Savage v Educational Credit Management Corp.: How $37,000 in student loans ballooned into a $250,000 debt

Paul Savage took out $37,000 in student loans to get a degree in human resources management from Temple University, which he obtained in 1997. Later that year, he consolidated the loans at an 8 percent interest rate, but he never made a single payment on the debt. 

Twenty-five years later, Savage tried to discharge his student loan debt in a Georgia bankruptcy court. By this time, his outstanding loan balance had ballooned to approximately $250,000.

Educational Credit Management Corporation, perhaps the U.S. Department of Education's most ruthless debt collector, opposed Savage's attempt to discharge his massive student loan obligation. It argued that Savage was eligible for REPAYE, a 20-year income-based repayment plan. Based on his low income, Savage's required monthly loan payment would be zero.

Furthermore, ECMC argued that Savage failed to make a good-faith effort to repay his debt, which barred him from bankruptcy relief.

Bankruptcy Judge Sage Sigler rejected ECMC's arguments and discharged Mr. Savage's student debt. Judge Sigler's reasoning was as follows:

First, the judge ruled that Savage had managed his loans in good faith. Although he failed to make any payments for over 25 years, Savage had either been enrolled in an income-based repayment plan or a government-approved deferment program and had never been in default. In addition. Savage had made good faith efforts to maximize his income, despite his average annual earnings over the years being only $14,000.

At the time of his bankruptcy filing, Savage was 57 years old. If he were forced into a 20-year income-based repayment plan that required him to make no payments, interest would accrue over the next two decades, increasing his total student loan debt to $1 million.

In short, Judge Sigler ruled that repaying his student loans would impose an undue hardship on Mr. Savage, and thus, he was entitled to bankruptcy relief.

Implications

Paul Savage was fortunate to have Judge Sigler presiding over his bankruptcy case. Many bankruptcy judges have refused to discharge student loan debt, even in cases with facts more dire than those presented by Savage.

ECMC has repeatedly argued that student loan borrowers who qualify for income-based repayment plans are ineligible for bankruptcy relief if their monthly payments are de minimis. Fortunately, many bankruptcy judges have begun to reject that argument for the same reasons Judge Sigler did.

It's nuts for the federal government, acting through private debt collectors, to oppose student-loan bankruptcy relief for people like Paul Savage. Democratic politicians seeking ways to support their young constituents should advocate for legislation that affords bankruptcy relief to overburdened debtors who have handled their student loans in good faith.

 Congress hasn't acted because many congressional legislators view the higher education industry as their core constituency, not college students. The higher education industry is content with the status quo, which allows colleges to charge outrageous tuition prices, knowing that students and their parents will borrow the money to pay the bill.

Bankruptcy Judge Sage Siegler

Two Men Shot at Utah 'No Kings' Rally: This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Earlier this month, anti-Trump protesters held a 'No Kings' rally in Salt Lake City.  Like other 'No Kings' rallies held around the country, the Salt Lake City event was "mostly," "mainly," and " broadly" peaceful. 

Unfortunately, two people attending the rally got shot. Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, a 39-year-old father of two children, was killed, and Arturo Gamboa, age 24, was wounded.

Gamboa was carrying a rifle when the shooting started, although he didn't fire it.  Nevertheless, he was arrested on suspicion of murder.

What the hell happened? According to news reports, an armed "peacekeeper" at the 'No Kings' event saw Gamboa with the rifle, considered him to be a threat, and shot at him. Gamboa was wounded, but Mr. Ah Loo, an innocent bystander, was killed by an errant bullet.

Gamboa was later released from jail after prosecutors said that they couldn't determine whether to file charges until they had evaluated more evidence. According to some reports, Gamboa's rifle was not loaded, and Gamboa did not point the weapon at anyone.

What can we learn from this senseless tragedy? Two things. 

First, people organizing mass rallies who feel the need for armed security should only hire bonded, licensed, and insured professionals who are trained in the use of firearms.

Second, event organizers should purchase liability insurance. It seems likely that Mr. Ah Loo's family will file a lawsuit against the 'No Kings' organization.

Third, no one attending a mass rally should openly carry a firearm, whether or not the weapon is loaded.

Several states now permit adults to openly carry firearms without requiring them to take a gun safety course. Utah is one of those states.

Open Carry laws are bad public policy. If no one at Salt Lake City's 'No Kings' event had been carrying a gun, Mr. Ah Loo's children would still have a father.

Arturo Gamboa Photo credit: Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News

Governor Newsom Overplays His Hand: The 9th Circuit Lets the Federalized Guard Remain in Los Angeles

 As Blue State governors now know, President Trump is serious about deporting criminal aliens from the U.S. 

Earlier this month, federal agents were thwarted in their deportation efforts by rioters in Los Angeles who threw rocks at ICE agents, blocked highways, looted businesses, and vandalized federal buildings. In response, Trump federalized the California National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property.

Predictably, Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration and got a restraining order barring Trump from calling out the Guard. Judge CharlesBreyer, a federal district judge, ruled that Trump's mobilization order violated federal law and that Trump had not federalized the Guard "through" Governor Newsom as he was legally required to do.

Newsom v. Trump: The 9th Circuit Lets the Guard Remain in LA

Trump immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Yesterday, a three-judge panel issued a stay against Judge Breyer's order, allowing the California National Guard to remain in Los Angeles under President Trump's command--at least for the present.

Governor Newsom advanced two main arguments to support his position that Trump had illegally federalized the California National Guard. First, he maintained that Trump had not notified him before issuing the deployment order, rendering it unlawful.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, pointing out that Trump's mobilization order was issued to the California Adjutant General "through Governor Newsom." The court also ruled that President Trump was not required to obtain Governor Newsom's consent before federalizing the troops and deploying them to Los Angeles.

Second, Governor Newsom argued that Trump hadn't satisfied the statutory requirement for federalizing the Guard. Specifically, Newsom's lawyers maintained that the unrest in Los Angeles was not severe enough to justify calling out the National Guard.

Judge Breyer bought Newsom's argument, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Citing a 19th-century judicial precedent, a three-judge panel ruled  "that the President's determination that an exigency exists [should] be given significant deference.

 The panel went on to summarize the chaotic events on June 6 and 7:

There is evidence that . . . protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several FPS officers defending federal property by throwing concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects, and used large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building. Plaintiffs’ own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. [Internal punctuation omitted.]

These events, in the Ninth Circuit's view, justified Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard.

Implications

Governor Newsom's lawsuit to kick the federalized National Guard out of Los Angeles backfired on him. Thanks to the Ninth Circuit's preliminary opinion, we now know that President Trump can mobilize the Guard to protect federal officers and guard federal property without consulting a governor and without a governor's permission. Moreover, the courts are required to give the President's mobilization decision considerable deference.

Progressive municipalities across the United States proudly call themselves sanctuary cities, vowing not to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. In some instances, local officials have impeded federal officers. The Ninth Circuit decision may prompt Blue City mayors to reconsider their stance. 

If mayors and governors allow anti-ICE protests to get out of control, as Governor Newsom did, Trump will federalize the Guard. The Mayors of Chicago, Denver, and Boston should take note.

Los Angeles Anti-ICE riot. Image credit: New York Post

Kristi Noem's Security Team Throws Senator Alex Padillla in the Briar Patch

Please don't throw me in that briar patch.

Joel Chandler Harris

Surely you remember Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus tales about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. The two characters are mortal enemies, and Brer Fox spends his days scheming to capture Brer Rabbit.

One day, Brer Fox succeeds, and he contemplates the ways he might kill the little bunny: burning, hanging, or drowning?

 Brer Rabbit, seemingly terrified, expresses no fear about any fate but one: "Please," he begs, "don't throw me in that briar patch."

Of course, that's precisely what Brer Fox does,  and Brer Rabbit gleefully escapes from captivity.  "I was born and bred in the briar patch," Brer Rabbit jeers as he makes his escape.

Democratic politicians are behaving just like Brer Rabbit.  Several have blatantly misbehaved in the hope that they'll be forcibly restrained, thereby providing them with a photo opportunity. They want their base to see them being put in handcuffs for opposing President Trump's efforts to deport illegal migrants.

Senator Alex Padilla is the most prominent grandstander.  Last week, Padilla interrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Los Angeles press conference, knowing full well that the Secretary of Homeland Security is protected by a security team. Padilla was forcibly restrained and handcuffed. 

There are two interpretations of this teapot tempest. Padilla said he was simply attempting to ask Secretary Noem a question. A conservative commentator said that Padilla "storm[ed] in like a maniac" and that the Senator wanted to be restrained.

Fortunately for Senator Padilla, someone from his office recorded a portion of the incident — a true Kodak moment.

Hoping to milk this melodrama for all it was worth, Padilla tearfully recounted the event on the floor of the U.S. Senate a few days ago. Boo hoo!

I've got no sympathy for Senator Padilla or any other Democratic politician who gets restrained or arrested for interfering with federal efforts to remove criminal aliens from the United States. 

Like Brer Rabbit, these clowns want to be thrown in the briar patch. I would be happy to see them spend some time in jail.

Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

90-second book review: Jesus Wept is a To Do List for Pope Leo XIV

Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church's pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. 

Pope Francis

Amoris Laetitia, October 1, 2015

Jesus Wept: Seven Popes And The Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church was released early this year before the death of Pope Francis. Authored by Philip Shenon, an award-winning investigative reporter, the book chronicles the papacies of the seven popes that preceded Pope Leo XIV, from Pius XII to Pope Francis. 

Shenon's book began by focusing on Vatican II and the primary issues facing the Catholic Church when the Council of Cardinals began its deliberations in 1962.  First, should Catholic priests and deacons be permitted to marry? Second, should the Church allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion? Third, should the ban on birth control be lifted?

A commission created by Pope Paul VI during the Vatican II proceedings recommended that the Church permit married couples to avail themselves of artificial birth control, but Pope Paul rejected its recommendations. In 1968, he issued Humanae Vitae, which proclaimed all contraceptives to be contrary to the Catholic faith.

Regarding the question of whether priests should be permitted to marry, the Church has not budged; priests must remain celibate. However, married men can be ordained as deacons, and married Episcopal priests who enter the Catholic Church through the Anglican Rite process can become Catholic priests. 

Nor has the Church retreated from the position that divorced Catholics who remarry are barred from the sacraments. Shenon wrote that Pope Francis made the annulment process easier (p. 504), but he's wrong about that. In many dioceses, divorced Catholics must go through a modern-day Inquisition when seeking an annulment, and the outcome is uncertain. In other dioceses, an annulment is merely a financial transaction; a marriage can be nullified simply by prayerfully writing a check.

Millions of Catholics and lapsed Catholics are looking to Pope Leo to reject the Church's heartless and clueless positions on these three burning issues:

• First, priests should be permitted to marry.

• Second, married Catholics should be able to avail themselves of contraceptives without being branded as sinners.

• Third, divorced Catholics who remarry should be able to receive Communion, as Pope Francis suggested in his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia — a document that he did not have the courage to operationalize.

The Big Lebowski Riots of 2025: Revolt of the Weenies

 Leftists argue that the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles are "largely peaceful," while the Trump team insists that the demonstrations are riots--a breakdown of law and order.

After watching an hour or so of video of the LA shenanigans today, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I saw plenty of recorded video of vandalism, looting, blocked highways, and burning cars. Call me old-fashioned, but that stuff looks like a riot.

On the other hand, I viewed footage of thousands of people aimlessly milling around, using their cell phones to record thousands of other people who were aimlessly milling around. 

What are they going to do with all those home movies? Show 'em to their grandkids? I have a vision of grumpy old codgers sitting around their TVs fifty years from now inflicting these videos on their grandkids. 

Who are these morose wanderers?

To my surprise, a good percentage of the demonstrators are older people with gray hair and sagging bellies. Are they retired, taking a day off from playing bingo at their neighborhood senior center? 

 In addition, many protesters are working-age Angelinos, people who should be toiling at jobs on a summer weekday. Are they unemployed? Did they take a sick day to wave anti-ICE signs around?

Finally, I saw a minority of protesters, mostly teenagers or young adults, loitering on the sidewalks and streets. These are the youthful bellyachers most likely to throw rocks and set cars on fire.

No doubt some of them will be committing mischief after nightfall.  Today, however, the young demonstrators appeared to be a crowd of loafers who were essentially harmless.

Regardless of age, a majority of the complainers strolling around downtown LA appeared to be lethargic, passive, and bored. I saw one frizzy-haired, thirtish woman try to get an angry chant going, but her efforts came to nothing. Too friggin' hot to get riled up.

An image flashed in my mind of the Big Lebowski--the dude bowling in his pajamas with fellow losers Walter and Donny. By and large, the LA riot is a revolt of the weenies. 

So, Governor Newsom, California's Weenie in Chief, may be right. We don't need the Marines to put down this sad affair. We simply need to remind this assemblage of malcontents to stay hydrated and use lots of sunscreen.

Hey, dude. Let's go bowling.

Mainly Peaceful? Mostly Peaceful? Largely Peaceful? Are Folks Rioting in the City of Angels?

 Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles have gone on for almost a week.  As Matt Taibbi pointed out in a recent blog, the legacy media have characterized these demonstrations as "mostly peaceful." Still, commentators avoid using that exact phrase because a CNN reporter was mocked for using it while standing before a burning building during the Minneapolis riot in 2020.

President Trump thinks the ruckus in Los Angeles is a riot, and he called out the National Guard and the Marines. Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass claim they have the protests under control and that Trump is overreacting.

Nevertheless, Mayor Bass imposed a curfew on downtown LA yesterday, acknowledging incidents of vandalism and looting. Protesters have set vehicles on fire and pelted local police with rocks and broken pieces of concrete. The anti-ICI crowd has stopped traffic on the 101 freeway. And then there are those Molotov cocktails.

I'd call that a riot. 

Whether President Trump should intervene to stop the rioting is another matter. Calling out 4,000 National Guard soldiers and a Marine battalion is a serious business, and most folks would rather local authorities deal with the civil unrest if they are capable of doing so.

Federal Judge Charles Breyer will rule on Governor Newsom's request for an injunction against federal intervention within the next few days.

My position from Flyover Country is to support President Trump. Violence, arson, and looting got entirely out of hand during the George Floyd riots of 2020--especially in Minneapolis and Seattle. Who wants a repeat of that season of discontent?

Today, Governor Greg Abbott mobilized the Texas National Guard in anticipation of planned anti-ICE demonstrations in San Antonio. That makes sense as well.  

The last thing this nation needs is for urban rioting to spread to other cities. Governor Newsom contends that the military presence in LA foments more violence. I don't think that's true.

What's a little rioting among friends?