Forceful? Terrible idea. When it goes to court they get to say that you were the belligerent party and their side was "only defending itself". You're better off calling the cops to have them escorted off. First rule of dealing with debt collectors is to let them make the mistakes.
In my state you are allowed to use physical force to remove a trespasser from your property. They'd have a tough time claiming that you were the belligerent party on your own property.
I know someone who manhandled a cable company employee out of his house and onto the street after the employee refused to leave when asked to do so. The cable guy called the cops to report this "assault" and was eventually arrested by them when they determined that he had been asked to leave the residence and declined to do so.
I guess I have more faith than you do. I wound up before a grand jury once, after being charged with several felonies that I didn't commit. It was the scariest experience of my life but they listened to my side of the story and refused to indict me. I'm personally glad that the jury system is here.
Besides, I live in Redneckistan. No jury from these parts is going to side with criminal scum over a taxpayer;)
Any person who forcibly enters your residence though is open season. Now a debt collector is not likely to do that, so they aren't likely to end up meeting deadly force, but still, if I find a stranger in my house I'll put them down, simple as that.
Yeah, well, I know someone who had that same attitude. He heard noises one night, saw a figure in his living room and opened fire. Guess who he shot? Some dumbass drunk high school student who thought he was crawling back into the open window at his parents house. Thankfully the kid lived, but can you imagine if he hadn't? Could you live with yourself if you killed someone who turned out not to be a threat to you?
My attitude is that I'm going to retreat to a defensible location within my home and call the police. I will announce as loudly as possible that I'm armed and it would be in the best interest of whoever to leave my house. If they come after me I'll defend myself but I'm not going to go looking for them.
Legal ramifications are not going to be a high priority at the time. Convict if you must, it's better than the alternative for me.
I think you've misunderstood the discussion at hand. You are operating under the assumption that your life is in mortal jeopardy. If that was actually the case then you'll have my vote for acquittal and I'll buy you a beer after the trial is over.
The discussion at hand relates to a debt collector who refuses to leave your property when asked. Nobody said anything about him becoming violent or anything of that nature. This is nothing more than simple trespass and I personally think that introducing a firearm into such a situation is an unnecessary and unwise escalation.
I think you could make an argument that they were assaulting you if they tried to make a grab for your weapon.
Yeah, you could. But you still escalated the situation by introducing the firearm into it. Was it really necessary to do so over a case of simple trespass? More to the point, do you really want to have to shoot somebody? Is that something you want to live with for the rest of your life over some jackass whose only crime was refusing to leave your property when asked? If your answer to those questions is "no", then why the hell would you introduce a firearm into a situation where your life isn't being threatened?
I suspect that the people who are bragging that they'd shoot someone over trespassing are teenage armchair internet warriors trying to convince themselves that they are tough. Personally I could not point a firearm at another human being and pull the trigger unless it was the only way to save my life or the life of another.
Who said anything about "physically harassing" you in the original posts? If it turns physical then obviously all bets are off. The original example was someone who just refuses to leave when asked to do so.
You only have to do that if you live in a so-called "two party" state, wherein all parties to the call need to consent to the recording. Most states are "one party" states, where only one party (i.e: you) needs to consent.
I don't know about this. A foreclosure, for instance, will certainly "tank" your credit score, as would an auto repossession. An unpaid fee of $30? I really doubt it. I'm not a credit expert by any means, but I don't think anything that small does much to your credit score
Your wrong. With collection items it has less to do with the amount that's owed and more to do with the fact that there's a collection item on your report. I'm sure the amount owed factors into it to a degree but just having a collection item on your report will tank your credit score. Even a paid collection item will tank your score until it gets to be a few years old and/or falls off.
Plus, you can write to the credit bureaus every month requesting it be removed, and if the bank misses responding even once, it's gone.
You can do that but eventually the bureau will stop responding to your dispute requests and just send you form letters back saying the item was already investigated. The best way to do this is to file the dispute right around the middle of December. The holidays play havoc with work schedules at the banks and credit bureaus. I successfully disputed all but two negative items off my report by doing this.
Just make sure you dispute the item(s) based off a report that you either paid for or obtained because you were denied credit. Don't ever dispute something based off one of the free reports. When Congress passed the law mandating that they give you one free report per year they included language that says they have 45 days to respond to disputes from those reports. If you get the report through another means they only have 30 days.
Right. And then the criminal sues you because you broke his arm or leg or whatever, as is happening with a local Pennsylvanian who hit a thief with a bat, to stop him from stealing his truck. The police arrested the homeowner, and the criminal is suing for medical expenses.
If the police arrested the man there's more to the story than meets the eye. None of the cops that I've met want to arrest a taxpayer who defended themselves against a scumbag. If they did it then I suspect they had reason.
Regarding the lawsuit, I'd say "bring it on". I've been in front of juries before and I'd take my chances with one if I was being sued by some criminal thug. I'd either win the lawsuit or I'd spend every last penny of my money on legal expenses and then file bankruptcy. Of course I'm a spiteful SOB like that;)
Use your brain you fucking moron. What are you going to do if you "brandish" it and they call your bluff and still refuse to leave? Worse yet, what are you going to do if they make a grab for it? Shoot them? Have fun explaining to the jury why you escalated the situation to one of life and death when your life wasn't in danger to begin with.
I'm as pro-gun as they come but if I was on your jury I'd convict your ass in a heartbeat if that was the way it went down. A firearm is a last resort, intended for situations where the choice is kill or be killed.
Brandishing a firearm on your own property when someone refuses to leave = defense of property in almost every state in the Union.
Umm, you might want to be careful there. In several states you are limited to "physical force" to deal with a trespasser. "Deadly force" can only be employed if your life is in danger or they actually break into your residence. I would love the chance to throw a debt collector off my property but I think I'd leave the firearms out of it.
Besides, it's much more fun to watch them puking their guts out after you pepper spray them than it is to watch them bleed to death on your front lawn;)
If you don't admit to being the debtor they're calling about, they will not give you the opportunity to sue them.
That's why I don't confirm or deny that I'm the debtor. It should go like this:
"Hello, may I speak to Joe Deadbeat?"
"Who is this?"
"May I speak to Joe Deadbeat?"
"Who is this?"
Do this long enough and eventually you'll get some moron that assumes you are the debtor. They will then start trying to collect from you. At this point it isn't real hard to get an address out of them.
For extra points record the phone call (if legal to do so in your state) and hope they are stupid enough to disclose some detail about Joe Deadbeats account. Then track down Joe Deadbeat yourself and offer him the tape so he can sue them for this disclosure. Assuming that you never claimed to be Joe Deadbeat you've broken no laws by letting them hang themselves.
I actually did this once after a collection agency refused to take the hint that my recently assigned phone number didn't belong to the man they were looking for. I started recording their calls and eventually some jackass told me the amount that was owed on the account. I located Joe Deadbeat myself and gave him the recording. He sued them and won a sizable settlement and an agreement that they'd write off the debt.
"poor call-center rep"? They are all scumbags. Go watch the movie 'In Debt We Trust'. Go read collections 101 and learn how they are trained. They are all miserable lying bastards who are willing to break the law in order to collect a quick buck. They don't deserve an ounce of sympathy and if they make the mistake of calling me they are going to hear every four letter word in the English language.
They'd never get a judge to sign a lien or wage garnishment unless the SSN, name, and birthdate matched. Not to mention signatures on signed documents.
Umm, they'd never be able to get a judge to do any of those things anyway unless they sued you and you lost. Judges don't have the power to order wage garnishment just because some credit card company hands them an account statement. The credit card company needs to sue you and win first.
from personal experience, i can tell you that this does not work. the C&D order will simply be returned to sender because the collection agencies know not to sign for certified mail.
Let them refuse the C&D letter. I'll include that fact in my lawsuit. Judges don't look favorably upon those that attempt to duck legal papers/service. They are just putting another nail in their coffin if they do this.
And when they keep calling you at your job, and insist on speaking to your boss, and call your family, and eventually physically show up at your door, what then?
Then you send them a cease and desist order as provided for by the FDCPA (fair debt collection practices act). If they are stupid enough to continue collection efforts after receiving it then you file suit against them in Federal court and collect $1,000 for each violation. They'll soon stop calling you when they realize that each phone call is going to cost them a thousand bucks.
What debt collector shows up at your door anyways? I've never heard of that. If they had the balls to try that with me I'd ask them once nicely to get off my property and if they declined I would "encourage" them to leave with more forceful measures.
Remember that a debt collector has no power or authority over you. Their main weapon is intimidation. They are counting on scaring you into paying them money and will use all manner of threats and lies to achieve this end. Other than that their only possible remedy is to sue you. This is an empty threat for the most part though because they almost always lack the documentation that would be required to win a lawsuit. They bank on collecting default judgments when the defendants fail to appear and aren't prepared to deal with someone shows up and contests the matter.
Fuck you! i do not owe you any money so you sort it out, it is not my problem
Actually if you wanted to be a real dick you could sue the collection agencies rather easily and collect at least $1,000 per violation. I would recommend that the people who are receiving these calls read up on the 'Fair Debt Collection Practices Act'. Send a cease and desist order to the debt collector as provided for by the FDCPA and when they call you again file suit. Wait a few months and cash your check.
It's not like the bank can force you to pay those fees.
No, but they can put them on your credit report and tank your credit score for the next seven years.
Of course this is all rather missing the point. Paypal is a bunch of scumbags but I've never heard of them trying to pull money out of a checking account without authorization. To do so would be a violation of Regulation E and would bring the Federal Reserve down on them like a ton of bricks. What Paypal will do is seize the funds out of your Paypal account. If there aren't enough funds to cover what they think you owe them they'll lock your account until you agree to transfer in enough money to cover it.
I did use a credit card. Unfortunately, I used the "Paypal"-branded credit card issued by GE Money Bank. They have in their fine print that any charge on the card through Paypal has to be resolved through paypal. They will just give you the run-around otherwise.
That's pretty shitty but not at all surprising coming from Paypal. I would have gotten screwed out of $800 by them if I had waited an extra day to transfer the money out of Paypal and into my checking account. Now they just refuse to do business with me until I "reimburse" them. To hell with them:)
Slashdot Mirror
Forceful? Terrible idea. When it goes to court they get to say that you were the belligerent party and their side was "only defending itself". You're better off calling the cops to have them escorted off. First rule of dealing with debt collectors is to let them make the mistakes.
In my state you are allowed to use physical force to remove a trespasser from your property. They'd have a tough time claiming that you were the belligerent party on your own property.
I know someone who manhandled a cable company employee out of his house and onto the street after the employee refused to leave when asked to do so. The cable guy called the cops to report this "assault" and was eventually arrested by them when they determined that he had been asked to leave the residence and declined to do so.
I guess I have more faith than you do. I wound up before a grand jury once, after being charged with several felonies that I didn't commit. It was the scariest experience of my life but they listened to my side of the story and refused to indict me. I'm personally glad that the jury system is here.
Besides, I live in Redneckistan. No jury from these parts is going to side with criminal scum over a taxpayer ;)
Any person who forcibly enters your residence though is open season. Now a debt collector is not likely to do that, so they aren't likely to end up meeting deadly force, but still, if I find a stranger in my house I'll put them down, simple as that.
Yeah, well, I know someone who had that same attitude. He heard noises one night, saw a figure in his living room and opened fire. Guess who he shot? Some dumbass drunk high school student who thought he was crawling back into the open window at his parents house. Thankfully the kid lived, but can you imagine if he hadn't? Could you live with yourself if you killed someone who turned out not to be a threat to you?
My attitude is that I'm going to retreat to a defensible location within my home and call the police. I will announce as loudly as possible that I'm armed and it would be in the best interest of whoever to leave my house. If they come after me I'll defend myself but I'm not going to go looking for them.
Legal ramifications are not going to be a high priority at the time. Convict if you must, it's better than the alternative for me.
I think you've misunderstood the discussion at hand. You are operating under the assumption that your life is in mortal jeopardy. If that was actually the case then you'll have my vote for acquittal and I'll buy you a beer after the trial is over.
The discussion at hand relates to a debt collector who refuses to leave your property when asked. Nobody said anything about him becoming violent or anything of that nature. This is nothing more than simple trespass and I personally think that introducing a firearm into such a situation is an unnecessary and unwise escalation.
I think you could make an argument that they were assaulting you if they tried to make a grab for your weapon.
Yeah, you could. But you still escalated the situation by introducing the firearm into it. Was it really necessary to do so over a case of simple trespass? More to the point, do you really want to have to shoot somebody? Is that something you want to live with for the rest of your life over some jackass whose only crime was refusing to leave your property when asked? If your answer to those questions is "no", then why the hell would you introduce a firearm into a situation where your life isn't being threatened?
I suspect that the people who are bragging that they'd shoot someone over trespassing are teenage armchair internet warriors trying to convince themselves that they are tough. Personally I could not point a firearm at another human being and pull the trigger unless it was the only way to save my life or the life of another.
Who said anything about "physically harassing" you in the original posts? If it turns physical then obviously all bets are off. The original example was someone who just refuses to leave when asked to do so.
Good luck selling that to a jury.
You only have to do that if you live in a so-called "two party" state, wherein all parties to the call need to consent to the recording. Most states are "one party" states, where only one party (i.e: you) needs to consent.
I don't know about this. A foreclosure, for instance, will certainly "tank" your credit score, as would an auto repossession. An unpaid fee of $30? I really doubt it. I'm not a credit expert by any means, but I don't think anything that small does much to your credit score
Your wrong. With collection items it has less to do with the amount that's owed and more to do with the fact that there's a collection item on your report. I'm sure the amount owed factors into it to a degree but just having a collection item on your report will tank your credit score. Even a paid collection item will tank your score until it gets to be a few years old and/or falls off.
Plus, you can write to the credit bureaus every month requesting it be removed, and if the bank misses responding even once, it's gone.
You can do that but eventually the bureau will stop responding to your dispute requests and just send you form letters back saying the item was already investigated. The best way to do this is to file the dispute right around the middle of December. The holidays play havoc with work schedules at the banks and credit bureaus. I successfully disputed all but two negative items off my report by doing this.
Just make sure you dispute the item(s) based off a report that you either paid for or obtained because you were denied credit. Don't ever dispute something based off one of the free reports. When Congress passed the law mandating that they give you one free report per year they included language that says they have 45 days to respond to disputes from those reports. If you get the report through another means they only have 30 days.
Right. And then the criminal sues you because you broke his arm or leg or whatever, as is happening with a local Pennsylvanian who hit a thief with a bat, to stop him from stealing his truck. The police arrested the homeowner, and the criminal is suing for medical expenses.
If the police arrested the man there's more to the story than meets the eye. None of the cops that I've met want to arrest a taxpayer who defended themselves against a scumbag. If they did it then I suspect they had reason.
Regarding the lawsuit, I'd say "bring it on". I've been in front of juries before and I'd take my chances with one if I was being sued by some criminal thug. I'd either win the lawsuit or I'd spend every last penny of my money on legal expenses and then file bankruptcy. Of course I'm a spiteful SOB like that ;)
Brandishing isn't deadly force. Shooting them is.
Use your brain you fucking moron. What are you going to do if you "brandish" it and they call your bluff and still refuse to leave? Worse yet, what are you going to do if they make a grab for it? Shoot them? Have fun explaining to the jury why you escalated the situation to one of life and death when your life wasn't in danger to begin with.
I'm as pro-gun as they come but if I was on your jury I'd convict your ass in a heartbeat if that was the way it went down. A firearm is a last resort, intended for situations where the choice is kill or be killed.
Brandishing a firearm on your own property when someone refuses to leave = defense of property in almost every state in the Union.
Umm, you might want to be careful there. In several states you are limited to "physical force" to deal with a trespasser. "Deadly force" can only be employed if your life is in danger or they actually break into your residence. I would love the chance to throw a debt collector off my property but I think I'd leave the firearms out of it.
Besides, it's much more fun to watch them puking their guts out after you pepper spray them than it is to watch them bleed to death on your front lawn ;)
Well, if it were possible to get legislation that puts credit bureaus acting within the U.S. under the domain of the FTC
Yeah, if only there was legislation in place that did that. Imagine how lucky we'd be if Congress had passed it way back in 1970......
If you don't admit to being the debtor they're calling about, they will not give you the opportunity to sue them.
That's why I don't confirm or deny that I'm the debtor. It should go like this:
"Hello, may I speak to Joe Deadbeat?"
"Who is this?"
"May I speak to Joe Deadbeat?"
"Who is this?"
Do this long enough and eventually you'll get some moron that assumes you are the debtor. They will then start trying to collect from you. At this point it isn't real hard to get an address out of them.
For extra points record the phone call (if legal to do so in your state) and hope they are stupid enough to disclose some detail about Joe Deadbeats account. Then track down Joe Deadbeat yourself and offer him the tape so he can sue them for this disclosure. Assuming that you never claimed to be Joe Deadbeat you've broken no laws by letting them hang themselves.
I actually did this once after a collection agency refused to take the hint that my recently assigned phone number didn't belong to the man they were looking for. I started recording their calls and eventually some jackass told me the amount that was owed on the account. I located Joe Deadbeat myself and gave him the recording. He sued them and won a sizable settlement and an agreement that they'd write off the debt.
Instead of insulting a poor call-center rep
"poor call-center rep"? They are all scumbags. Go watch the movie 'In Debt We Trust'. Go read collections 101 and learn how they are trained. They are all miserable lying bastards who are willing to break the law in order to collect a quick buck. They don't deserve an ounce of sympathy and if they make the mistake of calling me they are going to hear every four letter word in the English language.
They'd never get a judge to sign a lien or wage garnishment unless the SSN, name, and birthdate matched. Not to mention signatures on signed documents.
Umm, they'd never be able to get a judge to do any of those things anyway unless they sued you and you lost. Judges don't have the power to order wage garnishment just because some credit card company hands them an account statement. The credit card company needs to sue you and win first.
And that's why you have the ability to legally replace the government if you don't like them
No you don't. Where have you been? Don't you know that our esteemed legislators get to pick their voters, not the other way around?
from personal experience, i can tell you that this does not work. the C&D order will simply be returned to sender because the collection agencies know not to sign for certified mail.
Let them refuse the C&D letter. I'll include that fact in my lawsuit. Judges don't look favorably upon those that attempt to duck legal papers/service. They are just putting another nail in their coffin if they do this.
And when they keep calling you at your job, and insist on speaking to your boss, and call your family, and eventually physically show up at your door, what then?
Then you send them a cease and desist order as provided for by the FDCPA (fair debt collection practices act). If they are stupid enough to continue collection efforts after receiving it then you file suit against them in Federal court and collect $1,000 for each violation. They'll soon stop calling you when they realize that each phone call is going to cost them a thousand bucks.
What debt collector shows up at your door anyways? I've never heard of that. If they had the balls to try that with me I'd ask them once nicely to get off my property and if they declined I would "encourage" them to leave with more forceful measures.
Remember that a debt collector has no power or authority over you. Their main weapon is intimidation. They are counting on scaring you into paying them money and will use all manner of threats and lies to achieve this end. Other than that their only possible remedy is to sue you. This is an empty threat for the most part though because they almost always lack the documentation that would be required to win a lawsuit. They bank on collecting default judgments when the defendants fail to appear and aren't prepared to deal with someone shows up and contests the matter.
Fuck you! i do not owe you any money so you sort it out, it is not my problem
Actually if you wanted to be a real dick you could sue the collection agencies rather easily and collect at least $1,000 per violation. I would recommend that the people who are receiving these calls read up on the 'Fair Debt Collection Practices Act'. Send a cease and desist order to the debt collector as provided for by the FDCPA and when they call you again file suit. Wait a few months and cash your check.
Can I write you a check for that bridge?
It's not like the bank can force you to pay those fees.
No, but they can put them on your credit report and tank your credit score for the next seven years.
Of course this is all rather missing the point. Paypal is a bunch of scumbags but I've never heard of them trying to pull money out of a checking account without authorization. To do so would be a violation of Regulation E and would bring the Federal Reserve down on them like a ton of bricks. What Paypal will do is seize the funds out of your Paypal account. If there aren't enough funds to cover what they think you owe them they'll lock your account until you agree to transfer in enough money to cover it.
So in other words you still have a computer running, just not your main computer.
How's it gonna help those of us that download more than 2 gigabytes of porn^Wlinux distros at a time?
I did use a credit card. Unfortunately, I used the "Paypal"-branded credit card issued by GE Money Bank. They have in their fine print that any charge on the card through Paypal has to be resolved through paypal. They will just give you the run-around otherwise.
That's pretty shitty but not at all surprising coming from Paypal. I would have gotten screwed out of $800 by them if I had waited an extra day to transfer the money out of Paypal and into my checking account. Now they just refuse to do business with me until I "reimburse" them. To hell with them :)
I use it as a conduit for purchases through my bank account, costs me $0.00 in fees.
And your chargeback rights/protection if you get shafted by a bad seller or stupid Paypal policy.