Goody_Ouchless

Kooky stuff happens some time. For any of a million reasons, that judge could have had a problem with that particular plaintiff on that particular day.

***Sovereign Citizen Alert***

Sounds like Fist's strategy is soundest. Deal with each case in a vacuum. The active AAA case is only for your claims on the violations - everything Unifund sends that has to do with any other account should be tossed by arbiter. As far as Court case, your MTC was granted and plaintiff has not complied by their failing to arbitrate - same thing, anything that has to do with another account or another arbitration should be tossed by judge. Amazing they screwed this up to such an extent.

It almost sounded like some of the Sovereign Citizen nonsense you can find on YouTube. These folks commit traffic violations, without a license, and present some convoluted argument that just ends with them getting arrested instead of just taking a ticket.

Since it's Unifund Corporate, maybe all invoices go to accounting. They said "we got a bill," and she said "whatever, we will recover costs/fees when we win." I don't know what else makes sense.

Right - that would also explain her behavior. She ignored bill for court ordered arbitration because, in her mind, she "already paid."

I find it very hard to believe that the lawyer is either totally stupid, or blatantly lying. Is it possible, from everything she has said and done, that your two accounts got mistakenly combined (like a clerk dropped all of the papers on the floor and put the whole mess in one folder) before she ever got involved? Her insistence that you are "lying" makes it seem that she is totally convinced that everything she is looking at involves one court case and one arbitration, both for the same "account." EDIT: I think it is safe to eliminate "lying" from the equation. Applying a poker analogy, if lawyer is lying, it's the same as a "bluff." In this case she knows what cards the OP is holding and that the OP will see this through without folding. A bluff, in this case, makes zero sense and is the worst thing lawyer could do.

Do you have reason to think the contents may be dangerous?

You're an idiot.

Default judgement is always their expectation. As for the rest, it seems to ebb and flow. Sometimes they'll fight every case hard, and other times they seem to be looking for a reason to fold. It's possible what we are seeing now is the result of a glut of lawyers driving down the cost of collections - perhaps all of the experienced lawyers moved on to greener pastures, so there's no one left to actually prosecute these cases. There was a lawyer, here, who's name was everywhere on collections suits - last I checked he's doing DUIs.

If PRA defaulted on a debt to Joe's Credit Company, and Joe's Credit Company sold you the rights to that debt, then yes. You would got to court with a bill-of-sale and various affidavits and account details, just like PRA is doing.

I doubt that ever worked, since PRA doesn't need your permission to buy your defaulted debt.

Right, and there seems to be a change to more along your line of thinking. We went through a phase, six or seven years ago, where those 2% of cases were vigorously prosecuted. I can't recall the last time we saw someone contest a case and either lose at trial or via MSJ.

Yea - hard to tell if anything has changed, although it seems like there are a lot more cases of plaintiffs folding to any opposition. It's almost like they fight harder against arbitration, as they know they will always win in court if they try. If arbitration goes viral, they're in a world of hurt.

These things are all handled on fixed-fee contracts, so Midland doesn't pay any more, no matter how long it's drawn out.