I see that the resident rooster over at one of the message boards has published a litany of garbage in the collection industry rag which has brought him great numbers of OOOOOOOOOOs and Ahhhhhhhhhs from all his bended knee followers who are, of course, either too awed by the resident rooster's loud crowing to realize just how dumb their "tip sheet" author really is or they are too scared of getting the boot if they do.
The ludicrous bit of pigeon poop I refer to is to be found atBill Lindala vividly displaying his ignorance yet once again.
Needless to say, I would not disgrace this blog by actually posting any of the garbage here nor would I give him or his employers any link credits by posting an actual link but clicking on the line above will get you to the latest pidgeon poop.
In his propaganda he spews out the thought that debtors are heading for the courtrooms in droves filing frivolous lawsuits on debt collectors over the most trivial of issues. While his words are true in that the oneseys and twoseys from a couple of message boards probably do represent record numbers they most assuredly do not represent "droves" of debtors filing lawsuits against collectors. At best there might be maybe 50 or so people out there filing lawsuits on debt collectors over trivial, technical issues.
Even so, almost none of them have ever won enough money out of it to have been really worth the time and trouble it took them to do the dumb deed. A few hundred or maybe even a thousand or two at best. Not even enough to make a debt collector bat an eyelash.
But to make the ignorance of the article even more apparent Bill Lindala don't even know the LEGAL meaning of the word "FRIVOLOUS" and so comes up claiming that it means
friv·o·lous:
1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.
2. Inappropriately silly: a frivolous purchase.
thereby proving that he hasn't a clue as to the LEGAL meaning of the word frivolous when used in the context he attempted to use it in really is.
In LEGAL terms, the word frivolous means
without merit and not what he claims it means.
When I filed and won my last lawsuit against an attorney in the amount of $100,000 plus other damages and attorney fees plus court costs it was because he filed a truly
frivolous lawsuit against me. It had no merit whatsoever, just like Bill Lindala's wildly-proclaimed-by-resident-idiot-debt-collectors article wherein he does a beautiful job of showing just how brain washed he has become by listening to and buying into the hawgwash propaganda on an internet message board.
The real danger to deadbeat chasers is that they will hire a dumb lawyer to file suit on people and the dumb lawyer files a frivolous suit on the consumer who not only shoots it down in court but then goes back and files a huge damage suit on both the lawyer and the debt collector. In otherwords, as usual, the payback is hell indeed.
Lindala then proceeds to further show his great ignorance by means of the following ejaculation. In this industry, the phrase frivolous lawsuit has become synonymous with the phrase technical violation. In most cases, if an agency is faced with a lawsuit that they consider frivolous, Well, maybe in "this industry" meaning debt collections, frivolous lawsuit really has become synonymous with the phrase "technical violation" but not in the lexicon of anyone who actually does know what the term really does mean. In otherwords, if such indeed be true then they have coined a phrase and made it mean something to them that it don't mean to normal knowledgeable people. So in typical mobster fashion they have taken a phrase which has a true and legally accepted meaning and turned it into a jargon meaningful to only a few in their gang. Something like "HEY DUDE, LEAVE THAT MUTHA ALONE CUZ HE IS ONE BAD MUTHA" meaning of course that the "bad DUDE" is a good person in the eyes of the "hood" and should be left alone.
Bill Lindala however easily demonstrates his prowess as a "great writer" by means of the extreme amount of errors he makes in his writing. Here are a few prime examples taken directly from the rag.
In the very first paragraph he comes up with the following gem. awhole.
Then follows that a few lines down with result ofa technical and just a bit later repeats the display of his great literary talent with that atechnical
He also goes on to display his supposedly great understanding of the law by quoting the following In most situations, it’s used by a judge who says something like“...it would be erroneous to award (the) plaintiff fees for motions on which she did not prevail… which he snatched up from a judge's decision in a court case and claims that ”Basically, the judge is saying that it was a frivolous lawsuit and the person suing should not benefit from it -- especially when they weren’t successful.
The case he most likely took the wording from was a case in which the plaintiff did win on at least one minor point but lost most of the case yet came back and appealed the original judge's decision that the plaintiff could not collect "attorney fees" when she did not win her case entirely. To have even stood a chance to sue for "attorney fees" as a pro se she would have had to win her case in it's entirety, not just prevail on one or two minor points while losing the major portion of the battle.
Bill Lindala also shows his great ignorance of the law and how the courts have ruled when he discusses the issue of overshadowing which means that during the period of time covered by the miranda notice that must be contained in all initial written communications with the debtor the debtor has 30 days from the time he receives the letter to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. The law and the courts hold the position that any threat of action or demand for action that might cause the debtor to falsely believe that the collector's demand for more immediate action lest he suffer some adverse consequence which the debtor has reason to fear causes him to overlook the fact that he first of all has 30 days to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. That is what constitutes "overshadowing".
Further illuminating his great display of ignorace, Bill Lindala goes on to proclaim the following. I mentioned the consumer message boards in last month’s column and my takeon the whole thing was, “Hey, we don’t have to worry, as long as we know what’s going on and with that knowledge, we can protect ourselves.” I mayhave been a little premature with that statement. Notice that I didn’t saythat I might have been wrong? Part of that could be my ego, but the other part is that I don’t know (yet) if I truly am wrong. What I do know is that the consumer message boards cannot be ignored by this industry.
That is quite possibly one of the greatest truths that Lindala might have uttered in all of his literary??? blatherings. Problem is that he, like the rest of his ilk don't even realize that the boards they frequent are not even close to being of danger to them. A few isolated lawsuits against a few equally isolated collection agencies is not even a minor threat to their industry but rather just a scarecrow that obviously has them badly spooked. The real threat is not from a few lawsuits filed by a very minor number of loose cannons rolling around their decks but rather the vast and ever increasing number of cases they are losing in court when filing motions for summary judgment against debtors who are listening to a different drummer , namely Creditwrench. So far this year, not one lawsuit against a CREDITWRENCH student has been successful. They (debt collectors) have lost each and every one of them! And not one message board the debt collectors frequent has ever mentioned that in their idle chattering about how they file piddling little lawsuits against debt
collectors obviously too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.
While I could keep on pointing out Bill Lindala's ignorance and utter lack of understanding, I will refrain and at least temporarily close with noting the fact that he at least got one thing right when he wrote the following. when it comes to this business and worst of all, they want you to pay.
And pay you will, and not in terms of just a piddling few thousand dollars but more likely in the loss of millions of dollars worth of law suits that you didn't have a crying chance of winning in the first place.
Since I seriously doubt that this dumbass article by wannabe author Bill Lindala who also has signed his name to various messages as blindala thereby revealing his true inner self will remain on public display for very long I have copied it to a file which can be used for later reference if necessary.
The ludicrous bit of pigeon poop I refer to is to be found atBill Lindala vividly displaying his ignorance yet once again.
Needless to say, I would not disgrace this blog by actually posting any of the garbage here nor would I give him or his employers any link credits by posting an actual link but clicking on the line above will get you to the latest pidgeon poop.
In his propaganda he spews out the thought that debtors are heading for the courtrooms in droves filing frivolous lawsuits on debt collectors over the most trivial of issues. While his words are true in that the oneseys and twoseys from a couple of message boards probably do represent record numbers they most assuredly do not represent "droves" of debtors filing lawsuits against collectors. At best there might be maybe 50 or so people out there filing lawsuits on debt collectors over trivial, technical issues.
Even so, almost none of them have ever won enough money out of it to have been really worth the time and trouble it took them to do the dumb deed. A few hundred or maybe even a thousand or two at best. Not even enough to make a debt collector bat an eyelash.
But to make the ignorance of the article even more apparent Bill Lindala don't even know the LEGAL meaning of the word "FRIVOLOUS" and so comes up claiming that it means
friv·o·lous:
1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.
2. Inappropriately silly: a frivolous purchase.
thereby proving that he hasn't a clue as to the LEGAL meaning of the word frivolous when used in the context he attempted to use it in really is.
In LEGAL terms, the word frivolous means
without merit and not what he claims it means.
When I filed and won my last lawsuit against an attorney in the amount of $100,000 plus other damages and attorney fees plus court costs it was because he filed a truly
frivolous lawsuit against me. It had no merit whatsoever, just like Bill Lindala's wildly-proclaimed-by-resident-idiot-debt-collectors article wherein he does a beautiful job of showing just how brain washed he has become by listening to and buying into the hawgwash propaganda on an internet message board.
The real danger to deadbeat chasers is that they will hire a dumb lawyer to file suit on people and the dumb lawyer files a frivolous suit on the consumer who not only shoots it down in court but then goes back and files a huge damage suit on both the lawyer and the debt collector. In otherwords, as usual, the payback is hell indeed.
Lindala then proceeds to further show his great ignorance by means of the following ejaculation. In this industry, the phrase frivolous lawsuit has become synonymous with the phrase technical violation. In most cases, if an agency is faced with a lawsuit that they consider frivolous, Well, maybe in "this industry" meaning debt collections, frivolous lawsuit really has become synonymous with the phrase "technical violation" but not in the lexicon of anyone who actually does know what the term really does mean. In otherwords, if such indeed be true then they have coined a phrase and made it mean something to them that it don't mean to normal knowledgeable people. So in typical mobster fashion they have taken a phrase which has a true and legally accepted meaning and turned it into a jargon meaningful to only a few in their gang. Something like "HEY DUDE, LEAVE THAT MUTHA ALONE CUZ HE IS ONE BAD MUTHA" meaning of course that the "bad DUDE" is a good person in the eyes of the "hood" and should be left alone.
Bill Lindala however easily demonstrates his prowess as a "great writer" by means of the extreme amount of errors he makes in his writing. Here are a few prime examples taken directly from the rag.
In the very first paragraph he comes up with the following gem. awhole.
Then follows that a few lines down with result ofa technical and just a bit later repeats the display of his great literary talent with that atechnical
He also goes on to display his supposedly great understanding of the law by quoting the following In most situations, it’s used by a judge who says something like“...it would be erroneous to award (the) plaintiff fees for motions on which she did not prevail… which he snatched up from a judge's decision in a court case and claims that ”Basically, the judge is saying that it was a frivolous lawsuit and the person suing should not benefit from it -- especially when they weren’t successful.
The case he most likely took the wording from was a case in which the plaintiff did win on at least one minor point but lost most of the case yet came back and appealed the original judge's decision that the plaintiff could not collect "attorney fees" when she did not win her case entirely. To have even stood a chance to sue for "attorney fees" as a pro se she would have had to win her case in it's entirety, not just prevail on one or two minor points while losing the major portion of the battle.
Bill Lindala also shows his great ignorance of the law and how the courts have ruled when he discusses the issue of overshadowing which means that during the period of time covered by the miranda notice that must be contained in all initial written communications with the debtor the debtor has 30 days from the time he receives the letter to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. The law and the courts hold the position that any threat of action or demand for action that might cause the debtor to falsely believe that the collector's demand for more immediate action lest he suffer some adverse consequence which the debtor has reason to fear causes him to overlook the fact that he first of all has 30 days to dispute the debt or any portion thereof. That is what constitutes "overshadowing".
Further illuminating his great display of ignorace, Bill Lindala goes on to proclaim the following. I mentioned the consumer message boards in last month’s column and my takeon the whole thing was, “Hey, we don’t have to worry, as long as we know what’s going on and with that knowledge, we can protect ourselves.” I mayhave been a little premature with that statement. Notice that I didn’t saythat I might have been wrong? Part of that could be my ego, but the other part is that I don’t know (yet) if I truly am wrong. What I do know is that the consumer message boards cannot be ignored by this industry.
That is quite possibly one of the greatest truths that Lindala might have uttered in all of his literary??? blatherings. Problem is that he, like the rest of his ilk don't even realize that the boards they frequent are not even close to being of danger to them. A few isolated lawsuits against a few equally isolated collection agencies is not even a minor threat to their industry but rather just a scarecrow that obviously has them badly spooked. The real threat is not from a few lawsuits filed by a very minor number of loose cannons rolling around their decks but rather the vast and ever increasing number of cases they are losing in court when filing motions for summary judgment against debtors who are listening to a different drummer , namely Creditwrench. So far this year, not one lawsuit against a CREDITWRENCH student has been successful. They (debt collectors) have lost each and every one of them! And not one message board the debt collectors frequent has ever mentioned that in their idle chattering about how they file piddling little lawsuits against debt
collectors obviously too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.
While I could keep on pointing out Bill Lindala's ignorance and utter lack of understanding, I will refrain and at least temporarily close with noting the fact that he at least got one thing right when he wrote the following. when it comes to this business and worst of all, they want you to pay.
And pay you will, and not in terms of just a piddling few thousand dollars but more likely in the loss of millions of dollars worth of law suits that you didn't have a crying chance of winning in the first place.
Since I seriously doubt that this dumbass article by wannabe author Bill Lindala who also has signed his name to various messages as blindala thereby revealing his true inner self will remain on public display for very long I have copied it to a file which can be used for later reference if necessary.
posted by Creditwrench at 7:58 AM
