New letter from attorney

Were you properly served?

Do you have any assets such as bank accounts or real estate they can attach to? If you are married, and in a community property state, they might try to come after your hubby.

 

The for Pete's sake go and show them they can't collect from you. Since they are paying their lawyer for this by the hour, drag the damned thing out as long as you can. They are paying their lawyer a LOT more than you may be paying a babysitter. just sit there and babble all you want - they are paying a lawyer by the minute and a transriptionst, who is taking down every word, by the page. Sit there and enjoy the fact that you are costing them a fortune.

This gives you a chance to really make them throw a lot of good money after bad. How? make your answers as long as you can while saying nothing. Here's an example:

Question: Who is your employer?

Answer: That all depends on what you mean by "employer". If you mean who I work for, I must say that I spend most of my time working for my dear beloved children. Want to see a picture of them (fumbling through purse)... here they are. The first one is James, he's six and loves baseball. He's going to be on the Little League next year. This one is Sandra, she likes ballet. She's 4 and wants to be a ballerina some day, but you know how expensive ballet lessons are. The last is my baby, Michael. He's one and isn't he precious? If you mean "who pays me for work", I don't have one. I do volunteer down at the Church on Wednesday evenings and I get to take home the extra donuts. You gonna garnishee my donuts? Does that mean I have to send you 1 out of every ten of mu donuts or 1 out of every 4? Is that before or after I share them with my children?

So, what did the creditor get out of all this blather? NOTHING, except a bill from the lawyer and transcriptionist.

 

Why? In this situation, that's your best leverage! They're trying to determine if there's any blood left in that turnip that they can suck out.

My mom, bless her heart, had one character flaw while she was alive that probably led to a much earlier death than otherwise. She had this "looking good" thing going on. It pretty much killed her. Literally.

Long story short, she was stuck under her doctor's care in the hospital and the doctor wouldn't release her. She wanted to come home. She was suffering from a respiratory condition (COPD), and respiratory doctors don't consider COPD and related conditions to be "terminal", so they won't even talk with Hospice. Well, we (the kids) managed to get mom set up with an interview with a Hospice care evaluator.

Mom spent the entire morning having the nurses tripping over themselves to make her look good. She got some extra medication so she was feeling and looking her absolute best! The Hospice evaluator spent about half an hour with her and left. At that point, mom was so exhausted she ended up sleeping for the rest of the day. The Hospice worker's evaluation: my mom was nowhere NEAR ill enough for consideration by Hospice.

If my mom wasn't so concerned about "looking good" and was willing to have the interview conducted while she was lying in the hospital bed with no makeup, dressed only in her green hospital gown, and needing assistance to drink to keep from dribbling on herself, she would have been out of there in a few days. She ended up spending the last three months of her life a virtual prisoner in the hospital. For years, she kept saying that was NOT how she wanted to go. But her obsession with "looking good" forced our hands to where there was nothing we could do. We couldn't even get a second follow-up interview with the Hospice folks.

I'd say, go to court dressed in the shabbiest clothes you've got. Bring the kid along apologizing that you couldn't afford the babysitter and you don't trust the neighbor. Say how you're missing your pre-natal exam at the medical clinic across town because of this thing and you hope they'll get it over with quickly so you can get there and home before the busses stop running. And on the way out, ask the other lawyer for a few bucks so you can buy some food for your kid. Act totally shameless, but be courteous and respectful.

And do what Flyingifr says -- don't be afraid to explain everything in excruciating detail. Bring your bills and have a story to tell with each one. And play really dumb. Don't be surprized if the judge keeps asking more questions and asking you to go into more details, sounding really interested.

If the judge asks you how you got all of this credit, just say you get these things in the mail, fill them out, and return them. Sometimes you'll get a card in the mail, and you use it to pay for stuff for the kids. If the judge asks you what you think these are for, well ... maybe there are some guys you talk with about financial assistance who are trying to get you some grants? Are you aware you need to repay what you spend on these cards vs. the ones you get that are government subsidies?

The judge will have to wonder why the guys suing you shouldn't be thrown out on their ears for even issuing you credit, let alone trying to collect from you. He might even recommend a BK lawyer to help you for free.

 

If you have never been to a "Debtors judgment" hearing DON'T It's not a good thing. Under oath you can be asked all sorts of things you do not want a creditor to know. Avoid service if you can.

 

This "form" gives an idea of what kind of questions they will ask. I pray it doesnt get worse than this. Judgment Debtor Questionaire

 

But not limited to----I have looked at a 4-page questionaire (small print) takes better than an hour to go through.

 

And almost a month to answer if you can drag it out long enough. The last Debtors Examination questionnaire I saw was 108 questions. I figured it would take a lawyer 3 days of solid cross examination to get all 108 of them answered, and they would be no closer to collecting a dime from me than they were the minute they started.

BTW, it is very rare for a Judge to preside over a Supplemental proceeding. It is done at a Courthouse in case a Judge is needed to rule on an objection or for other reasons, but don't expect any Judges to waste their time the way this attorney will be wasting his.

 

Well, whatever you do don't fall for the advice you are getting here. Like this especially dumb one.

That will be very likely to get you a contempt of court citation for failure to cooperate with the process of getting at your money. Most of the lawyers who do this kind of work have been there and heard it all. They can spot a debtor trying to be cagey and uncooperative in a heartbeat and won't hesitate to go to the judge and demand that you be cited for contempt of court. If you would like to spend some time away from your babies and your husband and in the bucket then all you have to do is follow the flyingifr moronic method of agressive credit repair.

The other bit of even worse advice is don't go to court. That will get you an arrest warrant for contempt of court so fast you won't know what hit you and when you are found you will be hauled to the nearest jail and if you have your babies with you they will go to the state foster care facility often known as Department of Human Services. Then your husband can try to get them back and he may or may not be successful.

The only bit of sound advice you have received so far is to go looking as poor as possible. Make sure you are not wearing any kind of jewelry and most especially not your wedding rings. Taking the kids with you would be a good idea except what are you going to do with them when the judge orders you to get them out of the courtroom? Judges won't allow small children in the courtroom because they may start crying or otherwise disturb the process so that was another bit of ignorant advice. Nice if you could do it but you can't.

Be sure you don't take any money into the courthouse with you. Leave all your money in the car and your purse too. Don't take any kind of identification. Wear your poorest looking clothes even if you have to go to a goodwill store and buy some ugly old dress and a red bandanna to put around your head. One of those big old red or blue handkerchief types.

Most judges won't spend any of their time asking you any questions except whether you are present Once he knows that the attorney and you are both present he will send you to a conference room or out in the hall to answer the attorney's questions.

Let's take a few example questions they might ask you, either on the written questionaire or in person.

Some examples.

1. What is your social security number.

Feel around in your pockets and get a surprised look on your face and say you don't know it and you forgot your billfold. They already have it anyway.

2. Did you bring your bank statements with you?

No. I don't keep those things. Should I? If he wants to carry that one any further ask him to tell you what law requires you to keep old bank statements.

3. Did you bring your income tax returns for the last 2 or 3 or so years?

No, I don't keep those things either. Should I? What law requires you to keep old tax returns.

No law requires you to keep either of those and if the lawyer claims there is ask him to show you the law.

He will ask you how much money you have in the bank. Be sure you don't have any money in any bank. If your husband is not on the judgment get your name off of any bank accounts. If both of you were working and both of you contributing to the bank account then you could keep your name on it fairly safely but you say you aren't working so get your name off of any bank accounts.

If you have more than one car in the family get your name off of them. As far as personal items of value, you got nothing but the clothes on your back and some cosmetics. Personal stuff. Everything in the house belongs to your husband. That works unless you are in a community property state.

Don't ramble on as suggested by the great flyingiffy. Give the shortest and most direct answers possible without giving them a thing to go on or work with. Appear to be as frightened and as cooperative as possible even to the point of crying if they get blustery.

Usually they won't. Act as stupid as possible without being too obvious about it.

Take a very small digital voice recorder with you and put it in your bra. Turn it on before you get to the courtroom door and leave it on unless they make you go through a metal detector at the courthouse door. Even then they will often let you through with a warning that you aren't supposed to record anything in the courthouse.

Why would you do that even though you know you aren't supposed to do it?
Because even though you have a garnishment against you the lawyer still has to follow FDCPA every step of the way and if you can catch him giving you false and misleading information you can haul him into federal court and sue him for it there. That changes their tune into a whine pretty quickly. If you can't take a recorder or simply don't want to then try to remember everything he says for the record and write it all down on a tablet as soon as you get back to the car so it is fresh in your memory.

I have a friend who recently went through that same process and is in about the same position as you. They were in foreclosure and I was helping her and her husband with that. Citibank foreclosed on a piece of rental property they had. They sent a company out to winterize the home on the property. It was a trailer house. They broke into the home forcibly and ruined quite a bit of the plumbing, caused a freeze up and much more. "We" (meaning they) sued the bank for illegal eviction from the property because the foreclosure had not yet been adjudicated. They sued for $35,000 but the bank wanted to settle rather than go before a jury. They had to sue in state court of course. They didn't get any $35,000 cash but they did get 2 years worth of back taxes paid for them free, They got forgiveness of about 2 years worth of unpaid payments and a few hundred for damages and their note reinstated with payments about $250 a month less than before and maybe some other littel perks I can't recall right now.

Well, she had also been sued by a debt collector on a credit card debt she made before she got married. She is a stay at home mom like you and they sent her an asset questionaire and a summons to court to answer them. She went just like I'm telling you to go. Looking poor and not working except at home. The lawyer got all mean and nasty with her so we threatened to sue him in federal court but he didn't want to go there so he told her to just do the best she could to get them some money. He knocked off his attorney fees and told her not to worry about it and guaranteed that no more interest or other penalties would be laid on her. She is supposed to be going to work part time in a couple of weeks or so and says that if she does she will use that money to pay on the debt since the family really don't need the extra money since their mortgage payments are going to be so much lower.

So do what I tell you. Go looking as poor as possible and no jewelry, no money with you, nothing. Not even any makeup. Answer their questions without giving them any more information than you just have to but at the same time don't make it look like you are trying to waste their time or any of that foolishness. That will only get you in trouble and for heaven's sakes don't fail to do because that will end up getting you thrown in jail for a while.

 

As usual, Cap1sucks gives some good advice with his usual bad advice. Actually, between his comments about not having any documents that you are required by law to keep and mine to blabber about anything and everything peripheral to the question, you have a pretty good answer as to what to do at the hearing.

Cap1's statement that the strategy of just blabbering on and on about peripheral issues "will be very likely to get you a contempt of court citation for failure to cooperate with the process of getting at your money" is just plain wrong. Obviously, he has never been to one of these hearings. I have. I did just that and there was no Contempt citation, or even mention of one. After two days of this (and getting nothing useful) the attorney simply dismissed the proceedings. Remember - in my example you ultimately DID answer the question

Question: Who is your employer?

with

I don't have one

but in your own sweet time. No Court rule requires a one-word answer to any question. Cap1sucks seems to overlook that fact.

The fact is, he and I are looking at the same answer from two different perspectives - he is looking at stonewalling the questions by not having any documents the law does not require you to have and by having a very poor memory. I am looking at it as a way to run their costs up so high that they ultimately abandon the exercise and will think twice about doing it again.

Both are good strategies.

 

More bad advice from Cap1sucks:

Both of these acts can very easily be construed as Fraud of Creditor.

If you are asked these questions, (and do NOT drain any bank accounts in advance, re-title them or in any way change them) answer truthfully. Your answer is "as of today". When you answered, your answer was truthful - and you have not committed any act in Fraud of Creditor.

As soon as you leave the Courthouse you have the legal right to close those bank accounts and move your funds to a different bank. The answers you gave at the hearing were complete and accurate at the time you gave them. It is not fraud to make that information useless soon afterwards.

As far as the cars are concerned, re-titling them would be just plain dumb, since state Motor Vehicles records can be produced to prove the Fraud of Creditor. BUT... after the hearing you can sell a car. There is no legal requirement you turn the proceeds over to your creditors.

Another piece of useless and incorrect advice:

The issuance of the Summons moved the entire proceeding out of FDCPA and brought it under State Court rules and State Court Laws. There is no need to bring a tape recorder - there will be a Court Stenographer there who will be taking verbatim transcripts (and the creditor will be paying). If you need a transcript you can get an official one from the transcriptionist.

 

Most of what Flyingifr is saying here is correct. But not in a garnishment or assets hearing. Now then, maybe they do things differently in Arizona or other states but in the several instances where I sat in on such proceedings the judges call the case and see if both the defendant and the plaintiffs attorney are present and then send them out in a hallway where there are benches and the defendant and the attorney work things out together if at all possible and then once the attorney is done with his questions he reports back to the judge who approves or does whatever is necessary to conclude the hearing. Meanwhile he goes on with other cases.Such hearings usually take less than half hour of the attorney's time and about 5 or 10 minutes of court time.

So if they do things differently in Arizona then both of us are correct or maybe both of us are essentially saying the same things here.

 

Obviously nothing is obvious. I have personally been to at least a dozen of these types of hearings over the years. At many of them I have just sat there until a few cases have been heard and then went out to the hallway outside the courtroom where the attorneys and their clients have been sent to work out what they are going to do. I use an ear piece which looks like a cellphone ear piece but is actually a very sensitive audio amplifier and I can hear every word that is being said and can follow the conversation. The hallways are about 12 to 15 feet wide so I sit on the opposite wall and can hear every word very plainly. Then go back into the courtroom and see what the judge does from there. They all follow the same pattern in general.

Maybe so, but in how many different courtrooms and before how many different judges?

Of course not! Attorneys are not going to ask for any contempt citations because nobody in their right mind is going to give them a bunch of guff. People just want to get it over with and get out of there as fast as possible. Nobody wants to sit in the court room and give the plaintiff's attorney a bunch of IFR guff and smartA** answers.

Two days in court on the stand answering their questions? That is simply outrageous because nobody is going to do that except some fool who wants to take chances with a very angry judge and attorney. No judge is going to sit through that kind of tomfoolery.

No, Cap1sucks didn't overlook anything at all, not even the obvious fact that rather than trying to make a fool out of the attorney it would have been much quicker and simpler to just say you don't have an employer and don't work for anybody. Just say it and get on with it. Anything else is just plain dumb.

 

Well, I guess you can pick anything to pieces if you want to but if your husband is not on the judgment and he takes you off his bank accounts you did nothing wrong. If he did it then it was beyond your control and you didn't do it to defraud your creditors. Your husband did it to protect his money.

Yes, but that could also be construed as an attempt to hide your money form creditors. You could legally drain the bank account to pay living expenses provided you can prove where the money went to. If you just take the money out and hide it somewhere such as in your purse and can't account to where it went then you are defrauding your creditors. Closing the account would be a very bad thing to do and even more so if you moved it to some new bank account.

Well, that's partially true at least. But first of all, they can't take your only car unless it is some luxury vehicle worth a lot of money and is free and clear in your name only. If the vehicle is free and clear you can sell it but a better plan is to borrow money from a close relative. Of course, there would also have to be a note and an agreement to repay the loan and that money could be used to repay another debt you owed another relative. But you shouldn't have to worry about all of that if you owe money on the car or the car is an older one not worth all that much. If it is a newer car but you owe a lot of money on it then there is nothing to worry about.

Or an equally useless and incorrect attempt to make people think you know what you are talking about.

It sure would be nice for you if your opinion mattered more than that of the federal courts who have ruled time and time again on this very issue. However that is not the case. The federal courts have ruled that garnishment is still an attempt to collect a debt (an obvious conclusion for them to draw) and that therefore the collector is still bound to follow FDCPA in everything they do.

HO! HO! HO! IF you want a court stenographer there you have to pay for it not the creditor. If you doubt that just call up your local court clerk and ask who has to pay for getting a court reporter there and you will very quickly find out the IFR hasn't got a clue and hasn't got the foggiest idea about that or much of anything else. If you still believe Flying then just ask the clerk how much it costs to get there and whether or not all you have to do is ask the transcriptionist for copies and will very quickly learn two facts.
1. Such transcripts can be very expensive and especially if you want them in a hurry.
2. Flying hasn't a clue. He's flying IFR (which means Instrument Flight Rules which are what pilots use when flying in low visibility conditions) and trying to blindly lead you through the storm clouds found in court rooms. The first instrument he relies on is your ignorance of the law and the way court hearings are conducted. If he were so smart he would not have had to hire attorneys to file his 3 cases in federal court which he claims to have won and used the funds gained thereby to buy the airplane he claims to own but has never provided any actual proof of that. Anybody can take a picture of some airplane and claim it is his but if you look up the FAA registration certificate for the claimed aircraft it don't have Steven Katz on it.

Of course, that might be because the FAA don't have up to date records, now mightn't it?

 

Well, I guess you can pick anything to pieces if you want to but if your husband is not on the judgment and he takes you off his bank accounts you did nothing wrong. If he did it then it was beyond your control and you didn't do it to defraud your creditors. Your husband did it to protect his money.

You could legally drain the bank account to pay living expenses provided you can prove where the money went to. If you just take the money out and hide it somewhere such as in your purse and can't account to where it went then you are defrauding your creditors. Closing the account would be a very bad thing to do and even more so if you moved it to some new bank account.

Well, that's partially true at least. But first of all, they can't take your only car unless it is some luxury vehicle worth a lot of money and is free and clear in your name only. If the vehicle is free and clear you can sell it but a better plan is to borrow money from a close relative. Of course, there would also have to be a note and an agreement to repay the loan and that money could be used to repay another debt you owed another relative. But you shouldn't have to worry about all of that if you owe money on the car or the car is an older one not worth all that much. If it is a newer car but you owe a lot of money on it then there is nothing to worry about.
Or an equally useless and incorrect attempt to make people think you know what you are talking about.

It sure would be nice for you if your opinion mattered more than that of the federal courts who have ruled time and time again on this very issue. However that is not the case. The federal courts have ruled that garnishment is still an attempt to collect a debt (an obvious conclusion for them to draw) and that therefore the collector is still bound to follow FDCPA in everything they do.

HO! HO! HO! IF you want a court stenographer there you have to pay for it not the creditor. If you doubt that just call up your local court clerk and ask who has to pay for getting a court reporter there and you will very quickly find out the IFR hasn't got a clue and hasn't got the foggiest idea about that or much of anything else. If you still believe Flying then just ask the clerk how much it costs to get there and whether or not all you have to do is ask the transcriptionist for copies and will very quickly learn two facts.
1. Such transcripts can be very expensive and especially if you want them in a hurry.
2. Flying hasn't a clue. He's flying IFR (which means Instrument Flight Rules which are what pilots use when flying in low visibility conditions) and trying to blindly lead you through the storm clouds found in court rooms. The first instrument he relies on is your ignorance of the law and the way court hearings are conducted. If he were so smart he would not have had to hire attorneys to file his 3 cases in federal court which he claims to have won and used the funds gained thereby to buy the airplane he claims to own but has never provided any actual proof of that. Anybody can take a picture of some airplane and claim it is his but if you look up the FAA registration certificate for the claimed aircraft it don't have Steven Katz on it.

Of course, that might be because the FAA don't have up to date records, now mightn't it?

In that case you all ought to see the pictures of my new Boeing 787. I just got pictures of it off the Boeing website. It is the biggest airplane in existence
today. Don't know how much it cost me because they haven't sent me the bill yet.
(LOL)

 

Yes they can be but they are 100% admissible in Court.

First, what in creation has my screen name (which has absolutely nothing to do with credit repair) have to do as implicating my knowledge of credit repair? No on is leading the OP blind through anything. Even Cap1sucks has SOME knowledge of this subject.

Second, as I have stated on several occasions, I have not hired any attorneys to represent me in Federal or any other Court. mark is a personal friend of mine. Period, end of issue. I prepared the briefs, he filed them.

Third, all three cases were settled. None went to trial.

Fourth, I need provide no proof that I purchased an airplane. The fact that the airplane is not registered in my name is a liability issue. I registered the airplane in the name of an Arizona LLC which I completely own. THAT's why the FAA doesn't have the airplane in my name. Now... if you are really curious, do this --- follow the FAA registered owner of a certain Cherokee 180 N7049W to the Arizona Corporation Commission website and you will find me as the sole Member of the LLC that owns that airplane.

Now, back to Cap1's original rant:

You don't want to give the appearance of acting in Fraud of Creditors - that is why I suggested not retitling any assets before the Deposition. There is time after the deposition to make all that testimony absolutely useless, and to do it legally.

If a party other than the judgment debtor removes their name from the title of an account, no Fraud of Creditors can have been committed because the person committing the change is not the debtor. BUT... the non-debtor removing their name still leaves the account open to attack. The OPPOSITE is the strategy. The best way is to simply close the account (instead of retitling it) and open a new account somewhere else, sans the Judgment Debtor's name.

Now, on to the cars.... just what a Judgement Debtor needs - advice to borrow "money" from a friend or relative and make the friend or relative a lienholder. Jeeezus, a first year Law student could poke holes through that. It's called a "sham transaction". better to just get a commercial Title Loan against it. No questions asked on that one. No one says you have to give the loan proceeds to any creditor. Best transaction would be to sell the excess car. Obviously, you would do a Kelley Blue Book on the car and if it is Free and Clear and worth more than a couple of Thousand dollars then a Judgment creditor can and may very well take it. Absent those facts, a Judgment Creditor will probably decide to leave it alone. You could read "Frustrating the Repossessor" in the Flyingifr Method on Debtorboards for more information.

Whether Garnishment is a Collection Action is not the issue - the debt has been reduced to a Judgment. What is Cap1 saying? When you receive the notification that the Judgment is to be entered against you, THAT is the time to demand VOD? No.... that is the time to start making yourself Judgment Proof.

Cap1 is beginning to sound more and more like Billie Bauer every day, with his nonsensical advice buttered around a grain of truth.

 

The only court you would use the state court transcript in would be a federal court where you have filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and/or his attorney. That isn't going to happen in an assets hearing because you can't ask a federal court to overturn the rulings of a state court judge. Therefore the only purpose of having a court reporter present would be in case you would have to appeal the decision of the state court judge to a higher state court and in an assets hearing the only question before the court is what assets you have. It isn't very likely that the judge would make any grevious errors in such a hearing. All it will do is possibly put the court and the plaintiff's attorney on notice that an appeal might be launched and help keep them in line. You would probably never need the actual transcript in an assets hearing. Where that would or might come in handy would be in the original hearings prior to judgment being issued against you. It is just a general rule that you should never go to court without having a court reporter present. Sort of like an insurance policy.

OH boy! Just listen to this clown! Maybe he ought to apply for his Arizona professional clown license. (LOL)

You just don't read very well or understand what you read if you do.

If a party other than the judgment debtor removes their name from the title of an account, no Fraud of Creditors can have been committed because the person committing the change is not the debtor.
[/quote]
That is exactly what I said in relation to open bank accounts. Read and try to understand what I said instead of parroting it.

More parroting with a twist. Don't close the account at all. Leave a few bucks in it. Closing the account makes it look suspicious even if it isn't.
Leave the old account open with $5 or $10 in it as a decoy and open your new account in some other state, not your home state because they will quickly find the new account in your home state. If they find that one (which won't be done quickly) then leave that one open and go somewhere else.

First year law students might poke a few holes through that if it were not for the fact that if the "loan" were properly done meaning that both a proper note
on a legal document were made between the two parties and the note were registered with the county recorder's office and the department of motor vehicles as a lien on the vehicle so that the vehicle becomes a security for the note then let all the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th year law students and flying whatevers try to poke holes in a properly registered legal document that cares to try it. And if you can't go to Staples or Ofice depot and get the proper forms to do it right then go pay a lawyer to do it for you but do it right and file it with the proper agencies and all the flying clowns can waste their time trying to poke holes. They would do better poking holes in Mexican Pinatas while blindfolded.

Again, that is exactly what I said to do. Get a commercial title loan against it and register it with the motor vehicle department as a lien against the vehicle.

Oh Sure! Do a Kelley Blue Book and come up with a highly inflated value to judge what the vehicle is worth thereby leading you to do things you probably
wouldn't need to do in the first place. Now let me teach the flying a thing or two.
Any vehicle grabbed by a debt collector will have to be sold at public auction and the proceeds sent to the creditor. Car auctions do not follow Kelly Blue Book and neither do the dealers who attend them and control what is paid for the vehicles auctioned there. When a dealer purchases a vehicle at auction or by means of a trade in they do not go by Kelly Blue Book they go by the wholesale price of the vehicle which is normally about 1/3 of Kelly. Therefore a $10,000 Kelly or lot priced vehicle will only be worth about $3333 and that is about all the dealer will pay for a vehicle either at auction or in evaluating a trade in. And if they can get it for less, count on the fact that they will do just that. So, if you owe say $5000 or more that means that you are upside down on the vehicle and the creditor would have to pay the creditor all that is owed on the vehicle if they grab it. Then they would have to get enough more than that to realize any "profit" on the deal. That normally isn't going to happen so normally there isn't any point in worrying about it. Only if you have a valuable vehicle that is not the only vehicle you have and you own it free and clear would you have to worry about such things.

That is at least true but the wholesale value must be more than the couple of thousand dollars because that's all the car is worth and there are fairly huge amounts of money charged by the auctions to auction off a car. The costs of auction might well be $500 or more and they would have to pay that too.
So much for worrying about cars.

There he goes, grandstanding again. Trying to lure you over to his message board where he can feed you more nonsense.

Well, that's fairly close to the truth. Indeed, when you receive the summons that is the time to demand validation if that summons is the initial contact the Plaintiff's attorney has made with you. Usually they will send at least one or two letters before filing suit. Whatever their initial contact with you is that is the time to demand validation. Letter, summons, by whatever means. And yes, that is also the time to start making yourself judgment proof or even before that if you realize that you are or may be sued and the real time to realize that you may be sued is when the debt collector makes his initial contact with you and that is normally long before the attorney contacts you.
The earlier the better.
[/quote]
Cap1 is beginning to sound more and more like Billie Bauer every day, with his nonsensical advice buttered around a grain of truth.[/QUOTE]
You would find something to bellow about in an effort to absolve yourself and make you look like some kind of expert while trying to make the other fellow look like a fool. Anything to make you look like some kind of expert and authority. That is the name of your game. Belittle the other fellow in order to draw attention away from your own ignorance. Common tactic.

If I were the person you refer to you would be in a whole lot more problems trying to defend yourself than you are now. That guy can get really, really vicious. You ought to know that. He has correctly labeled you for what you are so many times you won't ever recover from it. And so now I guess you want two people really down on your case.

Billie Bauer has been attacked so many times by clowns like you that he has probably lost count long ago and not one of them has ever won a flame war against him. He has more tenacity than a bulldog and more resources to do battle with than you will ever imagine.

You have already been nailed by him many times in the past and if he finds out you are trying to start a new one you won't even believe what he will do to you and your silly little debtorboards. Apparently he hasn't been paying much attention to you the last couple of years or so because I haven't seen anything he has written about you for a long time now. Best you don't get him started on you again.

What is it that makes you think that your word is the final word or even has any authority? Oh sorry, I forgot. Your word is better than that of the man who walked on water.

(LOL)