Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Supreme Court'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Announcements
    • Polls
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair Forums
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Credit Article of the Week
  • Legal Issues
    • Is There a Lawyer in the House
    • Bankruptcy Q and A
  • Debt Validation
    • While You are In It Debt Validation Q and A
    • Debt Settlement
  • Loans and Banking
    • Obtaining Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Student Loans
    • Banking and Finance
  • Non Credit
    • Off Topic
    • Wine

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start







Found 3 results

  1. Interesting article in Washington Monthly on how the Supreme Court handed major US corporations the shield of arbitration against consumer and employee lawsuits over the past several decades. The greatest effect has been to deter class actions. While I believe well informed consumers can proactively and strategically use arbitration in certain instances, this article is a great read on how corporate America created immunity from a great deal of litigation where consumers have a legitimate complaint to pursue. Please see:
  2. Hi all, I've written here before an appreciated the response. I am in Suffolk County, NY. Currently, my case (JDB Pressler and Pressler also the attorney, under their false New Century Financial which is really just them operating under another name), wherein they attempted to strike my answer because I wouldn't answer their validation (they didn't answer mine either), is up for preliminary conference tomorrow. The judge had ordered the conference in lieu of their motion to strike my answer and for summary judgment. What can I reasonably expect tomorrow? They will give me paperwork to fill out or a lsit of things for me to provide or what? I have tried to explain to Pressler, unsuccessfully, that I have no assets other than a car (of which $4000 I'm entitled, and my car is worth maybe $4500). No real estate, no money in the bank, foreign accounts. Nothing. Zippo. I am waiting for approval of disability and there really are no assets, hidden or otherwise. I am supposed to show up at 9:30, and the clerk tells me that if the opposing counsel (I am pro se) doesn't show up for first call, the Judge will call them in the afternoon. Since they are coming from over 2 hours away, I doubt they will be there for first call. But, according to the clerk, I am still supposed to be there at 9:30. "Expect to be there all day", he said. If they aren't going to show up until the afternoon, why should I sit around for 5 hours waiting for them? Can I just come in the afternoon? (I have severe severe severe PTSD and anxiety and that is why this is going to be difficult for me. Also, will they order to me provide information when the plaintiff still hasn't answered my validation request. They were, under NY law, supposed to provide paperwork with the original complaint showing they own the debt. They didn't submit even one slip of paper. All they ever sent me was a list of charged off accounts they bought, with other account, and mine (supposedly, this is from 5 years ago and I have no paperwork to verify the account number is even correct). Nothing I asked for has been provided thereafter, like an accounting from a zero balance, etc. etc. Aren't they the ones who have to show they DO OWN the debt before I can be forced to provide information? Or should I not sweat it and fill out whatever I get like I have seen here (In general, denials and improper question, etc.). Just looking for a little validation and hand holding as the case is tomorrow and my anxiety is really kicking in. Thanks for any advice, or anything. -K
  3. The Supreme Court has changed its rules, preventing Pro Se litigants from having their case heard before our highest court. I strongly disagree with the message this sends. Free and equal access to all aspects of our legal system for all citizens is a basic principle that should not be changed. The following story highlights the last Pro Se party to argue before the Supreme Court - 30 years ago. See: