Collection calls on Cell Phone!!!

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Erica, Aug 8, 2001.

  1. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    BILL What do you mean by collector here ?
    ================================


     
  2. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    How would this give them an out ?
    I.E. - What does my unused Mins. have to do with it?
    ***************

    WHY SO ????
     
  3. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    I can't speak for others

    _________________________________

    but I have to pay for my service !
     
  4. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

     
  5. cable666

    cable666 Well-Known Member

    Frivolous lawsuits

    The concept of a plaintiff having to pay for a defendant's legal expenses in the event the plaintiff looses will never happen in the US.

    However, in other countries such as the UK, this is common. What this does is force the plaintiff to weigh the expense of loosing a suit that they bring to bear. The idea is that only suits with merit and a good chance of winning are presented to the court.

    In the US, this will never fly. The concept that anyone can sue for anything is deeply engrained into our legal system. The US loves the underdog.

    Trial lawyers would make sure this can not be because it would eliminate the "no-downside" idea behind filing a suit.

    There are provisions for refusal of frivilous lawsuits. However, the standard of proof is so high that it takes an obsene amount of abuse to envoke this. It is reserved for the worst of the worst. When envoked, the frivolous suit is simply dismissed. There are no punishments for trying.

    So, once you are a delinquent debtor, you must be ever vigulant against abuse. The new BK reform in Congress right now demonstrates that no one cares about you. You are a scum bag and deserve everything that happens to you.

    The penalties for breaking the few laws that protect you are a joke. The only protection is for you to earn a black-belt in being a creditor's worst nightmare.
     
  6. roni

    roni Well-Known Member

    Re: Frivolous lawsuits

    Cable666,

    I wasnt aware of that. I thought you could countersue for legal expenses when someone files a frivolous civil suit against you by malicious intent. Learn something new everyday .
     
  7. cable666

    cable666 Well-Known Member

    Call on cell phone

    The FDCPA is right here:
    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm

    The FDCPA states.....

    § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f]
    A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:...

    (5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true propose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees.
    ...


    Now I feel that is not reasonable for a CA to know that a phone number is a cell phone which which will cause a charge for the phone call to the phone owner.

    However, once a CA is informed of this, I feel that they should not call.

    If they called my cell, I would inform them that this is a cell phone and this call is costing me money which is a violation of the FDCPA. I would then follow that call with with a certified RR letter stating the same.

    When you answer your cell phone, you are accepting the expenses of receving that call. I think this clearly falls under the practices prohibited by the FDCPA.

    Besides, this is all a moot point. You should NEVER discuss business with a CA on the phone. If you decide to communicate with a CA, get it all in writing. Use letters and certifed RR mail.
     
  8. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Well, I'm going to put all of the forms and instructions necessary to file small claims lawsuits up on my website for download in a few days. As soon as I get time to run them through the scanner
     
  9. cable666

    cable666 Well-Known Member

    Re: Frivolous lawsuits

    --------------------------------------------------------
    I wasnt aware of that. I thought you could countersue for legal expenses when someone files a frivolous civil suit against you by malicious intent. Learn something new everyday .
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Like I said, any one can sue for anything. You are correct. You CAN countersue for this. However, the burdon of proof to prove malicious intent is high. Sueing is one thing. Winning a suit is something else.

    That is why lawsuits have become billy clubs that people use to beat each other up with. The beauty if this "weapon" is that it rarely backfires.

    In general, the ability to sue is considered a fundamental right. It takes a lot of evidence to convice a judge that a suit is malicous.
     
  10. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

     
  11. cable666

    cable666 Well-Known Member

    -------------------------------------------
    Well, I'm going to put all of the forms and instructions necessary to file small claims lawsuits up on my website for download in a few days. As soon as I get time to run them through the scanner
    -------------------------------------------

    All SCC suits are local. How do you plan to post the forms for every local judicial district in the country?
     
  12. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by godaddyo
    MP40
    Instead, they charge it off and use it as a write off on their taxes and claim it on their insurance. They still benifit somehow.
    ==================================
    Then the bottom feeding collection agency decides that they can make a profit.
    so they try to collect on a debt that has been somewhat satisfied allready.
    A MORE ACCURATE STATEMENT.
    THEY ARE TRYING TO COLLECT ON A STISIFIED DEBT.
    ````````````````````````````````````````````````
    Technically, you are responsible for any taxes on the income that you recieved from not paying the debt.
    THIS IS NOT INCOME-WHY SHOULD YOU PAY TAX ON IT AGAIN WHEN YOU HAVE ALREDY PAID THE TAXES ON IT WHEN YOU EARNED THE MONEY?????
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Any debts that are used as a write off by a company are considered income by the debtor.
    IF THEY ARE GOING TO TAX YOU ON MONEY YOU DIDN.'T SPEND WHY NOT TAX US ON THE 14 CARS BOATS AND HOUSES WE DIDN'T BUY LAST YEAR?
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You then become liable for those taxes,. It is all a double whammy if you ask me. NOT FAIR!!!
    IF THEY DO THAT THEN WHY NOT CHARGE YOU INCOME TAX ON EVERY THING YOU RETURN TO WALLMART AND EVERY PLACE ELSE?
    ////////////////////////

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This is considered income by law. I didnt write the laws, I just know that they exist. The comparision of returning items is ridiculous (unless of course, you DO NOT OWE THE DEBT). If you do not actually owe the debt, then it is not considered income. But if you are actually liable for the debt, it is considered income if it is not paid. The creditor is responsible for paying taxes on income recieved. If they cannot collect or they are not compensated, they write the debt off. This is their tax loophole. It is what keeps business alive and well. This leaves the issue of someone benifiting and not paying. Since the goverment compensated the business, you become liable for the taxes due to the fact that it is NOW considered income!!!
     
  13. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Re: Frivolous lawsuits

    The penalties for breaking the few laws that protect you are a joke. The only protection is for
    you to earn a black-belt in being a creditor's worst nightmare.
    _________________-
    That is exactly right, and allows me to bring up a point of law that few ever think about or check out before going to court.

    Does the creditor have standing to sue in small claims courts in your state? If not, then demand dismissal on grounds that the court has no jurisdiction. or for lack of standing to sue, which ever is approptiate in your state or even both.

    Here is the "meat". A corporation does not have standing to sue in small claims court in many states unless they at least maintain a minimum business presence in that state, meaning have some minimal office facility or at least a mailing address in that state from which they regularly gather mail., a telephone number, something that establishes and meets the eligibility clause.

    If not, they have no standing to sue in small claims court in that state. They must bump it up to a higher court which is going to up the cost of the suit tremendously, therefore possibly calling into question the worth of the suit which may well be too small to make it worth while.

    Remember that to use the trick, it has to be so in your state. It is not true in all states that I know of.

    A whole bag full of such tricks can quickly make you a creditor's worst nightmare. It might also be applicable in a case where the judgement has already been awarded. I don't know about htat. But if the plaintiff had no standing to sue in the court in the first place then any ruling of the court would be null and void since it had no jurisdiction.

    In that case, it should be a reason to go back to court, file your own motion for summary judgement and win. And it does not even make any difference if the corporation does now have the required minimal business presence, did they when they filed the suit?

    It's little tricks like that that make the difference between being so poorly equipped that your only recourse is to spam the credit bureaus to death and having the knowledge and therefore the power to hang them out to dry.
     
  14. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    GoDAddyo:

    Your post makes it seem that you do not understand the accounting principles behind this deall.
    Maybe you do and just didn't state it that way.

    Here is the math behind it.

    The company porvided you with something of value. Let us say that the amount was $100.00 and you got the merchandise and did not pay for it. The company lost the $100 and are therfore entitled to take it off their taxes. You got $100 worth of something you did not pay for and therefore it becomes extra income for you. You are supposed to have to pay the taxes on it since the creditor did not.

    In actuality, only the govenment benefits if at all.
     
  15. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    Gosh Bill,
    I thought that was what I said. Maybe I didnt , Oh well....
     
  16. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    Yes, and maybe I just didn't read it correctly either.

    No biggie.
     
  17. godaddyo

    godaddyo Well-Known Member

    Bill,
    I thought I was the only NIGHT owl at creditnet. It is 1200am here in OHIO.
     
  18. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    And now it's nearly that here in Oklahoma.

    I'm usually up this late and later.

    Right now, I'm just trying to catch up with the mail because we have been installing a new computer system the last couple of days and about all I have to work with some of the time is one of my laptops.
     
  19. Hal

    Hal Well-Known Member

    [/B][/QUOTE]

    I think that really depends on who your cellphone provider is. The area code for example on my cell number is the same as the surrounding homes, the three digit exchange (i.e. 555-xxxx) is exactly the same as many residential and business phones in my area.


    As for someone indicating these were private numbers, I am not certain how it works with cellphones. When I was working as a Child Support Enforcement officer in California, "Unlisted" numbers were readily available simply by calling directory assistance and advising the operator the number may be unlisted. "Unpublished" numbers were definitely not available as they do not appear in any directory including the ones used by Directory Assistance. Until that time I was unaware there was even a difference in unlisted and unpublished
     
  20. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    The only thing I did was agree to pay the creditor in full.
    When the creditor receives payment from me or anyone it pays the account in full & releases me from any obligation to it!
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
     

Share This Page