Case Dismissed

[palani]

This is rich. Lady sues a debt collection company in federal court. The debt collection company gets a writ of execution and seizes her house for a $370 medical bil as well as title to the federal suit. Next they ask for her federal suit to be dismissed because "they don't want to sue themselves" and the feds go along with the argument.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/debt-collector-lawsuit-court/2016/08/17/id/743995/


Can a debt collector accused of crossing the line avoid liability by buying a consumer’s legal claim out from under her?

A federal judge in Las Vegas said yes. The case deserves attention because if the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirms the judge’s ruling, you can be sure that more debt collectors will attempt this counter-intuitive maneuver to shield themselves from federal liability.

In March 2015, Patricia Arellano of Las Vegas received a notice from Clark County Collection Service (CCCS), a private debt collector seeking $370 in overdue medical bills. Arellano didn’t respond. CCCS went to court and obtained a default judgment against her. The bill grew to about $800, with costs and fees.

Next, Arellano sued CCCS under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleged that the company had been misleading about how much time she had to fight the collection effort. She also alleged that CCCS's name illegally implied that it was affiliated with the government of Clark County, Nev., when in fact it is not.

Then came the really weird twist. Seeking to enforce its judgment, CCCS obtained a “writ of execution” under which the sheriff of Clark County was obliged to sell off Arellano’s property. But not just her physical property—the writ also covered her pending legal claim against CCCS. In an auction held last November on the steps of the Clark County courthouse, Arellano’s claim against CCCS under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was sold for $250. The buyer? None other than CCCS.
Latest News Update

A few months later, CCCS asked a federal judge to dismiss the fair-debt collection claim on the theory that CCCS didn’t want to sue itself. Arellano opposed the motion. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey noted that the case “presented an interesting situation” and then ruled for CCCS, effectively killing Arellano’s lawsuit. The hearing took 11 minutes.

[Joshua01]

Nothing surprises me any more. Up is down and down is up

[Ponce]

They could never do it if she had a Land Patent....... an appeal court has never gone against someone who had one, but of course they keep this out of the new and knowledge of the people.

V

[palani]

They could never do it if she had a Land Patent
Ownership and possession are separable. Always have been. Always will be. Your contracts will always be held against you and rarely for you. The preferred method to approach this is

(1) never own anything
(2) never assign any rights to anyone else by contract
(3) accept agency only upon oath and proven bond (representation) 'cause your agent/power of attorney will eventually come back to you in ways you cannot even imagine.

[Ares]

Ownership and possession are separable. Always have been. Always will be. Your contracts will always be held against you and rarely for you. The preferred method to approach this is

(1) never own anything
(2) never assign any rights to anyone else by contract
(3) accept agency only upon oath and proven bond (representation) 'cause your agent/power of attorney will eventually come back to you in ways you cannot even imagine.

Here lately I've noticed a lot of businesses in my area wanting people to sign a contract that has an Arbitration Clause. I was getting ready to sign a pest control contract (the seller was sitting across my kitchen table) and I noticed the Arbitration Clause and I struck it out and initialed it.

He comes back and didn't sign it, and asked me to sign a new contract but without striking out the Arbitration Clause. I said that won't be possible as I am not giving up my 7th Amendment right to do business with his company. He said that his management won't allow customers to sign a contract without the Arbitration Clause, because it protects them as well as the customer. I flat out said bullshit, I said you are forcing people to give up their right to sue your ass in case you fuck up. I said if I signed that Arbitration Clause and you use a chemical that kills my pets, makes me, my wife or my kids sick I can't even take you to court. You could use a totally illegal chemical and I couldn't even go after you for damages. I said how likely is an Arbitrator, which you choose by the way, is going to rule against you and risk losing your business with future Arbitration disputes? No answer from the sales rep. I said get the hell out of my home, forcing paying customers to an Arbitration Clause to cover your ass is unethical, especially when it is your company that chooses the Arbitrators.

This was earlier this year, and every pest control company that's come knocking on the door to sell their services all have an Arbitration Clause, before they can even finish their speech about how great their company is I ask if they have an Arbitration Clause in the service contract, they say yeah, and I say get lost and close the door.

[palani]

Here lately I've noticed a lot of businesses in my area wanting people to sign a contract that has an Arbitration Clause

I was recently informed by a licensed Guild practitioner that without a SSN I cannot initiate a suit in any court in the state. I consider that declaration to mean that without a SSN I cannot be sued within the state either. Lacking a SSN is now a status that makes one an outlaw (a condition of being outside the law).

[cheka.]

immunity for UN as a nyc (terrorist?) org

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/18/490468640/u-n-admits-role-in-haiti-cholera-outbreak-that-has-killed-thousands

In the fall of 2010, months after a devastating earthquake struck Haiti, a new disaster began: a cholera outbreak that killed thousands of people and continues to sicken people across the country.

Experts determined that the source of the disease was a U.N. peacekeeping camp. And now, nearly six years later, the United Nations has admitted it played some role in the deadly outbreak.

The beginning of the epidemic was swift and catastrophic. Here's how Richard Knox described the outbreak for NPR in 2013:

"Suddenly, the first cases appeared in the central highlands near a camp for United Nations peacekeeping forces. ...

"The disease struck with explosive force. Within two days of the first cases, a hospital 60 miles away was admitting a new cholera patient every 3 1/2 minutes.

"A three-judge federal appeals court panel held a hearing March 1 on whether the U.N. should be held accountable for Haiti's devastating epidemic.

"A federal district judge last year dismissed the class-action suit, ruling that international treaties immunize the U.N. from lawsuits. The plaintiffs appealed the lower court's dismissal, resulting in this month's hearing. The United States is defending the U.N., since the agency is headquartered in New York.

Again, the cholera crisis that began in 2010 continues. The disease is now endemic in the country; thousands of people are sickened every year.

more at link...

[Ares]

I was recently informed by a licensed Guild practitioner that without a SSN I cannot initiate a suit in any court in the state. I consider that declaration to mean that without a SSN I cannot be sued within the state either. Lacking a SSN is now a status that makes one an outlaw (a condition of being outside the law).

Must be news to illegal aliens who have no SSN and have suits brought against them (drunk driving, child molestation, etc.).

[palani]

Must be news to illegal aliens who have no SSN and have suits brought against them (drunk driving, child molestation, etc.).

As in all things court related ... if you don't raise the issue it will be passed over ... and sometimes even if you do raise an issue it will be passed over.

[palani]

that international treaties immunize the U.N. from lawsuits

You cannot sue a sovereign without his permission ... also the U.N. assumes they have your power of attorney and so act as your agent.

As with all agency where you can hire you can also fire. Best figure out how to do this. I have. it is called 'administrative procedure'.