-----Original Message-----
From: Gww1210@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:59:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: John H. Shannon, re Dist.40 Fl. house campaign
To: evinson@johnhughshannon.com, justice@studentloanjustice.org
CC: Gww1210@aol.com, Gww12102002@yahoo.com, gww1210@gmail.com,

John Hugh Shannon, PA                Cc: Alan Collinge of www.StudentLoanJustice.org
5115 S. Lakeland Dr., Ste #1                as a courtesy copy because I am quoting you
Lakeland, FL 33813-2565                  
(863) 619-7464                             Cc: file copes
Mr. Shannon, thank you for taking time to speak with me by phone the other day when I had questions about your campaign for Seth McKeel's state house seat. -- Thank you, even more, for being brave enough to consider an issue which is probably much more "Federal" than "State" (since the Florida's attempts to regulate tuition are VERY difficult given the intrusion of the Feds into the Free Market, here, causing tuition inflation.)
Before I pose my answer to your point (which I admit, stumped me), I owe it to you to verify my claims that I nearly won in court for Terri Schiavo -all by myself -doing better than all other -combined:
* In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE 'TERRI' SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf (I lost 4-3, getting 42.7% of my panel)
* In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf (Jeb, bless his heart, lost 7-0, getting 0.0% of his panel)
* Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf (Even Terri's blood family got only 33.3% of their own panel in Federal Appeals court)
* A few of my Amicii on behalf of Jeb's case are archived here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/04/04-925/index.html
* A slightly-updated version my brief, filed before the US Supreme Ct, is attached, as is my 'research' on the college loan debacle.
Anyhow, thank you, also, for supporting (at least, as far as you can at the state level) all the "other" Standard Consumer Protections, but your claim that there was a crisis of abuse of the system that justified removal of the bankruptcy option seems to be incorrect: Alan Collinge reports at http://StudentLoanJustice.org/press-fact-sheet.html that: “There was never a rational basis for removing bankruptcy protections from student loans. Three decades ago people found to be discharging their loans shortly after graduation, while highlighted by media and pointed to as a rationalization for bankruptcy removal, turned out to be exceedingly rare. In fact, far less than 1% of all federal loans were actually discharged in bankruptcy.” Is Alan right? Yes: The recent 'urban legend' among some of the “rich & powerful” banker types that Congress had 'good' rationale for removal of bankruptcy protections from student loans, namely that many students were abusing this option by going to college, racking up large debts, & then refusing to pay is easily disproved: Default rates and overall college loan debt, good proxies for levels of bankruptcy filings, used to be very low in the past (back
when bankruptcy was an option, and did not require the next-to-impossible 'Undue Hardship' test). However, it was only AFTER bankruptcy (and other Standard Consumer Protections) were removed that Student Loan Debt has, for the FIRST TIME in America's history, surpassed Credit Card Debt.
However, this is moot: you surely know that Congress is prohibited by the Constitution (Art. I, §10, Cl. 1) from either changing of the existing Student Loan Contracts (such as they did with mine, when the law removed the bk option) or from writing any bk law that is not uniform (Art. I, §8).
Further, if you think it's right for college students to be whacked for abuse, why not the same standard for all others, such as Donald Trump, who filed 4 times, for huge sums? (It can be argued that he 'creates jobs,' but the same can be said of students who could put more back into the economy with a lowered loan burden.)
“Donald Trump -- or companies that bear his name - have declared bankruptcy four times...Trump's first visit to bankruptcy court was in 1991, when his Atlantic City casino, the Taj Mahal, was buried under a mountain of debt. The Taj carried a $1 billion price tag and was financed by junk bonds carrying a staggering 14 percent interest rate. As construction completed, the economy slumped, as did the Atlantic City gambling scene, soon plunging Trump into $3.4 billion of debt...In December 2008 his company missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment, propelling Trump Entertainment Resorts into bankruptcy court and plunging its stock price from $4 per share to a mere 23 cents.”
(“Donald Trump's Companies Filed for Bankruptcy 4 Times,” By Amy Bingham (@Amy_Bingham), April 21, 2011, ABCNews.com)
Lastly, if you think it's ok to change existing contracts for college students, then what prevents Congress from changing existing contracts in which *you* are a signatory? As a practical matter (and as elucidated in my email signature below), any time we refuse to protect the rights of others, *we*, ourselves could become the next victim.!
Thank you for being 'conservative' on almost all issues which I can see, John (even tho I admit I view lack of bk protections as contrary of many constitutional principals, and thus not conservative.) -- I wish you the best in your run for house.
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute

821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411 Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)XXX-YYYY [[ Redacted ]]
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com

Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe

Truth doesn't change because you disbelieve it

TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants
http://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get Truth

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists, Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "
Speak up now or forever hold your peace!"-GWW