Credit Basics > The Flyingifr Method of Aggressive Credit Repair 2007

Return of debtor prisons

<< < (4/5) > >>

CleaningUp:
If the courts have ordered it, it has been judicially reviewed.

That is the huge flaw in your argument.

chester474:
The court's standard of review should be modified.

Not all consumer debtors who ignore court orders to respond to supplmentary proceedings are scofflaws.

Consumer debtors facing jail shold be provided public defenders - that principal was established decades ago.

Citizens facing jail should be given public defenders if they can't afford a private attorney.

The FDCPA should be amended to permit court to enjoin debt collectors from violating the FDCPA where they have been shown to violate the FDCPA as a standard business procedure, as many of them do. Dockets.Justia lists the thousands of cases where debt collectors repeatedly violate the FDCPA.

The FDCPA isn't "rocket science."

The debt collectors know the law and violate it as a matter of policy because they get called on it so little. In the long run they pay the little $1,000 statutory penalty - which hasn't been increased since 1977 - and make more money.

What other industry knowingly violates the law as a matteer of standard businss practice?

flacorps:

--- Quote from: chester474 on April 25, 2012   08:13:10 PM ---What other industry knowingly violates the law as a matter of standard business practice?

--- End quote ---

Name an industry that doesn't. :vbrofl:

CleaningUp:
Chester, you really need to learn the difference between courts of law and courts of equity.  I may help you channel you indignation into areas that my be more profitable for you.

As flacorp says, what industry doesn't?



--- Quote from: chester474 on April 25, 2012   08:13:10 PM ---
...The FDCPA should be amended to permit court to enjoin debt collectors from violating the FDCPA where they have been shown to violate the FDCPA as a standard business procedure, as many of them do. Dockets.Justia lists the thousands of cases where debt collectors repeatedly violate the FDCPA.



--- End quote ---

Again, your argument is flawed, probably by a view of yourself a victim.

There is no need for the FDCPA to be modified to allow the courts to order that the FDCPA be followed.  Why?  Because it is already THE LAW.

Let me ask this question:  Do you exceed the speed on the highway?  Isn't that against the law?  Or are you arguing that the law is for others and not for you?

chester474:
Law and equity were merged ages ago.

The FDCPA should be modified to allow for an injunctive remedy. With an injunctive remedy if the debt collector repeated the violation the court could punish the violation as contempt and immediately impose fines and jail time. At present the debt collectors throw $1,000 at the consumer debtor and laugh at him as they continue to violate the FDCPA and make a fortune.

The debt collectors are scofflaws and deserve to be jailed themselves.

The statutory civil penalty of $1,000 was set in 1977 and has suffered from 34 years of inflation. 

Increasing the statutory civil penalty to $3,000 or more would affirm the original intention of Congress when the FDCPA was enacted.

I just checked the website Justia Dockets & Filings and there are 849 cases against Allied Interstate, LLC for alleged violations of the FDCPA and other consumer protection laws. This doesn't include cases that are settled and never get to court.

Might not Allied Interstate, LLC be violating the FDCPA as a matter of standard operating procedure?

The record $1.75 Million fine the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) imposed on Allied Interstate, LLC in 2010 did not deter Allied's continuing to violate the FTCPA.

I feel we are very lucky to have the FDCPA, as imperfect as it is.


Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version