Cute Chick,

Yeah, verification, right to collect, etc. from the outset - I agree. Unfortunately, my case was a botched A4V matter. I tried the private remedy and it fell flat on its face dead. So, this puts me in a bind that I do not have the use of certain legal arguments.

I do not understand when you say that if the account is deleted the account stated argument fails. Who & Why would they delete the account? There is no way in hell the creditor is going to delete the account, and if all 3 CRA's delete their account of the creditors account, it does not mean that the creditors account no longer exists or is not valid (it may be evidence thereof, but there are other admissibility issues here IMHO). Also, "account stated" is very old and is nothing new. It is a basic common count that has been around for at least 100+ years, and 200+ and much more is very likely.

And "cart before the horse?" I think you would be right if the contract were void from the beginning as an illegal and unenforceable contract; but it is only voidable. Because it is a voidable contract and there has been some performance by both parties (even though it's rooted in fraud), the court is not going to stand by and grant alleged debtors windfall victories when benefits have been received by debtor (products/services purchased with the CC). This is like saying that upon a construction contract that was voidable b/c fraud or whatever, and the party (debtor/buyer) who decides to void it after performance has been rendered (by creditor/builder) gets to keep the whole building and (debtor) gives nothing to the builders/contractors, etc. and wins everything. Equity will intervene to disallow any windfall for unjust enrichment in that case (in the courts eyes). The problem is that even though forfeiture should be the correct outcome (b/c the banks hands are filthy-dirty and actually have no real assets at risk in the contract; forfeiture would operate as a punitive remedy in this instance), this is damn close if not impossible to prove.

Sure, file a counter suit for fraud in the inducement. How do you plan to prove this? There is existing a presumptiopn of a valid binding enforceable contract, and the burden is on the moving party to prove otherwise; in this case, fraudulent misrepresentation. The creditor doesn't have to prove anything. This is not an easy thing to do when the burden is upon you. If you are not familiar with the "Book of Approved Jury Instructions," go to the law library and take a look at what the exact elements are needed to prove such a thing. Can you extract those subjective intent elements out of the bank with the current legislation in place that supports fractional reserve banking?

Please don't take my post the wrong way. I am really playing a "devil's advocate" position for all of our benefit. It is best to work out difficulties here, rather than be hammered by them in a courtroom. I do hope that I am wrong. But I am fairly certain I am not.

-squirrels