HouseHold offers me a "Modified Payment Amount"

[KITCHIE]

Hey there everybody!!!



I received a letter Fed ex from Household. It is titled Account Modification Agreement and in it they are offering to lower my interest from 16.34% to 7.99% making the payments about $44 a mo less.



Here is the kicker. I have not made a payment since June. Since that time there have been three attempts by the repo guys to get my car. Each time the car was right there in the garage,,,no attempt to hide it.



The first Repo man respected the No Trespassing sign asked me if I would let him take the car, I said no and he left.



The second Repo guy I told him the dept was in dispute there was a billing error and I have a affidavit from the noraty acceptor that says they didn't respond to my inquires. He said OK and left.



The third Repo guy was going "to get his woman". He tells me he is a agent of the state and he is here to collect the Isuzu. I said well I am sorry but there can be no debt collection activity until the dispute has been resolved. So he keep talking and says I'll be taking it to the impound yard and you can take it up with the DA and Household. I said you need to be aware that I have the Affidavit of nonresponse from the Notary Acceptor that household has not tried to resolve. Now his truck is backed up to about 1 foot from my closed garage door. I walk behind his truck and show him the Affidavit. Then I said if you are an agent of the state show me the warrant. So I see on his clipboard he has a Affidavit too!! AND then I see it's written on his company's letterhead!!



So I say to him " You're not an agent of the state you're just a little repo guy!" Then I said you saw my no trespassing sign now get out of here. He says I'm just tring to help you out so you don't go to jail, because now it's malicious intent wo withold. I said get out of here he said you're going to jail I said you are licenced by the state you have no authority GET OUT OF HERE!!!!!



So he's now slowly driving away and hes telling me your going to jail I gonna call the sheriff. I say then quit talking and go do it off my property. He says ok I'm waiting right at the end of you driveway. I said ok then go do it.



So he went to the end of my drivewayt and waited for about 15 minutes then left. See where I live the eta for the sheriff to show up over a civil matter is about 3hrs.



OK so now I get this new gontract from household saying we will adjust the amount owed if you sign and return. It also says "You have represented to HAFC that your financial circumstances have changed as such that you are no longer able to meet the full monthly payment abligation required under the terms of you financing contract or loan agreement (the "Contract")." I did do that in a twelve page letter that said you didn't loan me anything I funded the loan.



I will try to get this on the site so you can see the whole three page thing.



In the meantime any and all thoughts are appreciated.



Kitchie

[dashboy]

Hey Kitchie! why the hell would a real bonafide agent of the state get involved in a contract dispute? Especially one involving repo attempts? I think NOT! They have better things to do! I am in the same boat as you. The bank tried that repo crap with me too. Sent out a private investigator who threatened to testify against me for collateral concealment which is a felony here in California. I told him I would help him hook the car up to the tow truck if he came with a certified letter from the bank stating that the bank had not received my CPN and that it was no good because it was not legal tender and that the bank had no fiduciary duty to it. The investigator said he would have no problem getting that from the bank and that he would be at my home the next morning with it. That was back in August! HAHAHA! Chump! I wrote him a letter a few weeks latter asking him what happen to our next day meeting and also pointing out that he will be included in the RICO Civil suit for his involvement in the racket they got going . Of course he never responded to it.

Kitchie a deputy Sheriff will not get involved in a civil matter like a car repo unless there is a court order in place that the repo man can show him or a crime is happening right in front of him. Or a felony took place between you and the repo man (assualt/battery, threats, ect..). If the deputy shows up he will ask the repo man if he has a copy of a court order after which he will make you get the car out so the repo man can take it. The other instance is if the repo man all ready has the car hooked up to the tow truck, then the deputy will tell you you lose for now. Possession is 9/10th of the law. Collateral concealment is very hard to prove because it involves intent. Only person who can prove that is YOU! Do you intend to conceal the car from the alleged creditor? Of course not, everyone always parks the car in their garage dont they? ahahaha!

I thought we were going to try and hook up to go over paperwork in Reno? Have you heard from Pearis? I hope she is not in jail. I have not heard from her.

dashboy!<font size=3>[/color]

Kitchie,

I had the very some offer come in from Household on a vehicle I purchased on 12/13/03. I faxed the letter back the same day with REJECTED on it.

I defaulted them using a tweaked version of the Clyde's method. I had the default affidavit recorded at the county level and returned to them from the recorder's office.

I signed the Prom Note at the dealer WITHOUT RECOURSE after my signature thus qualifying it and making me not liable for the note. The secondary signature is responsible for the note.

I have had some repo guys call and I told them they can have it, if they pay the lien off. I put a UCC1 on it within 72 hours of the purchase. I told them that if they touched the vehicle, I would have them arrested for felony theft, and file a claim against their bond for the damages I received. After I'd fax them a copy of the UCC1 they call back and say we can't touch this.

Here's what will happen next. I started receiving flyers in the mail from local attorney's trying to get me to hire them, b/c I was being sued. So come to find out, they filed a No Service complaint to have the vehicle taken back by court order (writ of repenzel??? Spelling), which was granted. Well I went down to the court to see what was up and I filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction after I got a copy. The judge asked me if i have the vehicle and I said YES. But I am first lienholder by way of the UCC1 and I was not giving it back until the lien was satisfied. My motion was passed, b/c under the Texas RCP, you cannot answer a complaint with a Motion to Dismiss.

Well their complaint was consumed with lie after lie. It states that all of their communicaitons were not answered, when they were the ones who didn't answer mine, etc. etc. I have some people in Austin helping me with a Writ of Error to get the court order removed, and I'm having the case moved to the federal level.

Anyhow, about a week ago, my phone rings at 3 in the morning. Someone is outside to "pick up the Tahoe". I said some choice words and said get lost. Well the next morning there was a letter left, that said you may be in violation of the Penal Code blah blah.

He left a number to call, which I did right away. He didn't answer so I left a voicemail, stating who I was etc. I gave the UCC filing number and went through that spiel again. I have a NO TRESPASSING sign obtained from this site in my front yard as well, and stated that if he steps on my property, I will do a asset search on him and file a commercial lien on him with the county if he steps one foot on my property. I told him as for the Penal Code, I am a sovereign and unless you can find a US Supreme Court case that overturns Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and/or bring a injured flesh and blood person to confront me, he can shove the Penal Code up his ass.

I have yet to hear back from him.

[dalrex]

Originally Posted by flecompte

I told him as for the Penal Code, I am a sovereign and unless you can find a US Supreme Court case that overturns Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and/or bring a injured flesh and blood person to confront me, he can shove the Penal Code up his ass.

I have yet to hear back from him.

Maybe he thought about what you said with regards to the penal code, and took up a new hobby!

[KITCHIE]

I just found this little thing and thought it might be of some use to you, and possible me too!! LOL
From: "Kingsman Funding" <kngsfund@b...>
Date: Thu Nov 4, 2004 11:28 pm

Below are the closing arguments in our most recent motion to compel discovery when the opposing party refuses to admit or deny the admissions or to produce the documents on which there denial would be based

Further, as to being “overly broad, vague”, and that "Household is unsure of what Plaintiff is requesting."

As stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint has challenged whether the performance of the bank to this contract represents a loan to the Plaintiff as implied and allowed to be understood by the language and terms of the agreement, of being money that already existed they would have equitable risk of loss to recover, that was not directly offset by new deposit money credit, originated and brought on to the bank’s books from the receiving of Plaintiff's note into the bank as a commercial paper asset of substantive money equivalence provided to this contract by the Plaintiff. And has alleged that Household does not have the risk for recovery of the money loaned which our agreement to the terms and obligations of the contract are based on, and if such risk represented and allowed to be understood by its language and terms does not exist, they have breached the contract from the beginning enforcing it against us and have no valid contract to foreclose under.

Plaintiff's discovery essentially asks the answer to this question clearly, distinctly and in as many different ways as possible so it is impossible for any cognitive rational person to misinterprete what Plaintiff is seeking to know.

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for production of documents is primarily a restatement of its requests for admissions with the logical addendum,

“If this request for admission is denied, please produce the book entry accounting of this transaction as factual documentation and evidence on which your denial is based.”


Examination of the interrogatories and requests for admissions by the court will show Plaintiff has simply, in various ways, asked the Defendant to admit the essential allegation of Plaintiff's complaint: that Defendant has not made a loan of money they have equitable risk of loss to recover, that was not directly offset by new deposit money credit, originated and brought on to the bank’s books from the receiving of Plaintiff's note into the bank as a commercial paper asset of money equivalence.

And if they cannot so admit and it is denied they are asked to " please produce the book entry accounting of this transaction as factual documentation and evidence on which your denial is based.”

As the court may judge, there is nothing “overly broad, vague”, or “unsure of what Plaintiff is requesting."


This is Part 1 I will post Part 2

Kitchie

[KITCHIE]

IX. MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW

Plaintiff is entitled to discovery as to “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case [including] a variety of fact-oriented issues [which] may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

It is the defendant’s burden to persuade the Court that the information it has refused to provide is outside the scope of discovery. Compagnie Francaise D’Assurance v. Phillips Petroleum, 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); White v. Beloginis, 53 F.R.D. 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1971); Elgin FCU v. Carter, Fitzgerald Securities, 91 F.R.D. 414 (N.D.Ga. 1981); US v. 58.16 Acres of Land, 66 F.R.D. 570 (1975).

The Court may not consider the merits of the action in ruling on discovery disputes. Garland v. Torres, 259 F. 2d 545, 550-51 (2d Cir. 1958). See also V.D. Anderson Co. v. Helena Cotton Oil Co., 117 F. Supp. 932, 945 n.9 (E.D. Ark. 1953) (“[i]t is no objection to an interrogatory that it relates to a defense or claim which is insufficient in law. It is not ordinarily the function of the court in passing upon objections to interrogatories to decide ultimate questions”) and cases cited therein.

The boilerplate, unsubstantiated objections of Defendant are invalid.

“The mere statement by a party that [an] interrogatory was overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant is not adequate to voice a successful objection to an interrogatory.” Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982); Obiajulu v. City of Rochester, 166 F.R.D. 293, 295 (W.D.N.Y. 1966) (boilerplate objections inconsistent with federal rules); Burus v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 589, 593-94 (W.D.N.Y. 1966) (blanket objections are insufficient). Even if the information turns out to be irrelevant or immaterial, defendant must produce it rather than act as a self-appointed gatekeeper and prevent the judicial authority from making this ultimate determination.

Broad discovery promotes settlement as all parties are able to learn facts related to their claims so that proper evaluation and discussion occur. All American courts agree that discovery is extremely broad. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S. Ct. 1635 (1979); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

Discovery of documents is permitted where the documents might not even lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Miller v. Federal Express Co., 186 F.R.D. 376 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Tenn. 1999). Relevancy is particularly broad in discovery. Id. Relevance is determined by whether the information or documents sought relate to a claim, defense or credibility of a witness. It also includes whether the information sought might reasonably lead to the discovery or location of evidence that is relevant and admissible. Scouler v. Craig, 116 F.R.D. 494 (U.S.D.C. N.J. 1987); Hickman v. Taylor, supra, (“No longer can the time-honored cry of “fishing expedition” serve to preclude a party from inquiring into facts underlying the opponent’s case.”).

Discovery is designed to take the “game” element out of trial preparation by enabling parties to obtain the evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute beforehand. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 1649.

Courts considering motions to compel have held that the party objecting to production of documents has the burden of proving that the records are either not relevant or that the burden of production is so great as to outweigh the need for fair discovery and the goals of discovery. Oleson v. KMart, 175 F.R.D. 560, 565 (U.S.D.C. Kan. 1997); Burke v. New York City Police Dept., 115 F.R.D. 220, 224 (U.S.D.C. S.D. N.Y. 1987). This burden is an affirmative duty placed on the objecting party to articulate facts, not mere conclusory remarks, of the alleged lack of relevancy or burden of the costs which are alleged to outweigh the goals of liberal discovery. Marena v. Carrabba’s Italian Grill, 196 F.R.D. 35 (U.S.D.C. Md. 2000).

Blanket objections and conclusory remarks are never proper or sufficient. Id.; Eureka Fin. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 182-183 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal. 1991).


Courts have routinely granted motions to compel and even sanctions where a party responding to discovery utilize frivolous, boiler-plate objections. The responses in this instance are boiler-plate, cookie cutter objections which have been improperly interposed to stall discovery and to harass the Plaintiff.

Defendant’s objections to the discovery are unfounded and should be stricken and Defendant should be ordered to produce complete discovery answers.


OK and Part 3 will follow this...

[KITCHIE]

X.

From Defendant's perspective an opponent’s effort to know the truth which we have a right to under the law, and which the court must know in order to judge Plaintiff's allegations fairly, "is designed to harass".

Does the Court wonder what it is about plain statements of fact that Defendant cannot simply admit or deny? Or what is so difficult, if they feel the request for admission must be denied, then to "produce the book entry accounting of this transaction as factual documentation and evidence on which their denial is based which the bank acknowledges under GAAP principle it is bound to by law takes precedence over all other legal forms and recordings of the agreement."


Which is all we have asked defendant to do in conjunction with each request in discovery?

In the maxims of law, “When a party has a duty to speak, his silence equates with fraud.”

Would the Court wonder if plaintiff is silent in this regard because under penalty of perjury they cannot put forward such evidence ?


If you have money and loan some of it to me, it is the simplest thing in the world to show this is what you did and are at risk to get it back and have a loss if you don't.

But Defendant has not shown this by the simple book entries of its accounting that would do so, and is fighting tooth and toenail to keep from showing it or has not even sworn an affidavit claiming they have loaned money that already existed they have equitable risk to recover.

Because they didn't do it, and the accounting won't show it, and they have no claim of loss to make against the defendant or defense against our complaint.

Does the Court wonder why the defendant with its professional Certified Public Accountants, would not perform this simple audit on the loan under GAAP and make factual report of what it shows if to do so would factually rebut and refute all affirmations and all allegations we have made about this loan and factually prove our allegations wrong?


There is only one reason why they would not. It is because such an examination would not support their position but ours.


This is why they will not make plain straight forward denial of our requested admissions if what we have alleged is not true. To do so would be a lie under oath and somebody might go to jail for perjury. And those who know what we have alleged is true won't deny that it is.

This is why they will not produce the book entry accounting of this transaction as factual documentation and evidence on which their denial would be based. It will show the falsity of their denial and the misrepresentation of their supposed risk on which Plaintiff’s agreement to his obligations under the contract are based.

Again, When a party has a duty to speak, his silence equates with fraud.”

Defendant seeks to evade acknowledgement of the truth behind objection and obfuscation and likely will invoke the aid of the Court to be a party to its deception and coverup so the Court will not know the truth to decide this case


CONCLUSION:

The only way the bank can defeat my case is to keep out all the evidence, facts and testimony that will support it and that is what they are trying to do.

They withhold the book entry evidence from discovery, and refuse to admit or deny plain admissions of fact, and then file for summary judgment or dismissal, as they have done, because “there is no material fact in dispute supported by evidence.”

We do not believe this honorable Court will be a party to such an obstruction of justice and breach of its oath of office.



More importantly, apart from the issue of discovery itself, the broader question of law in this case has become,

Do I have a right to raise a defense to the bank’s claims that is a fact of the bank loan they have not and can not dispute, or because of this do they have a right to tell the Court we can not make this defense and this claim simply because they cannot defeat it on the facts and therefore can not answer our interrogatories and requests for admissions, and they are the bank?

This is the real issue.

We ask again, Is the Court going to say we can only make defenses the bank can defeat? We have made defenses that if true, the bank is in the wrong.

Are we going to be allowed due process and right to the evidence to prove it?


The responses of the Defendant to Plaintiff’s discovery and admissions are boiler-plate, cookie cutter objections which have been improperly interposed to stall discovery and to harass the Plaintiff.

Defendant’s objections are unfounded. Defendant has offered no argument or objections opposing Plaintiff's requests in discovery applicable or relevant to the legal foundation, purpose and basis for which the requests have been made as stated here in and in Plaintiff's complaint and allegations. Plaintiff's motion to strike and to compel is applicable and relevant to the legal foundation, purpose and basis for which the discovery is made

Wherefore, premises considered, Plainitiff moves this Court to Strike the objections and compel Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers to each of the Request For Admissions and Interrogatories and provide documents requested in the Production of Documents where necessary to fulfill its response and to do so within thirty (30) days.



RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,


I cannot emphasize the importance of winning the order of the court compelling the bank to answer the questions and produce the evidence if they would deny the admission. This is why your motion to compel is so important. After you have studied this those of you in this situation, if you have questions, I will try to answer them. Dr. Weatherly

I would appreciate all input on this little exercise that is being run through the court. All comments will help

(The upgrade to the site looks and works Great!! Thanks for taking care of us)

Kitchie