7 ms·

This is disgusting. One of my adult fears is that I’ll wind up on the wrong end of a collections bill or something and everything will go to shit. That being sa

This is disgusting. One of my adult fears is that I’ll wind up on the wrong end of a collections bill or something and everything will go to shit. That being said, our court system was never particularly kind to the poor and destitute (what institution has been?). I’m so thankful that organizations like the ACLU exist and that they continue to do good, solid legal work.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
garmaine 9y ago
> That being said, our court system was never particularly kind to the poor and destitute (what institution has been?). I encourage you to imagine a world without the rule of law.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  What, like Mad Max?
  - garmaine 9y ago
    Yes. Or just a few hundred years ago when courts were for nobility and the king’s men acted with impunity against commoners like you and me. The point is that the courts and police, although vilified in this day and age, actually by their very nature do help the poor and destitute. Just maybe not as well as they could, ideally.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I think you’ve only shown that they hurt the poor less than the other systems you mention.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      Just because it's better than Ye Ol' Court System does not mean that it is not a discriminatory clusterfuck in 2018. We still have a long way to go.
      - meri_dian 9y ago
        But that's the point. It's not a discriminatory clusterfuck. You're not accurately representing the system.
        crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        But it is, but not by race, sex, or age. It's discriminatory purely as a function of money. The more money you have, the "more equal" you are and the more rights you can exert. It also means the less subject you are to criminal laws, as you can mount a powerful defense as opposed to someone who makes 20k/yr in the slums who is statistically likely to be black or hispanic. But our society has spoken, that it's ok for poor people to get sent away and their lives destroyed as a primary function of money.
      - dogles 9y ago
        I’d go as far as say that for the lower class, the difference the modern court system makes is negligible. Whether you want justice or mercy, you better bring cash.
        garmaine 9y ago
        There was no old court system. The old system was life was harsh and brutal and there were entire classes above you that could treat you as literal property to be disposed of as they pleased without repercussion.
    - benchaney 9y ago
      Just because the hurt the poor and destitute less than they used to does not mean they are helping the poor and destitute.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      Very telling that you're being downvoted. So many people seem to have a very biased attitude against our foundational institutions, which is unfortunate because our institutions do a good job of protecting us and and safeguarding justice and order. By "good" I mean that most of the time these institutions do protect the common people. I think much of this bias emerges for two reasons. First, the news we hear is usually bad news. One can only hear so much bad news before developing negative bias. In a large nation like the USA with so many people, abuses of power are almost guaranteed to happen once in a while. It's critical that a free press report on these incidents to keep institutions honest, but an unfortunate side effect of this is negative bias against those same institutions that so often work well and protect us. The second reason is that institutions do have power over us, and look large in our lives. In comparison to them, we are very small. This can be disconcerting and uncomfortable for some.
      - kharms 9y ago
        I didn’t downvote them, but if I had it wouldn’t be for the reason you’re describing, it would be because their attitude is defeatist. It’s like saying “at least there is a minimum wage” in response to “the minimum wage is too low.”
      - dogles 9y ago
        I find it odd that you’re responding (multiple times, copied and pasted) about an article documenting a _pattern_ of injustice and corruption, bemoaning anti-government bias. How is this relevant at all? If you’re arguing the pattern doesn’t actually exist, citations are needed. Otherwise I think this is pretty clear reporting that the courts are not “working well”.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  I seem to know a lot of anarchists, so I’m very well-acquainted with the idea of a world without the rule of law. Anyway, I think the principles of the American court system are pretty solid. Like all legal systems, it’s made up of flawed humans, and I don’t think it’s impossible to both hold it in some sort of esteem while also acknowledging that it needs improvement. That it is unfair to the poor doesn’t mean the entire system is broken (at least, that would be my argument; I’m sure you could argue that the whole thing IS broken), it just means parts of it need improvement. Let’s not ignore all the ways the court system has succeeded, oftentimes in numerous tiny ways (i.e. cases at the state level that set important precedent and have pretty fair outcomes for the involved parties. C.f. restrictive covenants on deeds. The rulings for my state (Michigan), at least, seem pretty well-reasoned and legally logical.)
  - garmaine 9y ago
    I think you were misreading my statement. I was certainly not advocating for anarchy! Quite the opposite. Life was miserable, brutal, and short before the very progressive step was taken to have police, courts, and he rule of law for common people. It is quite ironic to complain that police brutality and court machinery are oppressing the poor when in fact it is precisely those institutions that prot ct what liberties they enjoy.
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  I think you're being downvoted primarily by people who read this as an endorsement of a world without law. That is, they're reading it as "since no institution has totally succeeded, I encourage you to imagine a better approach" rather than "while no institution has totally succeeded, I encourage you to imagine how much worse it could be".
- Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
  >>I encourage you to imagine a world without the rule of law. When you issue loans at xxx% interest, non payment for a lot of borrowers is baked in. Plus, collection should not free (taxpayers money)
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    I think maybe collection should be free. If I loan you $10 and you don't repay it, it's never going to be worthwhile for engage the legal system to reclaim that money. If there's no realistic threat of coming after somebody for $10, then no $10 loans will be offered. I think it's nice to have an environment where legal remedies are accessible to everyone for little to no marginal cost. It promotes pro-social behavior if everyone knows that everyone knows that contracts are always enforced regardless of the economic standing of the participants.
    - tachyoff 9y ago
      Except clearly that doesn’t work, and clearly some people who take out loans like this aren’t doing it in bad faith. The idea that the threat of punishment is effective at stopping “bad” behavior has, I believe, been thoroughly debunked by psychology. It’s not as simple as “someone borrowed $10 and didn’t pay you back”, typically. Even personal bankruptcy is available to people who borrowed in good faith and couldn’t make the ends meet. But when there is an entire system that is designed and exploited to make it hard or impossible to pay people back (e.g. payday loans or usurious rental contracts), no amount of punishment will get the desired behavior you want because the system itself is broken.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  Everything has flaws. Exhibiting an institutional insecurity by making a take it or leave it response upon criticism, reducing the world to binaries, shuts down any attempt at improvements.
tehlike 9y ago
Same fears, and same conclusion.
jeffmould 9y ago
Back in 2003, I had this happen to me in Florida. I was struggling financially, fell behind on a debt, had a collection agency file a lawsuit, and I took the default judgment. Didn't think much of it and honestly just figured they would garnish wages after that I ignored the judgment (big mistake). About a year later I got pulled over for speeding and they had filed for a warrant. After a night at the police station, I was released on bail, that was actually more than the original debt (prior to interest). I had a hearing scheduled with a magistrate judge to review the debt between myself and the creditor. I appeared for the hearing only to have had the debt sold to a different collection agency and no one showed up. The judge dismissed the judgment against me. The entire hassle cost me not only time but more money than the original debt (and at this point after attorney fees, etc... the amount was more than the original plus interest. Rewinding a bit, when I went for my hearing though I was talking with my attorney and the magistrate that was handling the case. She expressed a great displeasure that this happens all too often and that most judges in civil cases will just rubber stamp what over a creditor files if there is no one there to oppose from the debtor side. Separately my attorney told me that Florida laws/courts make it very easy for creditors to do this.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  I’m really sorry this happened to you. I’m glad it ended up working out eventually (it seems). I wonder how much time, money, and tears we could save if there were an easier way to simply reach people in these situations to let them know of their options. Of course, a better solution is legislation like that proposed by the ACLU. Hope all is still well with you. Edit: just read your profile. I think you’re doing fantastic work!
  - jeffmould 9y ago
    Thanks! Yes, rough time but things usually work out for the better in this case. Definitely learned some important life lessons in a 4-year stretch during that time though. Many of those lessons are being applied directly to my current endeavors. Personally, I think people get scared or have a fear of facing a debt collector in court. I believe that when it comes to small claims judgments (i.e. under $10K) there should be a more personal approach that encourages resolution instead of fear. Maybe instead of "default judgments" that are rubber-stamped by judges, the courts move to a more hands-on approach with hearings between mediators, the creditor, and the debtor. While this may require manpower, the time/cost savings of jailing debtors would be savings in the end. I hope the ACLU is successful in getting legislation passed.
bernardom 9y ago
One of the biggest problems with winding up on the wrong end of a collections bill is that the lender is usually long gone, having sold the debt to some sketchy collections agency that ignores the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA has some real protections! Some features: * You can't contact someone other than the debtor (like their boss) and mention a debt. (You can only say that you're "trying to confirm X's phone number" etc.) * You can't call after 9pm * If the debtor asks to not be contacted in any channel other than mail, you must acquiesce immediately (though I think it needs to be in writing) * If the debtor asks not to be contacted at work, you must respect that The CFPB has a page on protections: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/category-debt-collection/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/category-debt-colle... And wikipedia has more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices...
- jopsen 9y ago
  Sounds like a few criminal investigations could clean up industry practices.. Of course that's expensive and only fixes it until the next sketchy business guy comes along...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

garmaine 9y ago

> That being said, our court system was never particularly kind to the poor and destitute (what institution has been?). I encourage you to imagine a world without the rule of law.

craftyguy 9y ago
What, like Mad Max?
- garmaine 9y ago
  Yes. Or just a few hundred years ago when courts were for nobility and the king’s men acted with impunity against commoners like you and me. The point is that the courts and police, although vilified in this day and age, actually by their very nature do help the poor and destitute. Just maybe not as well as they could, ideally.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I think you’ve only shown that they hurt the poor less than the other systems you mention.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    Just because it's better than Ye Ol' Court System does not mean that it is not a discriminatory clusterfuck in 2018. We still have a long way to go.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      But that's the point. It's not a discriminatory clusterfuck. You're not accurately representing the system.
      - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        But it is, but not by race, sex, or age. It's discriminatory purely as a function of money. The more money you have, the "more equal" you are and the more rights you can exert. It also means the less subject you are to criminal laws, as you can mount a powerful defense as opposed to someone who makes 20k/yr in the slums who is statistically likely to be black or hispanic. But our society has spoken, that it's ok for poor people to get sent away and their lives destroyed as a primary function of money.
    - dogles 9y ago
      I’d go as far as say that for the lower class, the difference the modern court system makes is negligible. Whether you want justice or mercy, you better bring cash.
      - garmaine 9y ago
        There was no old court system. The old system was life was harsh and brutal and there were entire classes above you that could treat you as literal property to be disposed of as they pleased without repercussion.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    Just because the hurt the poor and destitute less than they used to does not mean they are helping the poor and destitute.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Very telling that you're being downvoted. So many people seem to have a very biased attitude against our foundational institutions, which is unfortunate because our institutions do a good job of protecting us and and safeguarding justice and order. By "good" I mean that most of the time these institutions do protect the common people. I think much of this bias emerges for two reasons. First, the news we hear is usually bad news. One can only hear so much bad news before developing negative bias. In a large nation like the USA with so many people, abuses of power are almost guaranteed to happen once in a while. It's critical that a free press report on these incidents to keep institutions honest, but an unfortunate side effect of this is negative bias against those same institutions that so often work well and protect us. The second reason is that institutions do have power over us, and look large in our lives. In comparison to them, we are very small. This can be disconcerting and uncomfortable for some.
    - kharms 9y ago
      I didn’t downvote them, but if I had it wouldn’t be for the reason you’re describing, it would be because their attitude is defeatist. It’s like saying “at least there is a minimum wage” in response to “the minimum wage is too low.”
    - dogles 9y ago
      I find it odd that you’re responding (multiple times, copied and pasted) about an article documenting a _pattern_ of injustice and corruption, bemoaning anti-government bias. How is this relevant at all? If you’re arguing the pattern doesn’t actually exist, citations are needed. Otherwise I think this is pretty clear reporting that the courts are not “working well”.
tachyoff 9y ago
I seem to know a lot of anarchists, so I’m very well-acquainted with the idea of a world without the rule of law. Anyway, I think the principles of the American court system are pretty solid. Like all legal systems, it’s made up of flawed humans, and I don’t think it’s impossible to both hold it in some sort of esteem while also acknowledging that it needs improvement. That it is unfair to the poor doesn’t mean the entire system is broken (at least, that would be my argument; I’m sure you could argue that the whole thing IS broken), it just means parts of it need improvement. Let’s not ignore all the ways the court system has succeeded, oftentimes in numerous tiny ways (i.e. cases at the state level that set important precedent and have pretty fair outcomes for the involved parties. C.f. restrictive covenants on deeds. The rulings for my state (Michigan), at least, seem pretty well-reasoned and legally logical.)
- garmaine 9y ago
  I think you were misreading my statement. I was certainly not advocating for anarchy! Quite the opposite. Life was miserable, brutal, and short before the very progressive step was taken to have police, courts, and he rule of law for common people. It is quite ironic to complain that police brutality and court machinery are oppressing the poor when in fact it is precisely those institutions that prot ct what liberties they enjoy.
GavinMcG 9y ago
I think you're being downvoted primarily by people who read this as an endorsement of a world without law. That is, they're reading it as "since no institution has totally succeeded, I encourage you to imagine a better approach" rather than "while no institution has totally succeeded, I encourage you to imagine how much worse it could be".
Cw67NTN8F 9y ago
>>I encourage you to imagine a world without the rule of law. When you issue loans at xxx% interest, non payment for a lot of borrowers is baked in. Plus, collection should not free (taxpayers money)
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I think maybe collection should be free. If I loan you $10 and you don't repay it, it's never going to be worthwhile for engage the legal system to reclaim that money. If there's no realistic threat of coming after somebody for $10, then no $10 loans will be offered. I think it's nice to have an environment where legal remedies are accessible to everyone for little to no marginal cost. It promotes pro-social behavior if everyone knows that everyone knows that contracts are always enforced regardless of the economic standing of the participants.
  - tachyoff 9y ago
    Except clearly that doesn’t work, and clearly some people who take out loans like this aren’t doing it in bad faith. The idea that the threat of punishment is effective at stopping “bad” behavior has, I believe, been thoroughly debunked by psychology. It’s not as simple as “someone borrowed $10 and didn’t pay you back”, typically. Even personal bankruptcy is available to people who borrowed in good faith and couldn’t make the ends meet. But when there is an entire system that is designed and exploited to make it hard or impossible to pay people back (e.g. payday loans or usurious rental contracts), no amount of punishment will get the desired behavior you want because the system itself is broken.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
Everything has flaws. Exhibiting an institutional insecurity by making a take it or leave it response upon criticism, reducing the world to binaries, shuts down any attempt at improvements.

tehlike 9y ago

Same fears, and same conclusion.

jeffmould 9y ago

Back in 2003, I had this happen to me in Florida. I was struggling financially, fell behind on a debt, had a collection agency file a lawsuit, and I took the default judgment. Didn't think much of it and honestly just figured they would garnish wages after that I ignored the judgment (big mistake). About a year later I got pulled over for speeding and they had filed for a warrant. After a night at the police station, I was released on bail, that was actually more than the original debt (prior to interest). I had a hearing scheduled with a magistrate judge to review the debt between myself and the creditor. I appeared for the hearing only to have had the debt sold to a different collection agency and no one showed up. The judge dismissed the judgment against me. The entire hassle cost me not only time but more money than the original debt (and at this point after attorney fees, etc... the amount was more than the original plus interest. Rewinding a bit, when I went for my hearing though I was talking with my attorney and the magistrate that was handling the case. She expressed a great displeasure that this happens all too often and that most judges in civil cases will just rubber stamp what over a creditor files if there is no one there to oppose from the debtor side. Separately my attorney told me that Florida laws/courts make it very easy for creditors to do this.

tachyoff 9y ago
I’m really sorry this happened to you. I’m glad it ended up working out eventually (it seems). I wonder how much time, money, and tears we could save if there were an easier way to simply reach people in these situations to let them know of their options. Of course, a better solution is legislation like that proposed by the ACLU. Hope all is still well with you. Edit: just read your profile. I think you’re doing fantastic work!
- jeffmould 9y ago
  Thanks! Yes, rough time but things usually work out for the better in this case. Definitely learned some important life lessons in a 4-year stretch during that time though. Many of those lessons are being applied directly to my current endeavors. Personally, I think people get scared or have a fear of facing a debt collector in court. I believe that when it comes to small claims judgments (i.e. under $10K) there should be a more personal approach that encourages resolution instead of fear. Maybe instead of "default judgments" that are rubber-stamped by judges, the courts move to a more hands-on approach with hearings between mediators, the creditor, and the debtor. While this may require manpower, the time/cost savings of jailing debtors would be savings in the end. I hope the ACLU is successful in getting legislation passed.

bernardom 9y ago

One of the biggest problems with winding up on the wrong end of a collections bill is that the lender is usually long gone, having sold the debt to some sketchy collections agency that ignores the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA has some real protections! Some features: * You can't contact someone other than the debtor (like their boss) and mention a debt. (You can only say that you're "trying to confirm X's phone number" etc.) * You can't call after 9pm * If the debtor asks to not be contacted in any channel other than mail, you must acquiesce immediately (though I think it needs to be in writing) * If the debtor asks not to be contacted at work, you must respect that The CFPB has a page on protections: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/category-debt-collection/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/category-debt-colle... And wikipedia has more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices...

jopsen 9y ago
Sounds like a few criminal investigations could clean up industry practices.. Of course that's expensive and only fixes it until the next sketchy business guy comes along...