Question About Your True Legal Name

[TheIntelCritic]

I have a question about true legal names.

I am currently fighting a judgment in court and fighting to get the judgment off of my credit reports and I realized something...

My true and exact legal name as it appears on my birth certificate contains the suffix "Junior" or "Jr."

The debt collector that got the default judgment against me has my first and last name on the judgment, but left the suffix, "Junior," out.

Can I use this as a strategy to challenge the credit reporting agencies to remove the judgment off of my credit reports? Technically and legally, my name contains "Junior," and the creditors/collectors don't have it listed as such.

Please advise. And if there is any case law on true legal names to support this, please post it. Thank you in advance.

[David Merrill]

I have abated several nuisance cases for misnomer and know of several successful abatements other than that. Randy Lee's abatement is maybe the most famous around here.

Idem sonans is the term for "sounds the same". I doubt any clerk or judge is going to recognize lack of a Jr. suffix as even grounds to request the clerk correct the case name.

Perhaps you are mixing terms? Your legal name is not your true name. That is that your full or legal name is when you append your family or surname to your Christian or given names (first and middle).

The only nuisance abatements for misnomer I have seen succeed are when you have had a full or legal name assigned to you that you did not contract with - or show to the police officer. If you have not identified yourself with a full or legal name and that is the name on the process, then you abate by giving the clerk 10 days to correct the name on the process or you will ignore it as abated.

This is why Judge Roy Bean and attorney members here all insist my name is Van Pelt - my family's name. They understand misnomer and its application is fundamental in gaining jurisdiction in the collections processes around elastic currency.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

"Junior" pressupposes that the father is still alive, which might be the reason, years after the birth and birth certificate, the court papers don't use it. These suffixes (such as Jr., IV, etc.) have no legal significance so long as the intended person is sufficiently indicated otherwise (e.g., by address or business enterprise).

"Idem sons' has nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of "Junior", it has to do with misspellings. For example, is a bequest that was written to "Johnson" really to someone whose name is actually spelled "Jonson". Stuff like that.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I have abated several nuisance cases for misnomer and know of several successful abatements other than that.

And yet DiM never posts readily verifiable documents, court case cites or numbers, or the names and contact info of pleased "suitors" so that this can be verified.

Odd how that works, don't you think?

[Shoonra]

Lawdog:

There's a reason for Dave the Jailbird's behavior.

You'll notice henever gives us the name of his pretended court victories, even though they're presumably public records, and even though they're supposedly fait accompli, and, perhaps more important, even though you'd think he (and his "client") would be proud to show you the verifiable details.

And you'll notice when he reproduces a pleading, he frequently calls attention to the all the court runnerstamps and markings on it. This shows he xeroxed his copy from the courthouse file himself -- yet that file would have included the judge's final decision and he very scrupulously avoids copying that for us! the document he shows us is just the pleading submitted by one side in a case -- the rubberstamps and the like show only that it was received in the mail or at the front desk and moved along by various clerical types who read only the top half of the first page. The stamps and marks prove nothing about the validity of the arguments any more than the postmark on an envelope attests to the qualities of the letter inside.

His DELIBERATE avoidance of giving us the judge's decision, or any means by which we might find out the judge's decision, serves as very strong evidence, bordering on solid proof, that the judge's decision went against him and his "client" - and that he knows it..

I would have thought you'd have figured this out by now.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

And yet DiM never posts readily verifiable documents, court case cites or numbers, or the names and contact info of pleased "suitors" so that this can be verified.

Odd how that works, don't you think?

Will you please post the names and contact information of YOUR pleased "suitors" or "clients," or whatever you call them, "so that this can be verified?"

How about some statistics on those who are/were/have been "unpleased," along with names and contact information,"so that this can be verified?"

In fact, since you seem to appear here claiming to be a "lawyer" how about YOUR name and contact information, "so that this can be verified?"

Like your name and BAR card number, and a scan of your "license to practice law," "so that this can be verified?"

How else can one verify that you are who and what you say you are?

Will you post unredacted proof positive of your "successes" in court using your "legal" "theories," "so that this can be verified?"

Will you post unredacted proof positive of any of your "successes" in court at all "so that this can be verified?"

In fact, I say that your claim to being a "lawyer" is just that--an empty, unvalidated, unverified claim.

Prove your claim.

Talk is cheap.

Prove up.

"...so that this can be verified."


Not A Real "Lawyer" Just Another Dog in the Pack


Odd how that works.

Don't you think, my boy?

[Shoonra]

Don't take mrg personally. That seems to be his usual argument. Something reminiscent of the old radio show about the adventures of Baron Munchausen.

It's worth keeping in mind (1) Dave the Jailbird (and others) only show bits of arguments from cases without telling us the judge's decision or how to get it -- strong evidence by itself that the decision was against them, and (2) MRG has yet to back up his own claims with any precedents, and he seems incapable (I don't know if it's pure laziness or combined with dementia) of looking up precedents that I have cited; he doesn't bother looking them up so he acts as if I haven't cited them.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Don't take mrg personally. That seems to be his usual argument. Something reminiscent of the old radio show about the adventures of Baron Munchausen.

It's worth keeping in mind (1) Dave the Jailbird (and others) only show bits of arguments from cases without telling us the judge's decision or how to get it -- strong evidence by itself that the decision was against them, and (2) MRG has yet to back up his own claims with any precedents, and he seems incapable (I don't know if it's pure laziness or combined with dementia) of looking up precedents that I have cited; he doesn't bother looking them up so he acts as if I haven't cited them.

Assumes facts not in evidence?

Ad hominem fallacious logical tactical rhetorical artifice?

Are you representing Lawdog?

Has he made the claims?

There are two responsive answers.

Will he verify?

There are two responsive answers.

Very specifically and particularity, will you please precisely enumerate ALL the claims you have just tacitly assigned to me?

Will you prove YOU are who and what you claim?

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Lawdog:

There's a reason for Dave the Jailbird's behavior.

You'll notice henever gives us the name of his pretended court victories, even though they're presumably public records, and even though they're supposedly fait accompli, and, perhaps more important, even though you'd think he (and his "client") would be proud to show you the verifiable details.

Yes, I know that the only verifiable results of DiM's interactions with the judicial system are crushing defeats. Like when Judge Nottingham tossed his suit out of federal court the very day after it was filed. Typically judges at least wait for the defendant to answer and move for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal or a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment before tossing a suit out.

I just wanted to ask the rhetorical question for the benefit of any readers who haven't yet figured out that DiM is a loon with no verifiable court victories.

[TheIntelCritic]

I also have another tidbit to throw into the fray:

My name is copyrighted.

I have debated putting the credit reporting agencies on notice not to use my copy righted name.

If I put them on notice, I wonder what the ramifications will be? Will ALL of my credit history go up in smoke? The good and the bad?

I wonder.