NurseRobert

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About NurseRobert

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ok, Ive heard about the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practice Act) and the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), but haven't heard of the FBCA. Can someone enlighten me?
  2. I love stories like this! http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202445797449&rss=newswire
  3. usc, go back and read the link I posted. The wrong people get sued all the time. If you don't respond, you lose and its your debt. You get hauled into court, you take time off from work and have to spend hours getting out from under this. How is this in anyway right? Who pays for the "legal intervention" regardless of how much it costs? And any time spend learning, be it "pro se legal research" or basket weaving, is never "wasted" time.
  4. I work at a very large health care facility. We are forever getting calls from bottom feeders for different employees. Becuase they don't have the direct phone number to unit, the calls usually come through the supervisors office where I work. Being someone who detests bill collectors, I love to have fun with them. Yesterday, the payroll clerk working in the office got a call. The guy spoke with an Indian accent, wanting to speak with an employee. I listened to the clerk tell the clown multiple times that we do not accept business calls for the employees, directing him to call the person at home. In typical bottom feeder actions, the caller began explaining that the employee "committed fraud against a financial institution" and proceeded to threaten the clerk with arrest for not forwarding the call. I caught her attention and had her forward the call to me. The BF proceeded to tell me the same thing. I specfically ask if he was a bill collector and was he attempting to collect a debt from this employee. Like an idiot, he spilled everything, reiterating that she was committing fraud against a financial institution, she was a dead beat.. all the wonderful things they usually pull. Being the PITA that I am, I just egged him on. At this point, I informed him that he just violated the FDCPA about a dozen times, demanded his name and his supervisor. I told him I was instructing the employee to seek legal advise and file suit against him and his company. He could not hang up fast enough. The clerk was laughing her fanny off. I love it when they call.... I like to see just how mad I can make them...
  5. http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299170
  6. Defamation: the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. What false statement did the retailer make? The OP paid with a bad check. The retailer did not make that up. Libel: a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium, esp. writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. The retailer did not libel anyone. He simply posted a check the OP wrote that was returned unpaid. OP Libeled herself (if you can do that) Slander: a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form, esp. speech. Again, just how did the retailer slander the OP? So, a retailer displaying a personal check on a sign or wall that tends to give false impressions about the maker of said check or oral representations made to others by employees of the retailer that give false impressions about the maker could fit the above definitions. What false impressions? That the OP gave the retailer a bad check? She did! There is no false representation here. Extortion (or blackmail): the act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means, as by force or coercion. The retailer is not extorting or blackmailing the OP for anything. Nothing he is doing is illegal Invasion of privacy: an unjustified exploitation of one's personality or intrusion into one's personal activity. There are four types of invasion of privacy in tort: 1) an appropriation, for one's benefit, of another's name or likeness, 2) an offensive, intentional interference with a person's seclusion or private affairs, 3) the public disclosure, of an objectionable nature, of private information about another, and 4) the use of publicity to place another in a false light in the public eye. 1. Retailer did not appropriate anyone's name. He simply posted a copy of a bad check for the world to see. 2. I don't see this as offensive 3. Nothing objectionable in posting a check. OP would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. 4. OP placed herself in a false light by giving the retailer a bad check. I guess one has to be a lawyer to read and understand what is plainly written in a law dictionary, eh? Well it seems that reading is one thing, but your understanding/logic is flawed in that the OP, by giving the retailer a bad check put herself in bad light. As far as the existence of a "lawful" or "unlawful" invasion of privacy, the courts have recognized such a thing. One example is when a police officer doing a protective search for weapons has been ruled "lawful" by the courts despite it being an invasion of privacy. A police officer doing a strip search under the guise of a protective search would be an example of an "unlawful" invasion of privacy. Neither example are germain to this discussion. If she had been stripped searched by the retailer, then you would have a better argument. A question I have. OP said she this all occurred in 2006. This is almost 4 years later. It seems to me that most of these arguments are moot. Did the OP ever go back to this store? If so, did she not see her check posted. Maybe she should try to rectify this situation by going back to the store and claim her check by paying what she owes.
  7. Was just reading the news this morning and came across this article. Some interesting comments from CAs about being sued... http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-01-21/news/better-off-deadbeat-craig-cunningham-has-a-simple-solution-for-getting-bill-collectors-off-his-back-he-sues-them/1
  8. there are no different types of collection litigation firms. YOU had an obligation to make sure your "computer" was correct. Maybe you should fire your data entry person. You would find yourself less likely to be be sued..
  9. Well, Im not a lawyer, but the problem as I see it is signing a quit claim deed does NOT relieve you of responsibility of the mortgage, you simply gave the property to another company with the expectation they will pay the mortgage. As far as EMC... question is, did they get the mortgage back because Wells Fargo realized it was not being paid on.
  10. Found an interesting article from the NY times. Seems the judge was a little PO because Pressler and Pressler was suing the wrong person, they were told they were suing the wrong person and did it anyway.. The judge feels sanctions are in order. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/nyregion/29about.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
  11. Just because you gave her the house does not mean you are still not responsible for the mortgage. That is two completely different issues. To get out from under the mortgage you need to: 1. Have the mortgage company release you from the loan. This will only happen if your ex is able to make the payments on her own, can prove sufficient income and the mortgage company is willing to accept this. If the payments have been late, the mortgage company has no incentive to do this. 2. You ex refinances the mortgage in her name. 3. The house gets sold. You quit claimed the house to your EX, which MAY mean that you no longer have any stake in the house. This may come back to bite you in the rear... Best advice .. GO SEE A LAWYER!!! You may be able to force a sale of the house. That is the only way I see you getting out from under this...
  12. Dave... its Nurse ROBERT, no "s" (sorry, had to throw that in there). Im not the one who said it, but I was asking the question of court costs, etc. I was curious as to the ability to get your money from the JDBs in a court case.
  13. Whats the chance, if you file in small claims, that they would try to move it to Fed or State level? Is small claims a court of competent jurisdiction?