State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
When the wrong person is hauled into court, there is no dispute mechanism except to slog through the court system in front of a judge. I think there should be an efficient / effective way to be able to file a dispute with a NEUTRAL third party at the circuit court level that does not involve appearing before a judge. As it stands now in Illinois, it is the debt collector v. the alleged debtor/ wrong person (pro se) in a he said / she said. The lawyer is privileged and always presumed to be correct and truthful by the judge while the alleged debtor/wrong person is presumed to be lying, and /or trying to get out of something. Judges are not neutral third parties.
More information does not help when lawyers refuse to perform even the most basic due diligence as required before they affix their signature to, and, submit court paper (whichh are legal affidavits) to Clerks. As it stands now, most judges will not hear motions for sanctions under rule 137, and most lawyers will not file motions for sanctions against their colleagues. However, some mechanism has to created to give power back to those wrongly accused of owing debt, such that there are serious consequences for lawyers who recklessly abuse the court process and harm the personal and professional reputations of innocent citizens.
I knew my rights and yet, the debt lawyer stated 1) he did not have to show me the original debt and 2) he could not and would not talk to me because I was pro se.
josephusmyer
1
State and local court rules sometimes make default judgments much more likely. For example, when a person who allegedly owes a debt is told to come to court on a work day, they may be forced to choose between a default judgment and their job. I urge the CFPB to find practices that involve scheduling hearings at inconvenient times unfair, deceptive, and abusive, or inconsistent with 1692i.
View this comment in the discussion thread
From_ill_annoy
2
When the wrong person is hauled into court, there is no dispute mechanism except to slog through the court system in front of a judge. I think there should be an efficient / effective way to be able to file a dispute with a NEUTRAL third party at the circuit court level that does not involve appearing before a judge. As it stands now in Illinois, it is the debt collector v. the alleged debtor/ wrong person (pro se) in a he said / she said. The lawyer is privileged and always presumed to be correct and truthful by the judge while the alleged debtor/wrong person is presumed to be lying, and /or trying to get out of something. Judges are not neutral third parties.
View this comment in the discussion thread
From_ill_annoy
3
More information does not help when lawyers refuse to perform even the most basic due diligence as required before they affix their signature to, and, submit court paper (whichh are legal affidavits) to Clerks. As it stands now, most judges will not hear motions for sanctions under rule 137, and most lawyers will not file motions for sanctions against their colleagues. However, some mechanism has to created to give power back to those wrongly accused of owing debt, such that there are serious consequences for lawyers who recklessly abuse the court process and harm the personal and professional reputations of innocent citizens.
View this comment in the discussion thread
From_ill_annoy
4
I knew my rights and yet, the debt lawyer stated 1) he did not have to show me the original debt and 2) he could not and would not talk to me because I was pro se.
View this comment in the discussion thread