Motion to compel

[dystopia]

I'm being compelled to answer interrogatories.

Questions I'm referring to are questions that are obviously directed toward garnishment such as employer information, ssn, bank account information.

Do I have a realistic chance of witholding this type of information?

I'm going to the law library tomorrow so I was hoping to get a ball park idea of what to look for?

So far I'm looking at the Privacy Act of 1974

Thanks.

[dystopia]

I guess my initial thought would be how is this relevant to the proceeding?

How is the address of my employer going to lead to evidence that we have a contract?

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by dystopia

I'm being compelled to answer interrogatories.

Questions I'm referring to are questions that are obviously directed toward garnishment such as employer information, ssn, bank account information.

Do I have a realistic chance of witholding this type of information?

I'm going to the law library tomorrow so I was hoping to get a ball park idea of what to look for?

So far I'm looking at the Privacy Act of 1974

Thanks.

The 5th amendment clearly recognizes one's right to not be compelled to witness against himself. But, if you are willing to waive that right, then, by all means, they won't stop the waiver from occurring.

No case-law is needed for this right to be self-evident. Rights do not come from acts. But acts can waive rights. I would not spend too much time researching the Privacy Act of 1974. It is not for you to use, the Act if for our adversaries to follow(which they won't, and try to hold you in strict liability to the Act for them).

Black's Law 4th ACT. In its most general sense, this noun signifies something done voluntarily by a person; .....

Remember, the attorn definition from Black's law 4th:

ATTORN. to turn over; to transfer to another money or goods; to assign to some particular use or service. To consent to the tranfer of rent or reversion. To agree to becom etenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate previously hel of another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate, and promise payment of rent to him.

ATTORNEY. An agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authroized to act in the place or stead of another to manage his affairs(those affairs being to transfer or tun over property to another)

Guess who wrote and coded the Privacy Act, as well as all other legal gibberish coming out of Metro DC? Attorners!

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by moishanb

The 5th amendment clearly recognizes one's right to not be compelled to witness against himself. But, if you are willing to waive that right, then, by all means, they won't stop the waiver from occurring.

No case-law is needed for this right to be self-evident.

Better read the 5th Amendment again. The right against self-incrimination applies only to evidence that can be used in criminal cases ("nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"). What makes you think it applies to postjudgment discovery in a civil case where the judgment creditor is seeking information regarding the judgment debtor's assets?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by dystopia

I'm being compelled to answer interrogatories.

Questions I'm referring to are questions that are obviously directed toward garnishment such as employer information, ssn, bank account information.

Do I have a realistic chance of witholding this type of information?

I'm going to the law library tomorrow so I was hoping to get a ball park idea of what to look for?

So far I'm looking at the Privacy Act of 1974

Thanks.

You need to check the Rules of Procedure for your state.

”All parties are allowed to ask the other side a set number of written questions… Interrogatories may inquire into any matter, admissible or not, so long as it can be said to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.”

"In some jurisdictions…there may be standard interrogatories you are required to use in certain kinds of cases…."

"Answers to interrogatories are always under oath." -- www.jurisdictionary.com

While you are at the library, there may be a contempt of court issue you need to look into.

Is this a postjudgment discovery issue?

[Libertarian]

Questions I'm referring to are questions that are obviously directed toward garnishment such as employer information, ssn, bank account information.

Do I have a realistic chance of witholding this type of information?

If they already have a judgment against you, no.

If this is pre-trial discovery, then questions relevant only to collecting a future judgment are irelevant because they don't have a judgment yet. When you are at the law library, look for cases in your state on that issue. A federal court case that discusses this is RTC v Thornton, 41 F.3d 1539, 1547 (D.C. Cir. 1994).*

*Not legal advice-- for educational purposes only.

[dystopia]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

You need to check the Rules of Procedure for your state.



While you are at the library, there may be a contempt of court issue you need to look into.

Is this a postjudgment discovery issue?

This is PRE-judgment. They do not have a judgement yet, that's why I object because they are getting way ahead of themselves.

I should have made that clear.

Also this is a breach of contract case - well known collection attorney posing as OC with a BS affidavit certifying a pile of credit card statements.

[dystopia]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

If they already have a judgment against you, no.

If this is pre-trial discovery, then questions relevant only to collecting a future judgment are irelevant because they don't have a judgment yet. When you are at the law library, look for cases in your state on that issue. A federal court case that discusses this is RTC v Thornton, 41 F.3d 1539, 1547 (D.C. Cir. 1994).*

*Not legal advice-- for educational purposes only.

Thanks, I'll check this out tomorrow.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by dystopia

This is PRE-judgment. They do not have a judgement yet, that's why I object because they are getting way ahead of themselves.

I should have made that clear.

Also this is a breach of contract case - well known collection attorney posing as OC with a BS affidavit certifying a pile of credit card statements.

If you think that the DC questions are too broad, you should look into asking the court to Quash them. The court may grant your request, if the DC's questions are overly burdensome or don't appear to reasonably lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Remember, you can also ask the DC for Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, etc. to help your case.

This is not legal advice, blah, blah, blah... This is a standing notice.

[dystopia]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

If you think that the DC questions are too broad, you should look into asking the court to Quash them. The court may grant your request, if the DC's questions are overly burdensome or don't appear to reasonably lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Remember, you can also ask the DC for Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, etc. to help your case.

This is not legal advice, blah, blah, blah... This is a standing notice.

Actually, I had him served with request for admissions.

The attorney argued that my request was untimely, that my counterclaim was improperly served, he got my subpeona declared not served.

I basically haven't been able to fight back, I'm not fast enough so I ended up on the defensive completely. It's kind of hard when you have to take off work everytime you have to respond.

I'm going to the hearing tomorrow. All I can do is ask the judge to have the attorney served then.

The worst part is the motion to compel, they actually sent me SOMEONE ELSE'S motion to compel and the judge STILL granted it.

In other words it was addressed to another person in a completely different case.

I went and tried to have it entered into the record as evidence as a certified copy but I think the dumbass clerk screwed me on that too. I see it was deleted.

I think this guy is the judges golf buddy, everything just bounces off him.

What would you do?

I think I'm going to have to rely on the supreme court ruling that the judge has to help me because this lawyer has done nothing but argue over procedures and deadlines.