Re: Why Doesn't Someone Nail CAMCO?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by lucy
(199.182.123.14) on August 20, 2002 at 14:23:00:
In Reply to: Why Doesn't Someone Nail CAMCO? posted by F. Maes on August 20, 2002 at 12:11:53:
The difficulty is in demonstrating that the actions taken have HARMED an individual or group of individuals. No attorney is going to take on the expense of discovery, trial, etc., for $1200. Because the majority of violations are verbal, and trust me even some of those are incredibly skilled semantic wonders. For example, preying on ignorance of the role of law enforcemrent officials in civil litigation, saying "The sheriff will come (to your house or your workplace)" is a threat to sue you in civil court. That is what I heard, and baffled a couple of them saying make it the workplace, it's the only convenient place to do it. Others hear that they are going to be taken to jail. And that was never threatened. Even the threat I heard plainly is not a violation, under certain conditions. I have to be sued to collrect the $1200. And if they in the meantime have a default judgment of $6600, for some reason unknown to me, I still have the problem of proving the verbal exchanges, even to get the score evened up. Because it is hearsay, I believe the term is. The one class action suit I know of involves entering derogatory information in credit reports. Kinda hard to duck hard evidence. Meanwhile every word I write here puts me at risk of a suit for libel. Most folks would fear that. I do not. No time now to post how come, unfortunately. FOLKS CAN SUE FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO SUE FOR and CAMCO prefers to sue for expired debt. It is easier. And attracts no nationasl publicity. More later.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
