An Attorney's Reaction To VOD Letters . . .

This is a response I got from that same Attorney who believes that a debt can be verified with *copies* of agreements and loan statements. My VOD letter contains a demand for certified verification (i.e. notarized statements of there being a valid contract created on the day of loan closing with full disclosure of funding source, banks costs/risk, notarized statement of accounting), Request to inspect original or receive certified copy of original loan documents bearing my signature (with all backs, fronts, sides, and unaltered endorsements), and a Certified Prom Note that is drafted according to my state's law, which is identical to the UCC. In fact, I got those Prom Note provision straight from the NY McKinney's Form book at the law library . . . . . . . . Also the VOD letter is riddled with UCC and FCRA sites, including that Johnson v. MBNA case . . . . . .

__________________________________________________ ____

Your promissory note doesn't provide for interest and it is due the
date
it is issued. That would make it non-negotiable.
I can't see any situation in which they would endorse or negotiate
the
note. Who would buy it? Then, you talk about their "acceptance" of
the
note. How do they "accept" it. By merely keeping it? What would
constitute not accepting it. It certainly isn't clear to me. I also
don't
think you'll get anywhere with trying to create a default based on
that.
And what sort of obligation are they defaulting on?
I would throw out everything The basics are complicated enough. The
problem
with putting all the rest of that stuff in there is that either they
will
dismiss it or they will ignore the whole thing based on their conclusion that you
are
not to be taken seriously.
_______________________________________

I don't think I can take this guy seriously anymore! He represents debtors, but he doesn't know UCC 3-104 - the basic rules for making a Prom Note negotiable???!!!! UCC 3-104 says a Note is negotiable whether it mentions interest payments or not. And yes that Prom Note complies with the UCC and NY law, even down to the date of issue! In fact, the note is dated in 3 places plus I say I promise to pay the bank on X date. Furthermore, he doesn't even know that banks monetize the Note and gives it to Note Brokers for sale???!!!! He wants to know who will buy my second prom note . . . . .

I can go on and on picking this guys comments apart but I'll reserve my comments for now . . . . .

[Jerseee]

cute chick,

You're too argumentative. If he has all the reasons why you CAN'T do something--then make him tell you HOW you CAN do something, since he is so up to speed on this.

You're still defending your actions and not demanding proof. Hell, from the post I read that you posted, he doesn't even give you references to support his position.

good luck

Originally Posted by Jerseee

cute chick,

You're too argumentative. If he has all the reasons why you CAN'T do something--then make him tell you HOW you CAN do something, since he is so up to speed on this.

You're still defending your actions and not demanding proof. Hell, from the post I read that you posted, he doesn't even give you references to support his position.

good luck

Yeah that's why I can't take him seriously anymore. Yeah he's suppose to be an expert but he never has legal rules to support his position. Besides, he's not even a NY attorney so how in the hell can he judge the negotiability of a Note drafted under NY law?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm sorry, I just can put my faith in anymore that blatantly displays ignorance. And this alleged expert is showing his true colors by thinking that copies of a contract can prove the legal validity of a debt, that a Prom note is non negotiable without an interest clause, and by not knowing that most banks sell Notes as part of their policies and procedures. There's no excuse for NOT knowing this, especially if he's a skilled banking attorney. I'm starting to wonder if he REALLY represents debtors or not.

[Jerseee]

Then make him prove his statements. Don't get frustrated with an accusor--get proactive with them and make them prove their claim.

Besides you might learn something about the system or even the individual.

[iamfreeru2]

Cute_chick,

I have to agree with Jerseee on this. You need to be asking questions that cannot be answered. This guy may be incompetent and so what if he can't be taken seriously. Most of these guys don't know any real law just form. Like Jerseee says make him prove his claim and do not argue. Accept everything upon proof of claim. That is what I do and as you know Discover Card has sent me a few letters asking for FRNs. I think you saw the letter I posted under "Paying with a CPN." I have had no response to that letter and I expect none because they cannot prove their claim. Do not get frustrated and just answer their questions with your own. If you argue you will lose, so don't.

iamfreeru2

remember when dealing with lawyers: they are trained to draw you into an arguement. their questions, statements, etc., are always made in such fashion as to make you bear the burden of proof, when reality is it is they who should be in the process of proving.

that being said, i'd say this guy is a complete waste of your time and efforts. spend your energy in a more productive fashion. if you wish to toy with him, do so, but throw him out with the rest of the garbage if he doesn't come around quickly enough.

jon

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Cute_chick,

I have to agree with Jerseee on this. You need to be asking questions that cannot be answered. This guy may be incompetent and so what if he can't be taken seriously. Most of these guys don't know any real law just form. Like Jerseee says make him prove his claim and do not argue. Accept everything upon proof of claim. That is what I do and as you know Discover Card has sent me a few letters asking for FRNs. I think you saw the letter I posted under "Paying with a CPN." I have had no response to that letter and I expect none because they cannot prove their claim. Do not get frustrated and just answer their questions with your own. If you argue you will lose, so don't.

iamfreeru2

Thanks Jersee and Iamfree - Yes I can get passionate about these things, especially when the people who hold themselves out as helping you aren't really helping you. . . . .

I'm not an expert in banking law but I do know more than the average person when it comes to the law. Furthermore, I've conducted so much legal research on this issue since August until the law librarians know me by first name! (LOL) Anyway, I guess it just bothers me to know that a so called veteran attorney doesn't know the first thing about how banking works and how to write a basic legal document like a Prom Note . . . . Furthermore, this guy knows Tom Schauf but he doesn't know who would buy someone's second prom note or how a bank goes about *accepting* a second prom note if it verifies the debt . . . . . I guess you can say that I'm floored! Either he's a complete idiot or the very basis of our strategy is seriously flawed . . . . . .

And yeah, I should've asked him to prove his sources instead of giving him my sources to justify my position. However, on the other hand, those same sources I provided to him were clearly stated on my accord and satisfaction (Prom Note). It's as if he didn't even read my accord because, if he did read it, he would've seen the UCC, FCRA, and case law and not ask such ignorant questions! If my sources are incorrect, a competent attorney would have countered with the right sources. He certainly would have to do so if he was representing me in court!! It's not being argumentive - it's called cite checking in the legal field . . . . And to date, this guy has presented no worthy cites to justify his statements . . . .

I'm just glad I didn't hire this guy to represent me . . . . . . This is a classic case of legal malpractice!

Originally Posted by jmunson

remember when dealing with lawyers: they are trained to draw you into an arguement. their questions, statements, etc., are always made in such fashion as to make you bear the burden of proof, when reality is it is they who should be in the process of proving.

that being said, i'd say this guy is a complete waste of your time and efforts. spend your energy in a more productive fashion. if you wish to toy with him, do so, but throw him out with the rest of the garbage if he doesn't come around quickly enough.

jon

Yeah I agree he's a waste of time. We probably know more law than he knows!

[iamfreeru2]

Cute_chick,

What you must realize is that these guys will never respond correctly and will only try to get you into a position where you bring up some argument why you are right and they are wrong. The fact that you are right and they are wrong is irrelevant. Do not get caught in that trap. I am speaking from experience, having been caught in that one myself in the past. Many things these guys put in their respones are irrelevant and are designed to get you into an argument.

Quote:
"It's as if he didn't even read my accord because, if he did read it, he would've seen the UCC, FCRA, and case law and not ask such ignorant questions!"

What relevance does the fact that he has asked ignorant questions have to do with anything? Do not get caught in his trap to ensnare you into an argument. Leave the irrelevant issues alone and ask the right questions. Never try to stand head to toe with these morons. Always accept what is said upon proof of claim. Now either they have proof or they don't. It is as simple as that. Never, never argue. That is a dishonor and once you do that it is a guaranteed loss for you.

iamfreeru2

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Cute_chick,

What you must realize is that these guys will never respond correctly and will only try to get you into a position where you bring up some argument why you are right and they are wrong. The fact that you are right and they are wrong is irrelevant. Do not get caught in that trap. I am speaking from experience, having been caught in that one myself in the past. Many things these guys put in their respones are irrelevant and are designed to get you into an argument.

Quote:
"It's as if he didn't even read my accord because, if he did read it, he would've seen the UCC, FCRA, and case law and not ask such ignorant questions!"

What relevance does the fact that he has asked ignorant questions have to do with anything? Do not get caught in his trap to ensnare you into an argument. Leave the irrelevant issues alone and ask the right questions. Never try to stand head to toe with these morons. Always accept what is said upon proof of claim. Now either they have proof or they don't. It is as simple as that. Never, never argue. That is a dishonor and once you do that it is a guaranteed loss for you.

iamfreeru2

Thanks Iamfree to let me just clarify that this man is NOT the bank's Attorney. He's a debtor Attorney who's friends with Tom Schauf. He's supposed to be on our side.