Recommended Posts

It's good to hear that his case did not get dismissed.   However, I do not know if a jury will award him very much money if they feel he was not seriously effected.   I have seen cases where a jury awarded $1.00 in statutory damages.   Best of luck to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Flyerfan, but it is the wildly varying posts, aside from Coltfan's that are the great equalizer, imo.  Readers/posters get ALL sides of the information on the forum.  Now the "in your face, stir the pot when you're right" element is gone -- good, bad, or indifferent.  And to whomever mentioned 'freedom of speech' -- that phrase and its definition are controlled (and rightly so), by the 'owner(s)' of this website.  Remember, it's dot COM for a reason.

 

Best to all,

-J

 

That was referring to the defendant trying to get the judge to rule that Coltfan shouldn't be allowed to post in forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was back in April. He was warned and apparently didn't heed the warning. While I agree Coltfan is a great resource and what drew me to this site in the first place, he does sometimes tend to depict court as a circus and it is sometimes misleading to new posters. His style definitely works for him and I personally LOVE his style but I think we all have to be very careful to make sure our advice helps not only the people asking for it, but everybody who reads these posts. What may work for one, doesn't always work for another. The gun slinging style of Coltfan is awe inspiring but not always practical. I do wish him all the best and thank him for all the help he has given me and others.

 

Miss you, buddy!

 

::BigGun::

 

Wouldn't a "Don't try this at home" disclaimer in his sig line work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in essence they won even though the judge did not rule in their favor.

The fact that they can use his posts is a big win for them.  Normally, a debtor's character is inadmissible in a FDCPA trial (to a large extent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't care about damages. He wants to ring up their legal fees for being a bunch of jerks.

 

These posts are all discoverable, people. He doesn't care. Who's not to say his posts weren't fueled by the emotional distress inflicted upon him by the deviation1 of the law by the CA?

 

 

 

1, The CAs law firm referred to their clients actions as a 'minor deviation' of the law, and therefore they are not liable. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know what the deductible of that CAs policy was but I am sure it was reached a while ago.

 

Heck yeah. They seem to have gotten very emotionally invested in the lawsuit and it clouded their judgment. I think it was on the other board someone mentioned CA's and JDB's will spend a lot of money when they are trying to set a precedent, and also when they are trying to keep one from being set. So, that might have something to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that he is not worried if he only receives a dollar as long as he wins. I have seen so many FDCPA claims where the defense attorneys do little more than file an answer,corporate certificate, etc. and bill a couple of thousand. Most of this is nothing more than filling in the blanks on a legal version of a turbo tax type program. I would guess at this point the attorneys fees against him are way north of 10k - 12k and climbing. If it goes all the way they will probably at least hit the 20K+ range. 

 

Now that he has an attorney that just adds things up even more. All he has to do at this point is to get a win with zero damages and the defendants will be in it deep. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I did not have the case number I'm 99%% sure I found the coltfans case.  After reading all it it's pretty obvious he's not just in it only for money in his pocket. I even saw something in there it might have been a quote in the deposition where he said he does not care if he gets a buck and his attorney gets 80K in legal fees.   Reading that meltdown the other lawyers had I can see why he hired him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was referring to the defendant trying to get the judge to rule that Coltfan shouldn't be allowed to post in forums.

If you want to read about the latest on this area of the case...

 

This is Coltfans thread on the other board

 

"Federal Judge Tell Collection Agency Atty, I Have a Right To Post Debtorboards"

 

Located at

 

http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?topic=24335.0

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck yeah. They seem to have gotten very emotionally invested in the lawsuit and it clouded their judgment. I think it was on the other board someone mentioned CA's and JDB's will spend a lot of money when they are trying to set a precedent, and also when they are trying to keep one from being set. So, that might have something to do with it.

At one point my fees on a case where the case was settled just after they filed an answer was $5,000.00.    Fees add up quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck yeah. They seem to have gotten very emotionally invested in the lawsuit and it clouded their judgment. I think it was on the other board someone mentioned CA's and JDB's will spend a lot of money when they are trying to set a precedent, and also when they are trying to keep one from being set. So, that might have something to do with it.

 

Oh yea, there's a case in Illinois, Unifund Partners v. Shah that's being appealed for the second time right now. The first appeal set a pretty steep precedent on what's required to prove a JDB is the owner or assignee of a debt. So of course the JDBs are fighting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief is not a second appeal, it's just the outsiders (NACA) brief pleaing their case to proceed with their scham affidavits as before.

  Unifund vs Shah sets the precedent for collection agency act and how it should be enforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief is not a second appeal, it's just the outsiders (NACA) brief pleaing their case to proceed with their scham affidavits as before.

  Unifund vs Shah sets the precedent for collection agency act and how it should be enforced.

 

According to this: http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/narca-files-amicus-brief-in-illinois-debt-buyer-appeal/

 

There's a second appeal going on. That's all I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Michigan, the Court of Appeals has ruled and opinioned that without every document stated in the bill of sale, a JDB cannot prove standing on the bill of sale alone. The hard part is neither caselaw is published, but there are articles written by collection attorneys referencing the two primary cases where the COA ruled that the sales agreement (Forward Flow Agreement) needs to be produced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that finds it funny there are close to 50 posts and over 1,000 views and the subject of the post is about a guy that was banned six weeks ago.  Did the guy threaten to kill the president or something.   Seems like the same few posters come out for most threads but bring up coltsfan and the thread gets triple the attention, and it's a guy/gal that was kicked off six weeks ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.