Update: I Am Being Sued

So the process server left the summons and complaint at my door this evening and it appears that I am being sued by a credit union over a personal loan.

I have disputed this alleged account since October 2004 and I have been in constant contact with the credit bureaus and the original creditor about this. In fact, I even offered to discharge this loan account in full provided that the credit union verifies its claim by proving that it still has the original promissory note and by confirming that the contract is still valid. It should be noted that this account was deleted from my credit reports for being unverified.

Anyway, the Loan Manager sent me a letter stating that the credit union no longer has my original note but failed to state who now owns the note.

In January 2005 a collections attorney (Attorney A) sends me a dunning letter demanding payment for this debt. I asked for verification and validiation under the FDCPA - namely that the credit union still owns the original note, espeically in the face of the Loan Manager's statement that the credit union does not have the original note. It's been eight months and Attorney A never provided proper verification.

The next month another collections attorney sent a dunning letter demanding payment for this debt (Attorney B). Seeing that I was already working with Attorney A on this matter, I sent a letter to BOTH Attorney A and Attorney B requesting who was the proper attorney for this dispute. Attorney B sent me a letter saying that he was no longer working on this matter and that I should communicate with Attorney A.

Now Attorney B serves me papers.

Attorney B says in the complaint that the credit union has the original prom note even though the letter from the bank manager says otherwise. And to add insult to injury, the complaint was certified by another loan manager (Manager 2). The bank manager who stated in a letter that the credit union does not have the original prom note (Manager 1) notarized her statement.

How should I proceed? My answer is due in less than 2 weeks.

[masterduke]

There must be grounds for some motions to be filed here, research your state civil rules and see if they have a comprehensive version (usually by a private
publisher, here in mich. a co. called ICLE publishes several books in a binder form so they are easy to make copies of what you need. They even have one that is titled "handling the collection case in michigan, a creditors guide" which is very good at showing just how you can have your very own debt attrny bizzness, step by step. But it does show you their strategys and the laws they use to base their attacks on) There are many different motions availble, and with nobody seeming to know who's on first or whats on second seems there is cause, for a "flurrey of motions" Just know that they use
a sucessful tactic of laws that actually "throws" the burden of proof from they the plaintiff to you. Placing the burden of pursuing a particular objection
on the defendant, Substantially reducing the plaintiffs burden of making the case. in mich they use MCL 600.2145 as their weapon to wedge you with.
As "Proofs" of account stated. Thats all they need to file a complaint with the
typical Two elements for a valid cause of action jive, the account, you owe, they sue, they win 99% of the time. If roy b. was a real person instead of a
"bar member" he could do much to shine the light of day on this neither world
of debt attny/court s***, of course he won't, because his first alligance is to that "british accredited registry" and as such is a foreign agent. (If there was such a thing as "nations" and "countries" to begin with, which most people believe there is) the other way of proving they don't really exist is Rule 9 A "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"... you can't sue the state if your car gets stolen because they (gov, courts, floatsam, etc.)
have no duty to protect you so there is only one element and you need two
for a valid cause. Yes the car is stolen, but they don't have any obligatioin to protect so Bye, Bye. But Big Ol' Bean will sit in his black nightie several feet off the floor and "adminster the appearance of justice" because thats all he 's got to do, not actualy adminster justice, just make it look good, thats all
Its the same in every court. Who are these "People of the State of ***"??
these "people" who have issued the "summons and complaint" where are they? Weasels in a "law office" don't seem to be the people of the state of anything, neither does the black robed wonder, and his endless supply of
doughnut gobblers who as "beans bretheren" will "authorize" to use deadly force to bring you before the "bench". Sorry for the rant, Aloha

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by masterduke

There must be grounds for some motions to be filed here, research your state civil rules and see if they have a comprehensive version (usually by a private
publisher, here in mich. a co. called ICLE publishes several books in a binder form so they are easy to make copies of what you need. They even have one that is titled "handling the collection case in michigan, a creditors guide" which is very good at showing just how you can have your very own debt attrny bizzness, step by step. But it does show you their strategys and the laws they use to base their attacks on) There are many different motions availble, and with nobody seeming to know who's on first or whats on second seems there is cause, for a "flurrey of motions" Just know that they use
a sucessful tactic of laws that actually "throws" the burden of proof from they the plaintiff to you. Placing the burden of pursuing a particular objection
on the defendant, Substantially reducing the plaintiffs burden of making the case. in mich they use MCL 600.2145 as their weapon to wedge you with.
As "Proofs" of account stated. Thats all they need to file a complaint with the
typical Two elements for a valid cause of action jive, the account, you owe, they sue, they win 99% of the time. If roy b. was a real person instead of a
"bar member" he could do much to shine the light of day on this neither world
of debt attny/court s***, of course he won't, because his first alligance is to that "british accredited registry" and as such is a foreign agent. (If there was such a thing as "nations" and "countries" to begin with, which most people believe there is) the other way of proving they don't really exist is Rule 9 A "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"... you can't sue the state if your car gets stolen because they (gov, courts, floatsam, etc.)
have no duty to protect you so there is only one element and you need two
for a valid cause. Yes the car is stolen, but they don't have any obligatioin to protect so Bye, Bye. But Big Ol' Bean will sit in his black nightie several feet off the floor and "adminster the appearance of justice" because thats all he 's got to do, not actualy adminster justice, just make it look good, thats all
Its the same in every court. Who are these "People of the State of ***"??
these "people" who have issued the "summons and complaint" where are they? Weasels in a "law office" don't seem to be the people of the state of anything, neither does the black robed wonder, and his endless supply of
doughnut gobblers who as "beans bretheren" will "authorize" to use deadly force to bring you before the "bench". Sorry for the rant, Aloha

Well said, masterduke.

[Ice]

Attorney B's letter that states he is not the attorney to contact and the managers letter stating that the CU does not have the note should be offered as evidence of "fraud" being perpetrated upon the court.

An Affidavit of Probable Cause to the AG of your state, with the evidence attached, may also be in order.

By all means, include this point in any response to the summons.

Ice

Cute Chick,

If I were in your shoes, I'd register that bank letter at the county Recorder's office, to make sure it didn't get "lost."

Then, I'd file a Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Federal Rules). [don't know about NY's rules] for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I'd attach a certified copy of the letter to the motion.

But, that's just what I would do. Not advising you do that. ;)

Henry Franklin

Originally Posted by Ice

Attorney B's letter that states he is not the attorney to contact and the managers letter stating that the CU does not have the note should be offered as evidence of "fraud" being perpetrated upon the court.

An Affidavit of Probable Cause to the AG of your state, with the evidence attached, may also be in order.

By all means, include this point in any response to the summons.

Ice

Thanks Ice. So Attorney B's letter and the manager's letter should be used to alleged Fraud (just making sure we're clear on this). Also, do I include a photocopy of the manager's letter in my response? And, yes, I am thinking of reporting this attorney to the character committee.

I don't quite understand this affidavit of probable cause. Is this like a Motion for a More Definite Statement?

I'm also thinking about filing an appearance and remove this case to federal court. Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

Cute Chick,

If I were in your shoes, I'd register that bank letter at the county Recorder's office, to make sure it didn't get "lost."

Then, I'd file a Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Federal Rules). [don't know about NY's rules] for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I'd attach a certified copy of the letter to the motion.

But, that's just what I would do. Not advising you do that. ;)

Henry Franklin

OK I think you just answered one of my questions to Ice regarding the manager's letter. So how do I certify it? Attach a verification statement to the letter and have it notarized by a notary?

And speaking of notaries, Attorney B claims that his complaint is verified by another loan manager (Manager 2) but that loan manager's statement was notarized by the manager who wrote the letter (Manager 1). Isn't there some rule saying that the notary must be independent from the lawsuit? Can I use that to strike the entire complaint as being unverified? If so, what would be the effect of having an unverified complaint?