AMEX just called me . . . . . .. with an offer

[2Bshinyandnew]

Just for you, I'll be sure to do that.....I actually didnt realize or have I used that little link feature from quotes before, so I wasnt trying to do it on purpose. Most forums I have used in the past dont provide a link when quoting, just the poster's name and what they posted.

Thanks. I wholeheartedly admit to being a Junior-Lawyer-Wannabe (or, I should say, Wishabee). I think it is important in a forum such as this to keep sources of information, quotations and citations, regardless of content, clearly identifiable. Plus, it gives the person who is offering the quote/link/citation/source credibility.

[treehugger1]

BB and 2B: I've heard that in my district (we have district courts, you have "superior courts,") the judges do not readily accept violations of federal statutes as counter-claims in local county or state courts. As you said, and I've stated previously, many judges at the county and state level are only interested in whether or not you owe the money. This turns out to be a request from the judge of the defendant: yes or no? If you claim no, then you had better be prepared to show why you don't owe the money. In other words I often hear that the "burden of proof" is on the plaintiff, but if you choose to take the defensive in civil court here, then you better have solid evidence of your own "why you don't owe the money." I would guess this is also true in WA, ID, MT, etc in the western states.

Federal court is a different matter, but from what I've seen here, most litigation involving civil matters is addressed in/at the local/state court level. And, the local or regional court judge wants to get after an answer to the simple question, "Does the debtor owe the money to the plaintiff?"

The other very interesting thing I've noted watching the local court dockets for the past two years, is that I never see a plaintiff or attorney for plaintiff being one of the BIG CC companies. I'm not sure where these would show up. Perhaps, they are often tried in the federal court, 70 miles away. If that is the case, then the federal dockets for our area must be backed up for months! LOL.

There is also the legal statute in Oregon that requires any answer to a civil claim under $50K be first sent to arbitration, regardless of federal or state suit. This, in itself, could explain why I seldom receive any DV or additional information from local/regional law firms when I request the info. Simply filing an answer makes you eligible for "arbitration." This could get very costly for the CC company represented by an attorney here. I almost think that it might not be worth the plaintiff or attorney's time if the debt does not exceed $50K. Just thinking out-loud.

Every state is different...

[CompTweaker]

I Dont recall ever saying anything to you about mispelling or proper grammar until that post, so there is WRONG #1

"but the answer is not going to be found on this site by beating up on me" WRONG #2, (Im not beating up on you and I'm not looking for answers by engaging in disagreements with you. I made a mistake, and you pointed it out to me. Kudos, and I owned up to it. You made them too, and I argued back with you.....and you just further attack or fade away.)

And while we're at it, lets revisit the thread where we first tangled since I have to (here we go again) hold your hand through all of this....and well, I cant provide proper quotes and links since the thread was locked ( I was going to try)....but anyway, this is a HUGE waste of my time, you're not really worth it, but what the heck, Im game! And that thread pretty much sums up everything we have argued about. I cant put a lot of time into this either, but I'll throw what I can at it. Oh, Ive received private messages too about you, they really started with this first exchange between us, and they were saying how you like to bully people in posts, well, poor reflection on you too....anyways:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=30774&page=4

BB:
"So lets break down what happens at this point, if you answer you will also have to answer with a defense, cite a reason or case law as to why the plaintiff is wrong and why you need a jury trial (WRONG #3, you do not have to cite case law or ask for a jury trial) . Along with that later comes discovery, where you ask questions and so can the plaintiff. You MUST answer all the questions and this will most likely include, where you bank, your balance, your employment and assets(WRONG #4 you do not have to provide any answers to their questions that is unrelated to them proving you owe the debt and they have the right to collect it ). In addition the plaintiff will move for summary judgment against your response (WRONG #5, they will not as long as you deny the debt in your answer and provide affirmative defenses) and unless you have some real reason to not pay them, the judge will honor the request for summary judgment (Even if they move for summary judgement, you can still fight that too). You will have to raise an affirmative defense to as why you don't owe the money, such as it is time bared (SOL), ID theft, etc. without an affirmative defense you are out of luck. Merely not being able to pay it will not get you anywhere.

and you claimed somewhere in that thread (sorry, Im short on time) that I was trying to use "Im not able to pay the debt" as a defense when I clearly WAS NOT! Theres WRONG #6.


You seem to have this ability to think that EVERYONE who states to not fight a default judgement, means that they are specifically referring to the OC.....and you run with that whether or not they're discussing an OC or JDB. Even you are guilty of arguing fighting an OC, but you reffer to a JDB, hence it cancels your argument that you were really posting an argument to not fight an OC:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=30774&page=4

BB:
Also one last note, if you happen to get lucky and your case gets thrown out with prejudice the JDB is likely to sell your debt again and it starts all over again, but this time the next JDB will most likely get your file full of all your current financial info, don't be surprised if you never got served and got a default judgment against you by the next JDB and then your bank account or wages are garnished and then you can hire an attorney to defend yourself. My point being, they are unscrupulous and will lie you get served and then obtain a default judgment and go after your bank or wages since you handed them all the info in discovery from the last case. It only takes one lying process server to say you were served. (And allow me to note, once again, there you go, trying to scare people who are probably already stressed out enough....nice job of throwing that out there, but if you really wanted to help people, maybe with your 120 IQ and such comprehension of complex information, it would have been helpful to also disclose to them that they ARE entitled to vacate the judgement, and stop the garnishments, based on improper service of summons, and then they have their right to fight their case.)

BB:
I am not saying you can't head to head with a seasoned attorney, many people do and are successful, but you can also find yourself buried in requests for production and this may be statements, bank account statements, tax returns, pay stubs, etc. going back five years or for as long as you had the account. Are you really ready for all this?
And lastly, if you lose, you will have rang up a much higher bill in attorney fees for the plaintiff that you will owe. Plus at this point they will have all your banking, financial, employment and asset information. They will have no problem very shortly (often times with all the info you gave them they can make a motion to have the judge issue a writ right then and there) getting a garnishment, bank account seizure or asset seizure. (WRONG #7 they are the ones required to furnish statements, and as I stated in wrong #4, you dont have to provide all of that. They're the ones who have to prove their case, not get you to do it for them! and no they dont have your banking, financial, or employment info, because that is unrelated to the case.)

BB:
So, you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky punk, well do you? (Its not a matter of luck, but arming oneself with knowledge and having a little bit of courage, something you consistently discourage....Isnt that a little wrong?)

What about this thread?:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=34381&page=5

you got real quiet and never responded back when I pointed out you were WRONG to the nth degree there too.

[cityish]

[QUOTE=CompTweaker;245567]BB:
So, you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky punk, well do you? ([I]

[cityish]

I think what you are missing more than anything, is the fact, like I said before and continue to say, not everyone that comes to this site is looking to engage a creditor in a legal battle. Most just want relief and to get it to stop, they just want to be left alone. Or they want to know what will happen if I do this or don't do that. Its really pretty simple.

I agree with BigBoy. I am a novice here and I'm the first to admit it. The idea of taking on a creditor in court pretty much scares me to death and I am just looking for ways to make my life as peaceful as possible while I make a decision about my bankruptcy options, and get my ducks in a row. BigBoy, you have helped so many people here with your insights on that... so, thanks!

[CompTweaker]

Oh big whoop, I made a mistake of thinking a poster was talking about a JDB when they were talking about an OC (Amex), and you corrected me (thanks for doing so, and I owned up to it) and now you want to talk about taking things out of context? So because I slipped that one time, now you're claiming to be here with a broom and shovel to clean all of my crap? LOL, wow, whatever man, rofl.

But lets get one thing straight, that you have also been wrong about me. Ive never said everyone should fight all lawsuits at all costs no matter what. Quote me where I have said that or shut up repeating it! Each state's RCP's are different and each individual is in their own unique situation where seeking BK may be in their best interest. Dont turn around my trying to help assist (while also cleaning up your misinformation about lawsuits) anyone who brought up "what should I do about this lawsuit" when they find themselves not knowing where to begin, as me encouraging them to further stress themselves out by learning how to fight the lawsuit. Ive stated many times before that it isnt for everyone, and there are many factors to consider before a person should pursue it. Most of all, is it the right decision for them if they are in a position where they cant file BK. Im VERY AWARE this is a BK forum, but you know, go look at how many inquiries have been made about lawsuits.

You attempt to discourage them from fighting, while posting misinformation (no matter how many times we disagree on this), while I try to clean up YOUR bad information.

And all the while doing this, Ive NEVER ONCE tried to discourage anyone from filing BK.....yet you act like that is what I have been doing the whole time, and now you're trying to put yourself up on this pedestal as the big saviour from big bad me. The only way that I know hot to respond to that, is once again, more misinformation from you.

And by the way, you dont have to state that you're not going to apologize for something, Im not looking for it and have never asked for it......but I do like how you make no attempt to refute my previous post above.

[treehugger1]

I'll share some very current information here related to lawsuits. I had a CC account with a credit union many years ago. The credit union is in a state a long ways away. I defaulted and assumed that the creditor would need to come to my state to sue me. Because of my state statutes, it is true I would have to be served here, but the suit can be filed in the jurisdiction where the debt was incurred. In the other state, I will still have to "pay-to-play." In addition, I would have to show up in the court that has jurisdiction (out-of-state allowed here, it appears.) I'm not going to spend the money to answer and travel thousands of miles away, when there is doubt I'll lose to the OC.

After they get the judgment, it takes only a few minutes to domesticate the judgment in my state and a few minutes more to file for a writ of garnishment and lay down the money to serve the writ on my employer. It seems that all the out-of-state legal firm has to show is that I was proporly served, failed to defend myself in the out-of-state court of jurisdiction, received a judgment in that state and currently reside in the area served by my local circuit court.

I wonder if other states have "interstate" laws similar to this. While I have not tested this as of yet, I may have some real life experience very soon.

[CompTweaker]

So now its a waste of time to deal with me when I pointed to your wrongs.....like I said before, you fade away when you lose an argument.

And also like I said in that same post, this forum doesnt allow you to reference or properly quote posts/threads when said thread has been locked. I tried. The best I could do was link to the locked thread. But I made my point.....having a very nice day......hope you are too, and I do mean that.

Its nothing personal for me BB. Actually, our exchange has been, and will hopefully continue to be beneficial to others facing lawsuits.

[catleg]

This is like the argument clinic in Monty Python.

Aha! I must have paid or you wouldn't be arguing?

I could be arguing in my spare time.

[OhioFiler]

OC's have regulations regarding their collection actions but not directly via FDCPA.

They must follow the rules of FDCPA but consumers can not bring action against them for violations. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to bring action against OC's.

If you feel an OC is violating FTC regs or FDCPA regs file a complaint directly with the FTC.

The FTC has an online "wizard" for complaint filing at its website.

[CompTweaker]

OC's have regulations regarding their collection actions but not directly via FDCPA.

They must follow the rules of FDCPA but consumers can not bring action against them for violations. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to bring action against OC's.

If you feel an OC is violating FTC regs or FDCPA regs file a complaint directly with the FTC.

The FTC has an online "wizard" for complaint filing at its website.

OOOHHHHHHH!! Very nice to know. Thank you!

[OhioFiler]

Excuse me, and where did this come from? Under what law does the FTC have authority to bring an action against an OC in the collection of a debt? Please post the USC that you are referring too.

Specifically where you state "They must follow the rules of FDCPA but consumers can not bring action against them for violations. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to bring action against OC's"

You are welcome to do your own research if you like. If you believe my post is incorrect you're more than welcome to prove it. I directed any interested reader to the FTC's website where each reader can determine if he has a viable complaint regarding an OC.

Please don't direct your anger at another user toward me. I merely passed on information and have no intention of getting into the argument the two of you seem to enjoy.

Have a great day!

[CompTweaker]

Look BB, you asked me to point out some posts where you were wrong and I did. So if you choose to ignore what you asked me to do, thats fine with me. Its easy to give up and just walk away when proven wrong. At least I own up to things if Im wrong. If you want to think I have issues, go ahead. I assure you I dont, but its funny how you throw out "childlike mentality", "you have issues" and other forms of personal attacks at me, and yet Im getting pm's from people saying you're missing your meds and that you're the one with issues.
But I guess you wont see this since you have me on ignore, which is probably a good decision since you cant handle being called out when you're in the wrong.

[OhioFiler]

The FTC has its own rules and regulations prohibiting deceptive acts and practices. Many of these rules MIRROR the FDCPA.

If a bank violates the FDCPA there is a good chance it has violated the FTC as well.

The FTC rules are MUCH BROADER than the FDCPA and apply to both creditors and collection agcencies.

I believe we're on the same page. I didn't intend to imply the FTC relied on the FDCPA. I meant the FTC rules for OC's are equally as stringent and the consumer does have redress.

My apologies if I misinterpreted the tone of your post. You were clearly agitated with another poster and it appeared to me you were using the same antagonistic writing style in your response to my post.

Have a nice weekend!

[OhioFiler]

All my posts have an 'antagonistic' writing style....LOL

Well then I won't hold that against you.