text:
graym
About graym
Impressive 100+ postings
What to do when three courts refuse to vacate a clearly Void Judgment?
graym replied to graym's topic in Is There a Lawyer in the House
To simplify the whole thing, they filed an Affidavit with the Court (without serving her) in which they stated the debt was for $4,044.81 + Court costs of $295, attorney's fees of $450, and prejudgment interest of $1590.90. Afterwards, they obtained a stipulation agreement which hides all of this, and simply states the actual debt is $6278.60, including costs. She made one payment of $200, and then they filed a 2nd affidavit stating the debt was $6,078.60 + fees + pre-judgment interest from the date of the Stipulation. Based on the 2nd affidavit, the court issued Final Judgment verbatim for $6,078.60, pre-judgment interest from the date of stipulation to the date of Judgment of $123.28, and $50 in court fees for a total of $6,251.88. So, they were awarded $450 in Attorney's fees despite the fact this was never disclosed, and they were awarded pre-judgment interest on both the Attorney's fees and on the previously included pre-judgment interest, essentially they were awarded compounded pre-judgment interest. All of this misrepresentation allowed them to balloon an original debt of $4,044.81 into a Final Judgment of $6,451.88. Tack on another 5 years interest and they were awarded just over $9,000 in Garnishment, which was also improperly calculated. So without any evidence at all, they ballooned a debt of $4,044.81 into a Garnishment Judgment of over $9,000 in 5 years. They sought $10,000 in Garnishment, the court actually reduced it to just over $9,000 in the Final Judgment of Garnishment, but the correct calculation would've been around $8,000 based on interest. It's like the Judge just took a guess instead of actually doing the math so she's out another $1,000, no biggie right? She was never served in the Garnishment proceeding so she could not object to the wrong amount being awarded. She was never served the Affidavit so she no idea they had included $1,590 pre-judgment interest and $450 Attorney's fees. It's also not even her debt. I think anyone would be pissed if put in the same situation.
This is an interesting case in just how far you can go to overturn a Void Judgment. http://leagle.com/decision/199879879CalRptr2d719_1702.xml/ROCHIN%20v.%20PAT%20JOHNSON%20MFG.%20CO. In this case, they lost, but afterwards, without notice, the Plaintiff proposed an amended judgment without serving the Defendants. The court entered the amended judgment after only 1 day's notice to the Defendants. The Defendants appealed that amended Judgment issued without due process and lost. The Defendants sought Petition and lost. They then initiated a new case collaterally attacking the Judgment which was dismissed. They appealed that dismissal and finally won, overturning the Void Judgment. The Doctrine of Res Judicata Is Inapplicable to Void Judgments Defendants contended below and the trial court agreed in sustaining plaintiffs demurrer that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Specifically, defendants assert that plaintiffs failure to file a cross-appeal from the amended judgment resulted in the amended judgment becoming final and having preclusive effect. Defendants also contend that plaintiffs failure to file a notice of appeal (rather than a petition for writ of mandate), from the trial court's May 23, 1996, order denying plaintiffs motion to vacate the amended judgment also resulted in that order becoming final and having preclusive effect. We disagree. The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to void judgments. "Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra. Judgment, § 286, p. 828.) As discussed above, the amended judgment was void and of no effect. Plaintiffs failure to file a cross-appeal from the amended judgment, thus in a sense allowing it to become final, plainly does not give the amended judgment preclusive effect.6 The amended judgment is a nullity, and can have no such effect. In addition, the trial court's subsequent order denying plaintiffs motion to vacate the amended judgment, in that it gives effect to a void judgment, is itself void. (County of Ventura v. TilMt, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 110, 183 Cal.Rptr. 741.) While defendants are correct in stating that the order denying the motion to vacate was itself appealable, plaintiffs failure to appeal from it, thus allowing it to become final, makes no difference. A "final" but void order can have no preclusive effect. "`A void judgment [or order] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one.' [Citation.]" (Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514, 55 P. 390.) We conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer on the basis of res judicata.
Everything you said about Rooker-Feldman is true, but many courts also apply a fraud exception to the doctrine and she is asserting fraud. I don't know what she is going to do, she's contemplating it and wants a break from this legal crap. They falsified her driver's license, I can't see how that's not an FDCPA violation. You're misunderstanding the facts as well. The only argument that was raised and litigated in the courts so far was the issue of venue and service in the original case. Her letter to the court, which she sent trying to stop the garnishment, simply stated she didn't live there and never saw any documents in the case. The court took that letter as a Motion to Vacate the original judgment. The trial court ruled that she waived her right to venue when she signed the stipulation agreement, and didn't consider her argument of fraud (Stating they called her and threatened arrest) because the Judge stated his friendship with the opposing Attorney and through personal knowledge knew the Attorney would never do what she was claiming. It was a ridiculous ruling considering the Judge was referring to the WRONG ATTORNEY. However, there was no court reporter so the only thing she could raise on Appeal was venue under the FDCPA (which the appellate court never even addressed). Nothing else was raised in the court, and has not been ruled on by any court. She raised the issue of improper service in the Garnishment proceeding for the first time in her Petition as it was a subject-matter jurisdiction issue. However, denial of a Petition does not constitute a ruling on the issue and it was never raised in the trial court/Appellate Court. For all we know the court specifically didn't rule on it because it was not raised in the trial court. I'd say the more likely scenario is that the 1st DCA never actually read her Petition, because there's no excuse for the other arguments raised -> introducing new evidence into an Appeal and denial of Due process by not allowing her to file a Reply Brief. As the other arguments were never raised in the trial court, there's nothing preventing her from filing a motion to vacate a void judgment and raising the issues that were not previously raised. 1) No service on the Affidavit which was required and misrepresentation on the amount of debt on the Stipulation Agreement. 2) Attorney's fees awarded without a hearing 3) Judgment awarded exceeded small claims amount. 4) Service in the Garnishment action. Specifically, she needs to find case law in Florida as to the proper calculation of pre-judgment interest in account stated. There is no contract, and no evidence. They started the calculation from the date of default, months prior to the date they purchased the debt. If I recall correctly, I think I remember someone posting caselaw in another thread that Debt Collectors are not entitled to Pre-judgment interest or Attorney's fees in Account Stated claims specifically because there is no contract and no evidence to support the awarding of these things. If she can show that they were not entitled to Attorney's fees and Pre-judgment interest, and they obtained them through misrepresentation on the Stipulation Agreement, that would make it hard to justify not overturning the Judgment. As it stands, it should be set aside simply due to the fact that they failed to serve her the Affidavit. Courts are a two-party process, not one-party. She has a right to oppose the Affidavit, and she has a right to know the facts of which they were basing their claim on. It's a violation of due process to withhold that information in the court proceeding, I don't even get how you can argue that it's not.
That's correct, she did not live where they filed suit and it is about 400 miles away from where the case was. All documents in the case show she lived 400 miles away, and service was effectuated 400 miles away. FDCPA statute is past on that claim, but they did the same thing with the Garnishment action filed in 2013. It's relatively bullshit to have to defend a case on the opposite side of the state. It literally makes no sense, at least to me, not to file the suit and list all potential FDCPA violations while simply falling back on a violation of the venue provision of the FDCPA which is a very easy violation to prove. Her issue would be SOL on venue, but they took steps to maintain the action in an improper venue which might be, in and of itself, its own violation. It would seem a valid collateral attack on the entire judgment by saying that failure to serve documents in the proceeding and allowing it to go to Judgment is a violation of the FDCPA unfair practices provision and statute of limitations starts from date of discovery (2014). Other courts have found sewer service to be a violation of the FDCPA, so there is precedent and the documents are facially lacking certificates of service which were required. § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: Best case scenario it invalidates the entire judgment as void, worst case scenario the court disagrees and she falls back on the venue provision violation. Key is finding an Attorney to file the case though.
I would fundamentally disagree with that assessment. Just because a state court ruled in their favor doesn't mean they didn't violate the FDCPA. They aren't even the same issues. Also, my dad not wanting to help had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case itself. It was overwhelmingly location and a small portion because he just considers it small potatoes and doesn't want to spend time on it. That right there is the entire reason people have a right to be sued in a proper venue. It's extremely difficult to defend a suit hundreds of miles away from where you live. It's an entire day travel just to make an appearance and that's the problem, not the merits of the case.
In my personal opinion, her best action is to file an FDCPA suit. Certain claims are definitely within the statute of limitations, such as misrepresentations they made in the Appellate Brief. She has 2 months to file on those claims and still be within the 1 year. The other things like venue and the document not being served can be raised as well. There is not a whole lot of case law on some issues in her case. For example, there is case law that establishes that the statute of limitations runs from the date of service, and not the date of filing, when a suit itself is an FDCPA violation. However, there doesn't appear to be any case law at all as what happens when a document filed in a case creates a violation. It has to be an extremely rare occurrence for a document in a case to be accepted by the court, but not served on the opposing party because typically the Clerk of Court would catch this and reject it, and if they didn't, the Judge would. Subsequently, there doesn't appear to be any case law on the matter. However, it should be a valid, and timely claim, because she never received the document and it would make no sense whatsoever to apply a Statute of Limitations prior to the opposing party learning of the violation. Venue is another tricky one because in most cases such as hers, where the filing itself clearly indicates no basis for venue, most Judges would transfer the case on their own. To have a case proceed in an improper venue all the way to Judgment and Garnishment judgment is probably a very rare occurrence due to the liability under the FDCPA. Probably even more rare would be debt collectors actually defending the choice of improper venue. Would defending an improper venue be a violation on its own and/or reset the statute of limitations as its an affirmative action? Additionally, what about a Writ of Continuing Garnishment. Would the Statute of Limitations run solely from the filing of the suit, or would each act of Garnishment (the actual taking of the funds if a Garnishment order is obtained), create a new violation. Her Garnishment case was filed in March 2013, she learned of it in July 2013, and she was garnished until December 2013, with a Satisfaction of Judgment filed in January 2014. I don't think there is any case law on the matter, but if they are taking funds in December 2013 wouldn't that constitute a legal action upon a debt? Garnishment is a legal action, and the Judgment is for a Continuing Garnishment so at least to me it would be logical that each act of Garnishment would create a new violation under the Continuing Violation Doctrine. After all, the Judgment itself specifically contains the word "Continuing". I don't think there is any case law on the matter, but it would seem silly that they were actually taking her money in December of 2013, but the Statute of Limitations would start on the much earlier filing date/service date. That would mean, depending on the length of the Garnishment, you could have a situation where someone is currently Garnishing you from an improper venue while simultaneously being outside of the Statute of Limitations on being sued for the FDCPA violation of it. It's possible, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
They submitted a copy of her driver's license with an address listed on it that she has never lived at. It's the erroneous address they used to justify venue on the opposite side of Florida. It's easy to prove it is falsified, you just provide the actual DMV records with the correct address. As far as the Affidavit goes, the first copy was faxed in to the court and the 2nd copy was mailed in which arrived the same day as the Stipulation Agreement. As far as them "showing her" a copy of it, it's a losing argument. The entire way you prove that you served a copy on the opposing party is by providing a certificate of service listing specifically how you served them. In order for service to be "facially valid", it must contain the minimum requirements within the document. If Service is "facially valid", the burden shifts to the party challenging service. If service is defective on its face, the burden is on the filing party to present evidence of service. The same holds true for initial service in a case, down to every filing. The Judge should have rejected the filing and issued an order for them to serve the opposing party. That's what should have happened, and what usually happens. This actually happened to her in the District Court. The District Court initially rejected her filing and ordered her to serve a copy of her Petition on the Appellate Judge. That's the way it works. Having a certificate of service is the way you prove to the court that you served somebody. If a document has it, it's presumed valid and the burden is on the opposing party to prove defective service. If you don't include it, it's not facially valid, and the burden is on you to prove service. Once she states that she never received the document, since the document does not contain a facially valid certificate of service, the burden completely shifts to them to prove that she actually received it. Since the burden of proof is theirs, they can't simply say, "oh we gave it to her". As far as the "she could have viewed her file" argument, the case I linked earlier actually throws that argument out. The Lawyers in that case argued that the person could have performed "due diligence" and ordered the case from PACER, and the Judge said that's ridiculous. Hence, why she ruled that the Statute of Limitations starts from the date of Service of Process and not from the date of filing. You keep saying she doesn't have "proof" but the proof is the lack of a certificate of service on the documents. That *IS* proof.
Well that's the thing, I would logically state the date of the violation was the date it was mailed to the court back in 2008. If that's the case, and they intentionally withheld the documentation even though they were required to serve her a copy, I'd assume the doctrine of equitable estoppel would apply as that's the entire reason it is there. Venue is definitely past Statute of Limitations based on the filing date of the case, but in their Appellate Brief they filed documents defending their choice of venue by introducing new falsified evidence to support it. That would likely be a new violation, from the date of filing (11/2013). Based on the case you linked, it would seem like continuous violation might apply to venue on the basis that they have actively taken steps to defend their choice of venue, and she continuously has had to participate in a suit in a far-away location.
Well, I would agree with that ruling. If a person pays a Judgment, they obviously are aware of the case and therefore due diligence would extend to finding out whether or not a satisfaction of Judgment was filed. They applied a continuing violation theory to a single cause of inaction - the failure to file a satisfaction of judgment. The main thing to take away from that case is specifically that inaction can't support a theory of continuing violations. However, the part you cited: "The limitations period begins to run on an FDCPA claim on the date of an alleged violation, not on the date it was discovered." does not actually conflict with the ruling I cited. Specifically, "on the date of an alleged violation" is vague, and the case you cited makes no attempt to define what that date is. Other cases have gone into that distinction, and the prevailing rulings seem to be that the date of an alleged violation is the date of mailing + 1, and in regards to when the violation is the filing of a suit, the date service of process occurs. Essentially speaking, the date of an alleged violation is not always on the actual date it occurs as you seem to be implying, because courts have ruled that sometimes the date of the alleged violation does not occur until, for example, the suit is served. 2009 WL 1973476 United States District Court,S.D. Florida. Martha Reyes De PEREZ, Plaintiff,v.BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP NO. II, LLC, Defendant.No. 1:09–CV–20784.July 8, 2009. In Count I, Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., based on Defendant's alleged filing of the Collection Lawsuit after the applicable statute of limitations had lapsed. The FDCPA requires that suit be filed "within one year from the date on which the violation occurs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Defendant argues that the date of the alleged violation is the date Defendant filed the Collection Lawsuit—November 16, 2006. Plaintiff argues in her Response that she was not served until January 2008, and, until the service of the March 2009 subpoena on Plaintiff, she had validly assumed that Defendant ceased collection efforts. Plaintiff cites no case law in support of her arguments.3 In Maloy v. Phillips, 64 F.3d 607 (11th Cir.1995), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated whether the statute of limitations for an FDCPA action commenced on the date a debt collection letter was mailed to the debtor, or the date the letter was received. Id. at 608. Citing the reasoning of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in Mattson v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 967 F.2d 259 (8th Cir.1992), the Eleventh Circuit held that date of mailing, rather than the date of receipt, triggered the limitations period. The Eleventh Circuit adopted the reasoning of the Eighth Circuit that the date of mailing was the debt collector's last opportunity to comply with the FDCPA, and that the date of mailing was a better and more practical approach because it provided a date that was easy to determine, ascertainable by both parties, and easily applied. Id. More recently, in a case similar to the case at hand, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated whether the statute of limitations period on an FDCPA claim began to run when an underlying debt collection lawsuit allegedly in contravention of the FDCPA was filed, or when service was made in the underlying collection lawsuit. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir.2002). The Tenth Circuit rejected the argument that the violation occurred upon filing rather than upon service. Id. at 1113. The court stated, "where the plaintiff's FDCPA claim arises from the instigation of a debt collection suit, the plaintiff does not have a 'complete and present cause of action,' and thus no violation occurs within the meaning of § 1692k(d), until the plaintiff has been served." Id. (internal citation omitted). Citing Mattson, the court also noted that the date of service is easily ascertainable, and stated, "the decision of whether to serve the debtor is the creditor's last opportunity to comply with the FDCPA." Id. at 1114 n. 4. Finally, the court reasoned that if the limitations clock began to run with service of process rather than with filing suit, a debt collector who filed suit could effectively block any action under the FDCPA by filing suit and then delaying service. Id. at 1114. The Eleventh Circuit has not held whether filing or service triggers the statute of limitations period when the underlying violation is a debt collection lawsuit. Based on the Eleventh Circuit's adoption of the Mattson approach in Maloy, I conclude that service, not filing, constitutes the violation and triggers the statute of limitations period. I find the approach and rationale of the Tenth Circuit persuasive, and adopt the same.4 See also Wyles v. Excalibur I, LLC, No. Civ. 05–2798JRTJJG, 2006 WL 2583200, at *3 (D.Minn. Sept.7, 2006) ("[Plaintiff's] cause of action accrued the date she was served with the Minnesota lawsuit, because that was the last opportunity for the debt collector to comply with the FDCPA."); Anderson v. Gamache & Myers, P.C., No. 4:07CV336MLM, 2007 WL 1577610, at *8 (E.D.Mo. May 31, 2007) ("[T]he court finds that the one-year period of § 1692k(d) commenced running on the date Plaintiff was served with the State Petition ..."). Cf. Campos v. Brooksbank, 120 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1273–74 (D.N.M.2000) (denying the defendant's motion to dismiss FDCPA claim based on the statute of limitations, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in additional, subsequent, and specific acts that violated the FDCPA during the state court litigation). Accordingly, the one-year statute of limitations began to run when Plaintiff was served in January 2008. As Plaintiff waited until March 2009 to file the present lawsuit, Plaintiffs request for relief under the FDCPA is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Further, there are also exceptions such as the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel: 790 So.2d 1071Supreme Court of Florida.MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al., Petitioners,v.Frank L. MORSANI, etc., et al., Respondents.No. SC96004.July 12, 2001. The doctrine of equitable estoppel has been a fundamental tenet of Anglo American jurisprudence for centuries: "Estoppe," says Lord Coke, "cometh of the French word estoupe, from whence the English word stopped; and it is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead [otherwise]." Lancelot Feilding Everest, Everest and Strode's Law of Estoppel 1 (3d ed.1923). The doctrine, which was part of the English common law when the State of Florida was founded, was adopted and codified by the Florida Legislature in 1829.8 456 Equitable estoppel is based on principles of fair play and essential justice and arises when one party lulls another party into a disadvantageous legal position: "Equitable estoppel is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy." The doctrine of estoppel is applicable in all cases where one, by word, act or conduct, willfully caused another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on this belief injuriously to himself, or to alter his own previous condition to his injury. State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84, 87–88 (Fla.1950) (quoting 3 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence § 804 (5th ed.1941)). 78910 Equitable estoppel differs from other legal theories that may operate to deflect the statute of limitations, such as accrual,9 tolling,10 equitable tolling,11 and *1077 waiver.12 Equitable estoppel presupposes a legal shortcoming in a party's case that is directly attributable to the opposing party's misconduct. The doctrine bars the wrongdoer from asserting that shortcoming and profiting from his or her own misconduct. Equitable estoppel thus functions as a shield, not a sword, and operates against the wrongdoer, not the victim. This Court has applied the doctrine for more than a century and a half.13
Clydesmom, I've posted the documents, and cited the caselaw and rules of procedure. Regardless of any Stipulation Agreement being signed, the Affidavit was required to be served on her. The Rules of Procedure clearly state that and you've offered nothing that would indicate that fact is untrue. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so, especially when your posts are in direct conflict with the relevant caselaw and Rules of Procedure on this matter. In her case, the Affidavit was filed AFTER the original claim was filed and served. It was not included in the original claim which is obvious considering the fact the document is dated after the Service of Process. Therefore, regardless of the fact the original case was properly served, they were still required to serve her a copy of the Affidavit filed with the court. That's not my opinion, that's a fact supported by caselaw and the Rules of Procedure. She has never raised that argument in any court, and she would be well within her rights to raise it now if she wants as it is a violation of due process that should result in a Void Judgment. There is no time limitation to bring a Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment, and the argument was never previously ruled on. Res Judicata also does not apply to attempts to vacate Void Judgments, especially when the issues have never been raised. Regardless of anything you post and previous events in her case, she still has the ability to raise a newly discovered issue and file a new Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment. The main question is what affect failure to serve that document had on the outcome of the case. However, considering it's the only Affidavit filed in the case, it was relied on for Stipulation, and clearly shows that the facts stipulated to are untrue, it had a very big impact on the case. Would she have signed the Stipulation Agreement if the she had been presented with the proper facts? Obviously not. The fact that the opposing party withheld the facts does act to Void any agreement entered into. Caselaw also supports this. 560 So.2d 336District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.HOWARD JOHNSONS & Liberty, Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants,v.Jose PINEDA, Appellee. "A stipulation should not be ignored or set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of the facts by an adversary, or some element as would render the agreement void." Clearly, there is precedent to set aside a stipulation agreement obtained through improper methods. Your notion that it's impossible to do so is without merit. She also can attack the Garnishment Judgment, as that Judgment is clearly void and that one really isn't debatable. Lastly, she can file an FDCPA suit. If I recall correctly, BV80 has previously posted that actions taken in the course of a suit are protected from FDCPA violations. Caselaw indicates the exact opposite is true, at least in Florida. This is a recent case from the Southern District of Florida: 951 F.Supp.2d 1310United States District Court,S.D. Florida,Fort Pierce Division.Gina BATTLE, an individual, Plaintiff,v.GLADSTONE LAW GROUP, P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation and Roger N. Gladstone, Defendants.Case No. 12–14458–CIV.June 28, 2013. "Defendants also argue that Florida's litigation privilege allows for complete immunity for all acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding. (D.E. No. 27). Plaintiff contends that this immunity *1316 privilege applies only to litigation arising from violations of state law and not violations of federal law. Pescatrice v. Robert J. Orovitz, P.A., 539 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1380 (S.D.Fla.2008). Plaintiff's Complaint is based on a violation of the FDCPA (a federal statute) and Plaintiff does not allege a violation of any state statute. (D.E. No. 20). As a result, this Court finds that Defendants' litigation activity is not entitled to immunity." Essentially speaking, you are not immune from FDCPA violations simply because they occur during the course of litigation. Litigation Immunity only applies to State Law and not violations of Federal Law. That's a recent case too. Further, the same Federal court has previously ruled that it is Service of Process that triggers the Statute of Limitations in an FDCPA suit, not the filing of the suit. The logic explained is that the Statute of Limitations should begin to run when the person sees the documents and has a chance to bring suit, instead of losing a portion of their 1 year prior to service of the documents. This makes sense because sometimes service doesn't occur until much, much later. 2009 WL 1973476United States District Court,S.D. Florida.Martha Reyes De PEREZ, Plaintiff,v.BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP NO. II, LLC, Defendant. "The one-year limitations period for a debtor's claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was triggered by the service of process in a debt collection lawsuit and not the filing of the lawsuit. The debtor alleged that her creditor violated the FDCPA by filing a collection lawsuit after the applicable statute of limitations had lapsed. The debtor's claim was barred as untimely because she filed her claim over a year after she received service in the debt collection lawsuit. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 802, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq." "More recently, in a case similar to the case at hand, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated whether the statute of limitations period on an FDCPA claim began to run when an underlying debt collection lawsuit allegedly in contravention of the FDCPA was filed, or when service was made in the underlying collection lawsuit. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir.2002). The Tenth Circuit rejected the argument that the violation occurred upon filing rather than upon service. The court stated, "where the plaintiff's FDCPA claim arises from the instigation of a debt collection suit, the plaintiff does not have a 'complete and present cause of action,' and thus no violation occurs within the meaning of § 1692k(d), until the plaintiff has been served." Id. Citing Mattson, the court also noted that the date of service is easily ascertainable, and stated, "the decision of whether to serve the debtor is the creditor's last opportunity to comply with the FDCPA." Finally, the court reasoned that if the limitations clock began to run with service of process rather than with filing suit, a debt collector who filed suit could effectively block any action under the FDCPA by filing suit and then delaying service." Even though this particular Plaintiff lost their case, it still establishes when the Statute of Limitations starts to run which is when service of process is performed. The case was filed in late 2006, but the Defendant was not served until January 2008. The lawyers tried to argue that the statute of limitations began to run from the date of filing in late 2006, which would have led to expiration of the statute of limitations prior to them ever serving the case on the Defendant. Logically, the court ruled that the date runs when the case was served, in January 2008. Unfortunately, this person brought suit in March 2009 so even using the later date, this case was untimely, but it's still valid caselaw in establishing the Statute of Limitations for an FDCPA suit. The main thing that is so annoying in her case is venue. It's baffling to me that the record, in multiple places, clearly indicates that there was no basis for Jurisdiction whatsoever in the location where the case was filed. The computer printout they provided of the Credit Card lists an address over 8 hours away from the courthouse, she lived (and service was effectuated over 8 hours away), and the Plaintiffs resided about 600 miles away. All of this is plain as day in the case, so what's the basis for Jurisdiction in a county so far away from where everyone in the case lives? The Judge should have transferred the case on his own as the complaint provided no basis for Jurisdiction, and none exists. This would be akin to me filing a case in Alaska, to sue a Defendant that resides in New York, while I reside in Florida. This all occurred within the same state, but the three relevant parties (the Court, Plaintiff, and Defendant) reside on completely different parts of the state hundreds of miles apart from each other. It just defies logic no matter how you look at it.
Technically yes, but she was not aware that she was in court. It's a very small town and the courthouse is a business building, not an actual courthouse. She met with them in a conference room, not in a court room, and she was never in front of a judge. It occurred at a pre-trial hearing. She was never served, and never saw the service. She never received a single paper in the case, nor before the case because the Debt Collector had sent all correspondence to an erroneous address that she never received. She did not receive any notification of any kind as to what debt this was as she had not seen a single paper. Her only correspondence with this debt collector was by phone call. They called her and informed her she would be arrested if she did not appear and meet with them. They did not identify that this was in relation to a court case, nor did they identify themselves as Lawyers. She thought she met with a debt collector, and she wrongly assumed this was about a debt she actually owed - her student loans. She never took out this credit Card, it was Identity Theft. The Stipulation Agreement is the only document she ever saw, briefly, and it does not mention what the debt is. She didn't fill out the Stipulation Agreement, the opposing Attorney did. He even printed her name for her, which is kind of ridiculous. She thought she was agreeing to pay her Student Loans, she never intended to agree to pay a Credit Card that was not hers but having never been served, she made a wrong assumption. Fundamentally speaking, it should be considered fraud upon the court as the only reason she made an "appearance" in this case was not due to knowledge of the case nor participation in the case, but due to the fact they called her and misrepresented what the meeting was about. Period. Because it was misrepresented, she never knew that this "meeting" was a "pre-trial conference". She moved, and never received any other papers in the case, she also never received a copy of the Final Judgment. I know it was stupid to sign a document without reading it, but she did so under threat of arrest, and not voluntarily. Keep in mind that she lived over 400 miles away from the courthouse. Apply logic to the situation. Do you know of any person in the entire country that would drive over 400 miles to sign a Stipulation Agreement agreeing to pay the full amount of the debt, +costs, interests and Attorney's fees, and receive nothing in return? I don't. Especially if they had received a summons which states, in big red capital letters you have a right to proper venue on it, as a summons has? Don't you think sometime during the 400+ car ride you would wonder about the whole right to proper venue thing? This occurred due to a rather crazy set of circumstances, but it starts with the fact they committed fraud and coerced her into signing an agreement due to threat of arrest. A person should not be able to, without their knowledge of the court case, somehow consent to the jurisdiction of a court. I'm sorry, that's dumb. Nor should a court be able to obtain Jurisdiction over a case when it's clearly apparent that there is no basis for jurisdiction in the first place. The Court was located in Northern Florida, she resided in Central Florida over 400 miles away, and the Plaintiffs lived in South Florida, over 600 miles away. Nothing in this case had any relation to the court in which it was filed. Not even close. They even listed an address in Central Florida with the documents when the case was originally filed. Service was effectuated substitute in Central Florida. It was clearly an improper venue, and the record shows that all over the place. The biggest problem for her is that they hired a local lawyer who is friends with the Judge in this small town (convenient), and she has ZERO CHANCE at winning due to that fact. This isn't about right or wrong, proper legal arguments or not. This is small town justice where the rules are not followed. Her "hearing" was held via 3 way phone call and she could not even hear the opposing Attorney due to a bad connection. She informed the Judge of this who ignored her, and proceeded anyway. When she raised the argument of fraud due to threat of arrest, and that she learned of the case via phone call and had never seen the Summons, the Judge disregarded her argument by telling her a story about how he has known the Attorney for a long time, and scolded her for even bringing it up. He never addressed her claim of the meeting being misrepresented due to the phone call. How is it not a conflict of interest when the Judge and opposing Attorney are long-time friends. The fact that she got railroaded is why she Appealed in the first place. Then, she got railroaded again on Appeal. Since the town is so small, the "Appellate Panel" is simply another Circuit Court Judge (single, not a panel), whose probably a friend of the original Judge. The opposing Attorneys broke every rule in the book. They improperly filed a motion for extension, filed their Brief well after the time for filing had past, introduced new evidence into the Appeal, falsified evidence, contradicted themselves throughout the entire Brief etc. She filed a motion to strike, the Judge ignored her Motion for about 3 months, so finally she called and spoke to the Judge's Assistant. The next day, she gets a blanket denial on her Motion, and ends her Appeal without even addressing the issues raised. The "Opinion" even has a statement that defies logic and clearly indicates the Judge had no clue what he was doing. It mentions how she only raised the same issues that she previously raised implying she was simply wasting this courts time by raising the same issues. It reads as dismissive of her filings, but it's ridiculous because that's EXACTLY WHAT SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO and clearly indicates her Appellate Judge was, to be blunt, an idiot. The timing of the Opinion, one day after she called, and the way it is written, kind of clearly implies that the Judge apparently got annoyed by the fact she called to find out why it was taking 3 months to rule on her Motion and kicked her to the curb. That's in despite of the fact that legally, she was completely right. So, once again having been railroaded, she thought she could get a fair shot at this thing by filing a Petition in the 1st District Court of Appeals. How wrong she was. She raised arguments showing that the Circuit Court violated the Rules of Appellate Procedure by not allowing her to file a Reply Brief, allowed new evidence to be introduced into the Appeal, ruled with an incomplete record, and even applied the wrong standard of review. All of which was supported by either the Rules of Appellate Procedure or case law that was binding to that court, including case law from the very same district she filed the Petition in. The opposing attorneys never responded to any of it, and yet she received a blanket denial which precludes her from seeking review in the Florida Supreme Court. Now, do I think she lost on the merits? No. I think she lost because she made the mistake of being Pro Se and going up against a rigged system. Certain aspects of it such as not being able to file a Reply Brief are clearly indicated in the record that takes two seconds for anyone to see. It's ridiculous, and yet she still lost without explanation. This is what small town justice is. You don't get a fair proceeding, you get a Lawyer that's buddy buddy with the Judge. Even if you take it higher, then you get a Court that flat out doesn't want to deal with your small potatoes small claims case so denies you without reading the filings and there's nothing you can do about it. Some of you want to post that she lost because she doesn't know what she was doing, she's wrong, people are entitled to their opinions. If you want to fair about it, and look at the filings, and look at the docket, it's pretty clear that she should not have lost. She can still re-file a motion to vacate a Void Judgment and raise the arguments that were not raised previously, she can file a motion to Vacate the Void Judgment of Garnishment, she can collaterally attack the judgment by filing a Petition in another District, and I'm not sure but she might even be able to get this into federal court under an FDCPA suit regarding the document that was never served claiming that the 1 year SOL runs from the date she learned of the violation which was when she ordered the case recently and collaterally attack the Judgments there. I'm flying to Europe in 4 hours to attend Oktoberfest in Munich, so if I don't respond, its because I'm out of the country.
First off, the document was not part of the summons. She ordered the entire case. It also clearly was not part of the summons based on the fact it is signed and dated after service of the summons. Secondly, and much more importantly, this is the exact reason why courts not only require you to serve documents on the opposing party, but to list on the documents how you served them. It is the responsibility of the filing party to inform the court that they served a copy on the opposing party. The fact that the document does not even contain a certificate of service is proof that she did not receive the document. This is all covered in Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516 (a) Service; When Required. Unless the court otherwise orders, or a statute or supreme court administrative order specifies a different means of service, every pleading subsequent to the initial pleading and every other document filed in any court proceeding, except applications for witness subpoenas and documents served by formal notice or required to be served in the manner provided for service of formal notice, must be served in accordance with this rule on each party. No service need be made on parties against whom a default has been entered, except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims against them must be served in the manner provided for service of summons. and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure RULE 1.080 (a) Service; When Required. Unless the court otherwise orders, every pleading subsequent to the initial pleading and every other paper filed in the action, except applications for witness subpoena, shall be served on each party. No service need be made on parties against whom a default has been entered, except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims against them shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons. They were required to serve her the Affidavit of Amounts Due. (f) Certificate of Service. When any attorney certifies in substance: "I certify that a copy the foregoing document has been furnished to (here insert name or names, addresses used for service, and mailing addresses) by (e-mail) (delivery) (mail) (fax) on ….. (date) ….. ________________________ Attorney" the certificate is taken as prima facie proof of such service in compliance with this rule. There is no need for a he said / she said when the document itself proves that she never received it due to a lack of a certificate of service which was required on the document. The court should have rejected the filing due to a lack of a certificate of service and/or ordered them to serve her a copy. Lack of Service does not automatically result in a Void Judgment depending on what document was not served. However, this particular document contained information not found anywhere else in the case, and the Stipulation Agreement and Judgment were based on this document so it's a rather central document to the proceedings not to have been served.
They calculated interest starting on the date the debt occurred well before the date which they purchased the debt. I'm pretty sure that's not correct. A quick google search about it brought this up: https://dev.webrecon.com/court-rules-debt-buyer-violates-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-by-seeking-to-collect-post-charge-off-interest/ It's the exact same thing they did in her case. She just learned of this recently because the only document which shows they did this was never served on her so she never found out until she ordered a copy of the case 4 months ago. Why would anyone be entitled to back-date interest prior to the date of purchase? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Here are the documents so everyone can see what I'm referring to. The first document is the Affidavit of Amounts due. They sent it in by fax, and mailed a copy in. Neither of which contain any certificate of service. She never saw this document, it was never served. The first time she saw this document was when she ordered a copy of the case in preparation of her Petition in the District Court. She did not have it available when she sent in her letter/motion so she has never raised any of these issues. Look at the breakdown of the debt listed. The 2nd document is the "stipulation". Notice how it simply says she is indebted and never mentions Attorney's fees at all, it just groups all of it together from the Affidavit. For reference on the amounts, the original claim was for $4,041.81. Also, they state they started charging interest from the date the debt occurred, not the date they purchased the debt which was way later. This added a lot to the amount owed, and this fact is also not found anywhere else in the case except in this Affidavit. The 3rd document is the Final Judgment. They subtracted the 200 payment she made. Also notice, no mention of attorney's fees. The only place in the ENTIRE CASE where this breakdown occurs is in the Affidavit of Amounts due, which they never served her with so she never saw it. So, having seen the documents, the question is, were they required to serve her with the Affidavit of Amounts due? My opinion would be yes, and it's a Void Judgment for that reason. She was entitled to see the facts regarding the breakdown of the amount owed in the Stipulation Agreement prior to entering into the Agreement. A person can not be said to have knowingly entered into said agreement when the record indicates that facts vital to the agreement were withheld from them. They clearly misrepresented the debt on the Stipulation Agreement. The Judgment should also be void due to the fact the court awarded Attorney's Fee's which are an unliquidated amount without a hearing. She never stipulated to grant them Attorney's fees. Lastly, the amount of pre-judgment interest (prior to filing) in addition to the original claim puts the amount over the small claims threshold in Florida. It should have been capped at $5,000, yet they were clearly awarded more than that. EditedAffidavit.pdf editedstipulation.pdf editedfinaljudgment.pdf
It's not a small thing to have a garnishment dissolved after the money has been wrongly paid out. Yes, it might be a "technicality" as you put it, but notice of the proceedings is a rather important technicality.


text: Q: Android Studio - Gradle sync I'm experiencing the repository problem. I have just opened a new project, it now struck me that there's repository problem and that gradle didn't sync after it has completed loading. Please can someone help me out?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Main » 2014 » October » 1 » China Patent Agency Grants ZTE's Application to Invalidate Vringo Patent
China Patent Agency Grants ZTE's Application to Invalidate Vringo Patent
SHENZHEN, China - Tuesday, September 30th 2014 [ME NewsWire]
(BUSINESS WIRE) -- ZTE Corporation noted the Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China has granted the company's application to invalidate the CN00812876.6 patent owned by Vringo Inc. and its subsidiaries.
The Patent Re-examination Board ruled that the patent asserted by Vringo lacked an inventive element, according to a notice of the decision received by ZTE today. The EP1212919 European patent and other patents equivalent to CN00812876.6, which relates to relocation in a communication system, have been asserted by Vringo in litigations against ZTE in the U.K., Germany and Brazil. ZTE is also challenging the equivalent patents in those countries.
"The decision by the Patent Re-examination Board in China is expected to serve as an important reference in other litigations that are based on equivalent patents in other markets," said Shen Jianfeng, Chief IPR Officer of ZTE.
ZTE reserves the right to continue existing action and pursue further legal steps to invalidate other equivalent patents to CN00812876.6 asserted by Vringo in other jurisdictions.
As one of the world's leading technology innovators, ZTE respects the intellectual property of other companies. Despite ongoing efforts by ZTE to negotiate since 2012, the company has been unable to reach an agreement with Vringo to license Vringo's telecommunications patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
In the past five years, ZTE has invested more than RMB 40 billion in research and development. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, ZTE submitted 2,309 filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in 2013, the second-highest total globally. ZTE is both a licensor and licensee of IPR and ranked top in the WIPO's PCT application tables in 2011 and 2012, reflecting the company's world-leading efforts in technology innovation.
ZTE is a publicly-listed global provider of telecommunications equipment and network solutions with the most comprehensive product range covering virtually every telecommunications sector, including wireless, access & bearer, VAS, terminals and professional services. The company delivers innovative, custom-made products and services to over 500 operators in more than 160 countries, helping them to meet the changing needs of their customers while growing revenue. ZTE commits 10 per cent of its annual revenue to research and development and has leadership roles in several international bodies devoted to developing telecommunications industry standards. ZTE is committed to corporate social responsibility and is a member of the UN Global Compact. The company is China's only listed telecom manufacturer that is publicly traded on both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges (H share stock code: 0763.HK / A share stock code: 000063.SZ). For more information, please visit www.zte.com.cn
Edelman Brussels
Simon Wilson, +32 (0)2 548 02 75
simon.wilson@edelman.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


First up in a series of about eight AR-15 drop-in trigger reviews are the Elftmann Tactical ELF Match and 3-Gun triggers. I've been playing with these since early November and — spoiler alert — I like 'em a lot. That said, I have no way of testing out claims such as "incredibly fast lock time." Actually, this may be changing as we're working on borrowing a Dvorak TriggerScan to objectively compare all of these AR triggers back-to-back, so stay tuned. Regardless, the ELF triggers have a couple of features that set them apart from the pack . . .
Want to know what it feels like? The video above, complete with close-up trigger pulls, is your best bet.
This is supposed to result in smoother and faster operation. Again, I can't measure whether it's faster, but the trigger and hammer certainly do move smoothly.
Speaking of faster, "lock time" is the delay between the trigger breaking (the sear releasing the hammer) and the round igniting. A faster lock time generally means better accuracy. The concept becomes crystal clear if you imagine something like a flintlock rifle, where a meaningful delay exists between trigger break and projectile leaving the barrel (slow-mo footage). Even counting in milliseconds, it doesn't take many of them to give you enough time to screw up a shot by moving the muzzle from "perfect" to "not so much" during the lock time delay.
Elftmann originally said that its 3-Gun trigger has the shortest AR-15 trigger lock time on the planet, but they've scaled it back to "incredibly fast lock time" until they can scientifically prove just how fast it is. They are quite confident, however, based on the fact that it has a particularly lightweight, skeletonized hammer, a full-power hammer spring, and the aforementioned roller bearings. Many or most aftermarket triggers use lighter hammer springs to reduce pull weight, so it makes sense that a full-power spring swinging a light hammer would be quick. If the TriggerScan loan pans out, we'll actually be able to measure lock time accurately (as well as take-up, creep, overtravel, and pull weight).
That full power spring, whether with the skeletonized 3-Gun hammer or the solid Match hammer, should also ensure reliable primer ignition. I did shoot NATO-spec 5.56 as well as Russian steel stuff, both of which have hard primers, and had zero issues.


My oldest daughter was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes at the age of two. Technology has come a long way in terms of tracking blood sugar levels, but I thought I would start a Python web application to do so. I'll be using the Flask web framework for the project and, since I'm not a marketing or product naming genius, will call the project Flask Blood Glucose Tracker. I'm certainly open to other, more catchy, names.
This is somewhat of a different post for me, in that I'll be walking through the generation of an actual application. The application will mostly be a minimal viable product (MVP) though. It should, however, be a good tutorial on how to integrate some concepts and technologies together. As such, in this first post, I'll cover some of the project specifications and features that I'd like to include and work on implementing them in future posts.
Diabetics have to check their blood glucose levels frequently, typically using a blood sugar monitor . These checks involve getting a small portion of blood from a finger (or arm) prick and having the monitor test it. It then returns a measurement of the amount of glucose in the blood as a number of milligrams per deciliter (mG/dL). These readings then will be the numbers we want to record in our application.
It is also important to know if the reading is taken before or after eating and the time of day the reading was taken. Therefore, the application will need to accommodate for that as well. The readings themselves, along with the time of day and relation to meal time are all factors into the amount of insulin needs to be injected.
Throughout this, and subsequent posts, I will do my best to explain diabetes-specific terms in as user-friendly of a way as possible. I am basing much of the numbers that I use, ranges of "good and bad", etc. on managing my daughter's diabetes over the last 14 years and the countless doctor appointments I've attended. As a disclaimer, I am not a medical professional. Please check with your physician about specifics with diabetes. There is a Diabetes For Dummies book which provides a decent overview as well.
Register for the BGT site, with email confirmation.
Login/Logout and based on role have different access.
Patient to access and edit my own data.
Physician to get a list of all current patient records.
Input blood sugar levels with date and time of reading and indication of before or after a meal or snack.
Display the data in a table with averages.
Display the data in a chart or visual format.
Data is stored in the cloud for accessibility and ease of database maintenance.
For the reporting features highlighting high and low blood sugar levels in the report would be helpful. Since what is "good" and "bad" can change for each individual, I'll include a field for each individual to set that.
I have already mentioned that this application will be built with Flask. For the data store, I will use MongoDB. To keep in line with the feature request of storing data in the cloud, MongoDB offers a Database as a Service (DBaaS) called Atlas.
I haven't quite figured out yet where I'll ultimately host this application, perhaps Heroku? Or maybe on my own server.
When it comes to libraries, there are a lot of choices. Here's what I'll be using, which will also be included in a requirements.txt file.
There are other libraries that will but used as well, but those are the main ones of interest.
I'm also more of a fan of Zurb Foundation than Twitter Bootstrap, so I'll be using that for styling.
To start with we need a way for a user to log in, enter their personal data, enter a new blood sugar record, edit their record, and view their information in both a tabular format and then in a chart format.
We'll need the following pages, at least to start.
Have the ability to manage users (patients & physicians) but not be able to see patient medical data.
From the API I want to expose the ability to securely read and write (GET and POST) data to a patient's record. This will make it easier to, for example, write a mobile application to connect to our data. Or, with the advances in blood sugar monitors, perhaps automatically update our application with readings from a device.
Since I will be using MongoDB to store data for this application, I'll be leveraging the document model. This offers a lot of flexibility in how data is stored, among other benefits. I would encourage you to read my blog post on the document model if you are not familiar with it.
In looking at this sample document, the groups field will keep track of values such as patient, physician, and admin. I have chosen to implement the postal_code and MRN values as strings instead of integers to accommodate alpha-numeric values.
Through the course of developing this application, we will see the flexibility of the document model in action. We'll see how we can utilize some of the features from MongoDB's aggregation pipeline to handle our data processing as well.
I have outlined a nice project here which will utilize several different bits of programming. In the next few posts then, I'll cover how to implement all of these features into an MVP application. I would definitely enjoy receiving feedback, so please leave comments below.


The Project Readiness Matrix (PRM) is a tool developed by the Gauteng Department of Infrastructure Development (DID) to serve as the GP-IDMS SDMP stage-gate governance tool that enables the DID and client departments to determine the extent to which a portfolio or individual project is ready for implementation. It also assists in ensuring that all activities involved in each SDMP stage-gate are completed prior to proceeding to the next gate.
Through the PRM, the department seeks to end the persisting problems of poor end-to-end planning and poor readiness of projects to be delivered in time.
PRM is a tool and technique to ensure that the department consistently builds the project pipeline over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), creates transparency, openness and accountability on the role and responsibilities of client departments and enforces the performance of their contractors and professional service providers.
The PRM will also deal with problems associated with waste and lack of cost savings, and, ultimately, fiscal dumping. This will be done by ensuring that projects meet certain basic standards and criterion for funding allocation before proceeding from one level to another. Additionally, the PRM will also ensure that the funding of infrastructure projects recognises the fact that project viability and feasibility is a critical process in project planning and preparation before such projects are considered ready for construction.
The PRM will be monitored through smart technologies installed in the department's infrastructure nerve centre, Lutsinga Infrastructure House, wherein the entire infrastructure delivery value chain is automated from land planning to works, project handover and ongoing maintenance.
The PRM is supported by the service level agreements (SLAs) with construction and professional service providers, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Members of the Executive Council (MECs) and performance levels. All these regulatory tools of performance will be enforced without fear or favour.
The department presents the PRM as a tool of oversight by all key role players and stakeholders involved in the infrastructure delivery to stabilise and standardise project delivery, end resource waste, corruption, poor project planning and execution, and generally build a developmental state that is accountable to the people and citizens of our province.
At the end of each stage, portfolio managers/project managers, together with their client department stakeholders and service providers, will use the PRM to assess the outputs of each stage against the required list of activities for that stage.
The objective of this exercise will be to determine whether the accountable role player has delivered the right output at the right level of quality, in order to obtain client approval for that specific stage.


We often tend to overlook water, because it seems to be so plentiful. But when your regular water supply becomes unavailable or tainted, you quickly realize how important this "elixir of life" is to daily survival. At Lehman's, we carry a big selection of water pumps, parts and tools to make sure your source of pure, clean water never runs dry. An old-fashioned well hand pump requires no electricity, so it is perfect for remote cabins and camps or anyplace you want a reliable backup source of water during power outages.
If you are looking for an old-fashioned hand water pump, you will find plenty of options among our old-time water pumps. For water sources less than 20 feet down, an old-fashioned water hand pump for shallow wells is the right choice. For deeper sources, check out our deep-well pumps. Either way, you will not be at the mercy of power outages and will always have a ready source of life-giving water at hand.
Many of these items are U.S. water well hand pumps, so you can count on American-made quality. In addition to other American brands, our Bison hand pump inventory offers plenty of made-in-America choices.
In addition to hand pumps for wells for sale, we carry a full lineup of parts, tools and accessories for installation and repair of hand pumps. If you have questions about your own setup, just give us a toll-free call. Several of our dedicated customer service staff members are certified experts. They can help you find the right parts and tools for a lifetime of worry-free water.


Stuart Rutherford, The Poor and Their Money, Practical Action Publishing, UK, 2009. The first edition (2000) summed up Rutherford's ideas about money management by and for poor people. This new edition brings the story of the microfinance industry's interaction with the poor up to date.
Portfolios of the Poor, with Daryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch and Orlanda Ruthven, Princton University Press, Princton NJ, 2009. About the financial diaries research done in Bangladesh, India and South Africa.
Stuart Rutherford, Why Do the Poor Need Savings Services? in Madeline Hirschland, ed, Savings Services for the Poor, Kumarian, 2005. See the Kumarian website.
Stuart Rutherford, The Microfinance Market: Huge, Diverse, and Waiting for You, in Livelihood and Microfinance, ed Hotze Lont and Otto Hospes, Eburon, Delft, 2004. Can be ordered from the Eburon website.
Charles Oberdorf, Ed, Microfinance: Conversations With the Experts, Accion International and Calmeadow, La Paz, 1999. Can be ordered from theAccion website.
Stuart Rutherford, Informal Financial Services in Dhaka's Slums, in Who Needs Credit?, ed Geoffrey D Wood and Iffath A Sharif, University Press, Dhaka, 1997. Can be ordered from the Vedamswebsite.
Graham Wright, Mosharrof Hossain and Stuart Rutherford, Savings: Flexible Financial Services for the Poor, in Who Needs Credit?, ed Geoffrey D Wood and Iffath A Sharif, University Press, Dhaka, 1997. Can be ordered from theVedams website.
reports on `financial diary` research in Bangladesh about the depth and variety of money management by poor households: available from EarthTrends here.
Imran Matin, David Hulme and Stuart Rutherford, Finance for the Poor: From Microcredit to Microfinancial Services, in Journal of International Development, Volume 14, Number 2, Wiley, Chichester UK, 2002: see the Wileywebsite.
Stuart Rutherford, Raising the Curtain on the 'microfinancial services era', CGAP Focus Note Number 15, May 2000, available at CGAP: a condensed version of the original article written for Small Enterprise Development (Small Enterprise Development, Volume 11, Number 1, IT [now Practical Action] Publications, London 2000). Discusses how to make microfinance more responsive to the needs and demands of its poor users.
Imran Matin, David Hulme and Stuart Rutherford, Financial Services for the Poor and Poorest: Deepening Understanding to Improve Provision, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, UK, Working Paper 9, 1999. Available on the IDPM website [full link yet to be created].
Stuart Rutherford, The Savings of the Poor, in Journal of International Development, Volume 10, Number 1, Wiley, Chichester UK, 1998. See the Wiley website.
An early article urging MFIs to get serious about savings at a time when most of them focused on microcredit.
Stuart Rutherford, A Critical Typology of Financial Services for the Poor, ActionAid, London, 1996, Working Paper 1. Available at CGAP.
Describes, through examples, the many ways in which poor people create or gain access to basic financial services. This early paper introduces material that was eventually used inThe Poor and Their Money.
Stuart Rutherford with Maniruzzaman, S K Sinha and Acnabin and Co, Grameen II: The First Five Years, for MicroSave, 2006. Get the PDF file from the MicroSave website.
Reports on field-level research into the success of Grameen's new products (which have brought Grameen much closer toThe Poor and Their Money principles).
There is also a series of 2-page Briefing Notes on important aspects of the Grameen II research.
Jonathan Morduch and Stuart Rutherford, Microfinance: analytical issues for India, for World Bank, India, April 2003.
Stuart Rutherford with S K Sinha and Shyra Aktar, BURO, Tangail: Product Development Review, BURO, Tangail, Dhaka, 2001. Describes the products of this innovative Bangladesh MFI (of which the Finance Director, Mosharrof Hossain, is a SafeSave Executive Board Member). Enquire at BURO.


Now with our one year replacement, you don't have to worry about the product.
Hurry! Grab our Super Discount offers on Cp phones, Routers and Switches.
With our Worldwide express shipping offer enjoy International shiping at low cost and fast delivery.
We offer 24/7 online support for any enquires, quotation or consult.
Now shop without hesitation, our products are 100% original by thier respective brands.
Now with our instantaneous dispatch, get your product delivered ontime than ever before.
With our rich experience of more than 20 man years in sales of IT Networking and hardware " we know the rules" of the local land helping you with the right delivery time and the right rules of trade. Our Sales team is equipped with the best state of the art technology will leave no stone unturned as far as the response time is concerned.
Our Sourcing Team works round the clock with suppliers in United States to Australia and UK to India to support you with the best prices for your RFQ to lead you and Win the deals.
With state of the warehouse based in Sharjah, UAE our express delivery backed with the Certificate of Origin, SASO certificate on demand and best shipment quote rates helps with delivery anywhere in the world with target minimal time.


For over 17 years, eInflatables has been producing the highest quality bouncers, slides (wet, dry, wet/dry), bounce combos and obstacle courses in the industry. We started small like you and then started growing quickly as the industry learned about our quality.
Today we are growing rapidly due to new innovations in design and fun. And, all the while, maintaining our quality manufacturing process.
Located in sunny Southern California, eInflatables is a leading manufacturer of quality and affordable inflatable play structures. We have the largest selection of Water Slides to choose from, along with our New Inflatables , Combo Units, Wet & Dry Slides, Obstacle Courses, Dry Slides, Inflatable Games, Bouncers and more. Whether you are new to the business, have an existing Rental Company or opening up an (FEC) Family Entertainment Center, call us today and speak to one of our "Friendly Sales Executives" whose expertise will help you run a successful rental business. We have gotten more people started in the business than practically anyone else.
We're also experts at teaching new people just like you how to become successful in the booming party bounce rental business.


text:
US STOCKS - Wall St stumbles as euro zone worry grows - Reuters
Wed May 30, 2012 10:10am EDT
* Spanish, Italian yields rise on euro zone concerns
* New Greek election poll shows leftist SYRIZA has taken lead
* European Commission calls for banking union
* Research in Motion tumbles in premarket
* Indexes off: Dow 1.1 pct, S&P 1.2 pct, Nasdaq 1.4 pct
By Chuck Mikolajczak
NEW YORK, May 30 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks dropped on Wednesday, as rising bond yields for Italy and Spain and the latest poll results in Greece worsened fears about a spiraling of the euro zone's debt crisis.
The region's fiscal woes sent the yield on the safe-haven 10-year U.S. Treasury note to the lowest in 60 years and the euro to its lowest level in 23 months against the dollar. U.S. equities have been closely tethered to the currency's fortunes, with a 50-day correlation between the euro and the S&P 500 index at 0.91.
"The longer they (Europeans) drag it out, the less severe are the ramifications of a break-up and then who actually ends up exiting - so much of this is unwritten it is hard to put any sort of odds on how this plays out," said Nathan Snyder, portfolio manager at Snow Capital Management in Sewickley, Pennsylvania.
Yields on 10-year Spanish bonds moved closer to the 7 percent level, a point at which other nations in the bloc were forced to seek a bailout.
Spain is expected to issue new bonds shortly in an effort to fund its troubled banks despite the increased borrowing costs.
Adding to the concern, Italian 10-year yields topped 6 percent for the first time since January at a bond sale, raising concerns the region is vulnerable to a contagion.
Investors were given cause for optimism after the European Commission said the the euro zone should move toward a banking union, consider eurobonds and the direct recapitalization of banks from its permanent bailout fund as well as boost growth and cut debt.
But the cheering was short-lived after the latest poll from Greece showed the radical leftist SYRIZA party has taken the lead over the pro-bailout conservatives ahead of a national parliamentary election next month that may determine whether the debt-laden country stays in the euro zone.
"It seems inevitable the euro has got to break up, it's just how long can they drag it out and what are the ramifications," said Snyder of Snow Capital Management.
The CBOE Volatility index jumped more than 10 percent, it's biggest spike since mid-April.
The PHLX oil service sector dropped 2.9 percent with U.S. crude down more than 2 percent as the euro zone's debt problems and signs China was not planning a large stimulus package stoking demand fears. National Oilwell Varco Inc lost 2.6 percent to $68.19.
European shares were buffeted by the conflicting headlines, with the latest Greek poll pushing the FTSEurofirst 300 index down more than 1 percent.
The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 135.21 points, or 1.07 percent, to 12,445.48. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index lost 16.32 points, or 1.22 percent, to 1,316.10. The Nasdaq Composite Index slumped 40.97 points, or 1.43 percent, to 2,830.02.
U.S. economic data showed contracts to purchase previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly fell 5.5 percent in April to a four-month low, dealing a blow to more recent optimism the housing sector may have hit a bottom.
Research In Motion Ltd tumbled 10.6 percent to $10.05 as the biggest percentage decliner on the Nasdaq 100 index. The company hired bankers for a far-reaching strategic review and to look for partnerships as the BlackBerry-maker warned it would likely report a shock fiscal first-quarter operating loss.
Apple Inc slipped 0.9 percent to $567.14 after Chief Executive Tim Cook, speaking at the All Things Digital conference said technology for televisions was of "intense interest" but stressed the company's efforts would unfold gradually amid speculation the iPad and iPhone maker was on the brink of unveiling a revolutionary iTV.
Macy's Inc reported better than expected May same-store sales on Wednesday, helped by its growing e-commerce business. Shares slipped 2.9 percent to $37.86.
Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack plunged 21.7 percent to $8.68 in premarket after the automotive parts and service chain said the sale of the company to private equity firm Gores Group has been called off.
Asian Stocks Drop as Euro Slides to a Two-Year Low - Bloomberg
Asian, European Stocks Decline as Euro Slides to Two-Year Low
Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
The euro has lost 5.8 percent this month, headed for its largest monthly drop since September.
The euro has lost 5.8 percent this month, headed for its largest monthly drop since September. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
May 30 (Bloomberg) –- Peter Tchir, founder of TF Market Advisors, talks about U.S. stocks, the euro-zone debt crisis and investment strategy. Tchir also discusses Facebook Inc.'s share price with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television's "First Up." (Source: Bloomberg)
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- China has no plan to introduce stimulus measures to support growth on the scale unleashed during the depths of the global credit crisis in 2008, according to the nation's state-run Xinhua News Agency. Stephen Engle reports from Beijing on Bloomberg Television's "On the Move Asia" with Rishaad Salamat. (Source: Bloomberg)
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Andrew Sheng, president of Fung Global Institute and chief adviser for the China Banking Regulatory Commission, talks about the outlook for the Chinese economy and the euro-zone debt crisis. Sheng speaks with Susan Li, Rishaad Salamat, Zeb Eckert and Mia Saini on Bloomberg Television's "Asia Edge." (Source: Bloomberg)
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Michael O'Sullivan, head of portfolio strategy at Credit Suisse Private Banking, talks about Europe's sovereign debt crisis and the implications for global financial markets, and his investment strategy. He speaks from Sydney with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television's "On the Move Asia." (Source: Bloomberg)
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- David Forrester, a currency strategist at Macquarie Bank Ltd., talks about the impact of Europe's debt crisis on the euro and the outlook for the Australian dollar. Forrester speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television's "On the Move Asia." (Source: Bloomberg)
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Mary Ann Bartels, head of technical and market analysis at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, discusses the outlook for the U.S. stock market and investment strategy. Bartels speaks with Sara Eisen on Bloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." (Source: Bloomberg)
The U.S. Treasury 10-year yield slid to a record while stocks tumbled and the euro weakened to a two- year low as Spain struggled to recapitalize its banks and American home sales declined. Italian and Spanish bonds fell.
Ten-year note yields lost as much as 10 basis points to 1.64 percent as of 10:34 a.m. in New York. The MSCI All-Country World Index (MXWD) slid 1.4 percent and the Standard & Poor's Index retreated 1.1 percent. The euro depreciated 0.7 percent to $1.2411. The yield on the 10-year Italian bonds jumped 15 basis points and the rate on Spanish 10-year debt rose to a euro-era record relative to German bunds. The S&P GSCI gauge of raw materials fell 1.6 percent to the lowest since October as oil tumbled below $89 a barrel.
Concern about Europe's debt crisis deepened after Italy failed to meet its maximum target at a debt sale, Spain struggled to bolster its banks and a Greek poll showed increased support for anti-austerity parties. The National Association of Realtors said the index of pending U.S. home resales dropped 5.5 percent from the prior month.
"You have a market that's largely being driven by fear," said David Coard, head of fixed-income trading in New York at Williams Capital Group, a brokerage for institutional investors. "The U.S. will continue to be the primary recipient of the safe-haven bid. People are clearly more confident in Treasuries. We still have the most liquid, capital markets."
The 10-year Treasury yield, which is a benchmark for everything from mortgages to corporate bonds, fell in each of the nine weeks through May 18, the longest stretch since 1998. the 30-year bond yield dropped 11 basis points to 2.74 percent, the lowest level since October. Seven-year notes reached a record low 1.0785 percent.
Rally Erased
The S&P 500 slid the most on a closing basis since May 17 today and erased yesterday's 1.1 percent rally. Caterpillar Inc., Alcoa Inc. and Chevron Corp. lost more than 2 percent for the biggest declines in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Research In Motion Ltd. slid 6.6 percent to help lead Canadian stocks lower as the maker of the BlackBerry smartphone forecast a surprise operating loss for the first quarter and hired banks to advise on strategic options.
The Stoxx Europe 600 Index (SXXP) declined 1.3 percent as Spain's IBEX 35 Index sank 1.5 percent to a nine-year low and Italy's FTSE MIB Index sank to the lowest since March 2009 on a closing basis.
Spain Banks
The European Central Bank rejected a Spanish plan to recapitalize the state-owned lender Bankia group, the Financial Times reported. The ECB said today it hasn't been consulted by Spain on any plans to recapitalize a "major Spanish bank" and that it has "not expressed a position on plans by the Spanish authorities" for such a move.
The European Commission called for direct euro-area aid for troubled banks, touted common bond issuance and sided with Spain in proposing that the euro's permanent bailout fund inject cash to banks, according to policy recommendations released today in Brussels.
The euro fell to as low as $1.2407, the weakest since July 1, 2010, and slid 1.4 percent versus the yen for its seventh consecutive decline.
Credit-default swaps on Spain climbed 19 basis points to 580, helping drive the Markit iTraxx SovX Western Europe Index of swaps on 15 governments 4.5 basis points higher to 319.2.
Spain's 10-year yield climbed 16 basis points, with the spread over bunds widening to as much as 539 basis points, or 5.39 percentage points. The yield on the German 10-year security fell as much as eight basis points to 1.276 percent, the lowest on record.
'Need for Burden Sharing'
"Spain looks to have gotten to the point where it cannot bear the burden alone," David Mackie, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in London, wrote in a report. "The Spanish government recognizes the need for burden sharing, but it does not want the kind of burden sharing that was made available to Greece, Ireland and Portugal."
Crude for July delivery decreased 2.8 percent to $88.26 a barrel. Prices are down 16 percent this month, the biggest drop since December 2008. A report tomorrow may show U.S. stockpiles climbed to the highest level since 1990. Brent crude dropped below $105 a barrel in London for the first time since first time this year. Copper slipped 2 percent in New York.
The MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF) slid 1.5 percent as benchmark gauges in Russia, Hungary, Taiwan and Thailand fell more than 1 percent. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index (HSCEI) of Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong dropped 1.7 percent after Xinhua News Agency said yesterday that China has no plans to introduce stimulus measures on the scale seen during the global financial crisis. India's Sensex Index declined as Tata Motors Ltd., the country's largest automaker, sank 12 percent after its main Jaguar Land Rover unit posted earnings that missed analysts' estimates.
To contact the reporters on this story: Stephen Kirkland in London at skirkland@bloomberg.net; Susanne Walker in New York at swalker33@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Nick Baker at nbaker7@bloomberg.net
Pakistan 'heading for new financial crisis without reforms' - DAWN Group
Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh. — Photo by AFP
ISLAMABAD: Minuscule tax revenues, mismanagement and overgenerous subsidies mean Pakistan is heading for a new financial crisis, say diplomats and analysts, with this week's budget unlikely to offer any respite.
The budget deficit stood at 6.6 per cent of GDP last year, according to the central bank, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), which warned that government borrowing was crowding out the private sector from access to credit.
That reduces the prospects for economic growth in a country that is on the front line of the war against al Qaeda and where more than 5,000 people have been killed in bomb and gun attacks by insurgents since 2007.
External forecasts for the current fiscal year see the budget deficit rising to about seven per cent of GDP, while economists warn the government is running out of ways to fund it — and reluctant to embrace reform with polls looming.
Some see little alternative to a major financial crisis or a return to the IMF, which bailed out Pakistan with an $11.3 billion loan package in 2008 that stopped last November after Islamabad rejected strict reform demands.
"I think it's possible they could have a real financial crisis by the middle of this year or the fall. I don't think it's a question of if, but when they go back to the IMF," one Western diplomat said.
Pakistan's tax revenues are among the lowest in the world at just 9.8 per cent of GDP in fiscal 2010-2011, says the Asian Development Bank, and less than two per cent of the population pays tax on their income.
On top of this, the government shells out huge sums on electricity subsidies — about 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2010-11, according to the IMF — for a sector so blighted by mismanagement that most of the country suffers crippling power cuts.
Pakistan has also missed out on payments from the United States for its efforts to fight militancy under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF).
This brought around $8.8 billion into Pakistan's coffers between 2002 and 2011, including $1.5 billion in 2009-10, but Islamabad stopped claiming the money as ties with Washington collapsed in the wake of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year.
"There's not really any money coming in, and that being the case, the government is financing itself by borrowing from the local banks and the local banks aren't seeing deposits coming in to keep up," said Liz Martins, an economist with HSBC.
The pressure on finance houses "means they have very limited money to lend to the private sector," she said.
"There's no money coming from the IMF, no money coming from the bond markets, and international investors are very cautious."
Islamabad borrowed 365 billion rupees ($4 billion) from the banking system — both private banks and the SBP — in the first half of the current financial year, the central bank said in its second quarter economic report.
With inflation already running at around 11 per cent, the alternative of printing money to pay debts opens the way to the nightmare of hyperinflation.
The IMF says Pakistan needs to raise tax revenues substantially to reduce the deficit sustainably, but with an election due within months analysts do not expect Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh to follow its advice in his budget on Friday.
"I don't think the government is able to bear the terms that come with going back to the IMF," said Sartaj Aziz, former finance minister and vice chancellor of Beaconhouse National University.
The situation was already serious, he warned. "The total expansion of currency is higher than ever, so it is already reaching dangerous levels. It has to be arrested by drastic remedial measures," he said.
Officials from the finance ministry were repeatedly contacted by AFP, but declined to comment on how they planned to finance the deficit.
In Pakistan, once a general election is called, an interim government takes power for three months while campaigning is under way and Aziz said he thought this would give the government a way to duck difficult budget decisions.
"I think the government will be happy to wait until the election is called and hand the problem over to the caretaker government," he said.
STOCKS NEWS EUROPE-'Death cross' triggered on Euro STOXX 50 - Reuters UK
Wed May 30, 2012 9:39am BST
Charts show the blue chip Euro STOXX 50 index's 50-day moving average crossing below the 200-day moving average in early trading on Wednesday, a strongly bearish technical signal called 'death cross', which usually means further losses in the index six months down the road.
"This confirms the current medium-term trend, and at the same time, there isn't any sign whatsoever of a trend reversal for European indexes, so it's crystal clear that this downtrend is set to continue," saiys Vincent Ganne, technical analyst at TradingSat, in Paris.
The Euro STOXX 50 index last week halted a sell-off started in mid-March during which it plunged 19 percent, and has been testing its downward trendline over the past two sessions, but it failed to close above it, sending a negative signal.
"For most European markets, last week's bounce was quite weak and so far the move has been developing into a sideways pattern, which has a corrective and therefore a bearish character in the bigger picture," Michael Riesner, head of equity technical analysis at UBS Investment Bank, writes in a note.
"Even if we should see a temporary extension of the current bounce early this week, given the weak patterns and structures in the market, we continue to see the risk of at least one more down leg into June, which still suggests prices below 2,100 in the Euro STOXX 50."
The index's next big support level is at 2,066 points, which represents a low hit in late November.
Reuters Messaging: blaise.robinson.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net
Posted by google blogs at 11:33 AM


text:
Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance är en exklusiv utställning för veteranbilar som sedan 1950 årligen anordnas på golfbanan Pebble Beach Golf Links i Kalifornien, USA.

På Pebble Beach träffas USA:s rikaste bilsamlare och visar upp sina (och därmed också några av världens) dyraste och mest exotiska veteranbilar. Här brukar även tillverkare av lyx- och sportbilar passa på att visa upp nya modeller och konceptbilar för potentiella kunder.

Externa länkar
Officiell webbplats

Bilmässor
Kultur i Kalifornien

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


©2019 Speedgate Enterprises Ltd, Speedgate Farm, Fawkham, Longfield, Kent DA3 8NJ.
Our main Speedgate website includes a complete listing of all products available online, in store, via click & collect and/or local delivery.
It includes all our clearance offers and products currently on promotion.
The website also provides details of our other services such as liveries, country riding and our latest news and events.
Our clearance website is specifically tailored to visitors looking for great deals and low prices on products we have reduced to clear.
It is the quickest and simplest way to browse our complete range of clearance products.