• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Robespierre

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

511 profile views
  1. I'm guessing that your warning is at least partially directed at me, for my post here in which I stated, not the subject of your topic, but rather "are you angling for a job with a debt buyer?" which was immediately followed by "I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've stated above". My remarks were in response to this; Goody's warnings should absolutely be heeded by every defendant. But then what? It is easy to give warnings, but they are hollow in the absence of any suggestion of what positive steps to take. I presume that the message that he intended to convey is a warnin
  2. My reply to Goody had nothing at all really to do with adoptive business records doctrine. But it is true that so far I'm not a huge fan of adoptive business records doctrine. I do agree that it will eventually become universal, both for the sake of efficiency and because the corporate powers that influence government will insist upon it. Hopefully some safeguards can be added as the law evolves. One problem I have with ABR doctrine, at least in the case of debts, is that no consideration whatsoever is given to the legitimacy and reliability of the record keeping practices of all prior owner
  3. Goody, are you angling for a job with a debt buyer? I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've stated above, but in an adversarial legal system, pushback is what keeps the system fair - not only for the overwhelming majority, but also for the minority or odd individual. But it can't just be the minority or odd individual that does the pushback, or it won't work (in keeping the system fair).
  4. Thank you for your answer. It is a good answer. I hope that it was obvious that I asked the question in the spirit of genuinely wanting to understand how dominant ABR doctrine is at present, and what pushback there is, at present. I had turned up some of the information in your answer, but not all or most. That was a question that I had also asked (and tried to answer; "The only state that I've turned up in my research that has much split is Ohio") in my last post. I suppose that Ohio is the extent of any pushback towards ABR doctrine.
  5. Two of the nation’s biggest banks will finally put to rest the zombies of consumer debt — bills that are still alive on credit reports although legally eliminated in bankruptcy — potentially providing relief to more than a million Americans. Banks Agree to Take Canceled Debts Off Credit Reports (NY Times)
  6. What are some of the many cozying states so far this century? Are there many states with significant splits among their districts? The only state that I've turned up in my research that has much split is Ohio, in its 2nd and 6th districts; "Ohio Receivables LLC vs. Williams" and "Wright-Patt Credit Union vs. Byington". These cases have already been discussed numerous times on the forum here. Are there any other major ones? I was surprised, given the split, that the Ohio Supreme Court passed on Ohio Receivables. The Jurisdictional Memoranda by both parties was quite well done.
  7. I'd definitely echo all of that. That does seem like the best advice for the OP, Harry. I hope you can turn up that Justice Court appeal. In my brief hour of research, I've found rulings all over the map, very few of which are in Arizona. It does seems that cost can be considered, more or less. It is Rule #1. Although I've found a lot of articles by lawyers claiming that they are completely puzzled by Rule 1. The conjunction in Rule 1 includes "just" along with "inexpensive", these two are bound to conflict. Unless it means that you are entitled to the best Justice you can have for cheap.
  8. AZ JCRCP 137 seems to cover this, at least a little bit; The textual questions would likely be about these excerpts: "in person" "or as the judge allows for a good reason" I'd argue that "in person" does not include telephonic testimony. I'd argue that "a good reason" should not include cost, distance, or time of travel. Especially when such arguments are made for hundreds or thousands of cases across a mass litigation enterprise. And especially (even more) when all of the cases in such mass llitigation enterprise share a nearly identical set of possible procedural avenues. Unless I'v
  9. It gives them greater scalability. Even more cases can be handled largely by the filing of documents rather court appearances. They can buy poorer quality paper. A single charge off statement is easier to produce and scale across a mass litigation enterprise. Trials will be even more rare. More SJs in contested cases. On the down side for the debt buyers, the cost of paper may go up. Small time debt buyers may enter the litigation market. OCs may realize that the system is streamlined enough for them to do more direct litigation, bypassing the buyers and increasing the prices for the remain
  10. I'm looking for some bankruptcy form-filling software. I've done searches. I haven't liked what I've seen so far. I do like some software shown in a youtube video, but the website mentioned at the end of the video is just a referral ad for services. ----- Edit: I found some software which I'm currently reviewing and no longer need any recommendations.
  11. Another interesting exchange about NC SB 511 has been the back and forth between Steve Rhode (the get out of debt guy) and insideARM (the collection agency/debt buyer trade publication). Rhode posted this to huffingtonpost, then insideARM posted this, to which Rhode responded with this. Partisan politics aside (as much as possible), this will probably get messy. But my best guess is that passage of SB 511 and HB 541 will sail right through largely unchanged from their current form.
  12. Right, I'm sorry. I do realize that two years ago was a different universe in terms of JDB cases in AZ. I hope things work out for you. Thanks for all of the information that you have shared over the past two years.
  13. Did you make or receive any settlement offer(s) anytime along the history of your case? The AZ attorneys I've spoken with, who currently are all very pro-settlement, claim that they routinely settle for 33% or less - if the settlement can be paid in a lump sum. This is an impossible option for me, notwithstanding any issues about the validity of the debt. The same is the case for even raising the BK fees. If my economic outlook was as sunny as yours seems, I would have been tempted to settle early, even if the JDB's claim was somehow bogus.
  14. Yeah, that sounds right. It even seems that way in Parker itself. There seems to be a not so subtle "shadow" behind the legal reasoning. Hey, we have this murderer here, we can't let him off on business records evidence malarkey, after all, he is a murderer! So, here is some legal reasoning that won't help the murderers' case. Maybe some sort of justice is served by weighting "facts" over rules. But what is the law about if not rules?