Student Loans
You freely entered into a contract and lent an inconceivable amount of money to a poor credit risk. You have been involved in millions of transaction. The borrower hasn't. You should know better. Accept the loss. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
I'm amused that rather than engage my argument, you just call me a freeloader. Hilarious.
When two parties enter into an agreement, they both assume risks and responsibilities. Of all people, attorneys should understand this. Yet, we only shit on the least experienced party in the transaction, leaving the sophisticated institutions unscrutinized? Is preaching about "freeloading" and "personal responsibility" one of those things you only do punching down in self righteousness?
Anyway, I gotta run. I'm picking up my new free Obama phone at lunch and then I'm going to cash my welfare checks down at the Palace Station.
I'm all for dismissing student loans, but in exchange, the debtor needs to relinquish his/her rights to the degree conferred upon them and cannot claim he or she has said degree.
Where 1219 misses the point and loses the argument is in the fact that student loan borrowers CAN repay their loans, the just don't WANT to. Freeloader.
I was one of them less educated persons who got a lot of law school loans back in the day. I remember thinking at the time that I will get a job as lawyer and pay it back somehow. I did not study it out in my mind about the consequences of my decisions. After I graduated and saw my total balance owed (about $110,000 back in 1996), then it hit me about how stupid I had been in maxing out the loans with no regard. I ended up consolidating the loan payments and finance it over 20 years. My monthly payment will still over $900/month. But at no time did I blame the lenders, the law school, or society. In fact, I didn't blame anyone, including myself. I just paid it all back and forgot about it.
It's scary how fast this country has gone from people to generally doing, or wanting to do, the right thing to those freeloaders like 12:19 in a generation.
I have zero problem repaying debt. But can we agree there is no reason student loans should have an interest rate between 7-9%? I have paid back more in interest than I owe on my principal balance. I have tried to consolidate the loans and/or lower my interest rate to be told I am "not eligible." I do not support student loan forgiveness entirely, but I would be fully in support of capping the interest rate at 2% to cover loan administration costs. The government should not be profiting off of these loans.
I graduated from Law School with about $50,000.00 in debt. Through a combination of scholarships and working. Only borrowed to cover tuition. Paid it off in about a year and half. My problem with this debate is that people act like crazy student loans are the only way. That you are forced into these loans and now you unfairly have to pay them back. That's just not true. I had many class mates who lived high on the hog in law school. Especially here in las vegas. Eating expensive meals, living in panorama towers, etc. I have no problem if you want to live like that, but don't act like a victim now that your bill has come due.
3:03, I agree student interest should be a low percentage. But, funny thing, everyone complains about interest. It's currently 0%. And has been for a while, and will be for the foreseeable future. There's nothing to complain about right now, zero excuse.
If you consolidated 20 years ago and did an IBRL plan then your interest is at 7-8 percent…and you cannot refinance…I would be in favor of simply being able to refinance
Sure I will agree that people should be able to lower their interest rates to be in line with other unsecured loans in the market. But the analysis that people should be able to lower student loan debt as an unsecured loan to be comparable with secured and collateralized money does not make sense.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2022 6:16 pm
Student loans are a hustle and no one should pay them. Universities and loan companies do not need to be extending $100k to every 17 year old who wants to be an underwater basket weaver. There are too many law schools and too many lawyers as it is. They should not be admitting so many students or having such inflated staff hires. The government should not be charging students exorbitant interest rates either. Let them all default. I think the total in the country is over a trillion at this point. Let every single one of them go into default and the government will figure it out real soon. Student loan debt is literally crippling our economy. Low home ownership rates and low birth rates are directly attributable to student loan debt. It might not seem like a big deal, but look at Japan's birth rates. It will be a real problem in a generation or two.
@11:16
Gee whiz, shotgun issues. But as to student loans, the schools are at fault too. Lenders don't look at the inflated tuitions, but the borrower should consider it.
BTW – who are lenders? Tax money, you and me. I am not going to pay for your education.
I do not think low home ownership can be attributed to student loan debt. My impression is that the younger ones have no interest in owning a home. I have nieces and nephews who could afford a home mortgage, but they have no interest.
"Shotgun issues" or student loans are a multi-faceted issue that cannot be summarized by a bumper sticker? Why can say?
And I have nieces and nephews too, but the interesting thing about them is that they are not representative of an entire age group of people. They are individuals and anecdotal stories about them are not necessarily indicative for their entire generation. Interesting how that works.
Guest
anonymous
April 7, 2022 6:36 pm
Speaking of Ponzi schemes, any further developments in the "post-settlement funding" scam?
To the blogmasters' credit, they posted this article a couple days ago.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2022 6:38 pm
There should be NO student loans. They only encourage those that are too weak to earn it which we don't need anyway. I went to Boyd at night for 4 years and drove a Yellow Cab in the day and studied when I could. I had NO loan. I'm the kind of guy you want on your case because nothing stops me. If you couldn't even find a way to get through with no loan, I wouldn't want you for my lawyer. I'm sure there are exceptions. But that's also why I disagree with supporting the arts. For those that love art (like me) NOTHING can stop us. I don't need help thank you. And if you think, oh he had it easy – I don't think I slept for 4 years and it was very, very difficult.
Also did Boyd's PT program, had a good (not full) scholarship, worked full-time, but had to support my family, as well. I took out loans to help me pay for tuition so I could still afford rent, bills, food and other expenses. I also didn't sleep much for 4 years. I also studied only when I could, outside of work. Doesn't make an iota of difference to my lawyering ability that I took out loans. Stating that people who take out loans are "too weak to earn it" is absurd.
I'm just posting because I love to see fellow Boyd part-timers that worked their way through law school. It was a fucking grind, but I'm better for it.
Did Boyd's FT plan. Signed the ABA 304(f) oath that restricted students to like 20 hours of employment a week. Kept the oath. Took out loans because, newsflash, no one wants to pay college-grad wages for 20 hours a week, max, so my time was more valuable applied to studies.
He was disciplined for a variety of legal allegations. But lets be honest why he was disbarred. "[T]he facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted because Bellisario failed to answer the complaint and a default was entered." THAT is why he was disbarred. We suspend people who answer the bell; we disbar people who do not (not matter the offense).
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2022 10:06 pm
Maybe this is a stupid question, but so be it. My client wants to negotiate a settlement where the lawsuit is "withdrawn" — not dismissed. Is such a thing even possible?
I don't think it matters what was filed in court, it matters what the settlement agreement says. I don't see how he could renegotiate the settlement unless the other side breached it or he is willing to pay some more consideration. Most likely, your client has made their bed and now they must sleep in it.
Sounds like he wants to try to get the lawsuit sealed, by stipulation of both parties (and approval of the judge of course), and then voluntarily dismissed.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2022 11:46 pm
OP here. Sounds like everyone's in agreement that a Complaint is not like a Motion — there's no mechanism to "withdraw" it. That's what I thought too. Thanks.
Student Loans
You freely entered into a contract and accepted the money. Pay your debt.
Student Loans
You freely entered into a contract and lent an inconceivable amount of money to a poor credit risk. You have been involved in millions of transaction. The borrower hasn't. You should know better. Accept the loss. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.
"It's called taking responsibility for your actions."
Tell me I'm not the only one that sees the irony in this — right??
Not the only one. @12:19 is a free loader. "Everyone else in the world owes me something because I am entitled" mentality.
12:19 here.
I'm amused that rather than engage my argument, you just call me a freeloader. Hilarious.
When two parties enter into an agreement, they both assume risks and responsibilities. Of all people, attorneys should understand this. Yet, we only shit on the least experienced party in the transaction, leaving the sophisticated institutions unscrutinized? Is preaching about "freeloading" and "personal responsibility" one of those things you only do punching down in self righteousness?
Anyway, I gotta run. I'm picking up my new free Obama phone at lunch and then I'm going to cash my welfare checks down at the Palace Station.
I'm all for dismissing student loans, but in exchange, the debtor needs to relinquish his/her rights to the degree conferred upon them and cannot claim he or she has said degree.
Where 1219 misses the point and loses the argument is in the fact that student loan borrowers CAN repay their loans, the just don't WANT to. Freeloader.
I was one of them less educated persons who got a lot of law school loans back in the day. I remember thinking at the time that I will get a job as lawyer and pay it back somehow. I did not study it out in my mind about the consequences of my decisions. After I graduated and saw my total balance owed (about $110,000 back in 1996), then it hit me about how stupid I had been in maxing out the loans with no regard. I ended up consolidating the loan payments and finance it over 20 years. My monthly payment will still over $900/month. But at no time did I blame the lenders, the law school, or society. In fact, I didn't blame anyone, including myself. I just paid it all back and forgot about it.
It's scary how fast this country has gone from people to generally doing, or wanting to do, the right thing to those freeloaders like 12:19 in a generation.
I have zero problem repaying debt. But can we agree there is no reason student loans should have an interest rate between 7-9%? I have paid back more in interest than I owe on my principal balance. I have tried to consolidate the loans and/or lower my interest rate to be told I am "not eligible." I do not support student loan forgiveness entirely, but I would be fully in support of capping the interest rate at 2% to cover loan administration costs. The government should not be profiting off of these loans.
I graduated from Law School with about $50,000.00 in debt. Through a combination of scholarships and working. Only borrowed to cover tuition. Paid it off in about a year and half. My problem with this debate is that people act like crazy student loans are the only way. That you are forced into these loans and now you unfairly have to pay them back. That's just not true. I had many class mates who lived high on the hog in law school. Especially here in las vegas. Eating expensive meals, living in panorama towers, etc. I have no problem if you want to live like that, but don't act like a victim now that your bill has come due.
3:03, I agree student interest should be a low percentage. But, funny thing, everyone complains about interest. It's currently 0%. And has been for a while, and will be for the foreseeable future. There's nothing to complain about right now, zero excuse.
If you consolidated 20 years ago and did an IBRL plan then your interest is at 7-8 percent…and you cannot refinance…I would be in favor of simply being able to refinance
Sure I will agree that people should be able to lower their interest rates to be in line with other unsecured loans in the market. But the analysis that people should be able to lower student loan debt as an unsecured loan to be comparable with secured and collateralized money does not make sense.
Student loans are a hustle and no one should pay them. Universities and loan companies do not need to be extending $100k to every 17 year old who wants to be an underwater basket weaver. There are too many law schools and too many lawyers as it is. They should not be admitting so many students or having such inflated staff hires. The government should not be charging students exorbitant interest rates either. Let them all default. I think the total in the country is over a trillion at this point. Let every single one of them go into default and the government will figure it out real soon. Student loan debt is literally crippling our economy. Low home ownership rates and low birth rates are directly attributable to student loan debt. It might not seem like a big deal, but look at Japan's birth rates. It will be a real problem in a generation or two.
@11:16
Gee whiz, shotgun issues. But as to student loans, the schools are at fault too. Lenders don't look at the inflated tuitions, but the borrower should consider it.
BTW – who are lenders? Tax money, you and me. I am not going to pay for your education.
I do not think low home ownership can be attributed to student loan debt. My impression is that the younger ones have no interest in owning a home. I have nieces and nephews who could afford a home mortgage, but they have no interest.
"Shotgun issues" or student loans are a multi-faceted issue that cannot be summarized by a bumper sticker? Why can say?
And I have nieces and nephews too, but the interesting thing about them is that they are not representative of an entire age group of people. They are individuals and anecdotal stories about them are not necessarily indicative for their entire generation. Interesting how that works.
Speaking of Ponzi schemes, any further developments in the "post-settlement funding" scam?
Has this been posted here?
https://hindenburgresearch.com/jj-purchasing/
Best summary of the whole thing I've seen so far.
Jaw on the floor. Wild wild stuff.
To the blogmasters' credit, they posted this article a couple days ago.
There should be NO student loans. They only encourage those that are too weak to earn it which we don't need anyway. I went to Boyd at night for 4 years and drove a Yellow Cab in the day and studied when I could. I had NO loan. I'm the kind of guy you want on your case because nothing stops me. If you couldn't even find a way to get through with no loan, I wouldn't want you for my lawyer. I'm sure there are exceptions. But that's also why I disagree with supporting the arts. For those that love art (like me) NOTHING can stop us. I don't need help thank you. And if you think, oh he had it easy – I don't think I slept for 4 years and it was very, very difficult.
Also did Boyd's PT program, had a good (not full) scholarship, worked full-time, but had to support my family, as well. I took out loans to help me pay for tuition so I could still afford rent, bills, food and other expenses. I also didn't sleep much for 4 years. I also studied only when I could, outside of work. Doesn't make an iota of difference to my lawyering ability that I took out loans. Stating that people who take out loans are "too weak to earn it" is absurd.
I'm just posting because I love to see fellow Boyd part-timers that worked their way through law school. It was a fucking grind, but I'm better for it.
Did Boyd's FT plan. Signed the ABA 304(f) oath that restricted students to like 20 hours of employment a week. Kept the oath. Took out loans because, newsflash, no one wants to pay college-grad wages for 20 hours a week, max, so my time was more valuable applied to studies.
Brad Bellisario disbarred today.
Regarding this? https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/indictment-accuses-las-vegas-lawyer-of-stalking-estranged-wife-2294960/
No, because of law-related stuff (eg commingling funds): https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022.04.07-Bellisario-Disbarment.pdf
He was disciplined for a variety of legal allegations. But lets be honest why he was disbarred. "[T]he facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted because Bellisario failed to answer the complaint and a default was entered." THAT is why he was disbarred. We suspend people who answer the bell; we disbar people who do not (not matter the offense).
Maybe this is a stupid question, but so be it. My client wants to negotiate a settlement where the lawsuit is "withdrawn" — not dismissed. Is such a thing even possible?
I suppose you can write whatever the fuck you want in your stip, but the rule I'm aware of calls the mechanism a "notice of dismissal."
I don't think it matters what was filed in court, it matters what the settlement agreement says. I don't see how he could renegotiate the settlement unless the other side breached it or he is willing to pay some more consideration. Most likely, your client has made their bed and now they must sleep in it.
Sounds like he wants to try to get the lawsuit sealed, by stipulation of both parties (and approval of the judge of course), and then voluntarily dismissed.
OP here. Sounds like everyone's in agreement that a Complaint is not like a Motion — there's no mechanism to "withdraw" it. That's what I thought too. Thanks.
#freeoakland
#freebonniebulla
#freetheninthcircuit
$8.9m verdict last evening in a case where someone blew a $15k policy demand.
Case Number?