Can’t live with it, huh?
Ignore DC’s comments? I give them as much or more credence than I give yours, Breeze
Until this, I’ve stepped away from these discussions because, as I said in the prior post, they’ve become humorous and ludicrous. For the same reason, I’ve considered leaving the forum, as I think it has deteriorated, at least for any post that mentions the magic words “credit cards” or “SOL”. You and Skidmarks have attracted True Believers like a desert oasis attracts a thirsty man and for the same reason: it’s hope. I’m only sorry that it’s not your money or Skid’s that’s in jeopardy. The CAs will be affected little and even the JDBs will still do well because of the total numbers.
I’ve actually personally walked as many prior posters through the successful resolution of their litigation and obligations off-line as you’ve made posts to-date. And I’m a commercial collection attorney. I don’t do retail. (‘Tho I’ve thought that, if I did do retail, I’d like you or Skid representing the defendant.)
Play the “you must link” piano roll for someone else. I’ve heard it enough and know differently. When you’ve had the practical experience of litigating a 200 300 cases, come talk to me. When you’ve really done discovery against experienced opposition, come talk to me. When you’ve popped a $1.2M recovery rather than had the experience of defending your own backside, come talk to me. And, until you can do your research someplace other than Google, then tell me to ignore DC’s remarks (your Slip Opinion and ’34 citation were among the things to which I referred), don’t talk to me. You can fool some of the people some of the time . . .and I’ve left you to preach the Gospel and stopped reading the posts, but don’t tell me what to ignore.
You either didn’t read or understand my prior post or read Bigun’s excerpt from the ARM forum. The numbers are spelled out, and it’s a numbers game. I know I follow those discussions and I know that DC does. I’m even a member of Debtorboards, like Dr. Tax is a member of ARM. In the event that you didn’t read the timely excerpt before responding to the post, let me interject an observation from TX debt atty:
“Well, even though there are often very few docs (and even fewer docs that constitute admissible evidence) when dealing with assigned credit card debt, I haven't found litigating assigned credit card debt to be much, if any, more difficult than litigating a signed promissory note, and here's why:
About 85-90% of cases result in default judgment.
Of the remaining 10-15% of cases, about 90% of the defendants fail to hire an atty and end up losing on some procedural ground.
Of the approximately 5% of cases where the debtor hires an atty, most are settled at a discount.
Of the cases where the debtor hires an atty and where a settlement is not reached, a significant portion of the debtor's attys don't know what the hell they are doing.
And of the approximately .1% of cases where none of the foregoing apply, well . . .that's just the cost of doing business.”
The numbers are better in commercial, and I’ve never lost a case, but those numbers are reasonable.
What you must have missed was the purpose of my post (and it wasn’t to attack any of you). Not only are the courts divided (and nobody is giving you a plethora of citations because, just like your Slip Opinion, they’re not going to appeal). The defendants are debtors, for God sakes! They’re representing themselves pro per or pro se. They don’t have the money to pay for an appeal. The lack of citations doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong 50% of the time or 100% of the time. It just means there are no citations.
The other point I made was that TILA amendments are anticipated, but you insist on talking about TILA definitions. Two years from now, you could either be a sage or have your foot in your mouth. Any other legislation could change things in the meantime.
The other thing that you missed in the ARM reference was that there are other ways around the firewalls you think you’re building. Those exist now in the context of collection and litigation. It’s going to sad irony for the cardholder community, if more issuers get fed up with this and adopt the former MBNA’s practice of requiring arbitration.
I already know what to ignore. If you have more to offer, serve it up to the Believers with the kool-aid.
Ignore DC’s comments? I give them as much or more credence than I give yours, Breeze
Until this, I’ve stepped away from these discussions because, as I said in the prior post, they’ve become humorous and ludicrous. For the same reason, I’ve considered leaving the forum, as I think it has deteriorated, at least for any post that mentions the magic words “credit cards” or “SOL”. You and Skidmarks have attracted True Believers like a desert oasis attracts a thirsty man and for the same reason: it’s hope. I’m only sorry that it’s not your money or Skid’s that’s in jeopardy. The CAs will be affected little and even the JDBs will still do well because of the total numbers.
I’ve actually personally walked as many prior posters through the successful resolution of their litigation and obligations off-line as you’ve made posts to-date. And I’m a commercial collection attorney. I don’t do retail. (‘Tho I’ve thought that, if I did do retail, I’d like you or Skid representing the defendant.)
Play the “you must link” piano roll for someone else. I’ve heard it enough and know differently. When you’ve had the practical experience of litigating a 200 300 cases, come talk to me. When you’ve really done discovery against experienced opposition, come talk to me. When you’ve popped a $1.2M recovery rather than had the experience of defending your own backside, come talk to me. And, until you can do your research someplace other than Google, then tell me to ignore DC’s remarks (your Slip Opinion and ’34 citation were among the things to which I referred), don’t talk to me. You can fool some of the people some of the time . . .and I’ve left you to preach the Gospel and stopped reading the posts, but don’t tell me what to ignore.
You either didn’t read or understand my prior post or read Bigun’s excerpt from the ARM forum. The numbers are spelled out, and it’s a numbers game. I know I follow those discussions and I know that DC does. I’m even a member of Debtorboards, like Dr. Tax is a member of ARM. In the event that you didn’t read the timely excerpt before responding to the post, let me interject an observation from TX debt atty:
“Well, even though there are often very few docs (and even fewer docs that constitute admissible evidence) when dealing with assigned credit card debt, I haven't found litigating assigned credit card debt to be much, if any, more difficult than litigating a signed promissory note, and here's why:
About 85-90% of cases result in default judgment.
Of the remaining 10-15% of cases, about 90% of the defendants fail to hire an atty and end up losing on some procedural ground.
Of the approximately 5% of cases where the debtor hires an atty, most are settled at a discount.
Of the cases where the debtor hires an atty and where a settlement is not reached, a significant portion of the debtor's attys don't know what the hell they are doing.
And of the approximately .1% of cases where none of the foregoing apply, well . . .that's just the cost of doing business.”
The numbers are better in commercial, and I’ve never lost a case, but those numbers are reasonable.
What you must have missed was the purpose of my post (and it wasn’t to attack any of you). Not only are the courts divided (and nobody is giving you a plethora of citations because, just like your Slip Opinion, they’re not going to appeal). The defendants are debtors, for God sakes! They’re representing themselves pro per or pro se. They don’t have the money to pay for an appeal. The lack of citations doesn’t mean you’re right or wrong 50% of the time or 100% of the time. It just means there are no citations.
The other point I made was that TILA amendments are anticipated, but you insist on talking about TILA definitions. Two years from now, you could either be a sage or have your foot in your mouth. Any other legislation could change things in the meantime.
The other thing that you missed in the ARM reference was that there are other ways around the firewalls you think you’re building. Those exist now in the context of collection and litigation. It’s going to sad irony for the cardholder community, if more issuers get fed up with this and adopt the former MBNA’s practice of requiring arbitration.
I already know what to ignore. If you have more to offer, serve it up to the Believers with the kool-aid.
