Reply #11: and you don't see anything wrong with a third party creditor

[sui generis]

buying a $100 debt, and tacking on 3000 dollars in "court and legal" costs at 50% interest, and having the courts be their enforcement butt-monkeys?

I do see something wrong with that. If the debt was sold to a third party profiteer for pennies on the dollar the loss on the debt is still assigned to the borrower's simple income for taxes. The entire debt is collected again however from that third party, usually several times over.

The industry of debt collectors is already quasi-legal - your state may prohibit a U.S. company from calling more the six times a day and not more often than 60 minutes apart, however a call center in India can call you 100 times a day, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

The purpose of a civil court should not be to assign judgments in absentia, and often in acquiring your debt you waive the right to contest in favor of arbitration or even summary judgment. No, this system smells like a dead rat that's starting to bloat a little . . .