Keeping Things Private

[mparksmagic]

Some things are just meant to be kept private, especially when you are talking about legal matters. I've heard of a plaintiff researching one of these boards, finding the defendant that he was suing posts and using them as evidence in the courts. The defendant was pleading DV, DV DV!!!!!!! Only to have posted in a fourm that he was aware of the debt. The Plaintiff showed the judge copies of the posts, the judge asked if they were his posts under penalty of purjury, the Defendant answered "yes", He lost.

I think that this is a great forum for non-legal advice and insight on what your court day will be like (presuming you've never been), but in my future posts, I will never disclose any account information, names of an OC, CA, JDB, amounts owed, blood type, favorite football team, if im an organ donor.. etc.. I don't think anyone out here really needs that specific info to give advice, if you have a question about a specific JDB/CA/OC and others past experience with them, ask about it in a seperate thread from your case, chances are, you're being watched.

Not to make anyone paranoid, but thats just my .02

[cavazos007]

Some things are just meant to be kept private, especially when you are talking about legal matters. I've heard of a plaintiff researching one of these boards, finding the defendant that he was suing posts and using them as evidence in the courts. The defendant was pleading DV, DV DV!!!!!!! Only to have posted in a fourm that he was aware of the debt. The Plaintiff showed the judge copies of the posts, the judge asked if they were his posts under penalty of purjury, the Defendant answered "yes", He lost.

I think that this is a great forum for non-legal advice and insight on what your court day will be like (presuming you've never been), but in my future posts, I will never disclose any account information, names of an OC, CA, JDB, amounts owed, blood type, favorite football team, if im an organ donor.. etc.. I don't think anyone out here really needs that specific info to give advice, if you have a question about a specific JDB/CA/OC and others past experience with them, ask about it in a seperate thread from your case, chances are, you're being watched.

Not to make anyone paranoid, but thats just my .02

I agree. But that's awful!

[computerguy]

Kind of blows me away! Here's what needs to be done when you go to court to defend against a JDB. You need to go over and do a search on CollectionIndustry.com Debt Purchasing thread and dig up all the dirt on purchasers getting scammed out their money for bad Portfolios and all the other good stuff. Present that in court to the Black Robed Magistrate and make sure you seek discovery on the Chain of Title of the debt.

[luv2bhappy]

Some things are just meant to be kept private, especially when you are talking about legal matters. I've heard of a plaintiff researching one of these boards, finding the defendant that he was suing posts and using them as evidence in the courts. The defendant was pleading DV, DV DV!!!!!!! Only to have posted in a fourm that he was aware of the debt. The Plaintiff showed the judge copies of the posts, the judge asked if they were his posts under penalty of purjury, the Defendant answered "yes", He lost.

I think that this is a great forum for non-legal advice and insight on what your court day will be like (presuming you've never been), but in my future posts, I will never disclose any account information, names of an OC, CA, JDB, amounts owed, blood type, favorite football team, if im an organ donor.. etc.. I don't think anyone out here really needs that specific info to give advice, if you have a question about a specific JDB/CA/OC and others past experience with them, ask about it in a seperate thread from your case, chances are, you're being watched.

Not to make anyone paranoid, but thats just my .02

I understand your concern, but if a sworn affidavit is considered hearsay than how could text taken from a public forum be any different? With the tens of thousands of cases out there, in my opinion, one would have to be very specific to possibly reveal their true identity. I'm not disagreeing that it hasn't or couldn't happen, but unless a particular case has unusual circumstances I just don't see how one person could be specifically identified out of thousands.

[mparksmagic]

From my understanding of the law, a sworn affadavit is not necessarily considered hearsay if it is from the original party who has original knowledge of the incident. I think that posting may very well considered evidence, to put it in E.'s context, its kinda like OJ holding a big sign up in times square that says I Killed Her.

[luv2bhappy]

From my understanding of the law, a sworn affadavit is not necessarily considered hearsay if it is from the original party who has original knowledge of the incident. I think that posting may very well considered evidence, to put it in E.'s context, its kinda like OJ holding a big sign up in times square that says I Killed Her.

If you search the forums there are many diff opinions on sworn affidavits for individual circumstances. Who it came from, the location of the person ect... like everything else it varies by the individual circumstance. One reason I agree that the advice on any forum should only be used as a catalyst for your own research to apply to your own specific circumstance. Unless the text contains precise information I don't see how it could be proved to be any one person. As I said, I understand your concern. If the time comes when I am served I will be careful to not divulge too much specific information.

[divemedic]

Some things are just meant to be kept private, especially when you are talking about legal matters. I've heard of a plaintiff researching one of these boards, finding the defendant that he was suing posts and using them as evidence in the courts. The defendant was pleading DV, DV DV!!!!!!! Only to have posted in a fourm that he was aware of the debt. The Plaintiff showed the judge copies of the posts, the judge asked if they were his posts under penalty of purjury, the Defendant answered "yes", He lost.

First, there is frequently a need for people to be specific if they want specific advice. This sounds like the story of "I once heard from this guy, who's girlfriend's brother's roomate had this cousin who..."

This smells. Judges do not cross examine witnesses. Even if the judge did, knowing that you owe money to someone never causes you to lose your right to DV.

When Congress established the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, it established it as a control of the “use of abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a), and gave consumers a method by which they could seek damages from debt collectors who violate the act. Since the liability created by the Act is based upon deceptive and unfair behavior on the part of the debt collector, this behavior would be beyond the control of the unsophisticated debtor. (“Focus is on the debt collector's conduct, not the consumer's” Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998).)

“The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act makes debt collectors liable for various "abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices" regardless of whether the debt is valid. In the definitional section of the Act, "debt" is defined as "any obligation or alleged obligation of the consumer to pay money." Id. § 1692a(5). "The Act is designed to protect consumers who have been victimized by unscrupulous debt collectors, regardless of whether a valid debt actually exists." Baker v. G.C. Serv. Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir.1982) (citing 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695-96). The dismissal for failure to show that the underlying debt is void or voidable, therefore, was in error.” McCartney v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992)

[nascar]

Today, factual research consumes approximately 25-30% of time spent on billable research. Internet research is a large component of that percentage. It follows that so much time and money is not going to be spent on something that can be of no legal benefit.

The usefulness or lack thereof, along with any question of admissibility goes much deeper than any FDCPA or FCRA concerns. Rules of evidence are full of exceptions and almost any evidence can be painted as probative. One shouldn't assume in a court where a preponderance of the evidence decides the outcome, that their internet admissions or ramblings cannot in some way be turned against them.

Point is, always be conscious of the fact you never know who is reading your information and how they may intend to use it. If you're OK with that, post away; if not, don't do it.

[divemedic]

My point is that in the case mentioned above, if you are alleging FDCPA violations, it does not matter if the debt is valid or not, just as it does not matter if you are an unsophisticated consumer. The standard is "was the behavior of the CA in collecting a debt a violation of the FDCPA, or wasn't it"

Just because I admit that I owed money to ABC Electric Company does not mean that it was the $123 that XYZ collections was dunning me for, nor does it even mean that XYZ had the leal right to collect it.

To say that you are never going to disclose any information because you are afraid of who will read it is slightly paranoid. Give just enough information to get the advice you need.

That being said, it is prudent to watch what you say.

[mparksmagic]

My point is that in the case mentioned above, if you are alleging FDCPA violations, it does not matter if the debt is valid or not, just as it does not matter if you are an unsophisticated consumer. The standard is "was the behavior of the CA in collecting a debt a violation of the FDCPA, or wasn't it"

Just because I admit that I owed money to ABC Electric Company does not mean that it was the $123 that XYZ collections was dunning me for, nor does it even mean that XYZ had the leal right to collect it.

To say that you are never going to disclose any information because you are afraid of who will read it is slightly paranoid. Give just enough information to get the advice you need.

That being said, it is prudent to watch what you say.

I completely agree. This came from an unreputable source however the story is a lesson, you never know whos watching and when they'll bring it up.

I think the CA should not skip out on DV just because they have proof of a debt, however realistically, the judge always makes the final disposition.

[direred]

If you search the forums there are many diff opinions on sworn affidavits for individual circumstances. Who it came from, the location of the person ect... like everything else it varies by the individual circumstance.

One of the best examples of why hearsay is problematic is found in the movie "My Cousin Vinnie" about the line "I killed the clerk."

Sworn affidavits are presumed true, but every piece of evidence is refutable, and if you can demonstrate that it really IS hearsay, then you can exclude it.

[Recovering Attorney]

Remember what it is used for.

if I were that plaintiff, I'd use the posts to impeach the debtor .The debtor testifies "it's not mine, I even DV'd but they ignored me." I would impeach that statement with the posts where he admits to the debt. That goes to credibility, not liability.

However, I would also seek to have the posts admitted as an Admission or Statement Against Interest exception to the hearsay rule. But even if the judge denied the admission of the posts, I would have impeached the credibility of the innocent-sounding defendant. If my case is otherwise sufficient, and it comes down to my word vs. the debtor, I will hope the judge discredits the debtor's testimony and finds I've proved my case by a preponderence of the evidence.

[E. Normis Debtor]

As plaintiff, be prepared to have your own expert in computer forensics testify as to the authenticity and reliability of the web page content you produce when I challenge it.

Any web page can be manipulated to say anything you want it to say with only a very basic knowledge of HTML coding.

As an example, I just altered this very page. I changed your user ID from Recovering Attorney to Recovering Lawyer, and manipulated some of the wording of your post. The results are ------>here. Now I simply print it, bring it to court, and impeach your credibility.

Not that a CA would ever consider using any false representations in connection with collection of a debt. They're such an honest bunch

[astiman]

"As an example, I just altered this very page. I changed your user ID from Recovering Attorney to Recovering Lawyer, and manipulated some of the wording of your post. The results are ------>here. Now I simply print it, bring it to court, and impeach your credibility."

Say, Mods, isn't editing someone ELSES' posts sleazy and a violation of the TOS?

Just curious.

Also, Mods, doesn't it bother you that someone publicly states that they will edit content of your board?

[LNY]

This was done off-site and did not affect anything posted in this thread. It's no different from Photoshopping a picture. The poster was merely trying to prove that posts on an internet message board are too easily altered to be considered legally admissible documents. With only basic knowledge, you can manipulate them to appear to say anything you want them to, and then print them out... and they look real. But that doesn't mean the original post on the message board is altered in any way.

[E. Normis Debtor]

Exactly.

A point perhaps worth mentioning is that evidence, such as a web page, must, by most rules of evidence, be supplied to the other party in advance of trial or it is inadmissable. That provides you ample opportunity to mount a challenge to such evidence at trial.

[astiman]

OK.....

Just thought it looked sleazy, thanks LNY....

can never be too careful!

[LNY]

OK.....

Just thought it looked sleazy, thanks LNY....

can never be too careful!

No problem! I can understand what caused your alarm.

[mparksmagic]

Im flip and snarky and proud of it. Meow.

I guess I am proving normys case right here and mine wrong. It is too easy to edit things in posts. Most likely would not be admissable into evidence.

[LNY]

Originally Posted by E. Normis Debtor

Im flip and snarky and proud of it. Meow.

I guess I am proving normys case right here and mine wrong. It is too easy to edit things in posts. Most likely would not be admissable into evidence.

A backhanded personal insult is a personal insult all the same. No more of that, please.