once an alleged debt account is charged-off by a bank, may debt collector sue?

[SharingLights]

The second part of racket is in the fact that lawyers who work for mutants of collection racket
or even those who are lawyers-collectors, themselves, are involved in criminal activities.


They favorite trick is to not serve the opposing party court papers and then claim they did and obtain default judgments.

Yes, they produce affidavits of service and have no fear, as many judges are a part of that racket.

Another trick is to keep adjourning in courts, until a consumer can't keep up with their schedule.
Does any one believe that a Consumer wold have been granted so many adjournments?
No way.


Next trick is fraud of so called of affidavits of illiterate, lazy bums who work for mutants and who attest to the accounting of the alleged credit cards.

On that toilet paper, judgments are granted by judges who act as criminals.
Yes, no witness in appearance, no cross-examination, just fraudulent affidavits alone are accepted by these judges.
Is that not a racket?

What is it, then?


That if FRAUD as an Affidavit composed by the way by the lawyers for these mutants and signed by the buffer employees, called "officers of the firm, " by real law, should land them in a slammer.
Soon, many of them would face the reality as we, the SuiJuris, had enough of them!


Let's see if we bluff.

When time comes, I would Post the results here too.

Meanwhile, our rule is achieve first then continue, not the other way around.

As for knowledge, that must be shared so that the People are not abused.
It is for love of the real People and not for greed or praises.

Greedy lawyers hate our guts for that reason as we expose them.
Once again, there are some decent ones.

I only speak of the majority - not all.

I have heard much trash talk, threats, and dirt by these lawyers, so what?

I have an aim, I am focused, and I shall achieve for those who need help by being abused from all the sides.
I shall, never, lose with that eventually, as that is the best Karma.
Share goodness - life would compensate on its own on day.

 

[justalayman]

Sharing lights, have you ever thought of writing fiction for a living?
Your stories are so full of your own self designed facts that fiction is the only catagory that it would fit.

This is a good one:

A plaintiff must prove damages in order to collect.

Third party collectors have no damages;

Now if they are truly a third party collector, they are hired by the original creditor to attempt to collect a debt. In this type of case, the original creditor may or may not have given authority to the collector to sue ON THE BEHALF of the original creditor. If given this authority, the are merely acting on behalf of the original creditor so the collection agency does not have to have been damaged to bring a suit. There are other situations that many people find themselves in and that is where an original debt is actually purchased by a third party. Once this takes place, the original creditor is no longer involved in the situation except for the need of validating the debt if required.

While you admonish others to learn;

I told you before, learn the basic of economics first.

You see, economics do not play a part in the laws that control the fact that an entity can purchase a recievable from another and "step into their shoes" and sue the original debtor for the money. Now I could be wrong,,,,,,,,

They get hold of worthless paper in the form of banks' charge offs sold at "their markets."

Now what makes the paper worthless. You seem to assume that a "charge off" is a forgiveness of debt. Charging off a debt is merely an accounting term. It means that the creditor is acknowledging the debt to be basically uncollectable. Creditors do this and are then allowed to incorporate these losses into their tax computations. The debt is still very much a valid debt.

Now this one is really good:

a debt collector which is not licensed,
regardless of other factors, has no standing in Court.
Consequntly, any judgment in its favor is a VOID.

You even attempt to support your theory with this:

DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY (122)
License Application Checklist
DCA Licensing Center
42 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10004
For more information, call 311
A person or business is a Debt Collection Agency if engaged in business of which the principal purpose is to collect debts owed to another person or entity. Any such business, which attempts to collect debts from consumers located in New York City, must have a Debt Collection Agency license.

Please take note that the quote you presented clearly states that it applies to citizens of New York City. Unless Google is misleading me, Brooklyn is a city. If you are a citizen of Brooklyn, then the quote cannot apply to you as a citizen of a city other than New York. You did state that you are a resident of Brooklyn, correct? Again, I could be wrong,,,,,,,

This one is also quite good:

5) Fact: Judges are lawyers.
Most judges loose appeals from time to time.
That proves, them being "wrong."

If all of your facts are as correct as this one, everything you state must be wrong. Although in some jurisdictions judges may be required to be attorneys, it is not a prerequisite for all judges to be attorneys. Since that is true, then you must be wrong. I could be wrong,,,,,,

Additionally, a judge neither appeals a decision or is capable of losing that appeal. The judge is the person who makes the decision. Either the plaintiff/ complaintant or the defendant/respondant would appeal a judges decision.

btw, the word is spelled lose as in loser. Learn it, know it, live it,,,,oh, I'm sorry, you already are.

Loose is what the "girls" on the street are considered to be.

Now I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

I, and I am sure others here, are having a hard time trying to understand your diatribe. While you came here for advice and recieved the same, you then quote a variety of unrelated cases to attempt to disprove what you were told. If you do not want advice from those here, then quit asking questions.

You seem to enjoy responding to yourself. This can be accomplished at home without including any others. Maybe you will get a response you will agree with although I doubt it.

 

[SharingLights]

Another wise attempt to ridicule SuiJuris but only backfired

justalayman: Sharing lights, have you ever thought of writing fiction for a living?
Your stories are so full of your own self designed facts that fiction is the only catagory that it would fit.


Have you, ever, thought of how to relate to people properly without your self-imposed pedestals of lawyerships?

Do you have any basic manners or mighty dollar is your God?

Civilized people do not begin a debate this way but I would concentrate on your points since you already failed the former.

This is a good one:



Now if they are truly a third party collector, they are hired by the original creditor to attempt to collect a debt.


And you used "fiction" in my case.
How typical of a lawyer.
In house debt collectors may collect for the original creditor.

Outside or true 3rd party debt collectors, mostly collect for themselves.

Occasionlly, some work on percentage but that is less and less commons.
The, typical third parties collect for themselves.

It is fallacy to mislead consumers that the collected monies are given back to the banks.

No, they are kept by the racketeers.
So, you are, largely, wrong here.

In this type of case, the original creditor may or may not have given authority to the collector to sue ON THE BEHALF of the original creditor. If given this authority, the are merely acting on behalf of the original creditor so the collection agency does not have to have been damaged to bring a suit.

See the above.

There are other situations that many people find themselves in and that is where an original debt is actually purchased by a third party. Once this takes place, the original creditor is no longer involved in the situation except for the need of validating the debt if required.

OK, that's why you had to be precise and separate the in-house and 3 rd part, as in-house is not the 3rd party.
Let's be precise.



While you admonish others to learn;

I do not admonish, re-read yourself.


You see, economics do not play a part in the laws that control the fact that an entity can purchase a recievable from another and "step into their shoes" and sue the original debtor for the money. Now I could be wrong,,,,,,,,

Yes, you are.
There many factors involved.
Check the M1.2.3 concepts.
Then, check actual Charter of the banks and see what is allowed and not in case of loans.
Do not take my word for it, do the actual research.
Then, go deeper and try to check the other side of the coin: the insurance industry.
You assume that banks do not collect insurance on the uncollected receivables.
Are you sure?
Then check the court case where as I call them, and for a reason -mutants- , if you do your investigation, claim they collect for banks and trace where the judgments wind up?

Then, check the cases, where layers claim to collect for 3 party mutant and do collect but for themselves.

Yes - not for the alleged client but themselves.
Then, look at the cases when the firms do no exist anymore and consumers are being sued still.

We are, only, tapping the extensive list of racket.


Now what makes the paper worthless. You seem to assume that a "charge off" is a forgiveness of debt. Charging off a debt is merely an accounting term. It means that the creditor is acknowledging the debt to be basically uncollectable. Creditors do this and are then allowed to incorporate these losses into their tax computations. The debt is still very much a valid debt.

You may believe that sincerely but they enter zero balance in their, General Ledger.
The official General Ledger is not a term only -
it is a fact on which accounting is based.

Now this one is really good:

Oh, don't worry, they all good as they, all come from you.

You even attempt to support your theory with this:

My theory?
I have done an extensive research for about a year. You have no clue what I have uncovered.
what you call a theory.

You have no clue with whom you interact on-line and who the person is or what does?
As most lawyers, you assume too much.


I check first, then write.

Please take note that the quote you presented clearly states that it applies to citizens of New York City. Unless Google is misleading me, Brooklyn is a city. If you are a citizen of Brooklyn, then the quote cannot apply to you as a citizen of a city other than New York. You did state that you are a resident of Brooklyn, correct? Again, I could be wrong,,,,,,,

Yes, you are wrong, but I believe you made an bona fide error and not purposefully mislead.
What you refer to applies to the New York State.
Furthermore, different Borroughs in New York are under the same applicable laws.


This one is also quite good:

You, just, love yourself.


If all of your facts are as correct as this one, everything you state must be wrong.

You present a statement based on fallacy and not on logical premises.
Only you may know how you derive such, so I would not comment now.




Although in some jurisdictions judges may be required to be attorneys, it is not a prerequisite for all judges to be attorneys.

In NY, I do not know one judge on a bench in the Civil, Federal, or Supreme
Courts who is not a lawyer.
Yet, logic demands to present you the opportunity to rebut this statement and produce your evidence.
Please do.

I am sincerely interested to see which judge is not a lawyer?

I am not talking of arbitrators - I talk of real judges.
Please inform, as many may be, truly, curious now.

I adhere to rules of in intelligent debate as long as it is intelligent.

Since that is true, then you must be wrong. I could be wrong,,,,,,

See the above.



Additionally, a judge neither appeals a decision or is capable of losing that appeal.


You misquote me on the first part.
I wonder why?

Go back to my statement in that regard if in doubt.
As for the latter part, of course judges lose appeals as any side may appeal judge's decision and the Appeal Panel, comprised of judges, can sustain or reverse the decision of the lower court.
I disagree with you completely on that one.


The judge is the person who makes the decision. Either the plaintiff/ complaintant or the defendant/respondant would appeal a judges decision.

Did I state otherwise anywhere?



btw, the word is spelled lose as in loser. Learn it, know it, live it,,,,oh, I'm sorry, you already are.

You did somewhat OK before that and, then, had to step low.
Well, your choice of course.
Did it ever occur to you that it is reasonable that people may make spelling errors?
I do make such.
So what?

Have you ever misspelled a word?
I have.
A normal way is to ask - not to call a person names for misspelling.
You, folks, are so proud of your ignorance then, as it would not even enter my mind to ridicule people for misspelling.
Anyway, that is your right and it does not lower me, it may lower you in th eyes of some.
Yet, let them decide for themselves.

The irony and wisdom of life is such freely allows wise guys to show their pearls of ignorance.

You wrote

"... fiction is the only catagory that it would fit."

You, also misspelled at

"Occasionlly, some work on percentage..."

How about

"recievable from another and "step into their shoes..."

You have just made a fool of yourself before all by ridiculing what you are guilty of yourself.

That is called hypocrisy. Is it not?


Thank God I am not you and never will be.
I would not ridicule you for writing "catagory"
instead of "category" "recievable and Occasionlly"

I do not step that low.
I believe you may need some time to pull out a foot from your mouth that you stuck there yourself.
Good luck!

 

[SharingLights]

Loose is what the "girls" on the street are considered to be.

Now I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

I agree with you.
I made a misspelling error and I am sure would make more, as have so many things to do in life.
Not all of us have too much time on their hands.


I, and I am sure others here, are having a hard time trying to understand your diatribe.

Now, you re sinking again into the abyss of your, ego-centered arrogance of product of the Bar,
as it seems.

Your choice once again.
But, you commit a fallacy when sate that you are sure all feel your way.
Don't be so sure, as some people are decent and have manners.
I do believe so.

You may speak for yourself and your kin - not for all.
Your opinion of "diatribe" does not change the reality.

Both may not match even if you are so sure as such, assured lawyer.
You are a lawyer, correct?
It is only a question?




While you came here for advice and received the same,

No, I didn't not and have a proof of that.
You are wrong again and so many times and consistently.
Why so often?

I posted a question long time ago.
I have not received an answer.
If I am wrong, please post it here.

i received BS, insults, and nonsense, anything but not the answer.
If in doubt, read yourself, as quoted are preserved accurately.

As, lawyers could not master an answer without making much monies in return, that
has lead me to trying on my own and becoming a SuiJuris, which just irritates you all so much.
Well, may it be.



you then quote a variety of unrelated cases to attempt to disprove what you were told.


Now, you tallk as a typical corrupted judge.
That is what they compose in their decisions.

What I have quoted nd the cases are related very much.
Now, you resort, again, to being a typical low-profile lawyer and denying what is not convenient to you.
Whatever proves you case is related, whatever disproves is not related.
What else is new?




If you do not want advice from those here, then quit asking questions.

I do not take directives or orders from you or likes of you!
You got a wrong person to command.
Is that clear to you?

Your mentlaity is of a slave master, only being ensalved yourself to your ignorance and huuuuuge ego.

On top of that, you have committed another fallacy.
Too many in one post.
You may not be helping the lawyers' cause by such overwhelming failures.

Read yourself.
I did not ask anymore after I received no answer.
I researched the answer.
I have accomplished.
I posted my opinions to consumers and replied to opinions of folks from here, even when they were comprised of, largely, insults.

I have engaged all fairly and squarely.

Aren't you embarrassed that you argue over self-assumed presumptions contrary to facts.
the facts are in the posts.

Read sometimes before passing judgments.
No?



You seem to enjoy responding to yourself.

Most of you are so predictable and uniformed, as ignorance is Universal.

You state another fallacy, and, I can, safely, add:
lie, openly LIE, as quotes prove that I responded to your kin here and retained their quotes as well.
Can you manage posting without lying, as all can read
the posts referenced hereto?
It''s, just, disgusting how your kin proceeds.


I, clearly, have written that I write for consumers for them to empower themselves with resilience to stand up to you guys as if you treat me this way, you may treat others too.
I am not an exception.

I share and would share what may help them, particularly when your kin misleads them and even lies.

I do not share to help you, lawyers, as you need no such help.

You may need help with manners, good will, basic logic, morals, to learn not to lie. etc, but that is your, own Karma and choice.

This can be accomplished at home without including any others. Maybe you will get a response you will agree with although I doubt it.


You doubt too much but state fallacies without doubts.
How contradictory.
Now, ask yourself, why did it bother you so much that Citizen can be self-reliant?

You just hate our guts then as prove that beyond reasonable doubt in all of your replies.
By the way,not only lawyers but all may read the posts.
Are you, still, so sure that the majority agrees with you?

And don't worry, I post actively on the websites where
the majority of people act decently.
All of these posts re made public to them as is so they all can learn who lawyers act every day in reality even where they claim they help consumers.
Let the truth be heard.

I have a reputation for speaking my mind openly and directly and quoting accurately without editing.
Truth is and would be preserved for all.

 

[justalayman]

OK, the one thing I'll give you is the "low blow" about the spelling. It was meant mainly for humorous interruption. As you have pointed out, I am very capable of misspelling as well. It is just one of those "pet peeve" situations that caught my eye with "loosing" versus "losing"

Now to your post:

Not all of us have too much time on their hands

.Apparently you do. You have engaged several others in pointless discussion.

I

, and I am sure others here, are having a hard time trying to understand your diatribe.

Now, you re sinking again into the abyss of your, ego-centered arrogance of product of the Bar,
as it seems.

Your choice once again.
But, you commit a fallacy when sate that you are sure all feel your way.

I never stated ALL, merely others. I am still confident in my claim. You tend to ramble and wander far from any specific subject. It is very difficult to determine your central question.

While you came here for advice and received the same,

No, I didn't not and have a proof of that.
You are wrong again and so many times and consistently.
Why so often?

Please refer to the very first response to your original question. You did recieve advice but refuse to accept it. So, I am right, again.

If you do not want advice from those here, then quit asking questions.

I do not take directives or orders from you or likes of you!
You got a wrong person to command.
Is that clear to you?

From the likes of ME!!? As you have posted, you have no true idea of who I am. You have no way of determining my "likes". You seem to take offense to most responses given you. I was only suggesting that rather than waste your time in a forum which you obviously have no respect for nor accept the advice offered as meaningful that you would be better served by discontinuing to request information on this forum.

Can you manage posting without lying, as all can read

I have not lied once in my responses to you. You may believe I have but you have not proven anything I have posted to be a lie. Your beliefs are not neccessarily correct and you have provided no objective information or point of view to support your position.

You just hate our guts then as prove that beyond reasonable doubt in all of your replies.
By the way,not only lawyers but all may read the posts.
Are you, still, so sure that the majority agrees with you?

First, I hate nobody. To hate takes an active thought of that person. If I find a person so dislikable, I remove them from my life. I do not have the time to hate nor do I find any benefit from hating a person. I have other things to occupy myself with that are beneficial to me. Hating is wasting my time on a person whom I have no reason to waste time on.

And you used "fiction" in my case.
How typical of a lawyer.
In house debt collectors may collect for the original creditor.

Outside or true 3rd party debt collectors, mostly collect for themselves.

If it is an "in house" collector, it is a first party collector and being such, they are not controlled by the FDCPA. A 3rd party collector is a hired collection agency. A purchaser of recievables is another animal as well. The purchaser becomes the creditor.

Now as to the statement of they "mostly collect for themselves". Don;t we all do what we do mostly for ourselves. There is a word for those that give of themselves with no gain for themselves; philanthopists. All others do it for their own gain.

OK, that's why you had to be precise and separate the in-house and 3 rd part, as in-house is not the 3rd party.
Let's be precise.

I was precise. I differentiated each of the parties. You are the one who is confusing a purchaser of debts with a 3rd party collector.

re: "charge-offs" You may believe that sincerely but they enter zero balance in their, General Ledger.
The official General Ledger is not a term only -
it is a fact on which accounting is based.

It is still only an accounting situation. It does not invalidate the debt not relieve a debtor of the debt. If insurance does compensate the lender, they then have the right to collect on that debt in place of the original creditor. The debt does not "go away". Once you have incurred a debt, until you fulfill the promise of repayment, the debt will always be a debt.

Please take note that the quote you presented clearly states that it applies to citizens of New York City. Unless Google is misleading me, Brooklyn is a city. If you are a citizen of Brooklyn, then the quote cannot apply to you as a citizen of a city other than New York. You did state that you are a resident of Brooklyn, correct? Again, I could be wrong,,,,,,,

Yes, you are wrong, but I believe you made an bona fide error and not purposefully mislead.
What you refer to applies to the New York State.
Furthermore, different Borroughs in New York are under the same applicable laws.

If you have a citation that would include other cities, please post. The citation you provided clearly applies only to NY city. Now my understanding of "burroughs" is apparently different than yours. While a burrough is not an incorporated city, it is still a recognized geographical area but is still part of the city in which it is geographically constrained.. Brooklyn is an incorporated city. That makes it not NY city.

Although in some jurisdictions judges may be required to be attorneys, it is not a prerequisite for all judges to be attorneys.

In NY, I do not know one judge on a bench in the Civil, Federal, or Supreme
Courts who is not a lawyer.
Yet, logic demands to present you the opportunity to rebut this statement and produce your evidence.
Please do.

I am sincerely interested to see which judge is not a lawyer?

I am not talking of arbitrators - I talk of real judges.
Please inform, as many may be, truly, curious now.

I adhere to rules of in intelligent debate as long as it is intelligent.

Since it is so difficult to prove a negative statement, please post your proof that being an attorney (now would that be a person who has graduated from a law school or one that has passed some states bar exam and permitted to represent others in court or possibly some other definition you care to use) is a requirememt to either be elected (if applicable) or appointed to sit as a judge. Now mind you, I had qualified my response with

Although in some jurisdictions judges may be required to be attorneys, it is not a prerequisite for all judges to be attorneys.

, so you will need to provide proof in all positions of a judge placement. I will accept a limitation of within the United States to avoid the trouble of argument involved with foriegn possibilities.

So, have you been to court yet involving the debts that started this entire situation? Has there been a decision?

 

[JETX]

And the never ending novel of 'sharing lights' continues.
Ignore this skank. Any further responses is simply giving her what she wants.... which is clearly some much desired attention.

 

[seniorjudge]

And the never ending novel of 'sharing lights' continues.
Ignore this skank. Any further responses is simply giving her what she wants.... which is clearly some much desired attention.

Well, okay, but I was really hoping to find out what this term meant:

...The second part of racket is in the fact that lawyers who work for mutants of collection racket....

 

[SharingLights]

Here, is your, fair chance to prove yourself!

And the never ending novel of 'sharing lights' continues.
Ignore this skank. Any further responses is simply giving her what she wants.... which is clearly some much desired attention.

Are you that confident that you would not regret calling me a SKANK?


Because I dared to stand up to hoodlums like you,
you attempt to keep insulting me.
That may not be such, wise choice, as you got the wrong party to spread your toxins on.

You only reveal your, dark and miserable nature in the process.

That is so self-evident that no arguments are required!

You go nuts, literally, when encounter self-reliant people, as you need the public to be enslaved by you and pay your extortion fees in your, artificially created monopoly on law.

When we become SuiJuris, that means the downslope of your era.

You can't take it.
You just hate our guts.

Well, good, that is irrelevant to us, as we would continue
awakening from your usurped tactics and a grip on the
people of the US and likes of you, undermining the Noble Constitution of the US so that it serves you and your interests only through your constant, sneaky Ammendments.



All right.
I challenge you publicly.

I state before all, I request you to post a link to any case which you represented concerning debt collection.

I allege you are a coward also and would not understand the term "morals" even with ten dictionaries-vocabularies.

If your debt case is not available, then, post any case at all where you proceeded as a lawyer.

Then, let reality shine who is skank an who is who.

We, all, are awaiting your reply by substance - not by retarded comments.

If you default, then you are proving acting as a true low life who can not get beyond insults.

Also, would prove that, while,

fraudulently, posing
as providing some assistance to consumers, in reality, attempting to gain referrals and business under the false pretext.

We, consumers are awaiting your link.

 

[SharingLights]

And the never ending novel of 'sharing lights' continues.
Ignore this skank. Any further responses is simply giving her what she wants.... which is clearly some much desired attention.

Attention to be insulted by immoral and silly people?
Are you out of your mind that pre-maturely?


You lied again, as I have clearly stated that my purpose is:


and for that I would take insults so that they don't' have to:

My purpose is for general public to wake up to the reality how citizens are treated by low lives like you.
There is no evidence that I am an exception as, if I am treated this way, obviously, others may be too.

That is self-evident.


I love the Constitution of the country and decent people.
I despise usurpers.

I want the real people to be self-reliant and not empower you by their weakness, as look how you act here.

We can imagine if things were more important....


Is that so difficult to comprehend - the true cause-effect in these posts?

If you lack basic skills of comprehension and analytical skills, then just read accurately, at least.



Can you manage at least that or can only charge outrageous fees your clients?

My posts are there for all to see.
I, only, act fairly toward all.


And, stop, lying already, as it gets boring.

We, all, know that this is your bread.

You do not have to keep proving that to consumes again and again, as well as, your hostility to them.

You have proved that successfully already!
We believe you!

Ask yourself honestly, why did you become a lawyer?
What drove you: morals, principles, desire to improve the society or
quest for big bucks and the feeling of power?

"By the fruits, we shall know the tree!"

Go increase your retainer if you are bored or invent additional expenses before presenting the bill.

And don't forget to tell your client,
"I never lose regardless of the outcome, it is you, the client, who would lose if I fail,
as I collect the monies regardless!"

How convinient....

 

[SharingLights]

OK, the one thing I'll give you is the "low blow" about the spelling. It was meant mainly for humorous interruption. As you have pointed out, I am very capable of misspelling as well. It is just one of those "pet peeve" situations that caught my eye with "loosing" versus "losing"

Now to your post: **************......

Good day!


You have spent some time on this post.
It commands an equal response.
I promised to inform consumers how they are treated by lawyers on lawyer's forums and volunteered to do the job, as always lead by example and, never, hide behind others.

I had to accurately and properly post copies, as always keep all promises, unless life demands otherwise by the Higher Law.

In the evening, I would try to respond to you appropriately.
Meanwhile, I can say that about 12,000 consumers may not be great numbers and I admit that; yet, still some number, and, before them, some of the wise guys here made an ...... of themselves.
How pathetic indeed.

I must add that far from all consumers agree with me; yet, I am known for being direct,
fair, doing quick and accurate research, as well as quoting precisely without any editing.
That is indisputable.

Instead of bringing 12,,000 to your forum, these artists repelled them by their, own, despicable conduct.
Not too wise indeed.

 

[SharingLights]

"Woe onto you lawyers and bankers!" has been said in the Biblical times.

Does anyone understand why and in such combination?

Is it, still, applicable today?