, because most people don't. You have to put the burden of proof on them in the whole process, thats what they aren't expecting. Thats the surprise.
Now you are changing the "surprise"...first, it was going to be that you asked them to provide the document when you get to court. Now suddenly you are going to answer them and there won't really be a surprise. If you answer them, don't you think they will expect you in court? I don't know of too many who would take the time to properly answer the summons and then blow off the court date.
There won't be a surprise...but I think you still may prevail if they can't provide the document--as long as you ask for proof in your answers to the summons. If you just up and ask for it in court after you answer the summons, you may be the one with the surprise.
I'm sure you know how to do research. Sorry if I insulted you...but you are the one who brought it up in the forum, not me...
June 26th, 2011 at 5:35:18 PM
permalink
Quote: RonCIf you answer them, don't you think they will expect you in court?
Not necessarily. People answer all the time and don't show up. And you don't ask for proof in your answer, just say they sound vague, and their numbers don't sound right, are they trying to enrich themselves at my expense. Ask them to provide proof they own the debt and to see a copy of the contract with my signature. From what I've read, junk debt buyers pay about 3 cents on the dollar for these debts and they don't come with a lot of paperwork. They totally depend on you not showing up, or if you do, that you'll be a total dumbass and not know what your rights are.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 26th, 2011 at 9:57:50 PM
permalink
Hey, file bankruptcy.
That will surprise them.
That will surprise them.
"What, me worry?"
June 26th, 2011 at 10:15:22 PM
permalink
Or pay your bills. That will surprise them even more.
June 26th, 2011 at 10:30:22 PM
permalink
Quote: MrVHey, file bankruptcy.
That will surprise them.
This one got me to laugh out loud
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody
help me?"
June 27th, 2011 at 12:56:16 AM
permalink
Quote: MrVHey, file bankruptcy.
That will surprise them.
File bankruptcy for a disputed $500 debt? And I thought the collection agency was a bottom feeder, where do you feed, under them?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 27th, 2011 at 5:02:22 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobDo I sound like somebody who doesn't know how to research?
Actually, yeah, you do :)
You sound a lot like somebody, who has a great picture of how things are supposed to be in their mind, and won't hear anything that goes against that beautiful but completely imaginary order.
You did say that you were not going to answer before. If now you are going to, that is indeed not as silly course of action as just showing up in court unannounced. However, the answer needs to be worded very carefully, naming each FDCPA violation you counter-sue for. If you don't do that, you will, probably, lose (it is naive to expect them to show up without the contract if it exists), and be precluded from refiling later for FDCPA violations (you only get one chance).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 27th, 2011 at 9:52:29 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanActually, yeah, you do :)
You sound a lot like somebody, who has a great picture of how things are supposed to be in their mind,).
Everyday I know more than the day before. I have read case after case of exacty how this agency behaves in court, it never varies. They have generic documents, no proof of anything and if you challenge them on any of it, they fold and give up. They totally depemd on 90+% of defendents not showing up, thats why the lawyer in charge is 27 and is from the Middle East and finishd in bottom third of his class. All they need is a warm body to be there. Sorry to disappoint you but I WILL win, I know what to do and say every step of the way now. And in a month or six weeks, I'll know 10 times more than I know now, I haven't even been served yet. It seems the vast majority of people don't do any research at all when their sued. The amount of detailed info on the net about what to do is staggering, why you would need a scum bag lawyer for most things these days is puzzling.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 27th, 2011 at 11:11:52 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobthats why the lawyer in charge is 27 and is from the Middle East and finishd in bottom third of his class.
No, that's not why. The reason is it does not take much (well, almost anything really) to handle a case like this , it's a slam dunk. It makes no sense for the collection agency to pay a "real lawyer" for this stuff, when any high school drop out can handle it.
What you are trying to "surprise" them with, doesn't take a law degree to handle either. Either they have the contract (and, if it actually exists, then they probably do), and will produce it upon request, or they do not, and then they will not.
You must be watching too much court drama, so that your perception of what's going on in the court room is a bit too romantic. There is actually no "battle of wits" happening there (not a $500 civil suit anyway). The way this usually works is like this. The plaintiff gets up, and tells the story ("this guy owes us money"), and passes a folder with documents to the judge. Then the defendant gets a chance to respond ("umm ... well ... ah... where is the original of the contract?!"). Then the judge looks at the papers, and says either "Enter finding in favor of the plaintiff" or "Case dismissed".
That is all. There are no speeches, no theatrics, no surprises ...
Quote:Sorry to disappoint you but I WILL win, I know what to do and say every step of the way now.
Disappoint? Why? I don't care if you win, and certainly don't hope that you'll lose.
It is possible that you will win. It will happen in one of the two situations - the debt is not real or they don't legally own it, or, you find bring up their FDCPA violations that would invalidate their collection efforts.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 27th, 2011 at 1:40:31 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselman
You must be watching too much court drama, so that your perception of what's going on in the court room is a bit too romantic. .
Sigh. I've been in 4 other lawsuits over the years, where I was the one suing. I know EXACTLY what goes on in a civil courtroom, exactly what it looks like and exactly what its like to speak in front of a judge. The only thing I didn't know was how to be the defendant, but I'm becoming an expert in that by the day. I had lawyers the other 4 times, its different when you do it alone. Its more fun..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 27th, 2011 at 2:43:28 PM
permalink
Good grief, I just remembered I worked for a collection agency for 1 month in July of 1970. I was in college and it was a summer job and I made no money. It was downtown in an old 4 story office building on the 3rd floor, no elevator. No air, the windows were open with fans in them. There were four of us and we all worked the phones all day harassing poor people into paying what were mostly medical bills. What I remember was a guy who did their process server work and skip traces. He worked mostly in the field and was about 46 or 47, short and 30 pounds overweight, wore dirty beige slacks with his pants tucked into the top of his cowboy boots. He wore sport shirts that were 2 sizes too big and open halfway down his hairy chest. He had a half smoked cigar in his mouth always and wore a crushed down old cowboy hat. We called him Cowboy or The Cowboy. And he stank, like he bathed once a week. He would hang out and regale us with his daring deeds serving papers on people and he was a giant asshole. He's really all I remember about that job except there were no restrictions on what we told debtors or how many times we called them, night or day. We could call them so many times at work some of them lost their jobs, I'm sure. It was a low life business and I'm surprised I lasted a month.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 27th, 2011 at 3:15:39 PM
permalink
I did not review all the posts concerning your plight so this reponse may be a duplicate.
If the "debt" is a result of a contract of some type that you had entered into, then depending on the state you reside in is subject to the statute of limitiations under contract law. Therefore, if the "debt" was incurred more than three years ago, once served by the debtholder you can file a motion for a dismissal with predjudice with the court stating that the statute of limitations has run on the debt and you are no longer liable.
I am NOT a lawyer, but you can file that motion on your own and/or get confirmation from your lawyer "friend."
tuttigym
If the "debt" is a result of a contract of some type that you had entered into, then depending on the state you reside in is subject to the statute of limitiations under contract law. Therefore, if the "debt" was incurred more than three years ago, once served by the debtholder you can file a motion for a dismissal with predjudice with the court stating that the statute of limitations has run on the debt and you are no longer liable.
I am NOT a lawyer, but you can file that motion on your own and/or get confirmation from your lawyer "friend."
tuttigym
June 27th, 2011 at 4:01:08 PM
permalink
I say, RUN for it! Run while you still can.
(15 years from now they'll catch you hiding in California, with your $500 hidden in the wall of a rent-controlled apartment.)
(15 years from now they'll catch you hiding in California, with your $500 hidden in the wall of a rent-controlled apartment.)
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:49:25 PM
permalink
I finally got served today. Had a long talk with the process server about his adventures. He was big hulking guy in his 30's. He says one of the most asked questions from people is if they'll be arrested if they lose in court. The public is so ignorant they actually think we have debtors prisons. The mind boggles. Thats why summons go unanswered, they get served to stupid people.
The complaint is even better than I hoped. The debt has changed hands twice since the bank wrote it off. Nowhere is the original amount mentioned, there's only the inflated amount thats been pumped up down the line. I truly would have no idea what they were talking about if I didn't know to start with. They mention an account number but its NOT the bank account number, it has to be from the last collection agency. The attached 'proof' is a generic form filled out by the manager of the collection agency and has no specific numbers that pertain to me. Just accusations that he's seen the documents and I owe the money and its stamped by a notary public and signed. Its the most useless piece of nothing I've ever seen. He saw the 'books and records' of the bank and swears to it? Is he kidding? People actually fall for this crap?
I'm going to answer every numbered paragraph of the complaint just as the experts say to do. I'm about 90% sure they'll never take this to court because they have nothing except a printout from the company they got the debt from, which has no proof at all of anything.
The complaint is even better than I hoped. The debt has changed hands twice since the bank wrote it off. Nowhere is the original amount mentioned, there's only the inflated amount thats been pumped up down the line. I truly would have no idea what they were talking about if I didn't know to start with. They mention an account number but its NOT the bank account number, it has to be from the last collection agency. The attached 'proof' is a generic form filled out by the manager of the collection agency and has no specific numbers that pertain to me. Just accusations that he's seen the documents and I owe the money and its stamped by a notary public and signed. Its the most useless piece of nothing I've ever seen. He saw the 'books and records' of the bank and swears to it? Is he kidding? People actually fall for this crap?
I'm going to answer every numbered paragraph of the complaint just as the experts say to do. I'm about 90% sure they'll never take this to court because they have nothing except a printout from the company they got the debt from, which has no proof at all of anything.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 29th, 2011 at 7:56:28 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobPeople actually fall for this crap?
Is the Pope still Catholic?
Do people buy penis pills and breast enlargement gadgets? (remember Mark Eden)
(actually "stupid people" pertains to my whole theory on how "the robots" will eventually take over even with all safeguards. A super smart machine will convince someone to remove all the directives that keep them from killing us. It all ends with people who would answer spam. But I digress...)
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
June 30th, 2011 at 12:04:52 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI finally got served today. The complaint is even better than I hoped. The attached 'proof' is a generic form filled out by the manager of the collection agency and has no specific numbers that pertain to me. Just accusations that he's seen the documents and I owe the money and its stamped by a notary public and signed. Its the most useless piece of nothing I've ever seen. He saw the 'books and records' of the bank and swears to it? Is he kidding? People actually fall for this crap?
It warms the cockles of my heart to watch people like you go head to head with an attorney.
What, do you REALLY think he needs to attach all of his *documentary proof* to his complaint?
Really?
Ever heard of "notice pleading?"
LOL.
You're in for it.
The guy may run a legal mill, and he may have graduated in the lower third of his class, but he knows how the game is played; you just think you know.
Let the games begin!
Give the people what they want: bread, circuses, and arrogant, clueless pro se litigants.
*sips popcorn, pets cat*
"What, me worry?"
June 30th, 2011 at 5:10:37 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI He says one of the most asked questions from people is if they'll be arrested if they lose in court. The public is so ignorant they actually think we have debtors prisons. The mind boggles. Thats why summons go unanswered, they get served to stupid people.
Actually, you can be arrested (at least in some/many states) for not paying debts. Technically, it's not debtors prison, they call it contempt of court, but the essence is the same - the judge tells you to pay your debt, you refuse, and get thrown to jail.
Ignorance and stupidity are not one and the same. Many people are ignorant about laws and court procedure, just like many don't know much about biology or drug interaction. That does not mean they are stupid. They actually are in a much better position than those that *think* they are freaking experts after spending a few hours on google.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 30th, 2011 at 12:56:51 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanActually, you can be arrested (at least in some/many states) for not paying debts. .
Its for not obeying a court order to show up, it has nothing to do with the debt. Some courts are sick of people ignoring their orders, so they arrest people for contempt and make the bail what the amount of the debt is. Doesn't happen often, though, and its only is a few counties in a few states.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 1:17:30 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIts for not obeying a court order to show up, it has nothing to do with the debt. Some courts are sick of people ignoring their orders, so they arrest people for contempt and make the bail what the amount of the debt is. Doesn't happen often, though, and its only is a few counties in a few states.
Yeah, it's also for not paying the debt once you've been ordered to pay it. You're in contempt either way...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
June 30th, 2011 at 1:20:58 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIts for not obeying a court order to show up, it has nothing to do with the debt.
No. It's for not obeying the court order to pay the debt, and has everything to do with it.
Not showing up is a different kind of offense. You can be arrested, and brought to court in handcuffs, but you'll never rarely end up in jail just for skipping a court hearing.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 30th, 2011 at 1:21:28 PM
permalink
Quote: MrV
The guy may run a legal mill, and he may have graduated in the lower third of his class, but he knows how the game is played; you just think you know.
I don't think I know, I do know. I've researched the agency that filed, and now I've researched the collection agency that had it before them. They have no original documents, or even copies of documents, thats why the info on the complaint is so laughable. Exibit B is an 'account statement' that has the date, how much I allegedly owe, and my name and address. Thats it! Its a worthless piece of paper, its not signed, it has no source for where the info comes from, they could have found it blowing down the road. I set aside an hour a day to research this. From testimonials of people who have been in this business I'm learning this is how they operate. They know 90+% of the people served aren't going to answer the complaint and they'll win a judgement against them. If you do send them an answer that sounds remotely like you know what you're doing, they'll throw your case away and not pursue it. If you owe a lot of money, like over 10K, and they do take you to court, if you challenge every single item they bring up and force them to prove it, you'll win. They have no proof, they have no copy of a document you signed, if you ask them to prove where every cent of the money thats been tacked onto the original debt came from, they can't do it. Whatever comes out of their mouth is hearsay until they prove it. Give them your name and address, make them prove everything else. Never admit to anything, make them produce the evidence.
So as far as going 'head to head' with 27 year old Mohamed, bottom third of his mail order law school, with a rating of 5.3 out of 10, bring it on. I've never lost in court because I'm always over prepared. If this even gets a hearing date (it won't), it will be months from now. Imagine what I'll know then that I don't know now.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 1:23:11 PM
permalink
I feel like we need to set up a pool on this...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
June 30th, 2011 at 1:46:38 PM
permalink
Just got off the phone with a nice lady at the court. She said yes, over 90% of the people who get served never answer. She also said half the people who do answer and get a hearing date, never show up in court. When I told her Exhibit A was a sheet of paper with the date, my name, and the amount I owed, no signature of who prepared it, no source info, she laughed and agreed that it was pretty meaningless. She said if I answer on time, the nearest hearing date will be in March of 2012, they are that backed up with cases like this. And thats with 90+% of the people not responding. So Mohamed will be 28 instead of 27, and his rating will probably be under 5 by then. I wonder if he speaks English..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 2:11:42 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobJust got off the phone with a nice lady at the court. She said yes, over 90% of the people who get served never answer. She also said half the people who do answer and get a hearing date, never show up in court. When I told her Exhibit A was a sheet of paper with the date, my name, and the amount I owed, no signature of who prepared it, no source info, she laughed and agreed that it was pretty meaningless. She said if I answer on time, the nearest hearing date will be in March of 2012, they are that backed up with cases like this. And thats with 90+% of the people not responding. So Mohamed will be 28 instead of 27, and his rating will probably be under 5 by then. I wonder if he speaks English..
It was my understanding that people who work at the courthouse are under pretty strict rules not to give legal advice at all.
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody
help me?"
June 30th, 2011 at 2:34:31 PM
permalink
Quote: JimMorrisonIt was my understanding that people who work at the courthouse are under pretty strict rules not to give legal advice at all.
Telling me when the court date is, is legal advice? Telling me 90% of people don't show up is legal advice? I asked her no legal questions, how could she give legal advice? Her agreeing the paper sounds meaningless isn't advice. If I asked her 'what should I say in my answer'? That would be giving advice. If I asked her 'is it OK if I say this and not that in my answer'? That would be giving advice. Telling me half the people who get hearing dates never show up is not advice, its simply stating a fact that has zero to do with my case. In fact, the only question I asked was when the court date would be. The rest was info I volunteered and she agreed with, or info she volunteered.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 3:55:32 PM
permalink
Sigh. Who cares?
Good luck, EvenBob.
May you make the lawyer look foolish, but to be honest, you're coming off as a racist fool. You don't have to read between the lines to see what you think about people with a middle name of Mohamed, or Hussein for that matter. There are plenty of women and men of all stripes and colors who do the same job of this 27.5 year lawyer. It pays the bills, and brings the money home. Someone has to graduate in the bottom 3rd of their class and have a 5 rating, so be it. It's a living. Just because his middle name is Mohamed doesn't make him more unethical than anyone else in the legal profession. That's what bothers me.
And yes, people do need to know whether you truly owe the $500 or not. It's pertinent to this whole thread. If you don't owe the money, say so and why, but if you owe the money and are just trying to avoid payment, then you're the unethical one.
Good luck, EvenBob.
May you make the lawyer look foolish, but to be honest, you're coming off as a racist fool. You don't have to read between the lines to see what you think about people with a middle name of Mohamed, or Hussein for that matter. There are plenty of women and men of all stripes and colors who do the same job of this 27.5 year lawyer. It pays the bills, and brings the money home. Someone has to graduate in the bottom 3rd of their class and have a 5 rating, so be it. It's a living. Just because his middle name is Mohamed doesn't make him more unethical than anyone else in the legal profession. That's what bothers me.
And yes, people do need to know whether you truly owe the $500 or not. It's pertinent to this whole thread. If you don't owe the money, say so and why, but if you owe the money and are just trying to avoid payment, then you're the unethical one.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
June 30th, 2011 at 4:06:10 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo
You don't have to read between the lines to see what you think about people with a middle name of Mohamed, or Hussein for that matter.
Is that illegal now, to dislike people from a certain religion? Let me tell you something, pal. I live in MI, which has the largest group of people from the Middle East in the entire country. I dealt with these guys for YEARS at the gun shows in the Detroit area. I bent over backwards to be nice to them and all I ever got was bigotry and disdain. They treated me like crap, and I was their fricking customer! If you're not a Muslim, they want nothing to do with you except to wrench your money away as fast as they can. I spent thousands of dollars at these shows and they knew me, and they still treated me like I was dog crap they had to scrape off their shoe. So yeah, I really am a little on the bitter side when it comes to people who are named Mohamed. I don't like them because they don't like me, get it?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 4:38:40 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobTelling me when the court date is, is legal advice?
Discussing the facts of the case and evidence with you is a fireable offense, even if the dictionary does not call it "advice".
Yes, telling you your court date was ok. The rest of the discussion you describe was completely unethical.
While this woman's name is, probably, not Mohammed, it is pretty obvious that she is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed if she feels appropriate and necessary to have discussions like this with people like you, especially on the official court house phone line.
As I said before, I think you are lying about this whole thing. And I get more and more convinced that you are as you go on piling one unbelievable thing on top of the other, and follow one contradiction with the next. I just can't figure out why. Do you find it amusing to make a bunch of strangers believe that you can beat a bad lawyer in court as long as his name sounds Arabic?
Quote:I don't like them because they don't like me, get it?
Not liking somebody is one thing. Judging qualification of a professional by his name is quite another. Especially when that professional is going to be up against you on his own turf ... Makes one wonder ...
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 30th, 2011 at 5:09:31 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanAnd I get more and more convinced that you are as you go on piling one unbelievable thing on top of the other, and follow one contradiction with the next. .
Maybe that's what Judge Judy will tell him.
Hey, when's this airing on Court TV, anyway?
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
June 30th, 2011 at 6:29:59 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanDiscussing the facts of the case and evidence with you is a fireable offense, even if the dictionary does not call it "advice".
Yes, telling you your court date was ok. The rest of the discussion you describe was completely unethical.
While this woman's name is, probably, not Mohammed, it is pretty obvious that she is definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed if she feels appropriate and necessary to have discussions like this with people like you, especially on the official court house phone line.
As I said before, I think you are lying about this whole thing. And I get more and more convinced that you are as you go on piling one unbelievable thing on top of the other, and follow one contradiction with the next. I just can't figure out why. Do you find it amusing to make a bunch of strangers believe that you can beat a bad lawyer in court as long as his name sounds Arabic?
.
LOL! I can beat him because he has no case, duh. His name has nothing to with anything. And if you think me saying I read that 90% of the people who get served never answer the complaint, and the lady at court saying "Thats right" is 'legal advice', you've been watching too much Court TV. She discussed not one 'fact' from the case except to tell me the probable court date. Telling me half the people don't show up when they do have a hearing also has nothing to do with my case. Its obvious you have never been in court in your life. Why in gods name would anybody lie about something as ridiculous as this? A $500 debt and being sued over it? Yeah, the drama is tremendous, somebody pinch me. I'm PRAYING they pursue this, I'm praying I get to go to court with this 27 year old bottom feeding lawyer. But he has nothing and he knows he has nothing, so it probably won't happen.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 30th, 2011 at 7:52:55 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobLOL! I can beat him because he has no case, duh. His name has nothing to with anything.
Really? Counting the number of times you have repeated it in this thread, I would have never guessed you think that :)
Quote:And if you think me saying I read that 90% of the people who get served never answer the complaint, and the lady at court saying "Thats right" is 'legal advice', you've been watching too much Court TV.
Discussing merits of the case before you is legal advice.
Quote:She discussed not one 'fact' from the case except to tell me the probable court date.
Didn't she laugh with you at the evidence, submitted by the plaintiff? Expressing opinions about the legal contents of the case is legal advice.
Drop it, it does not matter. You don't have to convince me - obviously, I am not going to report that woman's conduct to her superiors.
I am simply pointing out that if your account of the discussion is true (and that is a really big if), I would not recommend you to give too much weight to this lady's words, because her behavior is self-destructing, bordering on stupidity, which is never an indicator of a good intellectual capacity.
Quote:Its obvious you have never been in court in your life.
Yeah ... And my middle name is Abdulla.
Quote:Why in gods name would anybody lie about something as ridiculous as this?
This is exactly my question. Why?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
June 30th, 2011 at 8:34:07 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselman
Didn't she laugh with you at the evidence, submitted by the plaintiff? Expressing opinions about the legal contents of the case is legal advice.
This is exactly my question. Why?
You're being ridiculous. She gave no legal advice on anything, this whole discussion is comical. I've asked many questions of the clerks in past cases and they're always helpful as long as you're not asking them specifically for advice. As far as your 'question' goes, you thought it up, its your problem, and has nothing at all to do with me. Calling somebody a liar when you know there is no way to prove anything is the tactic of a 4th grader. If you think I'm going to give you the intimate details of a pending lawsuit, you really haven't been around much.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 2:32:16 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobthis whole discussion is comical.
Pretty much everything anyone else says is wrong and what you say is right. This isn't a discussion at all. Yes, I know you are "undefeated" in court, but why write about your upcoming experience if you don't care to consider anyone else's thoughts on the matter relevant?
July 1st, 2011 at 4:43:31 AM
permalink
Quote: RonCYes, I know you are "undefeated" in court, but why write about your upcoming experience
Because how else would we all know that he is undefeated?
Now clerks are "helpful" to him masterminding his victories (as long as you don't "specifically" ask for advice, of course :), just chatting).
Perhaps, he should try a judge next. Just catch one at the court house entrance, and have a little laugh together at people with strangely sounding last names who did not go to Harvard.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 1st, 2011 at 6:55:00 AM
permalink
I assumed that Bob was happy that MKL left because MKL was an insufferable ass. Turns out that Bob was happy that MKL left because Bob wants to be MKL.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
July 1st, 2011 at 7:26:39 AM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusTurns out that Bob was happy that MKL left because Bob wants to be MKL.
That usually is the case in feuds like this.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 1st, 2011 at 7:43:55 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanNo. It's for not obeying the court order to pay the debt, and has everything to do with it.
The ONLY debts an individual can be jailed for not paying are those related to family support: child support and alimony.
There are two ways you can get jailed for not paying child support:
1) as a sanction following a Contempt of Court hearing;
2) as punishment resulting from the State successfully prevailing in a criminal Non-Support action against the deadbeat.
Otherwise, simply failing to pay your debts is NEVER a legal basis for being incarcerated: we abolished debtor's prisons long ago.
"What, me worry?"
July 1st, 2011 at 7:57:55 AM
permalink
Quote: MrVThe ONLY debts an individual can be jailed for not paying are those related to family support: child support and alimony.
This is a well stated opinion. Too bad, it is wrong :)
Quote:Otherwise, simply failing to pay your debts is NEVER a legal basis for being incarcerated: we abolished debtor's prisons long ago.
Who is talking about debtors prisons? Read the quote you included in your post again. Does it imply that "simply failing to pay your debts is a legal reason for being incarcerated"? It actually states exactly what the legal basis for incarceration is in that case.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 1st, 2011 at 8:07:47 AM
permalink
Quote: MrVOtherwise, simply failing to pay your debts is NEVER a legal basis for being incarcerated: we abolished debtor's prisons long ago.
I was talking to a guy the other day who had a go-round with the IRS. He tried to ignore $8000 of back taxes which included interest and penalties.
They didn't jail him but one day he went to pick up his paycheck and it was literally $0.00. Well, that finally got his full attention.
And the moral of the story ... is obvious.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
July 1st, 2011 at 1:27:05 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselman
Now clerks are "helpful" to him
In fact, I called them again this afternoon and asked if I needed to send the answer to the complaint to them by certified mail, and to the plaintiff the same way, as they recommend on the legal sites. They clerk said naw, first class is OK, and I don't even have to send one to the plaintiff, they court will do it automatically. When I pointed out the complaint says I have to, she said the important thing is they get it, and the court makes sure they do.
Now that was bordering on legal advice, I swear to god she said all of it. They are very friendly to me at this court, I don't know why. These women have worked there since the dawn of time.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 1:42:24 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI assumed that Bob was happy that MKL left because MKL was an insufferable ass.
Was he? Were we alike? My wife says I'm overbearing, I say I'm a curmudgeon. "A bad-tempered, difficult, usually old, cantankerous person." "They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness."
Thats a very good description of who I tend to be. I'm having dinner tonight with an old friend who's a far bigger curmudgeon than I'll ever be. We always have a roaring good time. We dine with just the two of us because its not fair to subject others to our cruel wit and painful barbs, especially our wives..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 2:28:56 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
Now that was bordering on legal advice
Actually, that wasn't. :)
Your question was procedural, not legal, and it is exactly this kind of questions they are paid to answer.
And stop calling them "clerks". A clerk is a relatively high position in the court system, that requires a law degree, and does not involve chatting on the phone with litigators who do not know how to use postal service.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 1st, 2011 at 3:09:05 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanAnd stop calling them "clerks". A clerk is a relatively high position in the court system, that requires a law degree, and does not involve chatting on the phone with litigators who do not know how to use postal service.
No, there are plenty of people, whose title is "Clerk of Court", who have no law degree. They and their assistants, who are also called "clerk" or assistant "clerk" maintain the records of the court. You are confusing them with a Law Clerk, who not only has a law degree but is usually a licensed attorney.
July 1st, 2011 at 8:14:00 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanActually, that wasn't. :)
Your question was procedural, not legal, and it is exactly this kind of questions they are paid to answer.
And stop calling them "clerks". A clerk is a relatively high position in the court system, that requires a law degree, and does not involve chatting on the phone with litigators who do not know how to use postal service.
So telling me 90% of the people don't show up was legal advice? Telling me half don't show up for court is legal advice? But telling me I can ignore something on the complaint was not legal advice? You're cuckoo... And when I call the court I tell them I want civil court and she says she'll connect me to the civil court clerk. Complain to her, not me.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 8:15:28 PM
permalink
Quote: EnvyBonusNo, there are plenty of people, whose title is "Clerk of Court", who have no law degree. They and their assistants, who are also called "clerk" or assistant "clerk" maintain the records of the court. You are confusing them with a Law Clerk, who not only has a law degree but is usually a licensed attorney.
Pay no attention to Weaselman, he's obviously winging it as he goes along..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 8:36:00 PM
permalink
Assuming the scenario you're describing is correct, how far can the process go before the agency pays court costs for nothing? Or have they already spent the money once they sue?
I'm assuming the collection agency is trying to create the ominous sense of doom so people won't show up, but also trying to assume as little cost to themselves as possible.
THIS whole thing is a description of advantage play -- where they don't expect to win every time, but will come out ahead in the long run.
Of course, I'm still wondering if maybe you're one of the ones where they have all the documentation they need. Surely all this bulk debt they buy is not equally bad. In fact, the rationale I read about suing was, they single out people who they think they can successfully sue. Your scenario is, they just sue a whole bunch of people and take the few losses as the cost of business.
I'm assuming the collection agency is trying to create the ominous sense of doom so people won't show up, but also trying to assume as little cost to themselves as possible.
THIS whole thing is a description of advantage play -- where they don't expect to win every time, but will come out ahead in the long run.
Of course, I'm still wondering if maybe you're one of the ones where they have all the documentation they need. Surely all this bulk debt they buy is not equally bad. In fact, the rationale I read about suing was, they single out people who they think they can successfully sue. Your scenario is, they just sue a whole bunch of people and take the few losses as the cost of business.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
July 1st, 2011 at 8:55:36 PM
permalink
"Your scenario is, they just sue a whole bunch of people and take the few losses as the cost of business. " And that scenario is absolutely 100% CORRECT !
July 1st, 2011 at 9:11:30 PM
permalink
I think my point is, EvenBob, is that if his name didn't mean anything, then why mention it? Alot of 27 year olds lawyers are just that; bottom feeders, starting their career somewhere, working their way up the ladder.
When I was 27, I was a temporary finance clerk in a hospital making $8/hour. My job sometimes involved collections. Now, my daily life is giving advice to people on how to do their job.
i wish you luck on your case, and if you truly owed the debt, you should pay it.
When I was 27, I was a temporary finance clerk in a hospital making $8/hour. My job sometimes involved collections. Now, my daily life is giving advice to people on how to do their job.
i wish you luck on your case, and if you truly owed the debt, you should pay it.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 1st, 2011 at 9:46:56 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineAssuming the scenario you're describing is correct, how far can the process go before the agency pays court costs for nothing? Or have they already spent the money once they sue?
They paid $45 to file and $30 to have the complaint served. According to the experts, they hope to make at least their fee's back, plus an equal amount to cover other costs, and anything over that is pure profit. They will be able to freeze enough bank accounts to and recover enough money to make a good profit. They make so much money from the people who don't show up, they aren't concerned with the people who do. The friend I had dinner with has been in dozens of lawsuits in civil court. When I told him they're backed up 8 months, he was incredulous. The longest he ever had to wait, in the same court, was 4 months. People are defaulting on debt at a record rate.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 1st, 2011 at 9:52:26 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI think my point is, EvenBob, is that if his name didn't mean anything, then why mention it? \
It doesn't mean anything to the case, it means something to me personally.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
