attorney placement pending (discover card)

Originally Posted by Jerseee

droog,



That is very close to advice. So I will dance a little around that.



All I am saying is that you're just asking the question, verify the debt--that is all.



And when you ask that question you can cite the appropriate code, statute, policy, whatever that supports your demand for verification. Then right behind your cited code, back that up with a case or two or three. Hell maybe even a rule from the FRE as well.



IMHO, this is a way to let them know that you know something doesn't smell right.



Now this is how I handle any alleged debt---with a letter first. Doing what I just explained.



Now what Squirrels was relaying throughout the thread was the way that things are. I was cutting to the chase by using case law and avoiding some of the games. So I hope I didn't confuse anyone by not being more specific early on.

yes, i understand what you are saying and i am doing just that.., asking them to verify my debt. i am simply asking them for verification, and i am not using 1692 since that doesnt apply to creditors.



i understand you want people to work and find stuff on their own, which i have been doing, i am new (no excuse), and i cannot yet determine exaclty what is specific to my situation. i just dont want to insert a code or cite that will make me look foolish.



could you or someone point me in the right direction where i can find SOMETHING to support my demand?



i appreciate any tips!

[Jerseee]

droog,



Read the first set of threads on this forum. They deal with cases that have decided on CPNs mostly.



After you have read a few of them, I want you to read posts in this forum written by Ice on this subject.



Then I want you to put it together in your head and we'll be waiting for the light to come on.



Remember, you want them to verify the debt and you want to <u>examine the ORIGINAL NOTE </u>(CPN) with original signatures....not copies or a scanned document.

I know this is not the answer you wanted--i am giving you the answer you need. After you've done these tasks--come back and share your thoughts and progress.

ive been trying to search ices' posts for the last 3 days, but they wont pull up. any ideas?



here is code and a cite i like to back my demand for verification:



UCC 3-501

(2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.



and use this as a cite:

"Under the Uniform Commercial Code the onlynotice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his agent or bailee. See Bankruptcy Court followed by UCC in Re Investors & Lenders LTD 165 B.R. BKRTCY D.N.J. 1994"



my letter will basically say "this is not a refusal to pay but a demand for verfication. upon verification payment will be tendered in full" then list UCC 3-501 and cite.



am i on the right track, or still astray?

[Jerseee]

Now you've got it!!! You're on track.



As for Ice's comments, this one rings out loud and clear:



ADDRESS THE FRAUD IN THE CONTRACT. READ YOUR MORTGAGE.



I have given you the insight on critical reading. Now look for the breach of contract in your mortgage.

Jerseee,



That's kind of a strange question to answer. Cases decided on statute alone likely have used caselaw in support to show how the statute has been interpreted or something like that. But I do know of a summary judgment argued just a few weeks ago where someone won using 15 USC 1666 alone b/c the CCC never responded to the disputed billing statement as required under the code. The CCC just turned it over to an attorney for a lawsuit w/o adressing the dispute and they lost as a result. Did they use caselaw in their Memorandum in Support? I do not know. But the judges order (written by the alleged debtor) rested solely on the statute alone. I will be taking a look at that case in a few days (out of curiosity) and see what their file contains. Should it be worth mentioning, I will do so.



droog79,



You may want leave out the other caselaw you cited. The case is from 1994 which was before the revised version of Article 9 of the UCC was created, and may no longer be good law as a result. Security interestes in instruments can be perfected by filing as well now. However, possession is still the supreme method to retain perfection in an instrument. Also, if this is a mortgage, this section may be inapplicable as the UCC generally deals with personal property interestes, not real property. But they do overlap somewhat. This stuff can get really complicated, and I still have much to learn here.



Keep searching, studying, and learning - you will find something! First thing first though - do you have a law dictionary? It is imperative that you use it EVERY DAY. For me, if I do not look up at least one word a day, then I am doing something wrong.



Good luck!!



-squirrels

[Jerseee]

Squirrels,



My request was 2 fold. First, to see if you knew of any and second to get you to see my angle and what I was talking about.



I know that statutes are a result of most (if not all) case law. So I was merely trying to avoid the statute thing altogether by just citing and depending on the applicable case and not the statute.



You see, if the cases are referenced and not so much the statutes--the court has no choice but to use what the man/woman is standing on. Now I know it is not as clear cut as that but, the overall goal is to not allow so much wiggle room by the bastards and really keep their feet on the ground that the man/woman sets. Not giving them room to create or decide from another unapproved source.



Just my thoughts--of course I could be wrong.

Jerseee,



I think you are mostly right. But always keep in the back of the mind that in dealing with Law, there is no such thing as a "right" answer. I see it as basically a game to support your point of view as best as possible. The more support you use (i.e. statute, caselaw, secondary sources, treatises, legal encyclopedias, expert testimony, etc.), the better off one is. To rely on one angle alone could be foolish when more angels of support are always at one's disposal. The danger of using caselaw alone is that if you do not use it correctly (i.e. the case must be as close to identical as possible re: facts, timing, jurisdiction, etc.), then you might screw yourself as well. The court may decide the case is just not applicable to the facts, jurisdiction, etc. and may disregard it with authority in support of their point of view. But if used correctly, you may bind the court and they are stuck with no alternative but to rule in one's favor as well. Wigggle room is always a threat regardless what is used. IMHO, the more sources/knowledge in support, the better off one will be.



-squirrels

[Jerseee]

Squirrels,



I may have had to pull teeth to get that from you--but for me and the members--that last post is a keeper!!!!



Thanks

Jerseee,



Funny thing - I was at the dentist yesterday as well -LOL!!



-squirrels

[Jerseee]

LOL!!! Stubborn as hell, huh?