DebtCC is now accepting legal donations

Okay so it sounds like someone has thrown down the gauntlet.. lets all do what we can. Remember that we all have knowledge and knowledge is power....

Vikas, tell us what you need in the way of information and evidence

They have finally sent us a legal notice. We are in talks with eff and other organizations. Please mention this lawsuit to your friends, other bloggers and website owners who support freedom of speech.

Let the truth alone rule the industry. If someone is cheated they have complete rights to speak out and I am sure no law can stop them. Thanks for the support JJ.

Vikas

Please feel free to send me a copy of whatever they sent you; I can't represent the website in a state other than Virginia, but I may be able to give some pointers. PDF to my email is best.

Hi Virginia-Legal-Defense thanks for your offer to help.

All the documents have been uploaded here.

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/heathmill/accusation .html

Vikas,

I am so sorry to hear this. I am a poor single mom, but as you know I am a helluva a researcher. I am here for you!

I posted a response to the thread you've identified (.../accusation). I'll read the letter more carefully tomorrow.

What about all of us filing lawsuits against the company's that have broken our rights as well as the fdcpa with threating us, harrasing us, loan sharking us, ect.......

As to the letter from Heathmill's solicitors, I will PM Vikas again, but I don't think my comments about the legal stature of the communication should be made public.

Secondly, as to filing suit. I am a lawyer engaged in a litigation practice, and as everyone knows, "to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I tend to think that filing suit is the easiest and best thing to do, regardless of other issues people may have (e.g., a need for privacy in their economic dealings, which you lose when you go to court).

That said, I suggest that some companies engaged in debt collection and payday loan activities can be effectively neutralized by a concerted attack. Now a person could get into trouble trying to organize such a thing, but if the same company were hit with a hundred lawsuits all around the country at the same time, and have to hire a hundred attorneys all over the country to defend against those claims, that could get expensive. But that would be sort of like a cavalry charge, someone's going to get shot.

One thing that I thought of, though, is what if one were to get a judgment against, say, a payday loan company operating out of Belize (where you can't enforce your judgment against them)? If other people who owe that same loan company money were to submit to garnishment proceedings for the money they owe to the loan company, that could pay off both debts at once. I should explain 'garnishment'. If A owes money to B and B owes money to C, then C can go into court and ask the court for an order against A requiring A to pay C instead of B in satisfaction of A's debt to B. There does not have to be a bank account or employment situation involved, those are just the most common situations in which this stuff comes up. But if A owed money to Belize_Payday_Loans, which owes money to C, then if A were willing to be served with a garnishment summons (because A may not live in the state in which the judgment was obtained), then A could pay C and thereby extinguish his debt to Belize_Payday_Loans by means of an unassailable court order.

:shock:
All of those A's B's and C's totally lost me!
:D

Let's say that you, pollyandsay, owe five dollars to Slim Pickens (ignoring the fact that he's now deceased), and you've got the money and are fully prepared to pay Slim.

And, at the same time, Slim owes ten dollars to Jimi Hendrix (also ignoring the current state of his health).

And, further, Jimi has already obtained a judgment against Slim for the ten dollars, and happens to find out that you owe Slim the five.

So, the essence of garnishment is Jimi's new lawsuit (or sometimes claim within the context of the original suit) against both you and Slim as codefendants, in which the allegation is that (1) Slim owes Jimi the ten because of the prior judgment and (2) you've got five dollars that rightfully belongs to Slim; and therefore (3) gimme the five!

If you pay the five dollars ('cause, like, what do you care, the five's going to someone anyway, right?) to Jimi instead of Slim because the court tells you to, then the debt you owe to Slim is extinguished because the payment directly to Jimi is treated as having gone through Slim.

At the end of the garnishment proceedings, you've paid your debt to Slim, and Slim's debt to Jimi is reduced by five dollars.

Is that any better?