In California the lawyers have created a section in the code allowing lawyers to buy up so-called bad debts for a very discounted price and then sue the alleged debtor in the name of the creditor institution, while the debt itself is apparently owned by the lawyer and the original creditor never sees a dime from the proposed collection. I believe this takes the profession of law to the very bottom of the pond.in my case, I had filed a legally prepared "dispute" with U.S. Bank in 02, which was received by their representative. However, U.S. Bank made no effort to resolve the issue, called me to harass me paying no attention to my legal order "not to call" me; and then sold the debt, a debt that by that time was void according to Federal Law and State law. The first collecton enterprise stopped contact with me once I mailed the dispute notice to them; however, the debt was again sold apprently to Nelson & Kennard. They contacted me by telephone at all hours of the day and evening although I told them to cease calling as the law provided. Sometime thereafter, they attempted to settle the alleged debt, at which time I again informed them it had been voided accoring to law. Notwithstranding that fact, they apprently sued me, however they did not serve me in the process, and judgement was had.in November of I was served with papers garnishing my wife's wages. I had never been served or was aware of any action in court; so I filed a claim of exemption. My wife works for Bank of America which pays its salaries through Findelity. Since no action or evidence was taken of our "disposable" income, of which we have none, I contacted Fidelity and the levying office immediately letting them know that the law requires disposable income be determined.in Fidelity's case, I notified them that they have a "fiduciary responsibility" to protect the Rights of their employees and that they did have the responsibility to determine if the amount garnished corersponded with our disposable income. It took me two weeks to get various responses from Fidelity which, in the end, were essentially to "shine me on" about the affiar and throw me back into the hands of the Court, while they deducted $350, plus or minus, per paycheck, or about $700 per month. Much also to our dismay, the court allowed our exemption on December 11, but as of today (02-06) that order had not been received by the Levying Officer, an order which I had to mail by Certified Mail today, since the Court in Fresno apparently mailed it to an inadequate address, of which I had to inform them this morning. Likewise, when we appeared in court, it was in a smaller and crowded room where we did not feel our rights to privacy were observed in the process of us giving testimony, so we took what the judge stated and left, although our exemption was allowed, but in the face of the voided alleged debt, we still had to pay $100 per pay period. It appears that large institutions believe and act as if they are utterly above the law, and collection attorneys believe they are the same. Most individuals who suffer such ills are either forced into bankruptcy, lose much in the process, or just can't afford to do anything to protect themselves because this type of scurrilous catfish preys upon the working poor. I think something should be done about this. It is obvious there are a myriad of us who, by some misfortune, the banks have thrust credit upon us with all sorts of ads giving us the idea that we don't have to pay; but opposite, when we find out we are being shafted by inadecuqte and unknown information and dispute that fact, the banks believe they have no responsibility in the matter; and they ruin our credit, sell off our debt, and allow the vultures to feed off bones and to heck with who it may hurt in the process. We should do something about this.
0 comments