Charge fave Butch growling dude for those Marc-saucy rumors, KHM!!!!!! Pass me a marker so I can go write it on the bathroom wall. ;-) Sassy
Where is 'ol jo? After she opened her big mouth she shut it up pretty quick! Hopefully, she realized what she said was pretty stupid. Charlie
As others would say IMO this whole treaad should just be deleted. I don't think it has any business on a credit related bulletin board.
I agree...this whole thread should be deleted. None of it, including all of the comments referencing "nagging" and "divorce" and "counseling" should be removed. Airing dirty laundry may not be appropriate, but responding to it is just as bad. Hawg Hanner
But isn't it the same IP address? How could it be someone else? (I'm computer stupid, so maybe that's a dumb ???)
Lyttlemac here, chiming in... Smogtech's experience just reinforces my own observation -- mediation is a crock. I'll take my chances in front of a real judge, and not a pretend-judge-attorney taking the small claims overload cases, either. Mediation is a waste of time for the little guy, and I think it can even hurt more than it helps.
I'm glad Jo brought up the point about mediation, and how horribly wrong it can go. Let's face it, most of us threaten to sue, but Jo and Smog did, and they got tripped up because they were facing a stacked deck. If Jo hadn't posted about the downside of mediation, a lot of us would still naively accept mediation as an attractive alternative to facing a judge in a crowded courtroom. And when you're sitting in a full courtroom, the idea of going off to an informal setting and working out your differences sounds like a such a touchy-feely lovely idea. But guess what? In the kind of suits we are/will be filing, we will almost ALWAYS be facing experienced, lying, debt collecting scumbag attorneys. Mediators (who in small claims court, are often young, impressionable attorneys-in-training) will assume the attorney knows more than you, they will side with your opponent, and your confidence in your case will be shaken. You may be intimidated and sign anything (and yes, even pay something you don't owe). Do not use mediation. If your jurisdiction makes it mandatory that you at least attempt mediation -- do not get frazzled or lose your cool or get emotional. Make it as short as possible, then go back to the courtroom and let your case be heard in front of a judge. I think we can learn just as much, or perhaps even more, from the cases we lose as those we win. If people only posted their success stories, any one of us could easily find ourselves in the same spot Smog was in and be blindsided, because we walked into a trap that we thought was going to be a slam dunk. Jo and Smog had a bad day in court, but I'm sure they'll kiss and make up and live to fight another day. They are valuable contributors to the board. In fact, I just printed out a list of damages to use when filing a complaint (from Jo's 9-26-02 post). (And if we don't quit looking for trolls under every bridge, nobody is every going to post anything negative and, well, what I said above).
There has been lot of HARD and few SOFT enquiries on smogtek's DEROGATORY remarks. The person who posted should be BLACKLISTED however this person can dispute all the CHARGEsOFF several times until s/he get tired and if nothing works, file BK AND get discharged, Anybody can change this copyrights until patented.
Most of the people on this board do NOT want mediation. The reason is that mediation is designed to bring two opposing parties together and arrive at a nice, fair solution. Unfortunately, a nice, fair solution is to pay the debt you owe, allow the creditor to report it accurately as late, and to ignore the trivial little violation of FCRA or FDCPA law, since it really has no bearing on the core issue of whether or not you owe the money. You do NOT want a nice, fair, touchy-feely solution to the whole problem in general, you WANT to use a nitpicky but clearly illegal violation to force a result that is not "normal". Don't mediate if you have a choice. If you have no choice, don't agree to anything, and get the dispute back into court, where the judge at least has some chance of actually CARING about technical violations of the law.
reddevil, I disagree with your post completely. When you take a CRA/CA to court it has NOTHING to do with the debt owed. It has to do with violation of Federal law. The debt issue is not an issue. Charlie
I'm flying with charlie!!!!!! Nodding -- accurate and good advice, not to be forgotten and lost in the minutia. The subject of the court action is the method and manner of collection -- doesn't have anything to do with the underlying debt. Sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy charlie ;-) Sassy
Hmmmm....are you SURE you disagree with Reddevil, Charlie? It sounded to me like you guys were saying the same thing. Or am I the one misreading? DemPooches
