Just a little direction, please.

[JFRogers01]

I'M WAY OVER MY HEAD I FEEL
I have these two question im having trouble answering from a list of INTERROGATORIES Questions the CA:(Shermeta,Adams & Von Almen): has sent me any idea's Plesase!!!!!

1. Please explain with particularity the factual basis upon which you rely in your
Answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

2. Please explain with particularity the legal basis. Including any and all citations of law, upon which you rely in your answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

I did VOD them twice and never recived a reply to the secound letter. I dident defalt notice them because they marched right to court and started suit

I have a feeling (90%) that they purchased the debt, They dont have any evidence They want me to produce; Names of people I talked to and notes,# of payments on the loan.
Their photo copy is not a exact copy of my carbon copy and you can see from their photo copy their was things added at the bottom, the diferant asignment options

Thanks J Rogers

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

I'M WAY OVER MY HEAD I FEEL
I have these two question im having trouble answering from a list of INTERROGATORIES Questions the CA:(Shermeta,Adams & Von Almen): has sent me any idea's Plesase!!!!!

1. Please explain with particularity the factual basis upon which you rely in your Answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

This is fairly standard "boilerplate" interrogatory material. You're being asked to specifically explain what facts you have to support the claim you are making that you don't owe what they claim you owe.

What they'd be looking to draw out are factual (not legal) contentions, i.e., the amount(s) or specifically challenged transactions which can be called into question or various fees and charges are in dispute, not the legallity of the agreement you signed.

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

2. Please explain with particularity the legal basis. Including any and all citations of law, upon which you rely in your answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

This one is the partner to the previous question about facts--but it's the legal basis you're relying on for not owing the alleged "unpaid balance," not the factual basis. Here's where you get to provide your legal rationale for not owing something and support it with case cites that agree with your position.

Understand in the legal system that facts and law are two subjects that are addressed separately. Judges decide matters of law. If there is a jury, it decides matters of fact, i.e., which party's evidence is more convincing. Without the jury, the Judge fills both roles.

The answers to the questions are different.

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

I did VOD them twice and never recived a reply to the secound letter. I dident defalt notice them because they marched right to court and started suit

Which makes sense, since the VOD was probably one of the meaningless varieties that attempt to challenge already decided legal issues and simply make you appear to be trying to get out of paying for something you owe. There is no response required to those kinds of frivolous VOD's, nor would they concern themselves with an alleged "default notice" that has no force of law.

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

I have a feeling (90%) that they purchased the debt, They dont have any evidence They want me to produce; Names of people I talked to and notes,# of payments on the loan.

Which is simply more factual evidence hunting. If you have legitimate contentions about mistakes they've made in how they accounted for payments, etc., this is where your contemporaneous record of your dealings with them comes in handy.

But when you say they don't have any evidence, you're assuming something (bad idea), and it doesn't matter if they purchased the debt or not. They may indeed have legal standing to sue but you need to make them prove that they do.

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

Their photo copy is not a exact copy of my carbon copy and you can see from their photo copy their was things added at the bottom, the diferant asignment options

Thanks J Rogers

Assignments happen all the time. Don't count on that to get out of owing unless you can prove there was some break in the chain of custody.

You're missing the point if you think you can obtain things using credit and then somehow pull some fairy dust out of a magic document off an Internet site that will make them go away.

The really whacko VOD theories have been tried and tested in attempts to eliminate legitimate debts, and the creditor's rights bar has developed inexpensive boilerplate ways to defeat them.

The reality is, when you try the goofy stuff they will only go away if the amount is small and they don't think there is anything to get out of you.

What's worse is that it only helps convince the judiciary that anyone who seriously challenges the CC companies is part of the kook crowd, and people with valid cases of being ripped off or being hit with ID theft issues get painted with the bogus debt-elimination brush.

[Bulletproof Monk]

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

I'M WAY OVER MY HEAD I FEEL
I have these two question im having trouble answering from a list of INTERROGATORIES Questions the CA:(Shermeta,Adams & Von Almen): has sent me any idea's Plesase!!!!!

1. Please explain with particularity the factual basis upon which you rely in your
Answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

2. Please explain with particularity the legal basis. Including any and all citations of law, upon which you rely in your answer that you are not liable for the unpaid balance on the subject contract.

Not having seen the VOD you sent, I will make the assumption that you have entered into an arguement/plaintiff situation as they seem to be referring to a statement by you about you no being liable (arguement). Therefore they have the right to challenge this. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff.

I did VOD them twice and never recived a reply to the secound letter. I dident defalt notice them because they marched right to court and started suit

I have a feeling (90%) that they purchased the debt, They dont have any evidence They want me to produce; Names of people I talked to and notes,# of payments on the loan.
Their photo copy is not a exact copy of my carbon copy and you can see from their photo copy their was things added at the bottom, the diferant asignment options

Thanks J Rogers

See, they are asking for YOUR proof of claim now, acting as the defendant...

If you have told them you are not liable, therein lies your problem. Everything must be in a negative eg:

"I have not seen, nor am I in posession of any material fact or evidence that ...........................and believe that none exists.

If you don't do it right, it'll come back and bite you. If you do...they'll go away, believe me, not JRB who likes to debunk these methods, but I can tell you (not legally, as I can't give legal advice) that it does work, lawfully.

Check my threads/posts for more info, and if you like, post the VOD, and I'll see where you're gone wrong.

The ball is back in your court, and you have 72 hours to respond...chop chop!

Bulletproof

[Codee]

The negative thing realy requires an entire shift of the mind. I made sure I had it down before I went to court and did the name thing. Realy the best tool you have is MASTERY over quick criticle thinking and response.

[JFRogers01]

If Daimler Chrysler would have stood by the offer to fix my Van and The Daimler Chrysler dealership didn’t commit fraud over the repair and fixed the van in the 5.5 months they had it I wouldn’t have to defend my self against Daimler Chrysler Financial suit and I would be making payment right on time.
They shut my business down, took my Van all in 100 pieces to the repo auction sold it for 10% of the balance owed and want me to come up with the rest, even though they are paid for their defaulted loans and also writes them off, and then sells the bad paper to CA.
So dont assume that im some wacko trying to GET OUT OF PAYING AN OBLIGATION.

I owed $29,000
Repo auction--- $2,800
then to EBAY---- $12,500
new owner fix van for $275.
and they are sueing me for $27,000 +

The cost of justice Price less

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

If Daimler Chrysler would have stood by the offer to fix my Van and The Daimler Chrysler dealership didn’t commit fraud over the repair and fixed the van in the 5.5 months they had it I wouldn’t have to defend my self against Daimler Chrysler Financial suit and I would be making payment right on time.

You're blending three legally separate entities.

They didn't develop their business models in a vacuum. They set the system up to protect each other from responsibility for the acts or failures to act of the others.

Originally Posted by JFRogers01

They shut my business down, took my Van all in 100 pieces to the repo auction sold it for 10% of the balance owed and want me to come up with the rest, even though they are paid for their defaulted loans and also writes them off, and then sells the bad paper to CA.
So dont assume that im some wacko trying to GET OUT OF PAYING AN OBLIGATION.

I owed $29,000
Repo auction--- $2,800
then to EBAY---- $12,500
new owner fix van for $275.
and they are sueing me for $27,000 +

The cost of justice Price less

I assume nothing other than to say the use of the kind of VOD challenge presented as viable by various sources is meaningless in your situation. That attempt is like trying to get a chain to break by putting it in an oven.

Focus on every specific failure to perform by each perpetrator.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

[masterduke]

JF, It would seem that you are in need of a competent, consumer advocate attorney. As JRB has pointed out, there are at least three different issues at work here. And if you don't really know how to proceed it will be difficult. Monitor your local district court to make sure that you have a heads-up on any suits. And remove your money from the bank, except for overdraft protection. If there are any summary judgements floating, 29 days later they will clean out your bank account.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

Not having seen the VOD you sent, I will make the assumption that you have entered into an arguement/plaintiff situation as they seem to be referring to a statement by you about you no being liable (arguement). Therefore they have the right to challenge this. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff.




See, they are asking for YOUR proof of claim now, acting as the defendant...

If you have told them you are not liable, therein lies your problem. Everything must be in a negative eg:

"I have not seen, nor am I in posession of any material fact or evidence that ...........................and believe that none exists.

If you don't do it right, it'll come back and bite you. If you do...they'll go away, believe me, not JRB who likes to debunk these methods, but I can tell you (not legally, as I can't give legal advice) that it does work, lawfully.

Check my threads/posts for more info, and if you like, post the VOD, and I'll see where you're gone wrong.

The ball is back in your court, and you have 72 hours to respond...chop chop!

Bulletproof

Can we get more info on this "negative mode of responding?"

thanks much

[JFRogers01]

I’m ready to accept their claim conditionally upon proof of claim, I need to stop arguing!! I think I have enough questions to move the court to make them produce the wet copy of the contract and a complete accounting. With so many other entities to deal with I’m wasting my energy trying to wrestle this BULL, though I’d like to put a ring in its nose, it would follow me then.
I’m working with 2 attorneys trying to get them to come around to our way of thinking, it’s slow but The one is seeing what I’m tell her and she try’s to explain it to the other. Its funny he can see where we are going but he blinded by his perceptions.
I find my self having to answer these questions which I know only bolsters their case because she didn’t really contest their proof of claim. She stated our defense in our answer to their claim as it was the Dealer and Daimler Chrysler.
I want question there standing as 1st party counsel or 3rd party debt collector.
What’s my best plan to side step these interrogatories and accept there claim upon proof.

Thanks J Rogers